Handbooks of Sociology and Social
Research
Series Editor
John DeLamater
University of Wisconsin-Madison
MADISON
Wisconsin
USA
Each of these Handbooks survey the field in a critical manner, evaluating
theoretical models in light of the best available empirical evidence.
Distinctively sociological approaches are highlighted by means of explicit
comparison to perspectives characterizing related disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry, and anthropology. These seminal works seek to record
where the field has been, to identify its current location and to plot its course
for the future.
If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this series, please first
contact the publishing editor, Esther Otten: esther.otten@springer.com
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6055
Editors
Jane D. McLeod
Department of Sociology
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
USA
Michael Schwalbe
Department of Sociology and
Anthropology
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
USA
Edward J. Lawler
Department of Sociology
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
USA
ISSN 1389-6903
ISBN 978-94-017-9001-7
ISBN 978-94-017-9002-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014950075
© Springer Sciences+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole
or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way,
and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this
legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material
supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for
exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is
permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use
may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to
prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or
implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com).
Contents
Part I Orienting Perspectives and Concepts
1
Status .............................................................................................
Cecilia L. Ridgeway and Sandra Nakagawa
2
Theoretical Perspectives on Power and
Resource Inequality .....................................................................
Shane Thye and Will Kalkhoff
3
27
3
Stigma and Social Inequality ......................................................
Bruce G. Link, Jo C. Phelan and Mark L. Hatzenbuehler
49
4
Inequality: A Matter of Justice? .................................................
Karen A. Hegtvedt and Deena Isom
65
5
Intersectionality..............................................................................
Judith A. Howard and Daniel G. Renfrow
95
Part II
Creating, Reproducing, and Resisting Inequality
6
Constructing Difference ..............................................................
Amy C. Wilkins, Stefanie Mollborn and Boróka Bó
125
7
Dramaturgy and Dominance ......................................................
Michael Schwalbe and Heather Shay
155
8
Language and Talk.......................................................................
Jocelyn A. Hollander and Miriam J. Abelson
181
9
Social Capital and Inequality: The Significance
of Social Connections ...................................................................
Karen S. Cook
10
Social Justice in Local Systems of Interpersonal Influence .....
Noah E. Friedkin
207
229
vii
viii
11
Theoretical and Substantive Approaches to Socialization
and Inequality in Social Psychology ...........................................
Jeylan T. Mortimer and Heather McLaughlin
12
Self, Identity, and Social Inequality............................................
Peter L. Callero
13
Emotions and Affect as Source, Outcome
and Resistance to Inequality .......................................................
Steven Foy, Robert Freeland, Andrew Miles,
Kimberly B. Rogers and Lynn Smith-Lovin
243
273
295
14
Ideologies ......................................................................................
Matthew O. Hunt
325
15
Legitimacy and Inequality ..........................................................
Henry A. Walker
353
Part III
16
17
Contexts of Inequality
Unequal but Together: Inequality Within
and Between Families ..................................................................
Kathryn J. Lively, Jamie Oslawski-Lopez and Brian Powell
Schools...........................................................................................
Barbara Schneider, Justina Judy and Kri Burkander
18 The Social Psychology of Inequality at Work:
Individual, Group, and Organizational Dimensions ................
Nancy DiTomaso and Rochelle Parks-Yancy
19
Social Psychological Processes in Studies of
Neighborhoods and Inequality....................................................
Lincoln Quillian
381
409
437
459
Part IV Dimensions of Inequality
20 The Social Psychology of Gender Inequality .............................
Amy Kroska
485
21
Ethno-Racial Attitudes and Social Inequality ...........................
Frank L. Samson and Lawrence D. Bobo
515
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the
Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities...........................
Melissa A. Milkie, Catharine H. Warner and Rashawn Ray
547
ix
23
The Social Psychology of Immigration and Inequality ............
Guillermina Jasso
575
24
The Life Course and the Social Organization of Age ...............
Lynn Falletta and Dale Dannefer
607
25
Sexualities .....................................................................................
Douglas Schrock, J. Edward Sumerau and Koji Ueno
627
Part V Outcomes of Inequality
26
Social Movements and Social Inequality: Toward a More
Balanced Assessment of the Relationship ..................................
David A. Snow and Peter B. Owens
657
27
Social Inequality, Crime, and Deviance .....................................
Ross L. Matsueda and Maria S. Grigoryeva
683
28
Health Inequalities .......................................................................
Jane D. McLeod, Christy Erving and Jennifer Caputo
715
Index ......................................................................................................
743
Current Theorizing and
Future Directions in the Social
Psychology of Social Class
Inequalities
An American child of the twenty-first century,
Thomas, age 8, is learning French, has a green
belt in karate, recently won the elementary school
chess tournament (besting a fifth-grader) and
plays tennis, among other developing talents. He
is asked his opinion about many of his daily experiences, and is very comfortable and adept at
joking with and requesting help or favor from
nearby adults, including an author of this chapter.
Through and through, at a tender age, he is a typical middle-class, or perhaps upper middle-class
child, although he won’t know how deeply the
economic standing and resources he was privileged to be born into smooth the interactions that
matter for him, as institutions like school, medical worlds, and eventually work celebrate and reward his language, style, skills and talents. A few
w over, another 8-year-old child, Michael, enjoys
school, playing with his cousins, and watching TV,
and is signed up for swim lessons at the YMCA.
We thank Shanna Brewton-Tiayon, Kathleen Denny and
Joanna Pepin for comments and research and editorial
assistance.
M. A. Milkie ( ) · R. Ray
Department of Sociology, University of Maryland,
2112 Art-Sociology Bldg., College Park,
MD 20742, USA
e-mail: mmilkie@umd.edu
C. H. Warner
Maryland Institute for Minority Achievement and Urban
Education, University of Maryland, 0108AA Cole Student Activities Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA
22
He is rarely directly asked his opinion, but rather,
is told what to do by his parents. In school, a few
middle-class children walk up to the teacher’s
desk and make requests that Michael overhears;
however, he feels awkward leaving his seat or expressing himself during work time (Calarco 2011).
Though social class is central to their current and
future experiences, the children and their families
do not see class easily in everyday interaction. Indeed, class is so powerful because it often operates
subtly (Breen and Jonsson 2005; Kusserow 2012;
Lareau 2003; Lubrano 2004).
Ironically, when class is visible in American
society, it is often in relation to tales of mobility
and achievement (Collins 2009). Another child,
a girl born years ago, started out with very few
economic resources—her single mother was a
maid and the family lived in a boarding house at
times—and would be considered by most to be
lower-class or, at best, working-class as a child.
And yet the life story of Oprah Winfrey, who has
amassed more than $2 billion through her businesses, is one that Americans can hold out as
strong evidence of the meritocracy—that working hard enough and making the right choices,
anyone can make it to a high status, well paid
position, regardless of one’s class origins. The
example of Winfrey and that of other highly visible class “crossovers” in politics, business, and
entertainment legitimates the strong ideological
casts of equal opportunity, individualism, and the
meritocracy, reinforcing Americans’ beliefs about
the ease of achieving class mobility, even as the
probabilities of attaining great upward mobility
J. D. McLeod et al. (eds.), Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality, Handbooks of Sociology and
Social Research, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_22, © Springer Sciences+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
547
548
are quite low (Collins 2009). This cultural cloak is
critical to understanding social psychological aspects of social class inequalities, because it is layered through interactions, selves and institutions.
This chapter outlines how social psychological processes are critical to a deep understanding of social class reproduction. We first discuss
definitions of social class and argue that class is
an especially powerful and pernicious form of
inequality. Then we move forward to the main
part of the chapter to ask what exactly happens
within the three “I” levels: I) interactions, II) individual selves, and III) structuring institutions
and ideology? Social psychological theorizing
and research at each level (or “I”) contributes to
systematically understanding how social class inequality “works” as it is produced, reproduced,
and sometimes contested in interactional contexts, structured through institutions and ideology, and embedded deeply in our selves.
What Do We Mean by Social Class?
With Markus and Fiske (2012, p. 10), we define
class as “an ongoing system of social distinction
that is created and maintained through implicit
and explicit patterns of social interaction.” This
is a great definition because of its emphasis on
social reproduction through interaction, whereby
individuals come to understand their “place” in social institutions and their selves in relation to others. Furthermore, the distinctions that are created
are marked on individuals, who are often labeled
along a class continuum. Analysts use the terms
“social class” and “socioeconomic status” as well
as the shorthand SES in a variety of ways for theoretical and empirical purposes. As we review theorizing and research on social class by social psychologists, we use these terms in a very broad way.
For some scholars, the term “social class” is
tied to classic theoretical traditions, whereas for
others, it is used synonymously with socioeconomic status (SES). Social class has both “objective” and “subjective” dimensions (Hout 2008;
Hunt and Ray 2012; Jackman and Jackman 1983;
Vanneman and Cannon 1987). The objective
dimension focuses on how individuals “make a
living” (i.e., their occupations and employment
M. A. Milkie et al.
relations), their academic credentials (i.e., education levels) and how well they are remunerated
within labor markets (i.e., how much money they
make) (Hunt and Ray 2012). Subjective dimensions of class status refer to self-labels reflecting
individuals’ own perceptions of their placement
in the social class hierarchy. This subjective dimension of social class is often conceptualized
as a specific set of class labels or levels that
Americans easily identify with: lower, working,
middle, or upper class (Hout 2008). In addition
to self-labels, individuals may also have tastes
and preferences for particular forms of cultural
consumption, such as art, music, and language
that serve as subjective class markers (Bourdieu
1984). In this sense, the subjective dimension
addresses how individuals derive meaning from
SES and social class hierarchies and how they
present themselves to others as members of a
particular class (or perhaps even as “classless”).
Often, there is agreement between subjective
and objective class placements. Centers’ (1949)
classic work with 1,200 white men found that
more than 70 % of the men with professional
jobs identified themselves as middle-class,
whereas about 70 % of manual workers identified as working class. In the twenty-first century,
Hout’s (2008) research produced similar results.
He found that three-fourths of individuals with
a bachelor’s degree or higher and nearly threefourths of those with professional, non-manual
jobs identify as middle- or upper- class. Using
panel data from 1956–1976 from the University
of Michigan Survey Research Center, Cannon
(1980) examines the relationship between social
structural changes over time and changes in the
responses to social class identification. She found
that historical changes in whether individuals
identify as middle- or working-class reflect increases or decreases in education, occupational
prestige, and income. Cannon (1980) also asserted that people take into account their social
class standing relative to others. As a result, she
concludes that individuals do not have a single
immutable perception of their position in the social class hierarchy, but instead think about their
socioeconomic status in addition to how their
living standards compare to others.
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
Whether class is thought to be a subjective
account or representative of a position in the
economic system (and institutions that feed into
that such as education) is a matter of considerable
debate, as is the extent to which class is a continuum or distinct social groupings (Conley 2008).
As Conley (2008) argues, at some point conceptual arguments become like trying to sweep
sand into little piles; winds of change will soon
make them irrelevant, as changes in the economy
such as the 24/7 service sector, globalization and
technological innovations render complex arguments and models of what social class is fruitless.
Rather, Conley suggests, we should use concepts
of social hierarchy like income and prestige that
make a difference in our analyses, and that resonate with what people themselves mean by class
(Conley 2008; Payne and Grew 2005), such as
an identity as “working class” or “well-off.”
Self-categorizations matter to social psychologists because they indicate how individuals identify themselves, behave, perceive others, and are
treated in social interactions.
The research and theories we discuss in this
chapter focus on class processes and labels, including objective measures of social class such as
education level, as well as terms people use when
thinking of and talking about who they are and
how they fit into the social class hierarchy. In this
chapter, we refer broadly to social class categories
of upper-, middle-, working and lower-classes as
we discuss class inequalities. These categories
may be defined in relation to subjective or objective conditions within interactions and contexts.
