SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND
UNFAIRNESS IN WILLIAM SAROYAN’S
“COMING THORUGH THE RYE”
Joni Susanto
English Lecturer of STIBA MALANG
Abstract: Drama does not basically talk about something; it
shows something through an action imitated. An actor pretends to
be someone and pretends to be doing what the pretended person is
imaginatively supposed to be doing.
William Saroyan is an American author whose stories celebrated
optimism in the middle of trials and difficulties of the Depressionera. Several of Saroyan's works were drawn from his own
experiences, although his approach to autobiographical facts can
be called poetic. This study is intended to know the ways William
Saroyan in criticizing or satirizing the social stratification and
unfairness in one of Saroyan’s work that is “Coming through the
Rye”
Keywords: social stratification, unfairness,
bourgeoisie, low class, middle class, and high class.
proletariat,
Literary works are imitation of life since they include
and reflect human’s life. They are put into various forms,
such as prose fiction, poetry, drama or play, and oral
tradition. They also act as messages carrier to the readers.
One of the functions of literary works is to criticize social,
cultural, and political phenomena caught by authors, and to
me, drama is one of the effective ways to do this. The
playwrights have several techniques in delivering their
critical thoughts. Grace (1965:156) insists that we come to
drama with the sense of men and women in action before our
very else in drama. Drama may use either imagistic or
analytical language, that is, it may be written in either poetry
51
52
or prose, but without action drama does not exist. In fact, as
long as there is action, words themselves are not absolutely
essential to drama. He further says that such action is called
mimetic” from the Greek word meaning “imitation” as in our
words “mimicry” and “mimes” and mummers.” Drama does
not basically talk about something; it shows something
through an action imitated. An actor pretends to be someone
and pretends to be doing what the pretended person is
imaginatively supposed to be doing.
At least there are four forms of drama such as, tragedy,
comedy, tragicomedy, and farce (Waluyo, 2001:39-42 ;
Soemanto, 2001). In Saroyan’s “Coming through the Rye”,
the form is tragicomedy in which he combines the sense of
tragedy and comedy to illustrates the social problems in
America in 1942. In relation to comedy, Grace (1965:171)
explains that English drama is particularly rich of humor,
and satire by no means uncommon to it. In this case comedy
appeals to our sense of the incongruous, to our perceiving
emphatic deviations from what at any given time we
consider normal, appropriate, or decorous. In this sense,
comedy primarily appeals to our evaluating sense to our
intelligence. As an audience we have a greater sense of
detachment than in the case of tragedy; we identify less, we
are less emotionally involved.
Comedy then becomes one of some ways used to
attract the readers and make them think what is behind the
humorous
situations
that
reflect
foolishness,
misunderstandings, hypocrisies and many other bad sides of
our life. Pickering and Hoeper (1981: 286) states that
according to Horace Walpole’s observation, the world is a
comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.
Farce, one of comedy styles, where it includes exaggerated
situations, crude humor and caricatured character types, is often
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 53
used to describe the life itself. Exaggerated situations are created
to amuse, to entertain and even to satirize.
William Saroyan is an American author whose stories
celebrated optimism in the middle of trials and difficulties of
the Depression-era. Several of Saroyan's works were drawn
from his own experiences, although his approach to
autobiographical facts can be called poetic. His advice to a
young writer was: "Try to learn to breathe deeply; really to
taste food when you eat, and when you sleep really to sleep.
Try as much as possible to be wholly alive with all your
might, and when you laugh, laugh like hell." Saroyan worked
tirelessly to perfect a prose style, that was full of zest of for
life and was seemingly impressionistic. The style became
known as 'Saroyanesque.' (Kouymjian, 2008)
William Saroyan was born in Fresno, California, as the
son of an Armenian immigrant. His father moved to New
Jersey in 1905 - he was a small vineyard owner, who had
been educated as a Presbyterian minister. In the new country
he was forced to take farm-labouring work. He died in 1911
from peritonitis, after drinking a forbidden glass of water
given by his wife, Takoohi. Saroyan was put in an orphanage
in Alameda with his brothers. Six years later the family
reunited in Fresno, where Takoohi had obtained work in a
cannery. (Kouymjian, 2008)
The writer is a spiritual anarchist, as in the depth of his soul every
man is. He is discontented with everything and everybody. The
writer is everybody's best friend and only true enemy - the good
and great enemy. He neither walks with the multitude nor cheers
with them. The writer who is a writer is a rebel who never stops.
(from The William Saroyan Reader, 1958)
Many of Saroyan's stories were based on his childhood,
experiences among the Armenian-American fruit growers of
the San Joaquin Valley, or dealt with the rootlessness of the
immigrant (Foster, 1991). Therefore, it is interesting to
54
analyze some social phenomena such as social stratification,
social class, social jealousy and affection in Saroyan’s
“Coming through the Rye”
It is obvious that from the background above we can
question a problem, as follows: How does William Saroyan
satire the social stratification and unfairness in “Coming
through the Rye?”
This problem statement seems so brief and simple but
it will lead us to understand the ways Saroyan criticizes the
social phenomena in United States of America in 1942.
In accordance with problem of the study, this study is
intended to know the ways William Saroyan in criticizing or
satirizing the social stratification and unfairness in “Coming
through the Rye”
Theory of Satire
The term satire is derived from the Latin satura, which
means full plate; plate filled with various fruits-hence, a
medley. However, its origin often has been confused with
the satyr play of Greek drama, the fourth play in the dramatic
bill, with a chorus of “goat men” and a coarse comic manner.
The following developed meaning of satire is a literary
manner in which the follies and foibles or vices and crimes
of a person, mankind, or an institution are held up to ridicule
or scorn, with the intention of correcting them. (Holman,
1973:294). Abrams (1981: 167) further states that satire is
the literary act of diminishing a subject by making it
ridiculous and evoking toward it attitudes of amusement,
contempt, indignation or scorn. Therefore, satire is a literary
device where the playwright uses some ridiculous and crude
humors that evoke laughter and make it a weapon against the
situation outside the work itself.
The object of satire is to evoke not mere laughter but
laughter for a corrective purpose. It always has a target such
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 55
as pretense, falsity, deception, arrogance, which is held up to
ridicule by the satirist as Abrams (1981:168) states that satire
has usually been justified to those who practice it as
corrective of human vice and folly. The satire becomes a
way in which the satirist usually cannot speak openly or does
not wish to do so; he chooses means that allows him to utter
the unspeakable with impunity. The satire may appear in
incidental elements, in a certain character, or situation, or in
the ironic commentary on human condition.
According to Abrams (1981: 168-169), there are two
divisions of satire: 1. Direct or formal satire: the satiric
voice speaks out in the first person or else character within
the work itself. The direct satire then is distinguished into
Horacian and Juvenalian that the names were taken from the
great Roman satirists Horace and Juvenal. In Horatian satire,
the character of the speaker is that of an urbane, witty, and
tolerant man of the world, who is moved more often to
weary amusement than to indignation at the spectacle of
human folly, pretentiousness and hypocrisy, and who uses a
relaxed and informal language to evoke a smile at human
follies and absurdity, sometimes including his own. In
Juvenalian satire, the character of the speaker is that of a
serious moralist who uses a dignified and public style
utterance to decry modes of vice and error which are less
dangerous because they are ridiculous, and who undertakes
to evoke contempt, moral indignation, or an unilussioned
sadness at the aberrations of men. 2. Indirect satire: cast in
another literary form than that of direct address. The most
common form is that of a fictional narrative, in which the
objects of the satire are characters who make themselves and
their opinions ridiculous by what they think, say and do, and
are sometimes made even more ridiculous by the author’s
comments and narrative style. Menippean satire is one type
of indirect satire which name comes from Greek originator,
56
the philosophical Cynic Menippus. The satire is written in
prose, though with interpolated passages of verse. The
feature is a series of extended dialogues and debates which is
conducted at a party in which a group of immensely
loquacious eccentrics, pedants, literary people, and
representatives of various professions or philosophical points
of view serve to make ludicrous the intellectual attitudes
they typify by the arguments they urge in their support.
Moreover, Holman (1973: 295) simplifies the
explanation on those types of satire. The simplest direct form
of satire is inective-fortright and abusive language directed
against a person or cause and making a sudden, harsh
revelation of damaging truth. It has exaggeration, in which
the good characteristic are passed over and the evil or
ridiculous ones are emphasized. While indirect satire
employs a plot through which the characters render
themselves ridiculous by their actions and speech. Irony,
burlesque, travesty, and parody are modes and forms of
indirect satire. Horacian satire is urbane; the satirist is a man
of the world who smiles at the foibles of his fellowmen
without indignation. Juvenalian satire is harsh; the satirist is
an enraged moralist who denounces the vices and
corruptions of his fellowmen.
The early 17th century brought great satiric works. The
satirical tradition flourished throughout the Middle Ages and
the Renaissance, culminating in the golden age of satire in
the late of 17th and early 18th century. The familiar names of
Swift, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, La Fontaine and
Moliere in France are the great satirist. ( The Golden Age of
Satire, www. encyclopedia.com).
Literary Work and Real World
Wellek and Werren (1956: 94) states:
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 57
Literature ‘represents’ ‘life’; and ‘life’ is, in large measure, a
social reality, even though the natural world and the inner or
subjective world of the individual have also been the objects of
literary ‘imitation’
There is a close relationship between the world where
an author lives and the work of literature he produces. It is
due to literature is always produced in a social context.
