The Self-Perpetuation of Social Inequality in America
The United States, as a capitalist nation, is naturally socially stratified. In societies where more is produced than is consumed, there naturally becomes an unequal distribution of goods and thus, money and power. With intensive agriculture and rapidly advancing technology, fewer people are needed to do manual labor. A smaller number of people are producers, while an increasing number are consumers. Life necessities, such as food and shelter, are taken for granted because they can be produced rapidly with ease. The surplus of goods begins to become unevenly distributed and soon, a stratification system develops. My argument is that this stratification system is preserved by those in positions of power and power is usually withheld from selected individuals on the basis of ascribed status.
Before I get too far into the argument, I will define what I mean by ascribed status. Ascribed status is that status an individual inherits at birth, and thus has no control over. Kerbo defines ascription as, “When class or strata placement is primarily hereditaryâÂ?¦that is, people are placed in positions in a stratification system because of qualities beyond their control” (p. 10). Since an individual has no control over their ascribed status, this is likely the reason it is so commonly used to manipulate power. For the groups that hold social power, the surest guarantee for maintaining that power and withholding it from selected groups is to discriminate on the basis of ascribed status. Ascribed status is not going to change. Say Group A just happens to hold the majority of the social power in a nation.
The best way for Group A to maintain its position of power is to restrict the distribution of power only to members inside the group. Now, they could choose to distribute power based on level of education. However, people can adjust their level of education within just a few years, which could mean new groups with members outside of Group A could come into power. They could choose to distribute power based on income level, but again, if too many people from outside groups get into higher paying jobs, they will gain social power. The surest way for Group A to continue its domination of social power and the present state of social inequality is to restrict access based on ascribed status. This is exactly what has happened over the course of history in the United States.
Now, I acknowledge that throughout U.S. history, depending on the era, different groups have been the ones to see the worst discrimination and to get “the short end of the stick” in terms of social inequality. By this, I mean that change does occur and social inequality takes different shapes over time. However, it persists in one form or another and certain groups end up at a far greater disadvantage than others. I still believe, however, that the prime basis for the setup of social stratification and the preservation of social inequality is ascribed status.
I begin my illustration by pointing to the case of blacks and Native Americans when the United States was established. “Because of their cultural-but especially their physical-distinctness from the European settlers, blacks and American Indians (as well as Mexicans in the Southwest) were, from the first, relegated to the bottom of the emerging ethnic hierarchy” (Marger, 135). The white European settlers brought with them to this land their advanced technologies and their methods of intensive agriculture. They knew how to produce more than they needed to consume and they came from a land of solidified social stratification. They had weapons superior to those of the Native Americans and were able to wield power that overcame the indigenous people. The whites took up a position of social power by establishing their culture’s economic, political, and social system. The way for the white Europeans to maintain power was to restrict access of immigrants and force new members of society to assimilate. Immigration was encouraged, but only by those with similar cultures and ethnic backgrounds. Anyone else was forced to the bottom of the social ladder.
African Americans were brought to the U.S. by way of slavery. Because of their physically distinctive difference to whites, they were assigned a low social status. This was an easy and guaranteed way to prevent them from advancing socially or obtaining any power. It was a self-sustaining social dilemma, because they couldn’t change the color of their skin. Born with a particular ascribed status, they were socially doomed from birth.
A less-enduring example of a group who was socially discriminated against on the basis of ascribed status is the early Irish immigrants to America in the 1830s-1850s. The Irish, largely because they were Catholic but also because of their peasant status upon immigration, were heavily discriminated against. “Wherever they settled, the Irish were disproportionately concentrated in the lowest-paid, least-skilled, and most dangerous and insecure jobs” (Marger, 142). This social inequality carried on for several decades until a newer group drew the attention of those in control and presented more of a perceived threat. That, or perhaps since the Irish had the same skin tone as other white Europeans, they began to blend with other cultures and the distinction became less clear. It is interesting in this example, though, how ascribed status is again what was chosen as the evaluating factor for where to place a group within the social stratification system. The signs on doors in that era read “No Irish Need Apply,” not “No Catholics Need Apply” or “No Peasants Need Apply.” Why? Because “Irish” was something those people couldn’t change about themselves. It was guaranteed from birth. And until the social powers-that-be said differently, that group of people was assigned an inescapable low social status.