We recognize that the use of these categorizations
encourages bifurcations along class lines and
essentialist notions, and discourages the understanding of class as a process, yet we nevertheless
refer to these broad categories as convenient conceptual devices (Markus and Fiske 2012).
The Powers of Social Class
Class differentiation is a unique and powerful
form of inequality in at least two critical ways.
First, other key dimensions of inequality centered
549
on race, ethnicity, immigrant status, gender and
age often work through and with social class
differentiation. In other words, even as individuals compete for scarce resources, other key statuses, such as gender or ethnicity, may alter their
ability to shape successful outcomes in schools,
jobs, and other institutions. Subordinates in the
gender or ethnic hierarchy suffer in ways that are
linked to their economic well-being. Girls are
more likely than boys to face barriers to ambitions surrounding math and science, for example,
which diminish the likelihood that they will enter
certain high-paying, prestigious future occupations (Blickenstaff 2005; Johnson 2007). Blacks
face subtle discrimination in schools, which has
repercussions for everyday stressors and selfevaluations, but also may influence placements
in classrooms and deflate performance on critical
tests that lead to more prestigious university education or types of majors (Condron 2009; Farkas
2003). Each of these other pernicious forms of
inequality ends up with consequences for class
mobility, underscoring the fundamental place of
social class.
Second, the power of social class within interaction is often unrecognized due to its subtlety;
indeed, it is often downplayed (Bettie 2003). In
part, this is due to the fact that some of the most
important processes that produce and reproduce
class inequality are hidden from view of subordinates (Schwalbe et al. 2000), and in part, because
we lack sophisticated language to discuss class
processes. Without being able to see, name, or
feel social class differentiation clearly, it is difficult to recognize and combat inequalities. One
result is that often “something” does not “fit” or
“feel right” in cross-class interactions, and those
with less status are excluded or devalued, but
that “something” may not be easily identifiable
(Bettie 2003; Rivera 2012). Bettie’s (2003) ethnography Women without Class illustrates how
girls saw many painful class differences between
groups as (falsely) based in ethnic differences
or peer cultures, such as choices to be “preps”
or “hicks,” because those were the concepts and
dimensions of distinction with which they were
more familiar. Without clear language to talk and
550
think about class differences and inequalities, the
girls could not “see” their power. Thus, the power
of class and class reproduction is obscured and
inequality more readily perpetuated.
In the next section, we discuss how social class
is maintained and reproduced through interaction
processes, specifically the processes of othering,
boundary maintenance and bordering, social network formation and exclusion, and emotion management. We discuss interaction first because like
many social psychologists, especially those in the
symbolic interactionist tradition, we believe the
negotiation of order through meaning creation
with others is central to the individual level of
selves and the “societal” level of structuring institutions and ideology. The second section of
the chapter focuses on the individual, where we
explore the creation of classed selves (including
identities, self-evaluations, and self-presentations) through processes of social comparisons
and reflected appraisals. We conclude with a
discussion of structuring contexts, including a)
institutions, where we address class inequalities
in families as they bridge to the crucial contexts
of schools and work, and b) ideology, whereby
we argue for the far structuring reach of the cloak
of “cherished” cultural myths. After discussing
social class inequalities at the three “I’s,” we discuss intersectionality and the need for scholars
of social class to be aware of the complexity of
intersecting oppressions and privileges in their
theorizing and analyses (Howard and Renfrow,
this volume).
Interactions: Distinctions
and Devaluation
Here we discuss social class as created and reinforced through several, often interconnected
interaction processes: othering, boundary work,
bordering, network formation and emotion management (Wilkins et al., this volume; Foy et al.,
this volume). Each contributes to our understanding of the centrality of interaction for class reproduction, in which those with more resources are
able to maintain or increase social esteem, health,
wealth and capital.
M. A. Milkie et al.
Othering
Othering is a form of collective identity work in
which those with higher status create definitions
that identify other groups as inferior and sustain
those definitions in social interactions. In oppressive othering, higher status persons use informal
(and sometimes formal) training to present themselves as highly competent and trustworthy, and
through their wealth and connections to networks
of powerful others, sustain their images as more
worthy than different others (Schwalbe et al.
2000). The wealthy might use services to bolster
their image and engage in facework with similar
others to maintain illusions of mastery (Schwalbe
et al. 2000).
“Defensive othering”—or responding to oppressive definitions imposed by the higher-status
group—may occur among subordinates. Working-class individuals might present themselves
as the exception to a definition that says they are
less committed, creative, or hardworking than
their middle-class counterparts. Although this
creates self-dignity, it comes at the cost of reifying the dominant definition as “true”—i.e., I am
one of them, but not quite like “them” (Schwalbe
et al. 2000). In these social definitions, not only
is talk about one’s own and other groups scripted
in ways that perpetuate definitions that favor the
more powerful, but emotions are influenced as
well.
Oppressive othering of those in poverty may
be especially consequential for social justice because if such individuals are viewed as “different” and “inferior” by those in the middle- and
upper-classes, there will be little incentive to
help them (Krumer-Nevo and Benjamin 2010).
In especially unequal societies, “othering” of the
poor by those in power such as conservative politicians and researchers can be particularly consequential. Krumer-Nevo and Benjamin (2010)
identify conservative narratives as focused on
the cultural characteristics of the poor—a group
in moral question based on ideas about their
economic inactivity, “illegitimacy,” and crime.
These narratives are important because the fault
is argued to lie with poor individuals rather than
in social structures. Although many may hold
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
structuralist understandings about the poor (Hunt
2004; Nenga 2011), these structuralist views do
not necessarily reduce “othering.” This is because a contradictory and powerful individualistic view about how people attain wealth—such
as by “working hard”—operates at the same time
(Hunt 2004), holding up the moral worth of those
who have “made it.” Even if middle- and upperclass people consider those in poverty to be affected by structural forces, there may still be an
underlying devaluation; to break out, the poor
could theoretically work harder (like the rich
ostensibly have done).
Boundary Maintenance and Bordering
Similar to othering, boundary maintenance refers to the processes that create and sustain differences across groups in order to keep greater
resources at the dominant group’s disposal.
Boundaries can be symbolic or geographic, and
they are often constructed through institutional
means (e.g., schools, workplaces, governments)
(Schwalbe et al. 2000). Schwalbe (2008) notes
that boundaries can be created through symbolic processes in which shared expectations hold
group members accountable for enacting specific
behaviors, or risk repercussions from the group.
Shirley (2010, p. 57) explores boundary work
among rural, white southerners and finds that in
an effort to maintain an ideal type of whiteness,
upper-class whites use the term “redneck” to
mark other groups as belonging to a “‘lesser’ category of whiteness”—in other words, as whites
of lower-class status. Activities and behaviors
are defined in such a way that those lacking the
appropriate cultural codes or objective economic
status are relegated to a lesser status (Shirley
2010).
Boundaries are also created and maintained by
institutions in ways that privilege those with the
most resources, especially through the emphasis
on middle-class cultural capital and the control
of access to elites; these processes maintain the
division of the world of the “haves” from those
of lesser status (Schwalbe et al. 2000). Cultural
capital creates symbolic boundaries grounded in
551
class status based on the possession of particular
institutional knowledge used to establish ties and
earn institutional trust from others with similar
cultural codes. Cucchiara and Horvat (2009) note
that the boundary work of middle-class parents
at an urban elementary school called Grant not
only draws on their own capital but further divides the community by class, perpetuating privilege for their own children. Through their school
involvement, middle-class families work to establish a boundary between Grant and ostensibly
worse inner city schools, hoping to serve as an
“ad” to attract other middle-class families. The
families support a new computer lab and several
additional improvements to lend the school “curb
appeal” for middle- class families, but with little
consideration of generating additional benefits to
low-income families at the school or across the
district (Cucchiara and Horvat 2009).
The related concept of “bordering,” or boundary work done in geographic space, is central to
understanding the social psychology of social
class reproduction (Lamont and Molnar 2002).
Bordering sets boundaries in space by separating “us” and “them,” where “people like us”
are more likely to feel welcome, included or “at
home” (Van Houtum and Van Naerssen 2002),
perhaps in very subtle ways. Spatial “bordering”
which recreates the limited interactions across
“us” and “them” is especially prevalent in the
United States where segregation by class is common, and middle-class families flock to “good”
school districts which contain few poor and black
children (Hochschild and Scovronick 2003;
Schneider and Buckley 2002; see also Quillian,
this volume).
Social Networks: Exclusions and Control
of Resources
Another interactional process linked to class is the
formation of social networks and the resources
that networks provide to participants. Social networks are broadly defined in social psychology
as inclusion and exclusion in the social relations
of group members. Social networks are the interpersonal relations that bridge social structural
552
conditions and individual lives. Here, we discuss
how social class structures social network formation and the resources available through social
networks (see also Cook, this volume).
First, social class often determines network
membership and exclusion. Homophily is a key
organizing process for social networks: individuals create relationships with similar others
(Cook, this volume; Lin 2000; McPherson et al.
2001). Social class often defines common interests with which to establish relationships through
marriage, community organizations, neighborhoods, and schools (Horvat et al. 2003; Schwartz
and Mare 2005). Individuals also form network
ties based on their immediate social environments; because environments are class-based, so
too are the interactions that yield relationships
(Rivera et al. 2010). Not only is our physical,
social environment often determined by class
status, but social class similarities also encourage the formation of social connections among
those who interact frequently. Though sharing a
dormitory or floor greatly increases the odds of
interaction among college students (Marmaros
and Sacerdote 2006), students’ social class background structures their friendships and comfort
level or “fit” at college, and can result in longterm class differences in access to resources and
connections (Stuber 2011). For example, Stuber
(2011, p. 46) describes Melanie, a working-class
student accepted to an elite private college, who
felt shock at fellow students’ inability even to
do their own laundry once reporting to campus.
Despite loving the campus, Melanie experienced
alienation and depression around her privileged
peers, professors, and academic work—emotions
that can influence working-class students’ persistence at college and the social capital with which
they graduate (Stuber 2011).
Second, the resources and support that individuals receive from interactions within their social
network are largely dependent on class ties. Social
network members provide emotional support that
improves well-being or buffers existing strains,
protecting individuals from the negative effects of
life challenges (Cohen and Wells 1985). In addition, participation in advantaged social networks
can lead to higher levels of occupational prestige,
M. A. Milkie et al.
job attainment, or advancement (Burt 2004;
Rivera et al. 2010; Song 2011; see Lin 1999 for
a review). Class-based networks can lead to improved information exchange, but the “quality” of
the information received through social networks
is connected to the social class characteristics of
participants and sometimes the class composition
of the larger institutional setting, such as a school,
child care facility, or place of work. Professional
and managerial workers are more likely to hear
of job openings through acquaintances in social
networks; similarly, individuals are most likely
to benefit from social networks that connect to
high status individuals (Granovetter 1983). For
example, Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995)
find that Mexican-American adolescents are most
likely to experience social mobility through bilingual ability and the formation of ties with middleclass “institutional agents” who are able to help
them navigate the school environment.
The extent to which social networks carry costs
or benefits for participants may depend in part on
the class composition of the network. Networks,
especially dense, homogenous networks, may exercise too much social control over participants,
limiting personal freedom, reducing access to
mainstream social networks, or stifling success
(Portes 1998; Young 2004). Wilson’s (1987)
seminal work discusses the negative effects of
the concentration of joblessness, violence, and
disenfranchisement in urban neighborhoods,
where these low-income neighborhood networks
experience social isolation from working- and
middle-class influence.
Another cost associated with social networks
may occur as a result of social mobility. As individuals move to a new class status and develop
class-based interests or a new class identity, this
upward mobility may cause them to sever ties
with old networks, resulting in a personal feeling of being caught between two class statuses.
