Luna, Rachel
Political Science 21
M/W 12:45 - 2:05pm
June 2004
Race, Sex, Class: The Greatest Determiner of One’s Life Chances
2
“Sometimes they work in isolation from each other but most often they operate in combination to
create a system of advantage and disadvantage that enhances the life chances of some while limiting
the life chances of others. By valuing the characteristics and lifestyles of certain individuals or
groups and devaluing those of others, society constructs some of its members as “other”. These
“others” are understood to be less deserving, less intelligent, even less human.
The social
construction of race, class, gender, and sexuality as difference -- where being white, male, European,
heterosexual, and prosperous is the norm and everyone else is considered less able and less worthy - lies at the heart of racism, sexism, heterosexism and classism”.
-Paula S. Rothenberg
Author of “Race, Class and Gender”.
3
There is a debate amongst many scholars today as to what is the greatest determiner of one’s
life chances. Some argue that it is race or ethnicity, while others argue that it is class. For example,
in the essay entitled “Race” by Edsall and Edsall, it is argued that virtually all political arguments
come down to race, thus setting up race as the single most important indicator. Conversely, in the
article entitled “The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions” by
William Wilson it is argued that the importance of race is declining and today class is the most
important indicator of one’s life chances. However, the most accurate stance as to what is the
greatest determiner of one's life chances is the stance taken by Paula Rothenberg in the book Race,
Class and Gender in the United States, in which she says "sometimes they [racism, sexism,
heterosexism, and class privilege] work in isolation from each other but most often they operate in
combination to create a system of advantage and disadvantage that enhances the life chances of some
while limiting the life chances of others.”1
In her book “Race, Class and Gender in the United States”, Paula Rothenberg describes how
race, sex, sexual orientation and class privilege work together to create systems of advantage and
disadvantage for certain individuals. These are inseparable and each continually work in differing
degrees all the time. Who, for example, would have more of an advantage in terms of life chances: a
middle-class, black, homosexual male, or a working-class, white, heterosexual female? The answer,
of course, depends on the specific individual, the time period in which they live, the area in which
they live, the people that they know, etc. In other words, it is indeterminable. To attempt to analyze
and catalog these various attributes as to which one affords an individual more or less advantage in
society is to be overly simplistic. Our society has constructed the image of the “white, male,
European, heterosexual, and prosperous” person as the norm, and everyone else is considered to be
“less worthy”. This has been done to “distribute wealth, opportunity, and justice unequally without
appearing to be unfair.”1 Additionally, these attributes are often interdependent. As Edsall and
Edsall point out in their essay “Race”, after years of increasing black wages and college attendance,
between the years of 1976 and 1988, the percentage of blacks attending college actually fell as the
wage gap between blacks and whites rose.2 In this case, race and class are interlocked. To try to
4
separate them, to try to determine which is more important and which is the leading cause of the
disadvantage of this group, is impossible. Race and class have become inexorably intertwined.
There are, however, scholars who disagree with this idea and instead choose to embrace the
stance that race is the most important factor in determining one’s level of advantages. In the essay
“Race” by Edsall and Edsall, the authors state “When the official subject is presidential politics,
taxes, welfare, crime, rights, or values . . . the real subject is race”. Edsall and Edsall argue that race
lies at the very heart of all political arguments and debate. This article mainly deals with the success
of the Republican party in labeling the Democrats as the “give-away party” because of their support
for social programs such as welfare, social security, and Affirmative Action. The authors argue that
race is really the central issue here, in that these social programs are typically aimed at minority
groups, and is often times used to lure them into the folds of the Democratic party as a means to gain
further political support. The authors also describe a backlash against these programs as many
middle-class whites have become “fed-up” with feeling as though they are subsidizing the existence
of minorities. The authors of this article are undoubtedly arguing that race is the most important
issue in determining the life chances of an individual. However, their article can also be interpreted
in such a way as to support Rothenberg’s argument. Throughout the article, they link race and class.
Near the end of the article they describe some of the discrepancies in income and college attendance
of blacks and whites.