Another example of people discriminated against on the basis of ascribed statues is Asian Americans. The initial Chinese immigration into the United States occurred during the mid-1800s. This group, like many others to follow the European immigrants, was confronted immediately with harsh discrimination. They were mostly low-income males looking for labor jobs. The image they were given was one of a labor threat to American workers. The government attempted to control the kind of jobs they could get and where they could live. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, which effectively ended Chinese immigration until 1943. The Japanese, when they came to America, encountered a similar situation during the early 1900s. We see the same pattern with this group upon initial entry to the country as we saw with other ethnic groups. But the Asian ethnic category seems to have been treated differently over the years than many of the other categories.
“The family income of Asian Americans far exceeds that of most other minority ethnic categories and, with the exception of the Southeast Asians, surpasses most Euro-American groups as well” (Marger, 354). So have Asian Americans defeated discrimination and risen above the white Euro-American population that holds most of the power? It’s doubtful. While Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans may be disproportionately represented in high-paying jobs, a large number of Vietnamese and Southeast Asians remain in low-paying jobs. While many more Asian Americans are in the corporate world than other ethnic minorities, “âÂ?¦at the very top of the corporate ladder, their numbers are as small as for African Americans and Hispanic Americans” (Marger, 356).
Why are Asian Americans making so much more money than other American ethnic minorities? It could be their level of education. “All Asian American groups are either close to or exceed the average level of schooling of the white population” (Marger, 357). Given this fact, we would expect to see Asian Americans taking over the lead roles in major corporations and becoming key political figures. This hasn’t happened because they are still being discriminated against based on their ascribed status. Many Asian immigrants come to this country as the early European settlers did-as professionals in skilled trades who make very good money. But still, those who are already in power ensure that their social advancement is limited.
Marger describes Hispanic Americans as the “in between” ethnic group in the United States, meaning they are given a status between European Americans and African Americans. This is generally due to the fact that they have a racial distinctness by the tones of their skin, but often depending on where they are from (Mexico or Puerto Rico) the United States hasn’t been sure as how to classify them (Mexicans have been classified as “white” while Puerto Ricans have been classified as “black.”).
Marger discusses the history of contact between European Americans and Mexicans: “As they have with blacks and American Indians, Anglos have come in conflict deeply and consistently with Mexicans throughout the history of the Southwest. Early in the contact between those groups, a pattern of Anglo domination and Mexican subordination emerged” (p. 306). Does this sound familiar? The most noted conflict began with the Mexican-American War over Texas in 1848. The United States ended up controlling what is now the entire western half of the country and the Mexicans residing their were granted rights as American citizens. This set the stage for a continued and persistent state of conflict between the Mexicans and the whites living in the Southwest. The Europeans took land from Mexican residents as they pleased and suppressed the minority into a labor force at the service of the whites. Mexicans who later voluntarily immigrated into the U.S. were used as cheap labor and were relegated to the bottom of society. The majority of Hispanic Americans continue to make well under what European white Americans make today in income. They continue to be discriminated against in the workplace and they have lower levels of education due to lack of access to higher education.
Similar to Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans have not been assigned as low a social position as blacks in the U.S. However, due to their physical appearance they have been given a distinct racial status as non-white and thus have suffered the same minority stigma as the other non-European immigrant groups. Just like the other groups, upon their initial entry to the U.S. citizenry, this ethnic minority was stereotyped and given a negative public image that doomed them to a limited level of socioeconomic achievement.
Among the ethnic minority groups I have discussed, there has been a common thread in the way they were received as immigrants to the United States. First we must agree, and I think we can quite easily, that since their arrival in the 1600s white Europeans have dominated the social power system in the United States. The actions they have taken to preserve their position at the top of the socioeconomic scale have shown slight variations, but there is a consistent pattern. When a new group has entered the picture, they have immediately been distinguished by ascribed characteristics, usually the most easily identifiable ones such as skin color, and have been deliberately assigned to the bottom of the social ladder. From this point, they have been allowed to make socioeconomic achievements only to a certain level, but no farther. This has been controlled by a system of government, laws, religion, and education that reflect and value only European standards. Minorities are forced to assimilate in order to succeed, but even then they can only succeed so far. Even those who are well educated and employed in high-income jobs cannot attain the perfect European standard, for they aren’t European themselves. Those in control ensure the American public is comfortable with certain, allowable changes, but nothing too drastic.