Lubrano (2004) reveals challenges that workingclass individuals face in network interactions as
a result of upward mobility. As they shift from
working-class identities to middle-class behaviors, they face “discomfort” as they lose common ground with the families and friends of their
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
youth. Indeed, Lubrano notes that “in this country, we speak grandly of this metamorphosis,
never stopping to consider that for many class
travelers with passports stamped for new territory, the trip is nothing less than a bridge burning”
(2004, p. 48). The adoption of a new class identity often arrives with significant loss to former
social networks.
Emotion Management
Another process implicated in social class inequalities is emotion management through discourse regulation and control of subjectivity
(Schwalbe et al. 2000; see Foy et al., this volume). Emotion management may occur in a work
setting as paid labor (Hochschild 1983). For example, college students trained to sell textbooks
over the summer undergo “emotional socialization” as they learn to use self-narratives to cope
with negative experiences on the job (Schweingruber and Berns 2005). Such training also contributes to emotional capital where, as a result
of individual background or socialization, some
(i.e., middle-class individuals) may be more
likely to possess the necessary emotional skills
for particular types of employment (Cahill 1999).
Such emotional capital can be used to advance
in one’s occupation, but a lack of certain types
of emotional capital can also thwart efforts for
advancement (Cahill 1999).
Among those of lower social class, managing
emotions becomes part of their subjectivity—
a way to increase subordination and deference
(Schwalbe et al. 2000). Froyum (2010) found
that staff members at a low-income after-school
program tried to have children sympathize with
them, distance themselves from “dysfunctionality,” stifle “attitude,” and so on. This was ostensibly to build emotional capital and manage
emotions in order to counteract racism; however,
along the way it also built deference and reinforced class and racial inequalities.
Emotions are linked to mistrust, and emotions often help perpetuate a system where class
is prominent and powerful but unacknowledged.
When a working-class person feels slighted and
553
hurt by assumptions made by middle-class agemates—for example, as when the roommates
of a relatively disadvantaged Princeton University undergraduate assumed he would chip in
for items they purchased—mistrust and unease
ensue on both sides (see Fiske et al. 2012). Mistrust continues because the language available
to understand the communication errors is not
rooted in class-based styles and words, but in
personal affronts.
In sum, an array of interrelated processes occurring at the interactional level support social
class inequality: processes of othering, boundary
maintenance and bordering, network formation,
and emotional management. These interactions
have consequences for individual selves, and
occur in central spheres or institutions, reproducing social class differentiation and inequality. Although much scholarship focuses on how
inequalities are reproduced, some interactions
counter tendencies to class reproduction. Examining “successful” cross-class interactions
in future research can be especially productive
to learn what conditions foster positive feelings
about the self and other, individuating the other,
and cooperating (DiMaggio 2012).
Individual Selves: Identities, SelfEvaluations and Self-Presentations
In this section, we discuss selves as they are
implicated in the production and reproduction
of social class through interaction. We first discuss thoughts about who one is, or social class
identities; next, we discuss self-feelings or evaluations linked to class (esteem, mattering and
mastery). And finally, we discuss behavior and
self-presentations as part of class status. Two
processes of self-formation (social comparisons
and reflected appraisals) are discussed across
these aspects of the self. These self-processes are
important in terms of how interactions based in
othering, bordering, and network exclusion become manifest in individual selves.
Social comparison theory argues that individuals engage in an act of comparing themselves
to others for the purpose of evaluating their own
554
status and abilities (Festinger 1954). In the context of social class, individuals not only take into
account their own income, education, occupation,
and wealth, but also their neighborhood location
as well as evaluations of friends, coworkers,
and extended family members to determine how
their living standards compare to others. Perceptions of one’s living standards compared to others form the basis for constructing class-based
identity, evaluations and self-presentations (Hout
2008; Urciuoli 1993).
Reflected appraisal processes also shape class
identities and class-based evaluations, affecting
individual outcomes such as self-esteem. What
we believe that other people think of who we
are and what we have achieved matters greatly for how we think and feel about ourselves
(Rosenberg 1986). To the extent that others see
us as worthy of our attainments, we will feel
worthy. To the extent that others stigmatize our
standing, we will feel unworthy. An interesting
component of reflected appraisals and social
class status is that the invisibility of class in our
self-presentations, discussed above, makes it difficult to attribute how others view us to our class
status and resources. If working-class individuals “sense” that others view them negatively, but
do not understand that the evaluation is rooted in
class-based styles of talk, bodily performance or
expectations, they may be less able to see themselves as (an oppressed) classed individual in a
classed system (Bettie 2003).
Othering, boundary work, and exclusion processes set the stage for the kind of self work
described here. In other words, when these processes occur, individuals are also measuring their
identities and worth based on the views they see
others have of them (reflected appraisals) and
how they compare with these others (social comparisons) in these oppressive and defensive interactions.
Social Class Identification
Identity formation is an ongoing process, shaped
across many different institutional contexts, and
often the nature of identity work changes as
M. A. Milkie et al.
people shift contexts. Social class identification
refers to how individuals subjectively understand
their social class position (Centers 1949; Davis
and Robinson 1998; Hout 2008; Hunt and Ray
2012; Jackman and Jackman 1983). Social class
identities have importance for how individuals
act, who they think they align with personally and
politically, and perhaps more importantly, who
they think they are not like. Class identities are
linked to conceptions of the self, presentations of
the self, and perceptions of others (Callero, this
volume).
The strength and salience of class identity, as
well as the meaning it holds, are each key components of the identity process. The comparisons
people use to classify their “selves” in economic
or class terms are complex. Individuals are not
simply using their SES and the SES of others
to make these comparisons. Rather, individuals draw upon social class cues from the current
interaction as well as collective memories from
previous social interactions to make judgments
about how to interact and feel, as well as what
characteristics of their identities to present in particular social settings. Urciuoli (1993) explores
how Puerto Rican New Yorkers construct alternative representations of their social class position.
In addition to SES, her participants include race,
gender, social networks, and place in their evaluations of social class location. In this regard, social class is viewed as a “system of oppositions”
as individuals compare and locate themselves in
relation to others. For example, Lamont (2000)
states that Ben, a stably employed blue-collar
worker, defines his self-worth through pride in
his work, and his success through moral behavior. For Ben and other blue-collar workers in the
study, staying out of fights, being a good father,
and not being “wormy” are all traits he views as
part of his personal identity rather than part of his
class status (Lamont 2000, pp. 19–20). Often, social class identification is created in opposition to
other possibilities and may be highly dependent
on the extent to which individuals actually see
and feel class (Stuber 2006).
Social class identification may change as subjective or objective conditions shift. Here we
may think about the struggle that college students
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
who are transitioning from working-class backgrounds to middle-class lifestyles may encounter
when asked about their social class identification. These college students struggle to reconcile their former selves with their current selves
(or “possible” or “probable” selves; see Conley
2008) as they compare their upbringing with their
current educational pursuits and social interactions. Wright (1996, p. 709) acknowledges that
objective measures gauging self-perceptions of
social class have modest explanatory power, but
by including other “class linked variables” (such
as comparisons with family members, friends,
and neighbors, the class make-up of social networks, or unemployment experiences), we may
be able to better measure social class identities.
In other words, the comparisons that individuals
make between themselves and others matter for
assessing the social psychological impact of social class location.
The consequences of negative social comparisons include institutional alienation, feelings of
stigma, and lower self-esteem. Individuals may
engage in substantial facework to achieve the
subjective class identity they imagine for themselves in interaction, hoping to avoid potential
poor outcomes. These issues are discussed in the
next section.
Self-Evaluations: Esteem, Mastery,
and Possible Selves
A discussion of self-feelings or evaluations is
critical for understanding social psychological processes of class reproduction, (see also
Callero, this volume). Social class matters for
self-feelings: esteem, mastery, and for younger
people especially, “possible selves” (and as we
point out, to “probable selves” or the “fallback
position”). Each of these forms of self-feelings
will be discussed below.
Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978) argue that the
self-esteem of adults is shaped in part by social
comparisons based in social class status, but that
this is less true for adolescents and children. In
some ways, adults confront more obvious, “in
their face” comparisons at the workplace, where
555
“lowly” janitors walk by executives, or cashiers
process designer clothing purchases for the welloff, providing adults with frequent opportunities to evaluate themselves relative to better off
others. Children’s environments may be more
homogeneous, with schools and neighborhoods
comprising more of their social worlds, allowing for fewer comparison opportunities and thus
fewer opportunities to have their self-esteem affected by feeling “more than” or “less than” others (Rosenberg and Pearlin 1978). However with
the pervasiveness of television and the advent of
social media, children may be exposed to greater
varieties of class contexts, and social class may
have become more relevant for younger Americans’ self-esteem and other self-feelings in recent
years. Even young children can feel the stigma of
being poor, and children’s consumption of material goods may be divisive even as they attempt
to connect with other children (Pugh 2009).
The loss of self-esteem or feelings of alienation from dominant class groups can have negative consequences in institutional settings. Even
the middle-class can feel “othered,” stigmatized,
or devalued when in elite settings (Johnson et al.
2011). Johnson et al. (2011) argue that those from
relatively low SES backgrounds, even if they are
fairly high absolutely, may possess a stigmatized
identity that requires managing concerns about
marginality. Knowing that one’s class background is different (and lesser) than her peers is a
psychological burden that could make a woman
at an elite university question her ability to fit
in, keep up, and so on. Even among those with
high motivation but less preparation, upwardly
mobile working-class students may experience
rejection within cross-class social relationships
and feel diminishing trust in institutions, such
that motivation to achieve personal goals is compromised in a self-fulfilling fashion (MendozaDenton et al. 2002; Stuber 2011). Moreover,
when disadvantaged socioeconomic status is
made salient, stereotype threat—the belief that
one is being judged based on social categories—
may ensue, creating worse performance on tests
(Spencer and Castono 2007; Steele 2011) and
thus worse self-evaluations in turn.
556
Beyond class-based esteem, other self concepts are linked to how powerful one feels as a
unique individual in society and the actions one
takes in connection to the future. In many studies, those in higher social class positions report
more mastery, or the belief that one is in control of one’s future (Mirowsky and Ross 2007;
Pearlin 1999). Mastery is quite important both
in fending off problems before they arise, and
in believing one is able to solve life’s difficulties (Thoits 1999). The life events that require action and the steps individuals take to overcome
obstacles differ across class statuses, and some
steps that yield improved results for one class
status may not have the same effects at another
class location. For example, Dwyer et al. (2011)
find that an increase in debt (credit card or education) has stronger positive effects among youth in
the lower income quartile, as this represents an
investment in their future; the positive effects of
debt diminish as social class increases.
A final component of the self concept that is
critical to social class reproduction is “possible
selves”—identities based in the kinds of people
we want to become or do not want to become—
as motivational for future action (Markus and
Nurius 1986). Although possible selves represent a desired state, they need to be grounded
in a concrete reality. Those dreaming of becoming a doctor are going to be able to do so much
more easily when people very close to them have
enacted all aspects of the role, including taking
the right high school courses, attending college
with a pre-med major, going to medical school
and obtaining their own practice. In other words,
unless an occupational “possible self” can be
practically envisioned with oneself enacting the
role, then it won’t become an “envisioned self”
or one that we are very likely to become. With its
informational and experiential resources, the envisioned self of doctor will not just be motivated
but also practiced and thus much more likely to
become a reality. Indeed Conley (2008) argues
that what is often missing in sociologists’ assessments of transmittal of class advantage is the
“envisioning” process, whereby social roles that
youth aspire to become demystified—i.e., they
go from being possible selves to probable selves.
M. A. Milkie et al.
Although doctors (as well as lawyers, high-level
business or political positions, and other high status jobs) are desirable selves for most youth in all
social classes, those in higher classes have closer
connections to doctors and, thus, can actually envision the process of obtaining and doing such a
job and becoming such a person. They will get
there more readily because that possible self has
been de-mystified by close others.