Sociology of literature views that society surrounds an
author brings effects to the presentation of his work. Abrams
(1981: 178) says:
Sociology of literature, however, is applied only to the writings of
criticism and historians whose primary interest is in the ways an
author is affected by his class status, his social and other ideology,
the economic conditions of his professions, and the kind of
audience to which he addresses himself.
An author writes his works in certain time with its
norms and tradition found in a society. Author may affirm or
criticize the values of society in which he lives, but he writes
for an audience and that audience is society. In his works, we
can know how far the social system and changes of social
life are reflected. Moreover, we can know his reaction
toward the reality of the society at that time.
The definitions above seem to tell that the work of
literature is the presentation of the real life or facts. It is the
copy of reality. Nevertheless, the truth is that the work of
literature is a creative process, which is a result of mimesis
and creatio. Walter and Sutton (1966:10 as quoted by Aseng
(1993: 17) states Plato’s mimesis as follows:
Poetry and art in general is an imitation, not true reality, but of the
forms of nature, which are themselves merely the imitations or
imperfect reflections of the external unchanging forms or ideas
that constitute essential reality.
58
Moreover, Teeuw (2003:181)
opinion about mimesis as follows:
elaborates
Plato’s
Jadi, bagi Plato mimesis terikat pada ide pendekatan, tidak
menghasilkan kopi yang sungguh-sungguh…Seni hanya dapat
meniru dan membayangkan hal-hal yang ada dalam kenyataan
yang tampak, jadi berdiri sendiri di bawah kenyataan itu sendiri
dalam hierarki…Dengan demikian seni yang baik harus truthful
(benar); dan seniman harus bersifat modest (rendah hati); dia harus
tahu bahwa lewat seni dia hanya dapat mendekati ideal dari jauh
dan serba salah.
(So, according to Plato mimesis is attached to the approach idea,
nor producing the true copy…Art can only imitate and imagine
things in seen reality, so it stands beneath the truth itself in
hierarchy…Hence, good art must be truthful; and an artist must be
modest; he must know that through art he can only draw near to
ideal from a far and full mistakes)
Mimesis is not just imitating the reality. With mimesis,
an author re-creates a reality. Meanwhile Aristotle with his
point of view on mimesis, as Walter and Sutton (1966: 10)
states:
The poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other artists, must
of necessity imitate one of three objects-things as they were or are,
things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to
be. The vehicle of expression either is language, current terms or
may be, rare words or metaphors.
It can be said that the work of literature is not the copy
of reality anymore but it is a universal expression of special
thought, feeling and action of a person. At the other side,
creatio views that literature creates an exclusive world. A
new world which has no relationship with the world of
reality. The contrast point of view between mimesis and
creatio is concluded by Teeuw (2003:184):
Menurut penganut teori creatio, karya seni adalah sesuatu yang
pada hakikatnya baru, asli, ciptaan dalam arti yang sungguhsungguh. Sedangkan penganut teori mimesis pada prinsipnya
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 59
menganggap karya seni sebagai pencerminan, peniruan ataupun
pembayangan realitas.
(According to creatio theorists, art is something new, genuine,
creation of the real meaning. Meanwhile, mimesis theorists
principally view art as a reflection, an imitation, or an imagination
of reality)
The relationship between these two theories is that the
mixture of the sensitivity of social reality and creativity can
produce the works that awaken our sympathy and
conscience. The common scene of our real world cannot
awaken our conscience for we are accustomed to see and
face them in our daily life. An artist with his creativity and
sensitivity presents a special world, another world that
makes people aware of their social condition. Literature
presents something that typical and specific, mimesis and
creatio are the two theories that work simultaneously.
Sociological Approach
Wellek and Warren (1956: 96) states:
The question how far literature is actually determined by or
dependant on its social setting, on social changes and
development, is one which, in one way or another, will enter into
all the three divisions of our problem: the sociology of the writer,
the social content of the works themselves, and the influence of
literature on society.
Analysis based on sociological approach consists of
three main things; first is the social condition of the author. It
means we investigate the social status and the relationship of
the author in society as well as his view on everyday life,
reality and the norms in his society. This is relevant with
Teeuw (2003:186) who says that everyday life presents itself
as a reality interpreted by men and subjectively meaningful
to them as a coherent world…Man’s point of view is
60
directed by system of rules, institution, typology, ideology
roles, mythology and etc., which truly different with society
and culture.
The second, literature as the reflection of society that
means we investigate how far the work portrays the life of
society. The portrait may be in form of the characters, the
plot, and the theme implied which relate to the social
problems.
The third, the social function of literature which means
the investigation of the purpose and the value of the society.
Social Stratification
Social stratification is an institutionalized system of
social inequality; rankings based on share of scarce and
desirable values such as property, power, and prestige. It is
also defined as a system of structured inequallty in the things
that count in a given society (Eagleton, 2002:6-10). While,
according to Mayer (1991:99) social stratification is the
arrangement of, and strata within a society. While these
hierarchies are not universal to all societies, they are the
norm among state-level cultures (as distinguished from or
other social arrangements).
According to Wlkowitz (1999:46), in modern era,
stratification depends on social and economic classes
comprising three main layers: upper class, middle class, and
lower class. Each class is further subdivided into smaller
classes related to occupation. The term stratification derives
from the concept of strata, or rock layers created by natural
processes.
Critical overview
Social stratification is regarded quite differently by the
principal perspectives of sociology. Proponents of structural
functional-functional analysis suggest that since social
stratification exists in most state societies, a hierarchy must
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 61
therefore be beneficial in helping to stabilize their existance.
Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist, asserted that
stability and social order are achieved by means of a
universal value consequences. Functionalists indicate that
stratification exists solely to satisfy the necessary for
functional proficiency in any society. Conflict theories
consider the inaccessibility of resources and lack of social
mobility in many stratified societies. They conclude, often
working from the theories of Karl Max, that stratification
means people are not likely to advance socioeconomically,
while they may continue to the proletariat generation after
generation. Marx identified that the social classes are
stratified based on their connection to the means of
production. Therefore, the ruling class, bourgeoisie, and
working class, proletariats, maintain their social positions by
maintaining their relationship with the means of production.
This maintenance of status quo is achieved by various
methods of social control employed by the bourgeoisie in the
course of many aspects of social life, e.g., through ideologies
of submission promoted through the institution of religion.
However, some conflict theorists, mainly and followers of
his perspective, have criticized Marx's view, pointing out
that social stratification is not based purely upon economic
inequalities, but is also shaped, to an equal degree, by status
and power differentials. Weber's analysis indicated the
presence of four social classes, which he called the
propertied upper class, the property-less white-collar
workers, the petty bourgeoisie, and the working class.
Another noteworthy factor is cited in the work of, who stated
that, "The advancement [of] technology has changed the
structure of mobility completely." (Mayer, 1991:100-102)
Social stratification refers to the ranking of social
groups above and below each other, in terms of how much
power, prestige and wealth members have.
62
Non-stratified societies
Anthropologists tell us that social stratification is not
the standard among all societies. John Gowdy (Wounter,
1995:107) writes: "Assumptions about human behavior that
members of market societies believe to be universal, that
humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that
social stratification is natural, do not apply to many huntergatherer peoples Non-stratified ("headless") societies exist
which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political
or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership.
Anthropologists identify egalitarian cultures as
oriented, because they value social harmony more than
wealth or status. These are contrasted with economicallyoriented cultures including in which status and material
wealth are prized, and stratification, competition, and
conflict are common. Kinship-oriented cultures actively
work to prevent from developing which could lead to
conflict and instability. They do this typically through a
process.
A good example is given by Richard Borshya Lee’s
account of the Kung San, who practice "insulting the meat."
Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased and
ridiculed (in a friendly, joking fashion) to prevent him from
becoming too proud or egotistical. The meat itself is then
distributed evenly among the entire social group, rather than
kept by the hunter. The level of teasing is proportional to the
size of the kill--Lee found this out the hard way when he
purchased an entire cow as a gift for the group he was living
with, and was teased for weeks afterward about it (since
obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as showing
off) (Wounters, 1995:70).
Another example is the indigenous Australians of
Groote and Bickerton, off the coast of, who have arranged
their entire society, spirituality, and economy around a kind
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 63
of called. According to, in this arrangement, every person is
expected to give everything of any resource they have to any
other person who needs or lacks it at the time. This has the
benefit of largely eliminating social problems like theft and
relative poverty. However, misunderstandings obviously
arise when attempting to reconcile Aboriginal renunciative
economics with the competition/scarcity-oriented introduced
to Australia by Anglo-European colonists.
Marx's inspiration
According to Wounters’ (1995:99) accounts of
egalitarian hunter-gatherers formed part of inspiration for
communism. Morgan spoke of a situation in which people
living in the same community pooled their efforts and shared
the rewards of those efforts fairly equally. He called this
"communism in living." But when Marx expanded on these
ideas, he still emphasized an economically oriented culture,
with property defining the fundamental relationships
between people. Yet issues of ownership and property are
arguably less emphasized in hunter-gatherer societies. This,
combined with the very different social and economic
situations of hunter-gatherers may account for many of the
difficulties encountered when implementing communism in
industrialized states. He furher points out:
Yet the notion of communism, removed from the context of
domesticity and harnessed to support a project of social
engineering for large-scale, industrialized states with populations
of millions, eventually came to mean something quite different
from what Morgan had intended: namely, a principle of
redistribution that would override all ties of a personal or familial
nature, and cancel out their effects (102).