A considerable amount of Americans still would not be comfortable with a black President. Why? Because of all the negative images that are created and passed around still today about the African American ethnicity. African American students, though they may be achieving high academics are still discriminated against and the majority are prevented admission to Ivy League schools. White employers still give white applicants preference over black applicants, or any other non-white applicants for that matter. Sure, issues like this are addressed by the NAACP and the ACLU. Token government actions are taken, such as the establishment of Equal Opportunity Employment Laws. But that’s all these things are: token actions by the government. They pacify uprisings in the mainstream public just enough to keep things calm. They make a difference, sure. In studying the situation of all the different ethnic minorities he mentions, Marger tells us there is progress. More minorities are getting a higher education than twenty years ago. More minorities are seeing a raise in income. More minorities are given access to positions in the religious and political arenas. Again, though, this progress is carefully controlled. Minorities may see a raise in income, but they likely aren’t promoted to decision-making positions. And while they may be holding political offices, they likely are serving as mayors and local officials where political influence is limited.
While changes take place and some slight variations in social inequality occur, the overall system remains the same. The key for white European Americans to preserving their position of power now is different than it was fifty years ago. Public awareness of the state of inequality has increased and a much more calculated approach is required now. It is no longer acceptable to justify discrimination based on physical appearance or ill-founded stereotypes. A new social game of “more than meets the eye” is being played. Those in power give the impression that they are addressing social inequality and promoting public awareness of it. More than anything what is happening is an illusion. Yes, we are actively creating the illusion that things are getting better and will continue to do so when this is not the case. Certain issues are publicly called to the attention, for example, the issue of equal employment opportunities. Heavily publicized governmental programs are then launched, to include such things as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and employers jump on board, feeling good about themselves for “making a difference” by hiring a few minority members as token employees.
Examining the situation at this stage, we can see how a program like this reflects the self-perpetuating nature of social inequality. Over a brief period of time, a certain proportion of ethnic minority individuals are hired into jobs under the provisions of the new employment act. Generally, no more are hired than those that are required (as employers show preference whenever possible to the majority). Suddenly, minority groups realize this highly-touted government program isn’t a real solution. They again become disgruntled. Those in the white majority don’t understand the minority’s frustration. They thought they just made a positive change and helped better the situation. The majority now views the minority negatively, as thankless, unappreciative, and getting an inch then wanting a mile. Not only that, but majority members who were refused jobs in favor of minority members who were hired under the provisions of the employment act now have a very bad taste in their mouth. Meanwhile, the minority realizes their social position isn’t going to change, nor has their situation as a group improved. Both groups are driven against each other and the social stratification system is reinforced. Progress wasn’t actually made, but rather, those in power setup the situation to rebuild social tensions between the majority and the minority. This encourages majority members who wield social power to continue to ensure the minority stays in its place.
Granted, some members of ethnic minority groups will see real benefits out of the actions taken in programs like the one in the aforementioned example. But for those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and for ethnic minority groups as a whole, the current state of affairs dictates that nothing will change. While certain issues appear to be thoroughly addressed by such governmental programs, they are actually only cited, then passed to the side with a haphazard quick fix that ultimately compounds the problem. To further illustrate what I mean, I will cite some examples from Jonathan Kozol’s book, Amazing Grace.
From the beginning of his book, Kozol identifies what is still the most predominant factor in social inequality today by citing the South Bronx and surrounding area, his areas of study, as, “âÂ?¦one of the largest racially segregated concentrations of poor people in our nation” (1996, p. 3). Blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color are the vast majority in this area. Based on ascribed status, they have been secluded from the rest of New York City into this particular geographical area, which happens to contain a disproportionately large amount of condemned buildings, filthy streets, polluting factories, and waste disposal facilities. While the living conditions in this area are a widely known and acknowledged fact throughout New York City and they are sometimes even addressed in local papers, the City allows the situation to continue. Instead of restoring buildings, streets and neighborhoods, the City paints over the back sides of buildings along major streets to create the illusion of cleanliness to passersby.