A story demonstrating the interplay among
institutional and ideological structures, interactions, and individuals is instructive. A “defining
moment” may occur from the perspective of individuals who recall situations that changed their
view of the classed world, or their place in it.
For example, Collins (2009) discusses how as a
working-class African-American senior in high
school, she was asked by her teacher to speak
about the meaning of the U.S. flag at special
event held at Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
A burgeoning sense of oppression based on witnessing those in her family who had worked hard
their whole lives but remained poor made its
way into Collins’ essay, which also discussed the
democratic ideals of this symbol. A powerful moment occurred when her teacher previewed and
slashed her essay with red ink, providing a clear
lesson in the public sentiment that “should” surround symbols of opportunity and putting her in
her “place.” In the end, Collins told the teacher
she could not give the speech they wanted, and
Collins’ articulation of race and class inequalities
as part of the American experience was silenced.
Indeed, she was silenced—and perhaps affected
in terms of esteem, mastery, and a vision of who
she could be.
Presentation of Classed Selves
Self-presentations of class identities are critical
to understanding the production and reproduction
of inequalities. People “do” class by signaling
their class locations to others. Much presentation
of class occurs “naturally” through language and
skills imparted at a young age. Clothing, posture,
eye contact, and conversational distance can instantaneously mark someone’s social location
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
(DiMaggio 2012). Indeed, people can identify
the class rank of others quite readily by observing how they mark social spaces and by physical
movements, and individuals signal status through
verbal styles, engagement or lack thereof in the
setting, and demands from or deference to others
(Kraus et al. 2012; see Schwalbe and Shay this
volume).
There is also intentionality in how people
use objects and words to portray class identities.
Clothing is one important way that individuals
show they belong to a particular class, as certain designer labels or types of jeans, for example, signal to others that one belongs to a group.
“Professionals” need “professional” clothing;
working-class people may wear uniforms or more
casual clothing on the job for practical or personal
reasons. People may also purposefully signal social class to gain advantage or portray deference
to others through the use of language or gestures
(see Hollander and Abelson, this volume). For
example, a patient may indicate his occupational
status of lawyer to a doctor during a visit, seeking
to impress his importance upon the doctor and believing that this will get him better care.
Alternatively, individuals may present as
classless. Middle-class individuals may attempt
to show that they are not necessarily any different from working-class individuals by choosing
to wear wrinkled or cut-up clothing (see Jimenez
2010 for a discussion of how this behavior relates
to ethnic identities). In this case, “classless” has
two connotations. One implies that individuals
are of the same class, and another that individuals
aim to present themselves in an ambiguous manner. Although research focuses on the ways that
people signal their social class or associations
with certain class categories, little scholarship
explores how people purposely try to avoid class
affiliations. If class is less of a salient identity to
those with more privilege (Stuber 2006), appearing “classless” may be a way to maintain resources while denying that having those resources is
linked to withholding and excluding those of
lower classes from networks.
In sum, self processes of social comparisons
and reflected appraisals help people learn about
how they fit within the social hierarchy and how
557
they feel and think about their position. Besides
assisting with their subjective identifications as
being of a certain social class and their projections of that identity in interaction, through social comparisons and reflected appraisals people
evaluate themselves along class lines to assess
how good and worthy they are, how much control
they have, and to envision the selves they might
become in the future. These self processes occur
within everyday interactions, many of which take
place within their own people’s class contexts,
but also those that emerge in cross-class interaction. It is possible that some positive cross-class
interactions occur, allowing for the development
of dignity and cooperation (DiMaggio 2012)
and contributing to a reduction of inequalities
(Lareau and Calacro 2012), a possibility which
further research should explore.
Structuring Institutions and Ideology
Interactions are especially critical for future pathways and future selves when they occur within
key institutions. For example, a single conversation with a doctor may determine the course
of treatment and likelihood of recovery (see
McLeod et al., this volume). A parent’s insistence
that a child be moved to a new track in school
may or may not be met with success. And of
course job interviews are obvious defining moments for individuals, with outcomes leading to
one pathway versus another. Ridgeway and Fisk
(2012) discuss class and status dynamics at critical points in the life course—those interactions
that are “gateways” to life-altering opportunities, such as “choices” surrounding college and
experiences at job interviews. They provide a
story about two men with identical resumes and
college careers who each interview for a banking job; the interview occurs at a French restaurant. The young man with working-class origins,
(imagine Michael now grown), has difficulty
pronouncing the dinner items and wears an inexpensive ill-fitting suit, whereas the middle-class
man bonds over tennis with the interviewer and
speaks perfect French. The middle-class young
man (a grown up Thomas, perhaps) is seen as
558
the superior candidate—a better “fit”—because
of the benign but consequential “errors” of the
working-class man, and is provided a job offer.
The working-class man, upon learning of his
fate, begins to believe he would not enjoy working with those “stuffed shirts” anyway (Ridgeway and Fisk 2012, p. 132; Rivera 2012). This
section discusses prominent theorizing on social
class in the third, structuring level of the three I’s:
institutions and ideology.
Structuring Institutions
Here we incorporate the social structure and
personality perspective, which elucidates the
connections between macro context and individual emotion, psychology, and character. Key
components of this perspective draw attention
to connections between larger social and institutional inequalities and the ways in which such
limited class-based opportunities affect daily experiences and individual characteristics (House
1981; McLeod and Lively 2003). House (1981)
presents three principles that comprise the social
structure and personality perspective: the components principle, the proximity principle, and the
psychological principle. These principles emphasize the ways in which this perspective relies on
social relationships and interactions rather than
simply illustrating the effects of social structure
and culture alone (McLeod and Lively 2003).
The proximity principle is often “the site of all
the action,” illustrating the connections between
social structure and individual agency through
interactional processes (McLeod and Lively
2003). Many interactional processes have been
addressed in the previous section; in this section
we focus on how institutional contexts bridge
and connect class structures to social psychological outcomes for individuals. Using Bourdieu’s
theoretical conceptualizations, social institutions provide the “field” upon which games are
played; social institutions house many of the interactions presented above, structuring the nature
of the interaction.
We emphasize three fundamental and often
overlapping contexts in which many of the
M. A. Milkie et al.
interactional processes discussed may occur: family, school, and work. These three social institutions are virtually unavoidable in daily social life,
and provide the context for the qualities for success that matter the most. They are centrally implicated in the reproduction of class inequalities.
Family as Institutional Context
A baby is born into a family, and immersed in
that family’s linguistic codes and cultural capital, competencies that are developed and carried
with that child for a very long period. Bernstein
(1974) outlines the importance of linguistic codes
and shows how the social networks and the organization of space in working-class versus middle-class households lead to different linguistic
competencies. Working-class individuals speak
in “restricted codes” reflecting their close networks of others and the relative lack of flexibility
in their homes and in their worlds. The middleclass are privy to the restricted code but in addition speak in an “elaborated code” in which the
speech is more abstract, less tied to context and
more complex. Those in middle-class contexts
also have homes with more flexible, open space,
which contributes to the elaboration of meanings
in different contexts. Institutions such as schools
and workplaces favor the middle- class cognitive
and linguistic orientations. As we discuss later,
the production of knowledge within schools
through curriculum and socialization privileges
the high status codes, mirroring social and structural inequalities (Apple 1990).
The concepts of habitus and cultural capital
identified by Bourdieu ([1984] 2002) explain
how family socialization matters for children as
they grow up and move into education and work
settings (see Mortimer et al., this volume). For
Bourdieu, habitus represents the styles, dispositions, and preferences that cohere along class
lines. Habitus, a “practice-unifying and practicegenerating principle,” creates differences between status groups and unifies the class in which
one is a member (Bourdieu 2002, p. 101). Parental habitus plays a central role in the generation
of cultural capital, or knowledge of the dominant
group’s cultural signals (speech codes, parameters of interaction, music, and tastes), which is
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
used for processes of social exclusion (Lamont
and Lareau 1988). Concerted cultivation represents “aspects of the habitus” of the middle-class
families Lareau (2003, p. 276) observes, in which
parents push children to become skilled in and
familiar with topics and activities that are considered honorable, as well as ways of speaking
“properly” to adults (DiMaggio 2012) within
institutions (Lareau 2003). Children similar to
Thomas, described earlier, have an expansive
array of words and ways to work into adult conversations to tailor situations according to their
desires.
The “field” in which cultural capital is displayed matters (Bourdieu 2002; Carter 2003;
Erickson 1996; Horvat 2003). That is, within
each context, unique forms of cultural capital
may be selected, and cultural capital may have
varying levels of importance over other forms of
capital depending on a particular context (Bourdieu 2002). For example, Lareau and Weininger
(2008) note that middle class families possess
certain types of cultural capital that assist children in gaining admittance to college. These parents have knowledge of the application process,
how to secure recommendations, and familiarity
with the skills important to admissions professionals. While tremendously important for college applications, this cultural capital is less useful for middle class families navigating neighborhood associations, social clubs, retirement and
investment planning, or managing personal debt.
Although knowledge of college applications aids
progress on the road to achievement, successful
practices in other fields must also be learned to
maintain advantages in a highly competitive society.
Linguistic and cultural capital, differentiated
by the class one is born into, continue to matter
throughout the life course (DiMaggio 2012). Indeed, to the extent that our classed selves—that
is, our habitus, language, ways of expressing
ourselves, views about agency, and so on—are
“socialized into” us, we carry with us our early
experiences even as we cross class boundaries in
everyday interactions or occasionally more permanently through occupational attainments or
cross-class relationships that take us away from
559
parents’ (and thus our early) class statuses (Lubrano 2004; Wheaton and Clarke 2003). Class
reproduction occurs, however, in part because
these building blocks are implicated in the central
institutions of education and work through the
early life course. As Michael, described above,
grows older, he carries building blocks that do
not fit squarely into the institutional molds as
readily as those of Thomas.
Parenting practices are shaped by social structural conditions, and numerous studies offer a
convincing picture of the central role of social
class in shaping the values and behaviors parents
strive to instill in their children. Based in their own
work histories, parents prepare their children for
success through the use of language, structured
activities, rewards and discipline, and values of
autonomy or conformity (Bernstein 1974; Hart
and Risley 1995; Kohn and Schooler 1983; Kohn
and Slomczynski 1990; Lareau 2003; Weininger
and Lareau 2009). Styles and language, values
and actions with children adhere along class
lines. Middle-class parents engage in “concerted
cultivation” to ensure success in the class hierarchy, including immersing children in the art of
negotiation, questioning institutional authority,
and embracing self-direction (Kohn and Schooler
1983; Lareau 2003). In contrast, working-class
parents may speak less frequently to children,
encourage obedience rather than entitlement, and
promote more independent play (Hart and Risley
1995; Kohn and Schooler 1983; Kohn and Slomczynski 1990; Lareau 2003). Chin and Phillips
(2004) find that although working-class parents
want to cultivate children’s talents, they often
lack the money, information, and opportunities
to assemble the intricate arrangements of middle- and upper-class families. These researchers
question the extent to which differences in childrearing practices represent cultural class preferences or whether class differences are largely the
result of unequal resources.
While social class is important, the extent to
which social class influences childrearing practices and children’s values and behaviors is complicated by overlapping racial/ethnic statuses
(e.g., Cheadle and Amato 2011; Rosier and Corsaro 1993). Social class does not operate alone,
560
but rather in conjunction with other family characteristics, both those related to social statuses
and those associated with the social psychological context like the family “emotional tenor”
(Hitlin 2006, p. 28; Taylor et al. 2004).