Weber's inspiration
Weber built on Marx's ideas, arriving at the threecomponent theory of stratification and the concept of life
chances. Weber believed there were more class divisions
64
than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from both
functionalist and Marxist theories to create his own system.
Weber believed in the difference between class, status, and
party, and treated these as separate but related sources of
power, each with different effects on people’s lives. He
claimed there should be four main classes: the upper class
(like the bourgeoisie of Marx’s theory), the white-collar
workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and the manual working
class (like Marx’s proletariat). Weber's theory resembles
modern class structures, although economic status does not
seem to depend strictly on earnings in the way Weber
envisioned. Weber criticized Marx's theory of the proletariat
revolt, believing it to be unlikely (Classman, 1991:131).
Weber derived many of his key concepts on social
stratification by examining the social structure of Germany.
He noticed that contrary to Marx's theories, not everything is
based simply on ownership of capital. Weber examined how
many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth
yet they had strong political power. Many wealthy families
lacked prestige and power because they were Jewish. Weber
(Classman, 1991:135) introduced three independent factors
that form the stratification hierarchy; class, status, and
power, as follows:
 Class: A person's economic position in a society.
Weber differs form Marx in that he does not see this
as a supreme factor in stratification. Weber noticed
how managers of corporations or industries control
firms they do not own; Marx would have placed such
a person in the proletariat.
 Status: A person's prestige, social honor, or
popularity in a society. Weber saw how political
power was not just welded from capital value, but
also their status. Such as how poets or saints can have
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 65

immense influence on society but have relatively
little economic worth.
Power: A person's ability to get their way despite the
resistance of others. For example, individuals in state
jobs, such as an employee of the FBI, or a member of
the US Congress, may hold little property or status
but they still hold immense power.
Social class
Social class refers to the hierarchical distinctions (or
stratifications) between individuals or groups in societies or
culture. Usually individuals are grouped into classes based
on their economic positions and similar political and
economic interests within the stratification system
(Wikipedia, 2008).
Most societies, especially nation states, seem to have
some notion of social class. However, class is not a universal
phenomenon. Many hunter-gatherer societies do not have
social classes, often lack permanent leaders, and actively
avoid dividing their members into hierarchical power
structures.
The factors that determine class vary widely from one
society to another. Even within a society, different people or
groups may have very different ideas about what makes one
"higher" or "lower" in the society. Some questions frequently
asked when trying to define class include 1) the most
important criteria in distinguishing classes, 2) the number of
class divisions that exist, 3) the extent to which individuals
recognize these divisions if they are to be meaningful, and 4)
whether or not class divisions even exist in the US and other
industrial societies (Turner, 1982:407).
The theoretical debate over the definition of class
remains an important one today. Sociologist Dennis Wrong
(Savage, 2000:45) defines class in two ways - realist and
66
nominalist. The realist definition relies on clear class
boundaries to which people adhere in order to create social
groupings. They identify themselves with a particular class
and interact mainly with people in this class. The nominalist
definition of class focuses on the characteristics that people
share in a given class - education, occupation, etc. Class is
therefore determined not by the group in which you place
yourself or the people you interact with, but rather by these
common characteristics.
The most basic class distinction between the two
groups is between the powerful and the powerless. People in
social classes with greater power attempt to cement their
own positions in society and maintain their ranking above
the lower social classes in the social hierarchy. Social classes
with a great deal of power are usually viewed as, at least
within their own societies. In the less complex societies,
power/class hierarchies may or may not exist.
Determinants of class
In so-called non-stratified societies or acephalous
societies, there is no concept of social class, power, or
hierarchy beyond temporary or limited. In such societies,
every individual has a roughly equal social standing in most
situations (Wikipedia, 2008).
According to Turner (1982:70-73), in societies where
classes exist, one's class is determined largely by:
 personal or household per capita income or wealth
/net worth, including the ownership of land, property,
means of production, etc.
 Occupation
 Education/Qualities
 Family background
Those who can attain a position of power in a society
will often adopt distinctive lifestyles to emphasize their
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 67
prestige and to further rank themselves within the powerful
class. Often the adoption of these stylistic traits (which are
often referred to as cultural capital) is as important as one's
wealth in determining class status, at least at the higher
levels:
 Costume and grooming
 Manner and cultural refinement. For example,
Bourdieu suggests a notion of high and low classes
with a distinction between bourgeois tastes and
sensitivities and the working class tastes and
sensitivities.
 political standing vis-à-vis the church, government,
and/or social clubs, as well as the use of honorary
titles
 refutation of honor or disgrace
 language, the distinction between elaborate code,
which is seen as a criterion for "upper-class", and the
restricted code, which is associated with "lower
classes" (Turner, 1982:75).
Finally, fluid notions such as race can have widely
varying degrees of influence on class standing. Having
characteristics of a particular ethnic group may improve
one's class status in many societies. However, what is
considered "racially superior" in one society can often be
exactly the opposite in another. In situations where such
factors are an issue, a minority ethnicity has often been
hidden, or discreetly ignored if the person in question has
otherwise attained the requirements to be of a higher class.
Ethnicity is still often the single most overarching issue of
class status in some societies. However, a distinction should
be made between cusastion and correlation when it comes to
race and class. Some societies have a high correlation
between particular classes and race, but this is not
68
necessarily an indication that race is a factor in the
determination of class.
Defining Ascribed status versus Achieved status deals
with the actual individual person's role in class identification,
and on whether or not one's social standing is determined at
birth or earned over a lifetime. People who are born into
families with wealth, for example, are considered to have a
socially ascribed status from birth. In the U.S. specifically,
race/ethnic differences and gender can create basis for
ascribed statuses. Achieved statuses are acquired based on
merit, skills, abilities, and actions. Examples of achieved
status include being a doctor or even being a criminal—the
status then determines a set of behaviors and expectations for
the individual (Mayer, 1991:165).
The middle class
In about the 1770s, when the term "social class" first
entered the English lexicon, the concept of a "middle class"
within that structure was also becoming important. The
industrial revolution was allowing a much greater portion of
the population to have time for the kind of education and
cultural pursuits once restricted to the European feudal
division of aristocracy, bourgeoisie, and peasantry which in
that period would have included what later became the
industrial proletarians of the towns and cities (Wikipedia,
2008).
Today, concepts of social class assume three general
categories: an upper class of proprietors and senior
managers, a middle class of people who may not exert power
over others, but may earn a significant proportion of their
income through commerce, land ownership, or professional
employment and a class of people who rely on lower wages
for their livelihood (Wounters, 1995:58).
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 69
It is important, however, to highlight the distinction of
such a class model from that of the British concept of class
in which the terms upper, middle and working-class have
different definitions. The chief difference relates to the
association of inherited wealth and landed property as a
defining characteristic of the upper class. This distinguishes
its members from those of the middle class whose
membership is more fluid and more reliant upon
employment status and its income. This is a broad
generalization as there are classes within the middle class,
such as the upper middle class whose interest in culture, and
whose manners and mores distinguish them from other ranks
in the middle strata, but is nonetheless a useful marker by
which to distinguish the British concept of class from that of
the new world.
In the United States, the term "middle class" is applied
very broadly and includes people who would elsewhere be
considered working class. As the vast majority of Americans
identify themselves as being middle class, there are multiple
theories as to what constitutes the American middle class.
The term has been used to describe people from all walks of
life, from janitors to attorneys. As a result, the US middle
class is often sub-divided into two or three groups. While
one set of theories claim that the middle class is composed of
those in the middle of the social strata, other theories
maintain that professionals and managers who have college
degree a make up most of the middle class. In 2005 roughly
35% of Americans worked in the professional/professional
support or managerial field and 27% had a college degree.
Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert or Josef J Hicky argue
that the middle class is divided into two sub-groups. The
upper-middle class consists of white collar professionals
with advanced educations and constitutes roughly 15% of the
population. In 2005 the top 15% of income earners (age 25+)
70
had incomes exceeding $62,500. The lower-middle class (or
middle-middle class for those who divide the middle class
into three segments) consists of other mostly white collar
employees with less autonomy in their work, lower
educational attainment, lower, lower personal income and
less prestige than those of the upper middle class.
Sociologists such as Gilbert, Hickey, James Henslin, and
William Thompson have brought forth class models in which
the middle class is divided into two sections which combine
to represent 47% to 49% of the population Economist
Michael Zweig defines class as power relationships among
the members of a society, rather than as a lifestyle or by
income. Zweig says that the middle class is only about 34%
of the U.S. population, typically employed as managers,
supervisors, small business owners and other professional
people (Fieldler, Jansen, Risch, 1990:40-45).
Class structure in United States
Although class can be discerned in any society, some
cultures have published specific guidelines to rank. In some
cases, the ideologies presented in these rankings may not
concur with the mainstream power dialectic of social class as
it is understood in modern America.
Class in the US, featuring occupational descriptions by
Thompson & Hickey as well as US Census Bureau data
pertaining to and for those age 25 or older.
The social structure of the United States is a vaguely
defined concept which includes several commonly used
terms that use educational attainment, income and
occupational prestige as the main determinants of class.
While it is possible to create dozens of social classes within
the confines of American society, most Americans employ a
six or five class system. The most commonly applied class
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 71
concepts used in regards to contemporary American society
are:
 Upper-class; Those with great influence, wealth and
prestige. Members of this group tend to act as the
grand-conceptualizers and have tremendous influence
of the nation's institutions. This class makes up about
1% of the population and owns about a third of
private wealth. "
 Upper-middle class; The upper middle class consists
of white collar professionals with advanced postsecondary educational degrees and comfortable
personal incomes . Upper middle class professionals
have large amounts of autonomy in the workplace
and therefore enjoy high job satisfaction.
