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.