School as Institutional Context
There are several ways in which the educational system creates or fails to remedy social class
inequalities (Milkie and Warner 2011), and the
values and skills emphasized in the educational
system favor the dominant groups in society, resulting in low levels of intergenerational social
mobility (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Bowles
and Gintis 1976, 2002; Delpit 2006; Heath 1983;
see Schneider et al., this volume). Even in the earliest forms of schooling, working-class children
are counted out. For example, there are persistent
SES inequalities in student reading group placement, even in first grade. First grade teachers are
more likely to place low SES students in lowerskill reading groups, with this inequality mediated
by teachers’ evaluations of students’ learning ability and standardized test scores (Condron 2007).
Thus, class status, but also teachers’ perceptions
of students’ social and behavioral skills (highly
correlated with class status) within the school
context, shape reading group rankings. Status
structures opportunities for educational achievement, the odds of college attendance, occupational status, and intergenerational mobility (Blau
and Duncan 1967; Bowles and Gintis 1976, 2002;
Hauser et al. 1983; Oakes 1985).
Perspectives on the social reproduction of
inequality within the educational setting do not
always fully incorporate social psychological
theories inasmuch as they fail to pinpoint social interactions between a child’s structural
status and children’s individual selves that act
as mechanisms for the reproduction of social
inequality (Schneider et al., this volume). For
example, Oakes’ (1985) illustration of tracking
in the educational system documents the role
of teacher-student interactions in shaping future
achievement, while Bowles and Gintis (1976)
highlight how the structure of the educational system (based on punctuality, authority, and power
differentials) uses class differences in individual
M. A. Milkie et al.
personality and educational values to capitalist
advantage. Further research could identify the
ways in which interactions based on learning
styles, personality (introvert or extrovert), and
physical comportment in the school setting shape
class-based inequalities in the classroom. What
classroom performances and identities are valued
in the educational system and how do we understand these behaviors in relation to class-based
inequalities? Examining othering and boundary
work by teachers, parents and neighbors in socioeconomically diverse school settings can go a
long way toward elucidating the multiple ways
contexts matter for interactional processes.
The Wisconsin model of achievement offered
one of the first perspectives linking social mobility to class-based social psychological characteristics. The Wisconsin model traces a pathway
from SES to occupational attainment, highlighting individual personality, ability, and aspirations
as mechanisms for understanding the effects of
social status (Kerckhoff 1995; Sewell and Hauser
1975). According to the model, rather than social structure alone determining occupational or
educational outcomes, individual agency (in the
form of ability and aspirations) also shapes outcomes (Sewell and Hauser 1980). The Wisconsin
model is not as effective in explaining attainment
processes across other social statuses like gender
or race, though subsequent research has worked
to better explain these differences by incorporating different structural mechanisms through
school, family, or individual contexts (e.g., see
Kerckhoff 1995 for a discussion).
MacLeod (2009) identifies individual aspirations in the educational setting as a key link
between social structure and social mobility. Students do not fail in school because they expect
to fail, but rather because they cannot envision
an outcome that links school achievement to a
better life. Limited opportunities shape individual aspirations, and adolescents in economically
disadvantaged settings may see little payoff to
high aspirations given their low odds of success.
Even those with high aspirations may not be able
to carry them very far given limited resources
(MacLeod 2009). This is because of a lack of opportunity to practically envision their ideals in a
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
clear enough manner so that their dreams can become a reality (Conley 2008).
Educational progress is determined not only
by the social class (and other) characteristics of
students but also by the characteristics of students’ schools. Track placements and school
poverty levels also structure children’s success
in school over time, creating individual skill
sets that shape future options (Alexander et al.
1997). Khan (2011) highlights the creation of a
“new elite” through private secondary education,
where privileged students consume information
on key ideas that are applicable across classes.
These elite private schools socialize students to
cross class boundaries with enough information
(extending far beyond high-brow cultural knowledge) to be comfortable in multiple settings.
Class hierarchies remain invisible because success is attributed to individual work and achievement within an advantaged school setting.
While privileged, wealthy students may “find
their place” at elite institutions, the efforts needed
by other, less privileged students to find comfort
in advantaged school settings may be extensive.
Even the “best” school may not offer uniform
advantages to all its students. Crosnoe (2009)
highlights the negative effects of attending middle- and upper-class schools on low-income students’ ratings of social integration and self-worth.
While integration into high socioeconomic status
schools may offer low-income students academic
gains on average, there are social and academic
losses as well, including feelings of isolation and
being assigned to lower level courses compared
to higher income peers (Crosnoe 2009). Often,
the school setting can have significant effects
on how interactions come to define individual
senses of self. We can imagine that as Michael
progresses through a middle-class school, he may
encounter exclusion based on not having the correct building blocks of social and linguistic capital, and he may view himself, as the institution
might, as having lesser value and potential.
Class relationships within the educational context are complicated by other social statuses. Race/
ethnicity is importantly linked to levels of academic engagement and attainment, and researchers highlight the importance of racial/ethnic dif-
561
ferences in understanding how children’s knowledge of cultural codes and social networks create
educational inequalities (e.g., Carter 2005; Ferguson 2000; Ogbu 2003; Stanton-Salazar 2001;
Tyson et al. 2005). Intersectional approaches can
increase understanding of interactions within
educational institutions, particularly through an
exploration of the ways in which socialization of
values and behaviors in the family are viewed in
the classroom setting across racial/ethnic, class,
and gender identities. Calarco (2011) finds that
middle-class children like Thomas are better able
to ask teachers for help in the classroom, often interrupting class activities in the process. This behavior serves students well, and an intersectional
lens on the role of other statuses in the classroom
would inform us on other persistent inequalities,
such as the black-white achievement gap, and how
this links to class-based inequalities.
Middle- and upper-class parents try as much
as possible to customize educational experiences
for each child, believing that institutions should
be shaped to the child’s needs rather than the
child being shaped to the needs of the community or the classroom (Lawrence-Lightfoot 2003).
Parents with more resources engage in what we
call “status safeguarding” (Milkie and Warner,
forthcoming) to ensure the best education for
their offspring. This can involve anything from
asking for less (or more) homework, a special
place to sit in the classroom, or a reputable teacher
for the next year, to pulling a child into a private
school (in which the parents’ demands must be
met more directly due to the tuition paid). “Status
safeguarding” is embedded in the social institutions of family and schools and may be especially
consequential for children who have difficulties, or even the potential for difficulties. When
the potential consequences of problems grow
greater—when the (future) status of the child is
threatened—such as when a middle-class child
has academic difficulties, as Lareau (2003) and
others have shown, mothers will attempt to intervene in educational institutions to ensure that the
child maintains an acceptable level of academic
achievement. In addition to switching a child to
a different teacher or to a private school to ensure status continuity, promoting school success
562
may entail pursuing a diagnosis (for example, of
ADHD), gaining accommodations for the child at
school, and/or medicating him for being restless
in the classroom.
In addition to academic safeguarding, status
safeguarding can occur through many avenues,
including emotional ones, i.e., actively protecting children’s happiness at school in order to secure long-term academic success (Warner 2010).
It may occur through talent safeguarding; for a
middle-class child taking piano lessons, when
difficulties arise, such as an instrumental music
teacher that does not make the child happy, the
mother can switch to another, more expensive
teacher. This form of status safeguarding ensures
her child will have music “credentials” one way
or another. A working-class child, however, may
not have access to instruments until an older age,
perhaps through a school music program, and if
the teacher is not effective, the child’s musical
development will be stalled because the parent
has limited access to provide alternative lessons
to the child.
For parents in a competitive, individualistic society with few safety nets, the interaction
processes that reproduce inequalities take on a
future orientation as parents “other” and police
boundaries about who their child should be with,
and in what organizations. Status safeguarding
points to why middle-class parents intervene in
myriad ways, and suggests the interventions can
come through many means, including removing
a child from a negative peer group, changing the
schooling environment, and more. Working-class
parents may attempt to safeguard and/or enhance
the status of children, including sending a troubled teen to live with relatives who have better
neighborhood or school contexts, but will have
more difficulties achieving this. The concept of
status safeguarding should generate future research because it points to how as children grow,
continual safeguarding in the form of anticipating and solving problems that might derail success (however narrowly defined that success
might be, such as attending a certain university),
is necessary. Questions about how fathers and especially mothers narrate these rescues, and how
these vary not only by class, but also by region,
M. A. Milkie et al.
gender, race and age of the child (through young
adulthood), are important to address through future research.
Work as Institutional Context
Family and school contexts are often understood
to “prepare” children for their occupational role in
society. Through social reproduction, children’s
habitus, cultural capital, and early socialization
experiences shape their success in institutions
dominated by middle-class values and preferences (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Bowles
and Gintis 1976, 2002; Willis 1977). Work conditions are the institutional connection between
social class structures and individual values and
behaviors (Kohn and Schooler 1983) and other
key outcomes.
Changing macroeconomic work structures
represent a growth in contingent and temporary
jobs often accompanied by job insecurity and difficult work conditions (Kalleberg 2009). “Good”
and “bad” jobs characterize this new labor market, where access to rewarding and stable work
environments is less common and increasingly
difficult for working-class individuals to obtain. The daily burden of persistent job insecurity, relatively common among the working-class
and poor, can lead to poor health and depressive
symptoms (Burgard et al. 2009). Social structural
explanations of well-being in the labor market
often focus on broad economic change and labor
market segmentation by race, gender, and class
(Tausig 2013).
Some research has focused on the alienation
that can result from conditions at work, extending Marx’s analysis of control over the product
of labor and the labor process (Kohn 1977; see
DiTomaso, this volume). Kohn (1977) highlights
the effects of a routinized labor process devoid
of self-direction on feelings of powerlessness,
self-estrangement, and normlessness. Hochschild
(1983) notes the ways in which the emotional
labor performed in the workplace as part of occupational requirements can have lasting effects
on an individual’s sense of self. For example, bill
collectors are obligated to present an unconcerned
and argumentative attitude, often needing to belittle others’ class standing when the collector
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
might, in fact, identify with the debtor’s predicament (Hochschild 1983). The emotional labor
required by occupations can vary significantly
across class statuses. While Hochschild (1983)
discusses the need for working-class, blue collar
employees to suppress emotions (e.g., happiness
or sadness), she highlights middle-class tendencies to overemphasize the importance of emotions in the work place (e.g., learning to “love”
your job).
The emotion labor and management by service workers is a key part of reproducing inequality, with the lower-status workers more
subject to the unpaid “labor” of regulating their
emotions in the service of clients or customers
(Hochschild 1983; Schwalbe et al. 2000). Parrenas (2000) notes the way in which middle-class
mothers require the emotional labor of poor or
working-class (often migrant) child care providers, but questions how well these care providers are allowed to care for their own children.
Given the recent explosion in the service sector
economy, future research should further explore
intersections in the performance of emotional
labor and occupational conditions. As the structure of the economy changes, low wage labor
may become increasingly associated with high
levels of emotion work. Domestic labor, particularly child care, is one example of how class and
gender statuses produce particular forms of emotional labor.
Finally, class-linked labor conditions also affect health and the nature of daily interactions
with intimate partners. Presser (2005) notes that
working during evening, weekend, or alternating
hours on fixed shifts, common among the working-class, can have negative effects on health,
marital relationships, and happiness due to lack
of time with spouses, sleep deprivation, and service labor. At the same time, high status workers
may have work that “never ends” due to blurred
boundaries with family, which creates overload
and distress (Schieman et al. 2009).
In summary, the social structure and personality perspective links institutional context to individual values and behaviors, emphasizing the
constraints and privilege that shape development.
563
We emphasize socialization in the family as a
pathway to the creation of class-based capital,
values and selves. Later, school and then occupational conditions reinforce class-based behaviors
based in early experience—with working-class
youth less likely to “fit” with demands of institutional positions in classrooms and workplaces
that are highly rewarded. Social class plays a
significant role in terms of how parents socialize children, the contexts in which socialization
occurs, how teachers and schools perceive children’s skills, and how workers operate and feel
about themselves in the context of the work they
perform.