 (Lower) middle-class; Semi-professionals, non-retail
salespeople and craftsmen who have some college
education. Out-sourcing tends to be a prominent
problem among those in this class who often suffer
from a lack of job security. Households in this class
may need two income earners to make ends meet and
therefore may have household incomes rivaling the
personal incomes of upper middle class professionals
such as attorneys.
 Working class; According to some experts such as
Michael Zweig, this class may constitute the majority
of Americans and include those otherwise referred to
as lower middle. It includes blue as well as white
collar workers who have relatively low personal
income and lack college degrees with many being
among the 45% of Americans who have never
attended college.
 Lower class; This class includes the poor, alienated
and marginalized members of society. While most
individuals in this class work, it is common for them
72
to drift in and out of poverty ((Fieldler, Jansen,
Risch, 1990:85-84).
Theoretical models
1. Marxist: A Capitalist class critique
It was in Victorian Britain that Karl Max became the
first person to critically attack the privileges not just of a
hereditary upper class, but of anyone whose labor output
could not begin to cover their consumption of luxury. The
majority proletariat which had previously been relegated to
an unimportant compartment at the bottom of most
hierarchies, or ignored completely, became Marx's focal
point. He recognized the traditional European ruling class
("We rule you"), supported by the religious ("We fool you")
and military ("We shoot at you") élites, but the French
Revolution had already shown that these classes could be
removed. Marx looked forward to a time when the new
capitalist upper class could also be removed and everyone
could work as they were able, and receive as they needed
(Warner, 1949:24).
Karl Marx defined class in terms of the extent to which
an individual or social group has control over the means of
production. In Marxist term, a class is a group of people
defined by their relationship to the means of production. The
prerequisite for classes is existence of sufficient surplus
product. Marxists explain the history of "civilized" societies
in terms of a war of classes between those who control
production and those who produce the goods or services in
society. In the Marxist view of capitalism, this is a conflict
between capitalists (bourgeois) and wage-workers
(proletariat). For Marxists, class antagonism is rooted in the
situation that control over social production necessarily
entails control over the class which produces goods -- in
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 73
capitalism this is the exploitation of workers by the
bourgeoisie.
Marx himself argued that it was the goal of the
proletariat itself to displace the capitalist system with
socialism, changing the social relationships underpinning the
class system and then developing into a future communist
society in which: "..the free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all." (Communist
manifesto) (Mayer, 1991:45).
Vladimir Lenin (Mayer, 1991:65) has defined classes
as "large groups of people differing from each other by the
place they occupy in a historically determined system of
social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and
formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role
in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by
the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they
dispose and the mode of acquiring it."
2. Proletarianisation
The most important transformation of society for
Marxists has been the massive and rapid growth of the
proletariat in the world population during the last two
hundred and fifty years. Starting with agricultural and
domestic textile labourers in England and Flanders, more
and more occupations only provide a living through wages
or salaries. Private enterprise or self-employment in a variety
of occupations is no longer as viable as it once was, and so
many people who once controlled their own labour-time are
converted into proletarians. Today groups which in the past
subsisted on stipends or private wealth -- like doctors,
academics or lawyers -- are now increasingly working as
wage labourers. Marxists call this process proletarianisation,
and point to it as the major factor in the proletariat being the
largest class in current societies in the rich countries of the
74
"first world." However, only in the strongly socialdemocratic societies such as Sweden is there much long-term
evidence of the weakening of the consequences of social
class (Mayer, 1991:145-46).
The increasing dissolution of the peasant-lord
relationship, initially in the commercially active and
industrialising countries, and then in the unindustrialised
countries as well, has virtually eliminated the class of
peasants. Poor rural labourers still exist, but their current
relationship with production is predominantly as landless
wage labourers or rural proletarians. The destruction of the
peasantry, and its conversion into a rural proletariat, is
largely a result of the general proletarianisation of all work.
This process is today largely complete, although it was
arguably incomplete in the 1960s and 1970s
(Mayer,.1991:47).
3. Dialectics (Historical Materialism) in Marxist Class
Marx saw class categories as defined by continuing
historical processes. Classes, in Marxism, are not static
entities, but are regenerated daily through the productive
process. Marxism views classes as human social
relationships which change over time, with historical
commonality created through shared productive processes. A
17th century farm labourer who worked for day wages
shares a similar relationship to production as an average
office worker of the 21st century. In this example, it is the
shared structure of wage labour that makes both of these
individuals "working class." (Turner, 1982:99; Eagleton,
2002: 65).
4. Objective and Subjective Factors in Class in Marxism
Marxism has a rather heavily defined dialectic between
objective factors (i.e., material conditions, the social
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 75
structure) and subjective factors (i.e. the conscious
organization of class members). While most Marxism
analyses people's class based on objective factors (class
structure), major Marxist trends have made greater use of
subjective factors in understanding the history of the
working class. E. P. Thomson's the Making of English
Working Class is a definitive example of this "subjective"
Marxist trend. Thompson analyses the English working class
as a group of people with shared material conditions coming
to a positive self-consciousness of their social position. This
feature of social class is commonly termed class
consciousness in Marxism, a concept which became famous
with History and Class Consciousness (1923). It is seen as
the process of a "class in itself" moving in the direction of a
"class for itself," a collective agent that changes history
rather than simply being a victim of the historical process. In
Lukacs' words, the proletariat was the "subject-object of
history", and the first class which could separate false
consciousness (inherent to the bourgeois consciousness),
which reified economic laws as universal (whereas they are
only a consequence of historic capitalism) (Mayer, 1991:97).
 Max Weber
The seminal sociological interpretation of class was
advanced by Max Weber. Weber (Eichar, 1989:45)
:formulated a three component theory of stratification, with
class, status and party (or politics) as subordinate to the
ownership of the means of production, but for Weber how
they interact is a contingent question and one that will vary
from society to society. Weber is also known for his six
"American Dream" Values which are: 1) Hard work, 2)
Universalism, 3) Individualism, 4) Wealth, 5) Activism, and
Major areas of social science still rely on class based
explanations of personal identity, for instance, the history
76
from below school of Marxist history. Outside of Marxist
influenced thought, there is still much evidence suggesting
that class affects everyone. Some ideas from different
sociologists follow:
 Jordan suggested that those in poverty had the same
attitudes on work and family as those in other classes,
this being backed up with surveys expressing that the
poor/working class/lower class feel almost shame
about their position in society.
 MacIntosh and Mooney noted that there was still an
upper-class which seems to isolate itself from other
classes. It is almost impossible to get into the upperclass. They (upper-class) kept their activities
(marriage, education, peer groups) as a closed
system.
 Marshall et al noted that many manual class workers
are still aware of many class issues. They believed in
a possible conflict of interest, and saw themselves as
working class. This counters the postmodern claims
that it is consumption which defines an individual.
 Andrew Adonis and Stephen Pollard (1998)
discovered a new super class, which consisted of elite
professionals and managers, which held high salaries
and share ownership.
 Chapman noted there was still an existence of a selfrecruiting upper-class identity.
 Dennis Gilbert argues that class is bound to exist in
any complex society as not all occupations are equal
and that households do form pattern of interaction
that give rise to social classes (Mayer, 1991:153).
 William Lloyd Warner
An early example of a stratum class model was
developed by the sociologist - Warner (1949). For many
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 77
decades, the Warnerian theory was dominant in U.S.
sociological theory.
Based on social anthropology, Warner divided
Americans into three classes (upper, middle, and lower),
then further subdivided each of these into an "upper" and
"lower" segment, with the following postulates:
 Upper-upper class. "Old money." People who have
been born into and raised with wealth; mostly
consists of old "noble" or prestigious families.
 Lower-upper class. "New money." Individuals who
have become rich within their own lifetimes (e.g.,
entrepreneurs, movie stars, top athletes, as well as
some prominent professionals).
 Upper-middle class. Professionals with a college
education, and more often with postgraduate degrees
like MBA's, Ph.D.'s, MD's, JD's, MS's, etc. (e.g.,
doctors, dentists, lawyers, bankers, corporate
executives,
university
professors,
scientists,
pharmacists, airline pilots, ship captains, high level
civil servants, politicians, and military officers,
architects, artists, writers, poets, and musicians).
 Lower-middle class. Lower-paid white collar
workers, but not manual laborers. Often hold
Associates or Bachelor degrees. (e.g., police officers,
fire fighters, primary and high school schoolteachers, engineers, accountants, nurses, municipal
office workers and low to mid-level civil servants,
sales representatives, non-management office
workers, clergy, technicians, small business owners).
 Upper-lower class. Blue-collar workers and manual
labourers. Also known as the "working class."
 Lower-lower class. The homeless and permanently
unemployed, as well as the "working poor."
78
To Warner, American social class was based more on
attitudes than on the actual amount of money an individual
made. For example, the richest people in America would
belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them
created their own fortunes; one can only be born into the
highest class. Nonetheless, members of the wealthy upperupper class tend to be more powerful, as a simple survey of
U.S. presidents may demonstrate.
Another observation: members of the upper-lower class
might make more money than members of the lower-middle
class (i.e., a well-salaried factory worker vs. a secretarial
worker), but the class difference is based on the type of work
they perform.
