The working class is a term that has been used
frequently in the last year to help explain Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential victory
over Hillary Clinton. Political analyst and pollsters around the country have attributed
Trump’s victory to the voting behavior of the working class. The white segment
of this political group has been identified by many experts to have been instrumental
to Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. This political segment helped Donald Trump win crucial
swing states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by razor
thin margins.
However, the term working class has never been consistently
defined by pollsters, political analyst, or even sociologist. Furthermore, even
individuals who self-identify as part of this group have varying
definitions what it means to be a member of the working
class. Others avoid the term working class altogether and instead prefer to
self-identify as middle-class, although their income level and educational
background would lead most people to classify them as working
class.
According to a recent Bloomberg Businessweek survey
conducted at Mall of America,
Both an amusement park worker earning $22,000 a year
and a lawyer earning $200,000 a year considered themselves middle class. Although
the amusement parker falls within the bottom 30% of American households and the
lawyer fell in the top 6% of American households both defined themselves as
“middle class” Americans.
The question becomes why people of widely varying
income levels are self-identifying as middle class when they often do not meet the
traditionally
accepted definition of this social class. In the example provided by Bloomberg,
the amusement park worker likely falls under the definition of working class
and the lawyer likely falls under the definition of upper class, however both choose
to identify as middle-class.
One possibility for individuals of widely varying
income levels identifying as middle class is the class level of their families during
childhood. Although the amusement park worker and the lawyer have widely
different income levels today, they may have both grown up in families that
self-identified as middle class. Thus, these individuals now also identify as
members of the middle class out of respect for their parents and their
upbringing. This pattern of behavior can be related to political party
identification studies conducted between children and parents. Past studies
have found that a person’s political
party identification has a strong correlation with that of their parent’s,
thus it is logical for a person’s social class identification to also be
strongly influenced by that of their parents.
If a person grew up in the 1970s or 1980s there was a
good chance that they lived in a middle-class family. According to the Pew
Research Center nearly 60%
of American families made an annual income that was around the national
median during this period. This statistic can help explain why people of ages 35-50
(who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s) often self-identify as members of the
middle class despite their varying income levels.
However since the 1970s the number of middle class
families in the United States has steadily declined.
And by 2015, middle class Americans were no longer the majority of the
population, as the lower class and upper class had siphoned off a significant
portion of this population segment.
According to the Pew Research Center,
The share of American adults living in middle-income
households has fallen from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the
upper-income tier rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the
share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%.
Despite the fact that many members of the 1970s and
1980s middle class have joined other social classes today, their family loyalty
and upbringing cause them to self-identify with the middle class. The Bloomberg
survey conducted at the Mall of America can be better explained if we analyze
it under this theory.
Another potential reason individuals who qualify as “working
class” choose to identify themselves as “middle class” is pride. Most
individuals do not want to identify as “working class” as the term carries a
negative stigma within society. People associate the “working class” with ideas
such as: little or no college education, a low or negative net worth, an annual
income close to poverty levels, an inability to purchase a family home, and
jobs involving hard manual labor. Thus in order to protect their standing in
their social circles and among their family members, working class families will
choose to self-identify as middle class.
There are a variety of reasons people choose to
identify as middle class when they are part of the working class or the upper
class. On the surface it may seem like an insignificant detail as to who counts
as the middle class, but there are hidden dangers to an ever-expanding definition
of the middle class. As we saw in the 2016 election wide swaths of the white
working class felt left behind by the forces of globalization and the new international
economy. At the same time members of the upper class were praising the unprecedented
wealth creation of the international economy and passionately stating the
future was bright. Members of both these social classes often chose to identify
as middle class. Thus pollsters and political analyst were constantly giving a
mixed message to candidates and news outlets about what voters wanted. The confusion
surrounding the desires of the American people caused white working-class
voters in states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan to become
disenfranchised with the democratic party’s message and gravitate towards
Donald Trump.
So my question is, how will confusion
about who is part of the middle class affect future elections and policies within
the country?
I wonder why it is that we have such a hard time deviating from the class and political party identifications of our parents. I have an easier time understanding why if one moves down in social class they may still identify as the same class as their parents. But for many parents, isn't their hope that their children will rise to a better position than they were in themselves? It seems that if that is the case we would want to make our parents proud and accept our new class. Maybe it has something to do with wanting to still be able to relate to those we grew up with? Or not wanting to give off an air of superiority to our elders who we are meant to respect?
ReplyDeleteGreat post! It’s good to remind ourselves that “middle class” and “working class” are not mutually exclusive categories. It may be that someone who is “middle class” is also “working class,” and vice versa. Yet, individuals who straddle both categories may opt to identify as one and not the other based on the connotations associated with each term: “working class” invokes images of individuals toiling in a factory, farm, or mine, i.e., of individuals engaged in physical labor; in contrast, “middle class” invokes images of something other than physical labor—a government job or an office job.
ReplyDeleteAnd although individuals may identify as working class or middle class depending on how their parents identified, I think individuals also strategically identify as one or the other based on how they wish to perform class. Indeed, someone who works an office job may hesitate to identify as “working class” and may attempt to distance him/herself from that label precisely to buttress his/her performance of “middle class.” Recent law school graduates working public interest jobs come to mind: their jobs may pay $45,000 per year, arguably, allowing them to straddle both “working class” and “middle class.” Yet, they would probably hesitate to call themselves “working class” for various reasons, including their clients’ expectations of the economic class attorneys are supposed belong to.
But as this past election revealed, it is important that we openly discuss the groups of people “working class” and “middle class” refer to. In fact, if we are to build a politically active “working class” bloc of similarly economically situated individuals, we should demystify each label—“middle class” should not be more alluring “working class.” Otherwise, the failure of those who are “working class” to see and identify themselves as such, will continue to erode their political power to the benefit of those who euphemistically call themselves “middle class” because they “prefer not to think of themselves” as wealthy. (http://www.wealthmanagement.com/high-net-worth/why-rich-are-hiding)
The issue of identification with class is interesting to me. I’m not sure if it was the college I went to, the fraternity culture, or something else but identifying with the upper class was all anyone wanted to do. It was almost a competition of who could spend the most at the club on Thursday night or have the most elaborate rush event. The best fraternities were the richest ones. The same applied to the sororities. During rush we would even discuss the professions of the parents of potential pledges. Some went as far as google mapping the homes of pledges. I find the reluctance to identify as upper class fascinating because it so antithetical to my personal experience.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why at Penn the culture was so different? The Amy Wax article did not particularly surprise me. At Penn, and presumably other elite private universities, it is not only cool to be rich but also to be “woke.” While the stereotypical rich douchebags exist, they comprise a minority. What’s really cool is hanging out with all your white friends at the club on Thursday night, spending a couple grand, “partying” until six in the morning, then waking up and doing a Halloween event at your fraternity for West Philly elementary school students. The best part is that while you hand out candy to kids and discuss the ills of White privilege you are chatting up a couple of girls from a sorority that is co-hosting the event. Here is an example of a fraternity that loved to do charity. See http://www.thedp.com/article/2014/12/phi-delta-theta-holiday-photo-sparks-controversy.