Structuring Ideological Systems
and the “Achievement” of Social Class
Statuses
Ideologies, or schemas, play a significant role
in empowering or constraining individual action
(Sewell 1992) by shaping the rules that govern
institutional contexts. An understanding of the
duality of social structure also demands attention to the fact that not only do structures define
practices, but cultural practices build structures
(Sewell 1992). The interactions discussed above
are shaped by hierarchies of rules within institutions, but these interactions also create and define
the rules that shape institutions and ideologies.
Thus, a key structuring context in conjunction
with interactions and institutions is the powerful
cultural forces surrounding social class that are
central to the national ideological context of the
U.S. and some other developed countries (Hunt,
this volume). The ideological layers of the meritocracy, where any person is seen as having the
opportunity to succeed, and those not born to
riches can still “pull themselves up” if they are
strong or good enough, keep social class status
as perhaps the most insidious of all forms of inequality. Indeed, widely touted examples, such
as former president Bill Clinton—who began
life in relative hardship with a single mother and
later an abusive stepfather, but who ended up
wealthy and in arguably the most high status position in the world—stand as hard evidence of the
564
possibility of class mobility, but simultaneously
reaffirm the ideology that keeps knowledge about
the low probability of mobility hidden. Thus, in
some ways, class differentiation processes are
subversive, particularly in cultures and contexts
such as the United States in which there is a huge
gap in the resources of the very poor and the very
rich, combined with strong ideologies of meritocracy that emphasize how everyone has equal opportunity and thus the rich are deserving of their
fortunes.
Cultural beliefs and practices, here discussed
in terms of beliefs about and linked to social
class status (rather than as different practices
and values among those with more versus fewer
economic resources), are critical to consider in
assessing how social class processes “work” in
interaction. Reinforcing layers of ideology surround our understanding of how people attain
their educational level, wealth and occupational
status. Markus and Fiske (2012) identify but do
not elaborate upon six “pervasive cultural ideas”
in their important recent edited volume Facing
Social Class. These ideals or myths that support
and structure inequality include individualism,
independence, “the American Dream,” equal
opportunity, the meritocracy, and classlessness.
Often, the meanings of these concepts overlap in interaction; as Americans strive to break
down notions of aristocracy and inheritance, they
reify values that are nearly impossible to attain
in a highly stratified society. These myths create tension, much of it unnamed or unrecognized
because of our very poor vocabulary for naming
class differences and inequality (Bettie 2003).
Markus and Fiske note that these are long standing “cherished” systems of belief that are central
to institutions and the individual experience of
social class. We discuss some of these ideals here.
In the U.S., the celebration of the individual
forces a limited ability to “see” structural and
cultural layers of constraint on people. Individualism means that people are much less aware
of structured pathways and how resources in
childhood shape one’s life chances. Americans
are repeatedly provided with mantras of individualism, such as (1) the importance of “making
choices” (Stephens et al. 2012), (2) that one is
M. A. Milkie et al.
an “independent” agent, and (3) that “being oneself” is a high moral value. In “It’s Your Choice:
How the Middle Class Model of Independence
Disadvantages Working-Class Americans,” Stephens et al. (2012) identify a social class divide
in which middle-class people are advantaged
through believing themselves to be more authentic and more moral than working-class individuals. They argue that mainstream America
is built around the idea of an individual being a
sole agent making “choices”—this idea is considered to be the “best” or “right” way to operate.
The emphasis on individual choice creates hidden disadvantages for working-class Americans.
Models of agency, they argue, are part of people’s understanding but also embroidered into
the fabric of American institutions (Khan 2011;
Stephens et al. 2012). They cite the example of
colleges that suggest that students not rely on
others to make choices, which may work well for
middle-class students socialized in choice and in
bending institutions to their needs (Lareau 2003),
whereas in working-class contexts, the normative
model is to depend upon others and adjust to fit in
with their expectations—to be “interdependent.”
Without clear structured guidelines, workingclass students may find themselves adrift in a
“foreign” culture.
The emphasis on individual choice also disadvantages people who do not have access to the
resources on which good choices depend. The
health care system, for example, provides people
with myriad choices with which to navigate doctors, treatments and so on, but this presumes a
great deal of ability to seek and digest medical
information. Some school systems offer parents
choices among programs, but middle-class parents are much more likely to be able to research
and navigate and draw upon the resources of others to decide among schools or programs best for
their child. In Stephens et al.’s (2012) research, a
working-class parent finds the number of school
choices for her child to be overwhelming. She
is told it is her choice based on what is best for
her daughter when seeking help from the school
system, and is stymied. In the end, the lack of
control over her work schedule and transportation difficulties made it critical to “choose” the
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
closest school, not the best one for her daughter,
even though it is her desire to get the girl into an
academically rigorous classroom (Stephens et al.
2012). Not only are there differences in resources here, but also in middle- and working-class
mothers’ abilities to navigate through a maze of
“opportunities” with the cultural tools that make
it clear how to weigh the choices against each
other.
The meaning of individualism varies by class.
Kusserow (2012) identifies “soft” individualism, tied to the middle-class, as emphasizing “the
cultivation and expression of unique and personal feelings, thoughts, ideas and preferences.”
“Hard” individualism, more exemplary of the
working-class, focuses on “self-reliance, perseverance, determination, protectiveness, street
smarts, stoicism, and toughness” (Kusserow
2012, p. 195). The individualisms are fluid, and
people draw from these no matter what their
class status, but still they reflect the material
and social worlds of different classes. The soft
individualism that middle-class parents favor fits
beautifully with school rules, practices and procedures that encourage sharing ideas and feelings
and being creative. In contrast, working-class
“hard” individualism is a more difficult fit with
institutional expectations and, as a result, disadvantages working-class children. For example,
Kusserow found that working-class preschoolers
in Queens pulled aside for hitting were puzzled
and confused when asked to explain why they
were hitting and how they felt about it; they did
not recognize the teacher’s words (e.g., “why
do you want to hit Johnny?” “how do you feel
when someone hits you?”) as discipline and so
were more likely to repeat the behaviors teachers
deemed undesirable. Moreover, Kusserow (2012)
describes interviewing a group of working-class
parents at the preschool, in which they do not
take her questions about discipline and their children’s feelings seriously, because they are having
such an enjoyable time entertaining each other
during the session. They have a deep appreciation for other parents’ comments that in essence
“put down” the soft individualisms of the teacher, school, and researcher. For example, when
the researcher asked what the parents were most
565
proud of in their children, one father said “when
he shuts his mouth” to the approving laughter of
the entire group, while the teacher, exasperated
that they weren’t being sensitive about their children, tried to get the parents back “on track” with
the researcher. The hard individualism of the
working-class parents may put them at odds with
teachers and institutions, further perpetuating the
othering of working-class children.
Individualism and independence allegedly
allow one to singularly focus on achieving, on
one’s own, the American Dream of “success.”
Individualisms run through the many texts and
conversations within our culture, such that, in
an insidious way, the rhetorics become “common sense” and those with more resources feel
entitled and those with less may believe that they
need to try harder. A middle-class person such as
Thomas, is seen as having played by the rules and
worked hard to “achieve” the American Dream;
a working-class man Michael, is thought to deserve his lower lot because, after all, he simply
must not have been good enough or tried hard
enough. Through all of this, the structural barriers
in schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces are
unacknowledged and not discussed. Hochschild
and Scovronick (2003) note the extent to which
the American Dream has hampered policy solutions aimed at improving educational inequality.
While schools are intended to place everyone on
even footing, people often wish to provide their
own children with advantage, particularly, where
children are seen to be competing for the few
privileged spots in a highly-tiered meritocratic
system. Barriers arise when the success of a few
is threatened by improvements for the majority
(Hochschild and Scovronick 2003).
Other belief systems are critical to the reproduction of class inequality. As Markus and Fiske
(2012) suggest, the belief that “everyone is middle-class” means that those occupying lower statuses are viewed as deviant (and blameworthy).
The approximately 70 % of Americans who do
not graduate from college, or those who do not
have a certain level of material goods, or a high
status occupation become viewed as undesirably
different. Similar to the rhetoric about a color
blind society, the belief that we live in a classless
566
society, where everyone is middle-class can have
far reaching effects, whether or not all people
“buy into” it.
In sum, several key ideological strands about
class converge to produce a strong cultural web
that maintains inequalities within the class system.
Although there are breaks with cultural assumptions, such as the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement’s mantra that not everyone is middle-class,
and that the “one percent” hold power over the vast
majority through non-ethical means, the strength of
these ideologies cannot be underestimated.
Intersectionality and Social Class
In this chapter, we cite the powerful influence of
social class on multiple levels. Yet social class is
not the only category of difference that structures
identity, opportunities, and life chances. Other
differentiating characteristics, such as race and
gender, matter a great deal. Indeed, there has
been much work on how race (Du Bois 1899;
Jackman and Jackman 1973, 1983; Landry and
Marsh 2011; Marsh et al. 2007; Pattillo 2005;
Robinson 2000;) and gender (Baxter 1994; Davis
and Robinson 1988, 1998; Miller et al. 1979; Sorensen 1994; Wright et al. 1995) influence social
class. These scholars identify the ways in which
gender and race also influence social class identities, boundaries, and cleavages.
Given the complicated nature of social interactions and the various mechanisms that structure
agency, behavior, and personality, the concept of
intersectionality offers one approach to addressing the combined implications of an individual’s
social statuses on her life chances (see Howard
and Renfrow, this volume). For our purposes, it
is less important to separate the effects of social
class from other status identities, but rather to
recognize the central importance of social class
in shaping individual outcomes and structural
limitations in conjunction with other social statuses. For each of the three “I’s”, we highlight
ways in which an intersectional approach might
contribute to our findings on the central importance of social class.
M. A. Milkie et al.
In interactions, social class is often one of the
least visible social statuses, especially in comparison to gender or race/ethnicity. An intersectional approach recognizes the simultaneity of
social locations (King 1988; Zinn and Dill 1996).
Social class is just one component of the “matrix
of domination” that shapes everyday interactions
(Collins 2000). Given that perceptions of social
class can be largely subjective, and often considered “invisible” or unacknowledged, the fact that
this status is recognized in conjunction with an
individual’s race/ethnicity, sexuality, and gender
is important to understanding the processes that
shape inequality in interaction. Context is important. For example, for a child in uniform in a public elementary school, class status may not be her
most obvious marker. If a child is one of five minority children in a majority white school, race/
ethnicity is going to define some interactions,
but social class may be the less visible marker
that creates access to the school, influences test
scores, and shapes teachers’ impressions of the
student’s learning ability. While we emphasize
the power relations that occur in relation to class
standing across multiple levels of interaction and
contexts, we also recognize that this class standing is interpreted simultaneously with other,
powerful statuses individuals carry with them.
The ways in which social class plays out in
context will vary according to the institutional
setting. Scholars should try to address the questions posed by Schwalbe et al. (2000, p. 443)
for a particular social context: “How do people
create and reproduce inequalities here, and what
if anything do race, class and gender have to do
with it?” How class plays out will vary according to race, gender, nativity, sexuality, and other
salient social identities. In an intersectional approach, Choo and Ferree (2010) conceptualize
variation in intersectional relationships across
social contexts, urging attention to both the subjective nature of identities and the ways in which
context structures the content of social interaction. For example, who one “is”—in a way that
supersedes class alone—links to how one feels
about herself and her achievements in school.
Thus, scholars must look beyond classed identities to those based upon multiple status indica-
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
tors. For example, Archer et al. (2007) found that
working-class urban girls learned to value themselves through practices and identities of “speaking their minds” in order to resist symbolic violence of being both lower social class and female.
In schools, this positioning and resistance made
them feel worthy as working-class girls, at the
same time, paradoxically, it made them feel like
unworthy students in the school system. They
came to regret their conflict with schooling as it
came closer to graduation time, and attempted to
be seen as “good” in the system’s eye (Archer
et al. 2007). But by then, it was too late and their
academic work was not salvageable.