In his research findings, Warner (1949) observed that
American social class was largely based on these shared
attitudes. For example, he noted that the lower-middle class
tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very
little separated them from the working class. The uppermiddle class, while a relatively small section of the
population, usually "set the standard" for proper American
behavior, as reflected in the media.
Professionals with salaries and educational attainment
higher than those found near the middle of the income strata
(e.g. bottom rung professors, managerial office workers,
architects) may also be considered as being true middle
class.
 Coleman and Rainwater
In 1978 sociologists Coleman and Rainwater
(Grusky, 2001:20-24) conceived the "Metropolitan Class
Structure" consisting of three social classes, each with a
number sub-classes.
 Upper Americans
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 79
o


Upper-upper class; Old money stemming
from inherited wealth. Persons in this class
typically have an "Ivy league college degree."
o Lower-upper class; This is the "Success
elite" consisting of "Top professionals [and]
senior corporate executives." People in this
class have degrees from "Good colleges."
o Upper-middle class; Also called the
"Professional and Managerial" class, it
consists of "Middle professionals and
managers" with a college and often graduate
degrees.
Middle Americans
o Middle-class; This class consists of "Lowerlevel managers; small-business owners;
lower-status
professionals
(accountants,
teachers); sales and clerical" workers. Middle
class persons had a high school and some
college education.
o Working class; This class consists of "Higher
blue collar (craftsman, truck drivers); lowestpaid sales and clerical" workers. Younger
individuals in 1978 who were members of
this class had a high school education.
Lower Americans
o Semipoor; This class had a partial high
school education and consisted of "Unskilled
labor and service" workers.
o The bottom; Those who are "Often
unemployed" or rely on welfare payments.
These individuals typically lack a high school
education.
80
 Gilbert & Kahl
Gilbert (Grusky, 2001:25-26) lays out an even more
precise breakdown of American social classes. Dennis
Gilbert stresses that "there is really no way to establish that a
particular model is 'true' and another 'false.'" He furthermore
states that his "model emphasizes sources of income" and
that household income, being very dependent on the number
of income earners, varies greatly within each social class.
 Capitalist class; "Subdivided into nationals and
locals, whose income is derived largely from return
on assets."
 Upper middle class; "...college trained professionals
and managers (a few of whom ascend to such heights
of bureaucratic dominance or accumulated wealth
that they become part of the capitalist class)."
Educational attainment is the main feature of this
class. They enjoy great job autonomy and economic
security. Household incomes vary greatly depending
of the number of income earners."
 Middle class; "...members have significant skills and
perform varied tasks at work, under loose
supervision. They earn enough to afford a
comfortable, mainstream lifestyle. Most wear white
collars, but some wear blue."
 Working class; "People who are less skilled than
members of the middle class and work at highly
routinized, closely supervised manual and clerical
jobs. Their work provides them with a relatively
stable income sufficient to maintain a living standard
just below the mainstream."
 Working poor; "...people employed in low-skill jobs,
often at marginal firms. The members of this class
are typically laborers, service workers, or low-paid
operators. Their incomes leave them well below
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 81

mainstream living standards. Moreover, they cannot
depend on steady employment."
Underclass "...members have limited participation in
the labor force and do not have wealth to fall back
on. Many depend on government transfers."
Study Design
This study is a textual analysis as the inquirer studies
one written text: a play script that illustrates the social
phenomena in 1942 America a single-case problem in which
he aims to generate an interpretive understanding on the
social stratification and unfairness exposed in Saroyan’s
work. Therefore, he used a descriptive qualitative method in
which he analyzed the data based on the special or detail
characteristics of social stratification and presented them
descriptively since the ways he satirizes the social
stratification become the main focus. This is in line with
Berg’s theory (1989:2-3) “qualitative research refers to the
meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors,
symbols, and description of things.”
Qualitative research emphasizes the processes and the
understanding of meanings. So, the researcher’s alertness in
interpreting the data is more dominant. It is obvious that
actually a researcher cannot make a fix design since the
activities are on the “ongoing processes” and the design
appears emergently (Cresswell, 1994:145-147). Therefore,
the process of interpreting the data can be conducted in the
reading processes, that is before the data analysis. However,
the final outcome can be known after the researcher
implement the appropriate theory to analyze the data.
Data Analysis
William Saroyan is an American author whose stories
celebrated optimism in the middle of trials and difficulties of
82
the Depression-era. Several of Saroyan's works were drawn
from his own experiences. So, he was very much inspired by
the social, cultural, and political phenomena in his life time.
An author works cannot be separated from his/her
environment as Levin (1973) insists that the relation between
literature and society are reciprocal. Literature is not only the
effect of social causes; it is also the cause of social effects
(62). The portrait of America in the era of 1942’s to 1950’s
can be seen in Saroyan’s “Coming through the Rye” where
discrimination, social stratification, corruption, and
unfairness happened in America. Through his work, he
harshly criticizes the social phenomena at that time by the
use of satire.
At the beginning of the story (the voice), Saroyan
expresses America as a land of promise where people can do
many things for the betterment of his life. It is true if
America is claimed to be an affluent country. Wilder
(1983:20) states that America is a nation of more than 230
million people (1983 data) whose ancestor came from
countries all over the world, a vast country of three and a
half million square miles, a land blessed with abundant
natural resources, a leader in trade and industry, whose farms
and factories not only supply the needs of its own people but
also send food and goods to the people of other lands, a
republic – governed under the oldest written constitution in
the world, a country in which important officers of the
national, state, and local governments are chosen by, and are
responsible to, its citizens, and a world power which seeks
peace and stands ready to defend liberty.
Saroyan in this case provokes everybody to come to
America to be ‘born’ and experience a new life which is
more promising and fantastic where everybody can do what
they want as a form of democracy. These opening statements
(in the Voice) clarify his provocation:
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 83
The Voice: O.K., people. Your time has come. You
are now going to enter the world. You’ll find it a
strange place. There are no instructions. You know
your destiny now, but the moment you are in the
world, breathing, you shall forget it. You can thank
God for that, let me tell you. Good things, and bad,
are ahead for each of you. The world is still new, and
the idea of sending you out there for a visit has not
yet proved itself to be a good one. It may in time,
though. Your destination is America. [A phrase of
patriotic music.] It’s an interesting place. No better
and no worse than any other place, except of course
superficially, which the Americans make a good deal
of, one way or the other. The climate’s fair
everywhere, excellent here and there. Everything you
do, you shall imagine is your own doing. You can
thank God for that, too. You shall live as long as you
shall. No more. You will find noise and confusion
everywhere, even in your sleep. Sometimes in sleep,
however, you shall almost, but not quite, return to
this place. Nothing in the world is important. Nothing
is unimportant. Many things shall seem important.
Many shall seem unimportant. In a moment you shall
begin to be human. You have waited here nine
months of the world’s time. A few of you a little less.
From now on you shall be alone in body, apparently
cut off from everything. You shall also seem to be
alone in spirit. That, however, is an illusion. Each of
you is the continuation of two others, each of whom –
and so on. [Blithely.] I could go on talking for two or
three years, but it wouldn’t mean anything. O.K.,
now, here you go! Take a deep breath!
84
[Dramatically.] Hold it! You will exhale in the world.
O.K., Joe, let ‘em out!
The Voice is actually in line with the ideas of President
Truman. He (Wilder, 1983) once said “the driving force
behind our [nation’s] progress is our faith in our democratic
institutions. That faith is embodied in the promise of equal
rights and equal opportunities which the founders of our
Republic proclaimed to their countrymen and to the whole
world.” It was the search for freedom and opportunities that
led people to leave Europe in the 1600’s and brave the
dangers of the Atlantic to settle in America. These settlers
had their individual reasons for leaving Europe. But all had
one thing in common – they had a dream of a new and better
life (21). His illustration on America is too excessive even
though the reality faced is not like the outsiders think.
The dialogues firstly start between Butch, a boy of
nine, and Carroll, a man of seventy. Even though, their age is
very far different but the dialogues are alive and logical.
Butch as an innocent boy is quite smart and sincere whereas
he show his desperation after Steve states that he is lucky for
he does not need to stay in the world very long. As a poorrural person he really believes in Steve as if life were
unimportant for him.
Butch: Well, we’re next, Mr. Carroll. Do you like the
idea of being born?
Carroll: Why, yes, of course, Butch. There’s nothing
like getting born and being alive.
Butch: I don’t know whether I’m lucky or unlucky.
Steve says I’m lucky because I don’t have to stay in
the world very long, and Miss Quickly – she says it
ain’t fair.
Carroll: What ain’t?
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 85
Butch: Me having to get born, just for nine years.
Before I get a chance to turn around I’ll have to come
back, so what’s the use going? I’m the way I’m going
to be when I die, and you’re the way you’re going to
be when you die. I’m nine, and you are an old man.
Carroll: Butch, my boy, those nine years are going
to be wonderful.
Butch: Maybe. Miss Quickly says it’ll take me five
or six years just to begin. Gosh, that only leaves
three. I won’t even get a chance to see my big league
baseball games.
Carroll: Maybe you will.
Butch: Hook no. How am I going to get from a little
town in Texas to New York?
Carroll: It may happen.
Butch: Boy, I hope it does, but Miss Quickly – she
told Steve it wasn’t fair.
Carroll: What wasn’t?
Butch: My father dying before I’m born and my
mother being poor, and dying a year later. She says I
may have to go to an institution. What the heck’s an
institution?