However, Edsall and Edsall make a glaring omission by not venturing into the arena of
sexual politics. The desire to try to oversimplify this issue has been increased in recent years by such
court cases as Rodney King and OJ Simpson. These cases got people to look at race, sex, class, etc.,
as separate issues. For these authors to believe all political arguments can be based on race is
foolhardy. Somehow they managed to ignore the entire women’s movement of the 1960’s. They
also succeeded in overlooking the politics of sexuality. Gay rights has become a major issue in
recent years, and today one needs only to watch any news channel for five minutes to hear a story
about it. We can look to Rothenberg’s book to get a more complete picture. In the article entitled
“Racism and Sexism” by Manning Marable, it is stated that:
5
“Black and Latina women own virtually no sizable property; they head no major
corporations; they only rarely are the heads of colleges and universities; they possess no
massive real estate holdings; they are not on the Supreme Court; few are in the federal court
system; they are barely represented in Congress; and they represent tiny minorities in state
legislatures or in the leadership of both major parties.”3
This excerpt is a prime example of how race, sex, and class are entangled. There are women,
Blacks and Latinos who own sizable properties and who head major corporations (though certainly
not in the numbers that white males do). However, there are no Black or Latina females who do. In
other words, when these factors are working in combination with one another, they exist to create a
system of oppression which is typically greater than if they were standing alone. These factors
obviously work together to ensure that female minorities are “kept in their place” and do not rise in
class. This idea further supports Rothenberg’s conclusion that these concepts are inseparable.
The other obvious omission of the Edsall and Edsall essay was the political power of
homophobia.
Referring once again to the Rothenberg book, this time to the article entitled
“Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism” by Suzanne Pharr, further insight can be gained into the
relationship of homophobia to sexism. Pharr states:
“Homophobia works effectively as a weapon of sexism because it is joined with a powerful
arm, heterosexism. Heterosexism creates the climate for homophobia with its assumption
that the world is and must be heterosexual and its display of power and privilege as the norm.
Heterosexism is the systemic display of homophobia in the institutions of society.
Heterosexism and homophobia work together to enforce compulsory heterosexuality and that
bastion of patriarchal power, the nuclear family. The central focus of the rightwing attack
against women’s liberation is that women’s equality, women’s self-determination, women’s
6
control of our own bodies and lives will damage what they see as the crucial societal
institution, the nuclear family.”4
This excerpt clearly defines the fundamental relationship between sexism and heterosexism.
In both cases, the empowerment of the “others”, of women and homosexuals, would lead to a loss of
power by white males. The very “bastion of patriarchal power”, the nuclear family, is secured as
long as women and homosexuals are kept down. This article very clearly defines the fact that sexism
and heterosexism are not only related but are two manifestations of the very same issue. When this
concept is combined with those derived from the Marable article (where race, gender and class were
proven to be related), it soon becomes obvious that race, class, gender and sexual orientation are all
necessary ingredients in the determination of one’s level of privilege. Any attempts to break this
down and claim one of these as more important than the others is to deny the cohesion and mutual
dependence of these attributes and thus to paint a false reality.
In his book “The Perennial Struggle”, Michael LeMay takes a slightly different approach to
the subject of race vs. class.5 While he does not specifically address whether he believes race or
class is more important, it can be derived from his book, through his focus on race, that that is the
predominant factor. However, rather than addressing why race is more important than class, he
instead addresses coping strategies that allow different races to try to raise their economic and social
class. Early on, LeMay describes how Jim Crow laws were used by whites to keep, what they felt,
was the correct social order, with them on top. Furthermore, white males used social and cultural
institutions to keep minorities and women down, by preventing them from voting and enforcing the
patriarchal family structure, where the man sits at the top. The typical “melting pot” analogy
commonly used, however, does not accurately depict the minority experience in the United States,
which LeMay relates more to a “salad bowl”, where each ingredient remains identifiable. This
creates a system of structural pluralism, where whites are on top, and blacks below them, but both
sharing a common government (which, of course, favors whites). LeMay also describes coping
strategies used by minorities in an attempt to raise their economic and social class. He describes
7
such strategies as assimilation, where minorities attempt to fit into culture, and separatism, where
minorities attempt to remain separate.