Finally, social justice is a critical component
of an intersectional perspective, and justice may
be best understood on an individual level. Specifically, a sense of self can be largely dependent
on perceptions of social justice in relation to class
status (and other status identities). Intersectional
research emphasizes not only the importance of
power and privilege in interpreting social status
inequalities, but also the opportunity to create social justice. Political activism and an individual’s
lived experiences are a central aspect of intersectionality. This emphasis on the importance of justice contributes to our understanding of a classed
self in relation to other identities. For example,
participation in social movements can move an
individual from feelings of stigmatization and
shame to feelings of pride and empowerment
(Britt and Heise 2000; Thoits 1990). The process
of social grouping and the creation of solidarity
intersect with other status identities to yield individual outcomes. This application of social justice as a goal can be seen from a class perspective
in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Individuals
find support in knowing that they are not alone in
experiences of alienation, debt, and inability to
access social mobility. Solidarity in an effort to
achieve justice provides individuals with pride in
their social position; in this case, as not being a
member of the elite one percent. As we develop
the theoretical tenets that connect social psychology and social class inequalities, the literature
would benefit from further incorporation of opportunities to pursue social justice. The creation
of group solidarity, particularly along class lines,
567
relies on key concepts like identity, social support, and sense of self. Social justice could also
be a central tenet in such analyses.
Future Directions in the Social
Psychology of Class Inequalities:
Gaps and Opportunities
Social class is a critical differentiating characteristic of individuals that they carry with them—
through ideas about who they are, through
styles of speaking, walking, and evaluating, and
through signals that are extremely subtle—that
becomes a central piece of interactions. These
interactions become especially critical as children and youth move from families and neighborhoods to schools and work. From early on,
Thomas’ ways of interacting with those in key
institutions such as schools, community organizations, and medical worlds, are probably a better fit than Michael’s. Assuming that they have
similar abilities and motivation, achieving a high
status profession and attendant income is going
to be a more arduous process for Michael as he
and Thomas traverse though school, and will perhaps become an increasingly distant possibility
as he grows into young adulthood. As Michael is
othered and pushed by middle-class people into
spaces (both physically and symbolically) defined as inferior, and is devalued morally, he may
incorporate this feedback into his self-worth and
future self. Institutions and ideologies value practices that were less common in his early life, and
he may find himself uncomfortable or feeling out
of place when requesting recommendations from
teachers, during job interviews, or in projects at
work. Here, as he comes up short in his achievements through social forces, social class inequalities are put most starkly in relief.
As we have reviewed here, social class is a
powerful differentiating characteristic that is tied
to highly unequal distributions of esteem, material goods, health and well-being (Eaton et al.
2001; McLeod 2013). Other differentiating characteristics are also very important, of course, and
intersect in intricate ways with social class. To
the extent that class status in childhood is linked
568
to obtaining health, wealth and happiness later in
life, and that other disadvantaged statuses such
as minority race or being female are associated
with a greater likelihood of staying or become
subordinate in wealth, income, and occupational
status, class statuses are a crucial differentiating characteristic and should be a more obvious
focus of attention for social psychologists assessing inequalities as we move further into the
twenty-first century.
Four foci can push forward the social psychological examination of social class inequalities.
The first is examining cross-class interactions in
which the reproduction of inequalities is stalled,
or there are “breaks” in the current system of
rigid class hierarchies. Points when class ideologies come into question explicitly or when institutions or groups move against inequality—such
as when school systems remove formal tracking
measures—are important areas for study. Lareau
and Calarco (2012) show how a socioeconomically diverse school allowed for inter-class interactions in which middle-class mothers explained
the complex implicit rules of the school administration in careful detail to working-class mothers in order to help them attain the best situations
for their children. One could imagine additional
examples across geographic boundaries, such as
in cases of neighborhood gentrification and increased cross-class interactions in public spaces.
The nature of these interactions, the presence of
tension and common ground, are ripe for research
on changing visions of openness and hierarchy in
American and other countries’ systems.
Second, examining interaction processes in
one institutional context, schooling, is especially
useful for assessing the reproduction of class status across generations. The safeguarding of children against an increasingly competitive class
hierarchy is a process that is worthy of more attention, as it occurs from infancy through adulthood, often by mothers, and within schools and
community contexts. The ways in which class
status comes to define successful interactions is
also of central interest. For example, in understanding parenting logic, for one working-class
parent the services and therapies a disabled child
receives through the school system may be a
M. A. Milkie et al.
welcome relief and the start of greater opportunities. For a middle- class parent, however, such
services may be viewed as inadequate to preparing the child for his/her future. The classed meanings and behaviors that parents assign to success
within institutional and interactional settings
have significant implications. Related to this, we
see great promise in examining “gateway” interactions and the status safeguarding interactions
parents attempt in schools and beyond. Examining at which junctures in the curricular and extracurricular activities and interactions of youth
parents intervene to provide safety nets through
processes of othering, boundary making, and
so on, represents a fruitful avenue for future research. Additional pairings of geographic access,
school quality, and the influence of habitus and
childrearing logics would inform our understanding of class mobility and trajectories. Similarly,
research examining intraclass interactions could
help us determine how inequality operates to
maintain status hierarchies among group members who are perceived as similar.
Third, the power of cultural ideology—of
esteemed values woven into institutions of
American society—should be evaluated to better
understand the ways that individuals come to create networks, institutional power, and individual
understandings of self. Khan (2011) reveals the
ease with which children of privilege at an elite
secondary school operate in the world, while at
the same time these adolescents use a discourse
of hard work and effort to describe their place.
Privileged students are aware of ideals for an increasingly “open” society, and use language of
effort and work rather than inheritance or entitlement to describe their success; students who
do not engage in this discourse are frequently
policed by social class elders and peers (Khan
2011). How are people’s creations of boundaries
and othering linked to individualism and to the
ideas of the meritocracy, for example? This symbolic coating holds promise as an operating system that makes class less visible even as it makes
the reproduction of class inequalities continue
more smoothly.
Finally, social change is a critical force influencing class relations and identities. To the ex-
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
tent that demographic or technological changes
alter the ways of thinking about or doing class in
interactions or institutions, researchers will have
new questions to examine. Do changes in immigration make class identities more or less visible?
How does this vary by region? Do online college
courses negate difficulties that working-class
students might have in salvaging a strong sense
of self and motivation to pursue their goals? Do
social media create new opportunities to envision
and practice selves that were not possible to do
in prior eras, bypassing some of the class presentation problems present in face-to-face interactions? What happens to college graduates’ senses
of self or self-presentations when they cannot
obtain employment during prolonged economic
recessions? These kinds of questions suggest that
the ongoing negotiation of class within institutions will be an important arena for insights on
inequalities in times of rapid social changes and
point to the importance of historical specificity in
research more generally.
Social and structural changes necessitate
adaptive skills as individuals adjust to new
circumstances. Given the fluidity of identity
formation processes, it becomes important to understand how social class advantages facilitate
the adoption of new identities. Some social situations may require individuals to switch identities
and de-emphasize or privilege class status. Such
code switching is documented among children
of color as they navigate school and neighborhood (Carter 2005). How do identity processes
associated with race/ethnicity or gender inform
class inequalities? Social class identification may
change across the life course as individuals experience upward or downward mobility. What
are the implications of such changing identifications for interactions (especially boundary work
and othering), institutional inequalities, and self
evaluations?
Although there is a great amount of recent,
insightful research within social psychology on
the processes that maintain social class differentiation and inequality, continued synthesis across
domains and levels of analysis is important as the
field grows. We expect that the research we have
569
highlighted and synthesized here has added to the
lively conversation on social class inequalities.
References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997).
From first grade forward: Early foundations of high
school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87–107.
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and cultural and economic
reproduction. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Ideology and curriculum (2nd edn., pp. 22–42). New York: Routledge.
Archer, L., Halsall, A., & Hollingsworth, S. (2007). Innercity femininities and education: Race, class, gender and
schooling in young women’s lives. Gender and Education, 19(5), 549–568.
Baxter, J. (1994). Is husband’s class enough? Class location and class identity in the United States, Sweden,
Norway, and Australia. American Sociological Review,
59(2), 220–235.
Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes, and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. New York:
Schocken Books.
Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and
identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers:
leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education,
17(4), 369–386.
Bourdieu, P. ([1984]2002). Distinction: A social critique
of the judgment of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in
education, society and culture. (Translated by R. Nice).
London: Sage.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist
America: Educational reform and the contradictions of
economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist
America revisited. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 1–18.
Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. (2005). Inequality of opportunity
in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of
Sociology, 31, 223–243.
Britt, L., & Heise, D. (2000). From shame to pride in identity politics. In S. Stryker., T. J. Owens, & R. W. White
(Eds.), Self, Identity, and social movements (pp. 252–
268). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Burgard, S. A., Brand, J. E., & House, J. S. (2009). Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United
States. Social Science & Medicine, 69(5), 777–785.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
Cahill, S. (1999). Emotional capital and professional
socialization: The case of mortuary science students
(and me). Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(2), 101–116.
570
Calarco, J. M. (2011). ‘I need help!’ social class and children’s help-seeking in elementary school. American
Sociological Review, 76(6), 862–882.
Cannon, W. L. (1980). On the absolute or relative basis
of perception: The case for middle-class identification.
Social Indicators Research, 8(3), 347–363.
Carter, P. (2003). ‘Black’ cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-income African
American youth. Social Problems, 50(1), 136–155.
Carter, P. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond
black and white. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Centers, R.. (1949). The psychology of social classes: A
study of class consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cheadle, J. E., & Amato, P. R. (2011). A quantitative
assessment of Lareau’s qualitative conclusions about
class, race, and parenting. Journal of Family Issues,
32(5), 679–706.
Chin, T., & Phillips, M. (2004). Social reproduction and
child-rearing practices: Social class, children’s agency,
and the summer activity gap. Sociology of Education,
77(3), 185–210.
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of
inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of
inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149.
Cohen, S., & Wells, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support,
and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin,
98(2), 310–357.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment
(2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2009). Another kind of public education:
Race, schools, the media and democratic possibilities.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Condron, D. J. (2007). Stratification and educational sorting: Explaining ascriptive inequalities in early childhood reading group placement. Social Problems, 54(1),
139–160.
Condron, D. (2009). Social class, school and non-school
environments, and black/white inequalities in children’s learning. American Sociological Review, 74,
683–708.
Conley, D. (2008). Reading class between the lines: A
reflection on why we should stick to folk concepts of
social class. In A. Lareau & D. Conley (Eds.), Social
class: How does it work? (pp. 366–373). New York:
Russell Sage.
Crosnoe, R. (2009). Low-income students and the
socioeconomic composition of public high schools.
American Sociological Review, 74(5), 709–730.
Cucchiara, M. B., & Horvat, E. M. (2009). Perils and
promises: Middle-class parental involvement in urban
schools. American Education Research Journal, 46(4),
974–1004.
Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1988). Class identification of men and women in the 1970s and 1980s. American Sociological Review, 53(1), 103–112.
M. A. Milkie et al.
Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1998). Do wives matter?
Class identities of wives and husbands in the United
States, 1974–1994. Social Forces, 76(3), 1063–1086.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: W. W. Norton and
Company.
DiMaggio, P. (2012). Sociological perspectives on the
face-to-face enactment of class distinction. In S. T.
Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How
societal rank influences interaction (pp. 1–11). New
York: Russell Sage.
Du Bois, W. E. B. ([1899]1996). The Philadelphia Negro.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dwyer, R. E., McCloud, L., & Hodson, R. (2011). Youth
debt, mastery, and self esteem: Class stratified effects of
indebtedness on self-concept. Social Science Research,
40(3), 727–741.