Butch actually is in confusion of what is meant by
“being born” as he is too young to understand such
philosophical ideas. He is really desperate of his condition as
an orphanage and does not care with education even though
his mother dreams that in the near future he can go to school
(to be an educated) “What the heck’s an institution?”.
Naturally, it is a great hope for most every young American
to move to cities to get a good job and even to settle there.
Here, Butch is a rural Texanian and dreams to get a better
education and life in New York but it seems impossible to
him as life is nonsense.
86
Carroll tries hard to convince Butch that life of “being
born” is more wonderful that in the world. Carroll says that
everything is easy overthere and full of comfort – full of
happiness and Butch is of course can find his real identity
without any confusion.
Carroll: That’s an orphanage, I guess. Now, listen,
Butch, don’t you go worrying about anything.
Everything’s wonderful out there.
Butch: How’s it really going to be?
Carroll: Well, the minute you’re out there you’re
alive, the same as there, only different. Out there you
begin right away.
Butch: Begin what?
Carroll: Living – and dying. They’re both beautiful,
Butch. [happily]. Living and dying in the world. That
great big little tiny place. And from the first breath
you take you begin being somebody: yourself.
Butch: I’m myself right now.
Carroll: That’s because you’re here waiting. You’ve
started at last. It takes a long time to get started. It
took me – well, I don’t know how long exactly in the
world’s time – but it was a long time.
For the poor to be alive or dead is similar. He thinks
that poverty is a matter of fate and to me this absurd. Fate
can be changed through our hard work and keenness to
utilize opportunities and braveness to face hindrances.
Saroyan shows us the life of the minorities life, ArmenianAmericans, who sometimes are not ready to compete in the
hardness.
Carroll has really different views about life. To Carroll
life in the world and the hereafter (being born) are mutually
excellent since they are only dedicated to human beings. On
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 87
the contrary, Steve regards the world as stinks because there
are so many misdeeds and unfairness. Butch in this case is
still interfered by Steve’s idea that his life time is only nine
years and he can not do anything good.
Butch: Steve says the world stinks.
Carroll: Now, Steve is a young fellow with ideas.
He’s a nice boy, but he’s wrong about the world. It’s
the only place for us, and any of us who get to go out
there are mighty lucky.
Butch: What happens when we leave the world?
Carroll: We come back.
Butch: Here? And wait some more?
Carroll: Not here, exactly. We wait here, after we’ve
started. When we leave the world we go back to
where we were before we came here.
Butch: Where the heck’s that?
Carroll: It’s not exactly any place, Butch. And it’s
not only exactly waiting either. This is where we
wait.
Butch: Oh, well, I guess it’ll be all right. But nine
years. What the heck chance will I have to see
anything?
The absurdity is clearly seen in the dialogues above
whereas Carroll’s answers about life in ‘another world’ is
very blur, therefore; Butch keep wondering because he is
never satisfied.
Nine years to Butch is so brief since he cannot spend
his years as a child to do enough good things. His though is
natural for it is in line with the discourse of an old child or
teenagers. Perhaps, he also feels sinful during his life time
even though he is still nine years old. He does not have
88
enough time to redeem his sin or misdoing so life in the
world would be worthy.
Carroll as on old and educated person tries to convince
Butch that life in hereafter is much better and very long. No
enemy, everybody is our brother and sister. These dialogues
show the life of low social classes where togetherness and
openness are two of the main characteristics.
Carroll: Butch, one day out there is a long time, let
alone nine years. Twenty-four ours everyday. Sixty
minutes every hour.
Butch: What are you going to be out there, Mr.
Carroll?
Carroll:
[Laughing]. Oh, a lot of things, one after another.
Butch: Well, what?
Carroll: Well, let’s see. [He brings out a paper and
studies it.] It says here, Thomas Carroll. Mother:
Amy Wallace Carroll. Father: Jonathan Carroll. Will
be, at birth: Son, brother, nephew, cousin, grandson,
and so on.
Butch: Mother?
Carroll: Yes. I guess I’ve got a sister or a brother out
there, may be a couple of sisters and a couple of
brothers.
Butch: I thought we were all brothers. I thought
everybody was related to everybody else.
Carroll: Oh, yes, of course, but this kind of
brotherhood is closer. Whoever my brother is, he has
my father and my mother for his father and mother.
Butch: Well, what the heck’s the difference? I
thought we were all the same.
Carroll: Oh, we are, really, but in the world there are
families. They’re still all really one family, but in the
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 89
world the family is broken down to the people you
come from, and the people that come from you. I gets
pretty complicated.
Once again, the two persons keep on talking the same
topics. They insist that everybody is brother and sister. Then,
to Carroll all the kids in Texas are Butch brothers and sisters.
The kinship systems make Butch very confuse and he does
not want to think it too long as it seems that it does not bring
any significance to his life.
Butch: But everybody is one family just the same,
though, ain’t they?
Carroll: Well, yes, but in the world everybody
forgets that for a while.
Butch: [Bringing out his paper, which is a good deal
smaller than Carroll’s.] What the heck. I never
looked at this. What do I get to be? [Reading the
card.] James Nelson, also called Butch. By gosh,
there it is right there. Also called Butch, but my real
name is James Nelson. Let’s see what I get to be.
[Reading.] Son. Newsboy. Schoolboy. [Reflectively.]
Son. No brothers?
Carroll: Well, I guess not, Butch.
Butch: Why the heck not?
Carroll: There will be all sorts of kids out there in
Texas. They’ll all be your brothers.
Butch’s hobby as a representative of American low
social class is to catch and throw the ball and this kind of
play is usually played by boys and girls in his age. When he
is told that some kids in Texas will be his sincere brothers,
he is rather surprised.
Butch: Honest?
90
Carroll: Sure.
Butch: [Reading.] Newsboy. What’s that?
Carroll: Well, I guess you’ll sell papers.
Butch: Is that good?
Carroll: Now don’t you worry about anything,
Butch.
Butch: O.K. The heck with it [He puts the paper
away.]
Carroll: [Affectionately.] Give me a catch, Butch.
Butch: [Delighted.] No fooling?
Carroll: Why, sure, I’m going to play second base
for the New
Butch: [Throwing the ball, which Carroll tries to
catch.] Who the heck are they?
Carroll: A bunch of kids in my neighborhood. [He
throws the ball back.]
To Butch, after hearing some of Steve’s ideas, the
world is hard and unfriendly. People are frequently in feud
because of the unclear reasons. Some conflicts happen
between the upper class, middle class, and lower class
caused by certain needs. Here, Steve is the person who has a
very bad view on life in the world. Even though he is a
drunkard but most of his statements are so strong and brave
and perhaps could be consider true.
[Steve comes in. About twenty-seven, sober, serious,
but drunkard. Butch holds the ball and watches
Steve. Then goes to him.]
Butch: Steve? Tell him about the war – and all that
stuff.
Steve: [Scarcely noticing Butch, absorbed in
thought.] Tell who, what?
Butch: Mr. Carroll. About the war.
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 91
Steve: [Looking at Carroll, smiling.] I was talking to
the old lady.
Butch: He means Miss Quickly.
Steve: Yeah.
Butch: [To Carroll.] If everybody is everybody
else’s brother, what the heck do they have a war for?
Butch innocently questions why the people in the
world commit a war while to him and strongly Carroll that
life in the world is excellent and everybody is everybody’s
family – brothers and sisters who must love each other.
Carroll: Well, now, Butch.
Steve: [Laughing solemnly.] I’m afraid you won’t be
able to find a good answer for that question, Doc.
Butch: [Delighted.] Honest, Steve?
Carroll: Now, Steve, you know the world is a
wonderful place.
Steve: [Simply.] I’m sorry, but I think it stinks. I
think the human race is unholy and disgusting. I think
putting people in the world is a dirty trick.
Carroll: No. No. No, it isn’t, Steve.
Steve: What is it, then? You’re called out,
everybody’s a stranger, you suffer every kind of pain
there is, and then you crawl back. A little tiny place
that got side-tracked in space and began to fill up
with terrible unclean animals in clothes.
Carroll: Those animals have created several
magnificent civilizations, and right now they’re
creating another one. It’s a privilege to participate.
From the dialogues above, it is clear that Steve bravely
satirizes the world’s atmosphere by insisting the world is
unholy and disgusting and the people who inhabit it are
dirty. Butch associates the human beings as unclean terrible
92
animals but Carroll protested. He said that “those animals
have created several magnificent civilizations, and right now
they are creating another one.”
Historically speaking, the end of 1945 marked the
prosperity of America as people enjoyed the highest
standard of living in the world. It was shown by the high
rates of economic growth, a rise in real income and low
inflation. Such prosperity, however, was not shared by all
Americans because there were unevenness in the past war
economy. The economy was troubled by a periodic
recessions that was accompanied by high unemployment.
The permanently unemployed, the aged, female heads of
households and now white became the victims of the
recessions. Henretta et. al. quoted economist John Kenneth
Galbraith’s arguments in The Affluence Society (1958) that
the poor were only an “afterthought” in the minds of
economists and politicians, who assumed that poverty was in
its way of extinction. However, Galbraith noted that there
were more than one family out of thirteen in 1950’s had a
cash income of less than a thousand dollar (Henretta,
1993:886). This condition was also affirmed by Jean Christie
and Leonard Dinnersten in America Since World War II:
Historical Interpretations that middle income citizens were
aware that one-fifth of the American people lived in poverty,
among them were Indians, women, homosexuals, welfare
mothers and Mexican Americans (Christie and Dinnestein,
1976:65) including Armenian-American where Saroyan
comes from. The ecomnic disparity between the high,
middle, and low class make the social stratification sharper
and sharper, and of course unfairness happen in every sector
because of the privilege obtained by the have.