In Kozol’s book, a 15 year old Bronx girl tells him how it feels to be a part of this racially segregated component of New York City: “It’s more like being ‘hidden.’ It’s as if you have been put in a garage where, if they don’t have room for something but aren’t sure if they should throw it out, they put it where they don’t need to think of it again” (Kozol, 39). A 16 year old girl says, “I think they look at us as obstacles to moving forwardâÂ?¦Sometimes it feels like we’ve been buried six feet under their perceptionsâÂ?¦it’s skin color and it’s being poor” (Kozol, 39-41). The observations of these individuals actually living in this area coupled with the demographic composition of their neighborhoods confirms a separation from the “better off” section of society based on ascribed status.
As I stated at the beginning of this paper, the situation I just described is addressed by the local and national media. Kozol mentions how the press recognizes shootings, strings of fires, the spread of HIV, racial segregation in schools, etc. Yet, Kozol cites examples of radio talk show hosts that speak derogatively of black people. When public assistance budgets are cut, the Mayor of New York and the city administration try to cast a positive light on things by saying they are saving taxpayers money. And when small efforts are made through fundraisers or special programs, these efforts are usually highly publicized by the papers as a significant rebuilding effort. Kozol refers to these news stories as, “âÂ?¦generally signaled by a standard set of headlines (‘FROM THE ASHES: A FLAME OF HOPE’) that seem to be recycled periodically, because I believe that they inflate exceptionality into a myth of progress that is not based in reality” (Kozol, 162). Of course, while the neighborhoods and public services in areas where blacks live are allowed to go to pot with small interspersing doses of private relief efforts, new multimillion dollar schools are constructed in white neighborhoods and the students are said to be “deserving,” as in the example Kozol mentions of Stuyvesant school.
One might think that media coverage of the previous examples would stimulate some form of revival effort. But instead of serving as a call to action, the headlines merely serve as a reminder of which areas to avoid and as a reinforcement of the social stigma attached to people of color as poor, lazy, dirty, and criminal. They preserve the system of social stratification that has been so firmly entrenched in our society on the same consistent basis: ascribed status.
America is aware of the problem in the South Bronx ghetto and many other poor areas across the nation. Yet, our reaction is one of inaction and ignorance. Kozol mentioned his conversation on the train with a woman who told him she didn’t know what happens past 96th St. (where the ghetto begins). She was satisfied for that section of the city to be forgotten. It wasn’t active discrimination on her part, but rather passive ignorance. Kozol cites this phenomenon as follows:
“Many of my white friends who live in New York CityâÂ?¦might say they have simply come to New York City, found a job, and found a home, and settled in to lead their lives within the city as it is. That is the great luxury of long-existing and accepted segregation in New York and almost every other major city of our nation nowadays. Nothing needs to be imposed on anyone. The evil is already set in stone. We just move in.”
-Page 164
Kozol’s book talks about neighborhoods where whites used to live and once blacks began moving in, the whites moved out. Whites left areas where the schools and other public facilities began to deteriorate. They simply followed the “good” areas of the city as their incomes and lifestyles allowed. The 96th St. dividing line, as mentioned in Kozol’s example with the woman is further illustrated later in the book when he mentions the close proximity of Carnegie Hill, one of New York’s most affluent neighborhoods, to Harlem, one of the city’s poorest areas. The division is so clear and distinct, yet nothing is done to fix the situation. Those in power have established the stratification and have successfully created stigmas that will sustain it. “So long as there are ghetto neighborhoods and ghetto hospitals and ghetto schools, I (Kozol) am convinced there will be ghetto desperation, ghetto violence, and ghetto fear because a ghetto is itself and evil and unnatural construction” (Kozol, 162). This system of ghettos has been created by those in power and originated on the basis of ascribed status. It changes form with time. Today, we no longer see the prevalence of slavery and other blatantly violent forms of racial discrimination. We see a changed form of discrimination, just as violent, but more subtle and smoothed over by political illusions. Awareness is heightened, but we see the same system exists with the same problems.
Bibliography
Kerbo, Harold R. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical, Comparative, and Global Perspective. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2005.
Kozol, Jonathan. Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. New York: HarperPerennial, 1996.
Marger, Martin H. Race & Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives. 7th ed. Michigan State University: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005.