These categories can be further broken down, with
assimilation taking on the form of both cultural or economic assimilation, and separatism taking the
form of psychological and physical separation. Finally, LeMay contrasts old-style with new-style
radicalism, where old-style radicalism involves such movements as socialism, communism and
fascism, and new-style radicalism involving various oppositional and protest strategies.
Next, there are scholars who believe that it is not race, but class that is the single most
important issue in determining one’s life chances. William Wilson, the author of “The Declining
Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions” is just such a scholar. In his
essay, Wilson argues that there have been three major phases of racial politics in American history.
The first was during the times of slavery, where race was clearly the most important determiner of
one’s life chances. Next was the industrial revolution, where wide-spread, institutionalized prejudice
created a situation where racism was still the most predominant determiner. The third phase is the
modern period, about which Wilson states that “[r]ecent mobility patterns of blacks lend strong
support to the view that economic class is clearly more important than race in predetermining job
placement and occupational mobility”. It is quite obvious that Wilson, as Edsall and Edsall had
done, is attempting to oversimplify the situation. First, and most obviously, he has avoided all
discussion of sexual politics. Next, he has attempted to separate class and race as two distinct and
unrelated issues. As was demonstrated throughout the Rothenberg book, namely in the Marable
article, race and class are inseparable. The statistics provided regarding black vs. white college
attendance and average income in the Edsall and Edsall article further backs this up.
Additionally, something that Wilson simply does consider are the intangibles. While he tries
to consider institutionalized, or de jure racism, he does not address de facto discrimination and
racism. He does not account for the fact that many blacks will be turned down for a job simply
because the individual responsible for hiring is racist nor does he account for nihilistic threat
addressed in Cornel West’s book “Race Matters”.6 Nihilism, or the absolute lack of meaning, hope
and love, according to West, is the single largest threat to blacks today. West also addresses the fact
8
that many scholars, like Wilson, believe that class is actually what is important, and not race.
However, West counters this by arguing that there are many things working-class blacks have to deal
with that others of their same class do not, such as the previously-mentioned nihilism. However,
West does not go so far, as Edsall and Edsall did, to claim race is all that matters. He reminds
readers that voting strictly on the basis of race is a fallacy, as when the Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, though, politically speaking, the two
could not have been more diametrically opposed. In all, though West focuses mainly on race for the
purposes of his book, he agrees with Rothenberg that there is a system of oppression at work here
that can not be simply reduced down to a single issue.
Throughout her book, Rothenberg makes the correct assessment of the situation by stating
that race, sex, sexual orientation and class privilege all work together to create a system of
oppression and privilege. Trying to break this system down by attempting to figure out which of
these issues is most important is equivalent to taking a car apart to figure out if the engine, the
transmission, or the wheels are most important. The answer is simple: the car cannot be driven
without all of these vital parts, and an accurate picture of life chances cannot be considered without
looking at all four of those vital components. Edsall and Edsall have tried to make it a matter of race,
where they claim that either nothing else matters or is simply a derivative of race. Wilson has
attempted to discount race by adopting the racially conservative viewpoint which states, basically,
that people should be “self-reliant” and that class is the only thing that matters now. However,
Rothenberg and West both recognize that barriers exist, and that neither race nor class can be
accepted as the sole answer. As Rothenberg says, “these systems operate in conjunction with each
other to form an enormously complex set of interlocking and self-perpetuating relations of
domination and subordination.”7
9
1
Rothenberg, Paula. Race, Class and Gender in the United States (p. 119). New York: Worth
Publishing, 2004.
2
Edsall and Edsall. Race. The Atlantic Monthly (May 1991): Volume 267, No. 5 pages 53-86.
3
Rothenberg, Paula. Race, Class and Gender in the United States: Racism and Sexism (Marable) (p.
163). New York: Worth Publishing, 2004.
4
Rothenberg, Paula. Race, Class and Gender in the United States: Homophobia as a Weapon of
Sexism (Pharr) (p. 182). New York: Worth Publishing, 2004.
5
LeMay, Michael. The Perennial Struggle. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
6
West, Cornell. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.
7
Rothenberg, Paula. Race, Class and Gender in the United States (pp. 1-2). New York: Worth
Publishing, 2004.