Steve, a sober, serious, but drunkard, as a
representative of the low class society really hates the unfair
atmosphere of the world. Every time he is asked a question,
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 93
he answers it harshly and awkwardly. He is eager to kill the
rich people so there will no stratification any more.
Butch: [Delighted.] You mean the World Sries?
Steve: [Wearily.] O.K., Doc. Anything you say.
Carroll: Excuse me, Steve. Can I ask you a
question?
Steve: Anything at all.
Carroll: What ahead for you?
Steve: A number of things.
Carroll: Won’t you tell me what they are?
Steve: [To Butch.] How about it, kid? Come back in a
few minutes.
Butch: Ah, shucks. I want to listen. I’m not born yet.
Steve: This is nothing. I’ll be seeing you.
Butch: [Obedient, going to one side.] O.K., Steve.
Carroll: What is your destiny, Steve?
Steve: [Pause.] Murder.
Carroll: [Slowly.] Yes. I am going to murder another
human being.
Carroll: Oh, I’m sorry, Steve.
Steve: He’s here, too.
Carroll seems so fearful with Butch as he looks so
angry and fierce. Even though he is a drunkard but he is still
able to criticize the unfairness caused by the social
stratification. Perhaps, to him, his plan to kill the rich is a
rational ideal because the low class society or the poor
frequently become the oppressed and to be equal is only a
utopia.
Historically, by the time those people moved into
cities, urban America was in poor condition. Housing
became a crucial problem. Then, there were urban renewal
projects that produced high-rise-housing projects that
94
destroyed the feelings of neighborhood pride. These urban
renewal projects often benefited the wealthy at the expense
of the poor as the poor now faced the expensive rental
housing. These people seemed to have no other choice. They
were trapped in the city, having no hope for improvement.
Unlike the earlier immigrants who were lucky to have better
social and economic condition, the inner-city residents in the
postwar found that the promise of plentiful jobs and steady
employment were out of reach. There were now two separate
America – the white society which is located in the suburbs
and the inner cities which are occupied by blacks, Hispanics
and other disadvantaged groups (1993:902-903) such as
Armenian-American, African-American, and PurtoricanAmericans. So the economic disparity is certainly formed by
itself.
In the dialogues, Steve bravely and frankly mentions
who is planed to be murdered and it makes Carroll, as a wise
elder man, get shocked. Here, Ralf Hastings as the
representative of the high-class society will be the victim.
Hastings is regarded to destroy the life of the poor people so
to him being born is nothing and meaningless “If he’s going
to wreck the lives of people, what’s he born for?”
Carroll: Here? Who is he?
Steve: I don’t know if you’re noticed him. I have. His
name is Hastings.
Carroll: [Shocked.] Ralf Hastings?
Steve: That’s right.
Carroll: Why, he is a nice young fellow. Are you
sure it’s not a mistake?
Steve: No, it’s not a mistake.
Carroll: Well, good Lord. This is awful. But why?
Why do you do it?
Steve: It’s a lot of nonsense.
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 95
Carroll: What do you mean, Steve?
Steve: You know he’s rich. Well, he does a number
of things that I think wreck the lives of poor people,
so I – If he’s going to wreck the lives of people,
what’s he born for?
The factors that determine class vary widely from one
society to another. Even within a society, different people or
groups may have very different ideas about what makes one
"higher" or "lower" in the society. Some questions frequently
asked when trying to define class include 1) the most
important criteria in distinguishing classes, 2) the number of
class divisions that exist, 3) the extent to which individuals
recognize these divisions if they are to be meaningful, and 4)
whether or not class divisions even exist in the US and other
industrial societies (Turner, 1982:407). The above and the
following quotations are obvious proofs of social classes
followed social jealousy.
Carroll is definitely gets shocked since he never kills
anybody and it is bad for him. To Carroll, life must be clean
avoiding bad deeds, including to murder somebody else.
Carroll: I’m sorry, Steve. Of course, you’ll never
know once you’re out there.
Steve: That’ll help some. Of course, but I just don’t
like the idea. Why do you do, Doc?
Carroll: Oh, nothing really.
Steve: Do you kill anybody?
Carroll: No, I don’t Steve. I do a lot of ordinary
things.
Steve: Do you raise a family?
Carroll: [Delighted, but shyly.] Oh, yes. Three sons.
Three daughters. All kinds of grandchildren.
Steve: [Sincerely.] That’s swell. That’ll help a little.
Carroll: Help? Help what?
Steve: Help balance things.
96
Carroll: Do you marry, Steve?
Steve: Not exactly.
Carroll: [A little shocked but sympathetic.] Oh?
Steve: I get a lot of women, but not a lot of them. I
get a year of one, though. That’s toward the end.
She’s here. [Smiling.] I’m a little ashamed of myself.
Carroll: Why should you be ashamed?
Steve: Well, she’s Peggy.
Carroll: [Shocked.] Peggy?
Steve: She’ll be probably be all right for me by that
time.
Carroll: Peggy’s really a good girl, I suppose, but
she seems so –
Steve: I don’t know her very well.
The above quotations clarify that Saroyan satirize the
worse social condition. Butch who is considered critical and
to have good manner turns drastically to be unfriendly and
unworthy – greedy of women “I get a lot of women, but not
a lot of them. I get a year of one, though. That’s toward the
end. She’s here. [Smiling.] I’m a little ashamed of myself.”
The debate about life in the world and the hereafter
“being born” keep on going between Carroll, Hastings, and
Steve. Steve’s plan to murder Hastings is only a discourse in
the absence of Hastings. When Steve meets Hastings, he
does not have any bravery to implement his plan but only a
little bit cynical. Steve still believes that the world is
stinking.
Carroll: [Studying the two young men sadly.] Well,
Mr. Hastings, here we are.
Hastings: By the grace of God, here we wait for the
first mortal breath. Are you pleased, Mr. Carroll?
Carroll: I can’t wait to begin.
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 97
Hastings: You, Steve?
Steve: [Simply.] I’m here.
Hastings: And so am I. [Pause.] Well –
Steve: Look. I don’t know if you know, but if you do
–
Hastings: As a matter of fact, I do know, but what
the hell - !
Steve: I want you to know –
Hastings: [Cheerfully] It’s all right.
Carroll: [Thoughtfully.] There must be some
mistake.
Hastings: No, there is no mistake. Everything’s in
order. I’m sorry, Steve. I’ll have it coming to me, I
suppose.
Steve: I don’t think so.
Hastings: These things all balance. I must have it
coming to me.
Steve: That’s why I say the world stinks.
Hastings: It depends, I guess.
Steve: [Sincerely.] Thanks. [To Carroll.] Right now
he’s the way he is the day he dies, and I’m the way I
am that day. It’s obvious it’s not him, and not me, so
it must be the world.
The blunder committed by human beings is very
common in the world since to Hastings the human beings are
inhuman so every mistake is tolerated. Saroyan satirizes the
decayed society whose life is between goodness and
badness. Here, Steve suddenly turns to be antagonistic. He
sarcastically shows his sexual desire by kissing and holding
Peggy, the woman he loves very much, tightly even though
she hardly tries to escape from him.
Hastings: We’re not human yet.
98
Steve: You mean we’re not inhuman yet.
Carroll: Now, boys.
Hastings: [Cheerfully.] Of course, Mr. Carroll. [To
Steve.] I have a lot of fun, after a fashion, as long as it
lasts. How about you?
Steve: [Laughs, stops.] It’s O.K.
[Peggy comes in, looks around, come over to the
three men. She simply stands near them.]
You know – I like you, Peggy. Even here , you’re
lost.
Peggy: Oh, it’s boring – that’s what burns me up.
Nothing to do. No excitement. I want to get started,
so I can get it over with. I want to dance – I just
heard a new one – [Singing.] “I don’t want to set the
world on fire.”
Saroyan again satirizes a “holy” man that fight against
unfairness but when he meets a woman, his idealism fades
away. This condition happens in past and modern America,
exceptionally those who have strong faith to God, the
Creator. Below, Steve shows his savagery to a woman.
Steve: What’s the difference? I’ve waited a long time
for you. [He takes her and kisses her.] You see,
Peggy, you’re no good, and I love you for it. Because
I’m no good, too. I don’t know why, but it’s so. Now,
before we know it, we’ll be separated and I won’t be
seeing you again for a long time. Remember me, so
that when we do meet again, you’ll know who I am.
Peggy: I’ve got a poor memory, but I guess I’ll know
you just the same.
Steve: [Kissing her again.] You’ll remember, don’t
worry.
[They stand, kissing.]
The Voice: O.K., people! Here we go again! I’m not
going to go through the whole speech. You’re going
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 99
out whether you like it or not, so get going, and good
luck to you!
[Everybody goes. Only Steve and Peggy stand
together, kissing.]
O.K., you two – get going!
[Peggy tries to move, but Steve won’t let her go.]
Come on, come on, you American lovers, get going!
[Peggy Struggles. Steve holds her. She falls. He holds
her terribly.]
Peggy: [Whispering.] Let me go – please let me go!
[They struggle passionately for some time.]
The Voice: What’s this? What goes on around here?