Eaton, W. W., Muntaner, C., Bovasso, G., & Smith, C.
(2001). Socioeconomic status and depressive syndrome:
The role of inter- and intra-generational mobility, government assistance, and work environment. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 42(3), 277–293.
Erickson, B. H. (1996). Culture, class, and connections.
American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 217–251.
Farkas, G. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in
education: What do we know, how do we know it, and
what do we need to know? Teachers College Record,
105(6), 1119–1146.
Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the
making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Fiske, S. T., Moya, M., Russell, A. M., & Bearns, C.
(2012). The secret handshake: Trust in cross-class
encounters. In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.),
Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 234–251). New York: Russell Sage.
Froyum, C. M. (2010). The reproduction of inequalities
through emotional capital: The case of socializing lowincome black girls. Qualitative Sociology, 33(1), 37–54.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A
network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1),
201–233.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences
in the everyday experience of young American children.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Hauser, R. M., Tsai, S. L., & Sewell, W. H. (1983). A
model of stratification with response error in social and
psychological variables. Sociology of Education, 56(1),
20–46.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life
and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hitlin, S. (2006). Parental influences on children’s values
and aspirations: Bridging two theories of social class
and socialization. Sociological Perspectives, 49(1),
25–46.
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American
dream and the public schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horvat, E. M. (2003). The interactive effects of race and
class in educational research: Theoretical insights from
the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Penn GSE Perspectives of
Urban Education, 2(1), 1–25.
Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003).
From social ties to social capital: Class differences in
the relations between schools and parent networks.
American Education Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351.
House, J. S. (1981). Social structure and personality. In
M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 525–561). New
York: Basic Books.
Hout, M. (2008). How class works: Objective and subjective aspects of class since the 1970s. In A. Lareau
& D. Conley (Eds.), Social Class: How does it work?
(pp. 25–64). New York: Russell Sage.
Hunt, M. O. (2004). Race/ethnicity and beliefs about
wealth and poverty. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3),
827–853.
Hunt, M. O., & Ray, R. (2012). Social class identification among black Americans: Trends and determinants, 1974–2010. American Behavioral Scientist, 56,
1462–1480.
Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective
social status. American Sociological Review, 38(5),
569–582.
Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1983). Class awareness in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jiménez, T. R. (2010). Affiliative ethnic identity: A more
elastic link between ethnic ancestry and culture. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 33(10), 1756–1775.
Johnson, A. (2007). Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of color. Science
Education, 91(5), 805–821.
Johnson, S. E., Richeson, J. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2011).
Middle-class and marginal? Socioeconomic status,
stigma and self-regulation at an elite university. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 838–852.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22.
Kerckhoff, A. (1995). Social stratification and mobility
processes: Interaction between individuals and social
structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. House
(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology
(pp. 476–496). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Khan, S. (2011). Privilege: Making of an adolescent elite
at St. Paul’s school. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of black feminist ideology.
Signs, 14(1), 42–73.
571
Kraus, M. W., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Piff, P. K. (2012).
The intersection of resources and rank: Signaling social
class in face-to-face encounters. In S. T. Fiske & H. R.
Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank
influences interaction (pp. 152–172). New York: Russell Sage.
Kohn, M. ([1969]1977). Class and conformity: A study
in values, with a reassessment. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality.
Norwood: Ablex.
Kohn, M., & Slomczynski, K. (1990). Social structure and self-direction: A comparative analysis of the
United States and Poland. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Krumer-Nevo, M., & Benjamin, O. (2010). Critical poverty knowledge: Contesting othering and social distancing. Current Sociology, 58(5), 693–714.
Kusserow, A. (2012). When hard and soft clash: Classbased individualisms in Manhattan and Queens. In S. T.
Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How
societal rank influences interaction (pp. 195–215).
New York: Russell Sage.
Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard
University Press.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153–168.
Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology,
28, 167–195.
Landry, B., & Marsh, K. (2011). The evolution of the new
black middle class. Annual Review of Sociology, 37,
373–394.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Race, class, and
family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A., & Calarco, J. M. (2012). Class, cultural capital, and institutions: The case of families and schools. In
S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.)., Facing social class:
How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 61–86).
New York: Russell Sage.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2008). Class and the transition to adulthood. In A. Lareau & D. Conley (Eds.).,
Social class: How does it work? (pp. 118–151). New
York: Russell Sage.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each
other. New York: Random House.
Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487.
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary
Sociology, 29(6), 785–795.
Lubrano, A. (2004). Limbo: Blue collar roots, white collar
dreams. Hoboken: Wiley.
MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and
attainment in a low-income neighborhood (3rd edn.).
Boulder: Westview Press.
Markus, H. R., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Introduction: A
wide-angle lens on the psychology of social class. In
572
S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class:
How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 1–11).
New York: Russell Sage.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves.
American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
Marmaros, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2006). How do friendships form? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1),
79–119.
Marsh, K., Darity, W. A. Jr., Cohen, P. N., Casper, L. M.,
& Salters, D. (2007). The emerging black middle class:
Single and living alone. Social Forces, 86(2), 735–762.
McLeod, J. D. (2013). Social stratification and inequality.
In C. S. Aneshensel., J. C. Phelan, & A. Bierman (Eds.),
Handbook of the sociology of mental health, second
edition (pp. 229–253). New York: Springer.
McLeod, J., & Lively, K. J. (2003). Social structure and
personality. In J. Delameter (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology (pp. 77–102). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001).
Birds of a feather: Homophily. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis,
A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based
rejection: Implications for African-American students’
college experience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83(4), 896–918.
Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade
children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(1),
4–22.
Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (Forthcoming). Status
Safeguarding: Mothers’ Work to Secure Children’s
Place in the Social Hierarchy. In L. Ennis (Ed.), Intensive mothering: The cultural contradictions of modern
motherhood. Branford, ON: Demeter.
Miller, J., Schooler, C., Kohn, M. L., & Miller, K. A.
(1979). Women and work: The psychological effects of
occupational conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 85(1), 66–94.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2007). Life course trajectories of perceived control and their relationship to
education. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5),
1339–1382.
Nenga, S. K. (2011). Volunteering to give up privilege?
How affluent youth volunteers respond to class privilege. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(3),
263–289.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure
inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affluent
suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parrenas, R. S. (2000). Migrant Filipina domestic workers and the international division of reproductive labor.
Gender & Society, 14(4), 560–580.
Pattillo, M. (2005). Black middle-class neighborhoods.
Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 305–329.
M. A. Milkie et al.
Payne, G., & Grew, C. (2005). Unpacking ‘class ambivalence’: Some conceptual and methodological issues in
assessing class cultures. Sociology, 39(5), 893–910.
Pearlin, L. I. (1999). The stress process revisited: Reflections on concepts and their interrelationships. In C. S.
Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan (Eds.), Handbook of the
sociology of mental health (pp. 395–416). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology,
24, 1–24.
Presser, H. (2005). Working in a 24/7 economy: Challenges for American families. New York: Russell Sage.
Pugh, A. (2009). Longing and belonging: Parents, children and consumer culture. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Ridegway, C. L., & Fisk, S. R. (2012). Class rules, status
dynamics, and ‘Gateway’ interactions. In S. T. Fiske &
H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal
rank influences interaction (pp. 131–151). New York:
Russell Sage.
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The
case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022.
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010).
Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative,
relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review
of Sociology, 36, 91–115.
Robinson, C. J. 2000. Black Marxism: The making of
the black radical tradition. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self. New York:
Basic Books.
Rosenberg, M., & Pearlin, L. I. (1978). Social class and
self esteem among children and adults. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 53–77.
Rosier, K. B., & Cosaro, W. A. (1993). Competent parents,
complex lives: Managing parenthood in poverty. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(2), 171–204.
Schieman, S., Milkie, M. A., & Glavin, P. (2009). When
work interferes with life: Work-nonwork interference and the influence of work-related demands and
resources. American Sociological Review, 74(6),
966–988.
Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents
want from schools? Evidence from the internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133–144.
Schwalbe, M. (2008). Rigging the game: How inequality is reproduced in everyday life. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schwalbe, M., Godwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D.,
Thompson, S., & Wolkomir, M. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79(2), 419–452.
Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42(4), 621–646.
Schweingruber, D., & Berns, N. (2005). Shaping the
selves of young salespeople through emotion manage-
22
Current Theorizing and Future Directions in the Social Psychology of Social Class Inequalities
ment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(6),
679–706.
Sewell, W.H. Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality,
agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Sewell, W. H. Jr., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). Occupation
and earnings: Achievement in the early career. New
York: Academic Press.
Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1980). The Wisconsin
longitudinal study of social and psychological factors
in aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology
of Education and Socialization, 1, 59–99.
Shirley, C. D. (2010). “You might be a redneck if…”:
Boundary work among rural, southern whites. Social
Forces, 89(1), 35–61.
Song, L. (2011). Social capital and psychological distress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(4), 478–492.
Sorensen, A. (1994). Women, family and class. Annual
Review of Sociology, 20, 27–47.
Spencer, B., & Castano, E. (2007). Social class is dead.
Long live social class! Stereotype threat among low
socioeconomic status individuals. Social Justice
Research, 20(4), 418–432.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and
despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social
capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information
networks among Mexican-origin high school students.
Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116–135.
Steele, C. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes
affect us and what we can do. New York: Norton.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2012).
It’s your choice: How the middle-class model of independence disadvantages working-class Americans. In
S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class:
How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 87–106).
New York: Russell Sage.
Stuber, J. M. (2006). Talk of class: The discursive repertoires of white working- and upper-middle-class college students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
35(3), 285–318.
Stuber, J. M. (2011). Inside the college gates: How class
and culture matter in higher education. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Tausig, M. (2013). Sociology of work and well-being. In
C. S. Aneshensel, J. C. Phelan, & A. Bierman (Eds.),
Handbook of the sociology of mental health, second
edition (pp. 433–455). Dordrecht: Springer Science and
Business Media.
Taylor, L. C., Clayton, J. D., & Rowley, S. J. (2004). Academic socialization: Understanding parental influences
573
on children’s school-related development in the early
years. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 163–178.
Thoits, P. A. (1990). Emotional deviance: Research agendas. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the
sociology of emotions (pp. 180–206). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Thoits, P. (1999). Sociological approaches to mental illness. In A. Horwitz & T. Scheid (Eds.), A handbook for
the study of mental health (pp. 121–160). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tyson, K., Darity, W. Jr., & Castellino, D. R. (2005). It’s
not ‘a black thing’: Understanding the burden of acting
white and other dilemmas of high achievement. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 582–605.
Urciuoli, B. (1993). Representing class: Who decides?
Anthropological Quarterly, 66(4), 203–210.
Van Houtum, H., & Van Naerssen, T. (2002). Bordering, ordering and othering. Economishe en Soicale
Geograpfie, 93(2), 125–136.
Vanneman, R., & Cannon, L. W. (1987). The American
perception of class. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Warner, C. H. (2010). Emotional safeguarding: Exploring
the nature of middle-class parents’ school involvement.
Sociological Forum, 25(4), 703–724.
Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2009). Paradoxical pathways: An ethnographic extension of Kohn’s findings on
class and childrearing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 680–695.
Wheaton, B., & Clarke, P. (2003). Space meets time:
Integrating temporal and contextual influences on mental health in young adulthood. American Sociological
Review, 68(5), 680–706.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class
kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner
city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wright, E. O. (1996). The continuing relevance of class
analysis. Theory and Society, 25(5), 693–716.
Wright, E. O., Baxter, J., & Birkelund, G. E. (1995). The
gender gap in workplace authority: A cross-national
study. American Sociological Review, 60(3), 407–435.
Young, A. (2004). The minds of marginalized black men.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zinn, M. B., & Dill, B. T. (1996). Theorizing difference
from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2),
321–323.