[A whistle is blown, like a police whistle, but Steve
clings to Peggy. At last Peggy breaks away from him,
gets her feet, turns and runs. Steve gets up and looks
around, smiling wisely. He straightens out. As he
stands, a new born babe begins to bowl, as if it were
himself being born. He looks around, turns easily,
and walks out.]
Steve: O.K. I’m going.
The dialogues exposes how the American sexual desire
works “Come on, come on, you American lovers, get
going!.” Even though Peggy struggles to escape but she is in
fact so weak and eventually she feels the comfort of
passionate kissing. So, actually both the high class and the
low class society have the same opportunities to do good
deeds and bad deeds.
Data Interpretations
Saroyan’s play, historically speaking, obviously
illustrates the social stratification and social classes in
American society in 1942 to 1945. The low social classes are
frequently underestimated by the middle and high-class
100
society. The low classes are oppressed by the high classes
and this makes the low classes represented by Steve very
angry. Steve’s willing to murder Ralf Hastings, a
representative of the high class, is common since he cannot
stand being ridiculed.
Based on the Marxist theory, Butch and Steve are
positioned as the proletariat. Meanwhile, Carroll is the
middle class and Ralf Hastings is the high class in which
middle and high classes are grouped as bourgeoisie. Karl
Max actually critically attacks the privileges not just of a
hereditary upper class, but of anyone whose labor output
could not begin to cover their consumption of luxury. He
defined class in terms of the extent to which an individual or
social group has control over the means of production. In
Marxist term, a class is a group of people defined by their
relationship to the means of production. The prerequisite for
classes is existence of sufficient surplus product. Marxists
explain the history of "civilized" societies in terms of a war
of classes between those who control production and those
who produce the goods or services in society. In the Marxist
view of capitalism, this is a conflict between capitalists
(bourgeois) and wage-workers (proletariat). For Marxists,
class antagonism is rooted in the situation that control over
social production necessarily entails control over the class
which produces goods -- in capitalism this is the exploitation
of workers by the bourgeoisie.
Concerning with the class identification in America,
Mayer (1991:165) defines Ascribed status versus Achieved
status that deal with the actual individual person's role in
class identification, and on whether or not one's social
standing is determined at birth or earned over a lifetime.
People who are born into families with wealth, for example,
are considered to have a socially ascribed status from birth.
In the U.S. specifically, race/ethnic differences and gender
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 101
can create basis for ascribed statuses. Achieved statuses are
acquired based on merit, skills, abilities, and actions.
Examples of achieved status include being a doctor or even
being a criminal—the status then determines a set of
behaviors and expectations for the individual
Through his work, Saroyan is eager to let us know that
social stratification and unfairness really happen in 1942’s
America but in his work the roles of Steve as a
representative of the lower social class is ambiguous. Firstly,
he is so brave and critical but in another moment, his
behavior is so disgusting. In his drama, Saroyan really wants
to satirize the attitude of the Americans (including the
American lovers) past and today who sometimes cannot
control their attitude.
Conclusion
Through the work of Saroyan’s “Coming through the
Rye” we can observe the social phenomena that happen in
American society around 1942 through historical
perspective. He makes our eyes wake up that social
stratification and unfairness really exists as he was totally
inspired by the social and political condition he experienced
when he wrote his work. So it is not excessive to claim that
some literary works are not only as entertainment but also as
social and historical documents where we can learn the
history and the development of one’s culture.
Saroyan really understands that life in America is so
wonderful, especially for those who want to seek freedom.
Therefore, he provokes everybody to come to America to be
‘born’ and experience a new life which is more promising
and fantastic where everybody can do what they want as a
form of democracy.
102
Butch, a boy of nine years old, actually is in confusion
of what is meant by “being born” as he is too young to
understand such philosophical ideas. He is really desperate
of his condition as an orphanage and does not care with
education even though his mother dreams that in the near
future he can go to school (to be an educated) “What the
heck’s an institution?”. Naturally, it is a great hope for most
every young American to move to cities to get a good job
and even to settle there. Here, Butch is a rural Texanian and
dreams to get a better education and life in New York but it
seems impossible to him as life is nonsense.
Carroll, an old wise man, tries hard to convince Butch
that life of “being born” is more wonderful that in the world.
Carroll says that everything is easy overthere and full of
comfort – full of happiness and Butch is of course can find
his real identity without any confusion.
For the poor to be alive or dead is similar. He thinks
that poverty is a matter of fate and to me this is absurd. Fate
can be changed through our hard work and keenness to
utilize opportunities and braveness to face hindrances.
Saroyan shows us the life of the minorities life, ArmenianAmericans, who sometimes are not ready to compete in the
hardness. Carroll as a wise man has really different views
about life. To Carroll life in the world and the hereafter
(being born) are mutually excellent since they are only
dedicated to human beings. On the contrary, Steve regards
the world as stinks because there are so many misdeeds and
unfairness. Butch in this case is still interfered by Steve’s
idea that his life time is only nine years and he can not do
anything good.
The absurdity is clearly seen in the play whereas
Carroll’s answers about life in ‘another world’ is very blur,
therefore; Butch keep wondering because he is never
satisfied. Nine years to Butch is so brief since he cannot
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 103
spend his years as a child to do enough good things. His
though is natural for it is in line with the discourse of a child
or teenagers. Perhaps, he also feels sinful during his life time
even though he is still nine years. He does not have enough
time to redeem his sin or misdoing so life in the world would
be worthy.
It is clear that Steve bravely satirizes the world’s
atmosphere by insisting the world is unholy and disgusting
and the people who inhabit it are dirty. Butch associates the
human beings as unclean terrible animals but Carroll
protested. He said that “those animals have created several
magnificent civilizations, and right now they are creating
another one.”
Saroyan presents Ralf Hastings as a “dirty” high class
society who frequently oppresses the poor. He seems so
stout. This can be seen when Steve plans to murder him but
when Steve meets Hastings, he does not have any bravery to
commit his plan. It means that the have or the reach is
stronger in every aspect. So, it is obvious that there are social
stratification and unfairness.
REFERENCES
Abrams, M. H. 1981. A Glossary of Literary Terms (4th Ed.).
Canada: Library of Congress cataloging in
Publication Data.
Classman, Ronal M.1991. Max Weber, the Modern World,
and Modern Sociology. Article in “the Renascence of
Sociological Theory,” edited by Henry Etzkowitz and
Ronald M. Glassman. Illinois: F.E. Peacock
Publishers.
104
Christie, Jane and Leonard Dinnersten. 1976. An
Introduction to Literature: Fiction, Drama, Poetry.
New York: Harper Collin College Publisher.
Eichar,
Douglas M. 1989. Occupation and Social
Consciousness in America. Greenwood: Greenwood
Press.
Fiedler, Eckhard, Reimer Jansen, and Mil Norman-Risch.
1990. America in Close Up. Essex: Longman Group
UK Limited.
Floan, H.R. 1966. William Saroyan. New York: McGrowHill, Inc.
Foster, E.H. 1991. William Saroyan: A Study in the Shorter
Fiction.
Gifford, Barry and Lee Lawrence. 1984.
Biography. Harper & Row, 1984.
Saroyan: A
Grace, William J. 1965. Response to Literature. New York:
McGrow-Hill, Inc.
Grusky, David B. 2001. Social Stratification: Class, Race,
and Gender in Sociological Perspective. New York:
McGrow-Hill, Inc.
Henretta, James A. et.al. 1993. America’s History, Volume 2
Since 1865. New York: Worth Publishers, Inc.
Pamungkas, Social Stratification and Unfairness 105
Hoeper, James H. Pickering and Jeffrey D., 1981. Concise
Comparison to Literature. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc.
Holman, C.Hugh. 1973. Encyclopedia Americana Volume
24. USA: Americana Corporation.
Kouymjian, Dickran. 2008. Who Reads Saroyan Today?
<http://www.saroyan.html>
Levin, Harry. 1973. Literature as an Istitution. In “Sociology
of Literature and Drama” edited by Elizabeth and
Tom Burns. Middlesex: Penguin Education.
Mayer, Tom. 1991. On Maxism. Article in “the Renascence
of Sociological Theory,” edited by Henry Etzkowitz
and Ronald M. Glassman. Illinois: F.E. Peacock
Publishers.
Pangestuti, Elmy. 2002. A Reflection of American Dreams
on Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. Unpublished
thesis: STIBA MALANG.
Savage, Mike. 2000. Class Analysis and Social
Transformation. London: Open University Press.
Soemanto, Bakdi. 2001. Jagat Teater. Yogyakarta: Media
Presindo.
Eagleto, Terry. 2002. Marxisme dan Kritik Sastra. Terj.
Manneke Budiman. Jakarta: Desantara.
106
Warner, W. Lloyed et al. 1949. Social Class in America: A
Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social
Status. Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Wilder, Robert P. Ludlum. 1983. This is America’s Story.
Boston: Harriett McCune Brown.
Wlkowitz, Daniel J. 1999. Working Class: Social Workers
and the Politics of Middle Class Indentity. North
Carolina: University of North Carolina
Wounter, Cas. 1995. “The Integration of Social Classes”.
Journal of Social History. Volume 29.
Tashjian, James H.(ed). 1983. My Name is Saroyan.New
York: Coward-McCann.
Turner, Jonathan H. 1982. The Structure of Sociological
Theory. Chicago: The Dorsey Press.
The Golden Age of Satire <http//:www. Encyclopedia.com>
4 October 2008.