“I am one of the most irresponsible beings that ever lived. Irresponsibility is part of my invisibility; any way you face it, it is a denial. But to whom can I be responsible, and why should I be, when you refuse to see me?”

- Ralph Ellison

History teachers have a tendency to ask students, “What event marked mankind’s transition into the Modern era?” While there are obviously countless possible answers, one image that jumps to mind is a beleaguered, post-plague Europe finally breaking free of feudalism. You would think the transition from such a rigid, disproportional class system to a free economy where working means earning, must have changed man’s view of the world. Yet did this social shift ever really occur? Are the groups we segment ourselves into already burnt into our collective subconscious? As the world’s capital-driven economy becomes more and more interconnected through globalization our focus as humans increasingly shifts toward the bottom line. All over the world, human rights are sacrificed daily to accommodate profit just as they have been for ages. My objective is to analyze the American lower, middle, and upper classes from an honest, sociological point of view to determine whether or not inequality is an inevitable part of our culture.

Being poor is often brushed off as simply having less than others but there are real life consequences to life under the poverty line that go far beyond mere discomfort. According to the sourcebook “Down to Earth Sociology,” researchers have determined that being part of the so-called “lower class” can mean a higher tendency for physical illness, marriages ending in divorce, children dropping out of school, and committing or being victimized by violent crime (Henslin: 376). These are the very serious symptoms of the social disease of poverty that some try to pass of as a necessary evil. After all, the unpleasant roles in a society must be filled and it requires people with a lower standard of living and a willingness to accept lower wages to fill them. Sociologist Hebert J. Gans referred to these occupations as “dirty work,” describing them as “physically dirty, or dangerous, temporary, dead-end and underpaid, undignified, and menial (Henslin: 377)…”

The “functionality,” or convenient nature of, having an over-worked, under-paid class to subsidize the cost of living for the classes above it naturally outweigh the disadvantages (At least for everyone except the poor). Even the United States government is bold enough to admit this truth at times. In some southern states, Gans reports, welfare benefits are temporarily suspended during summer months to assure a willing pool of workers to bring in the harvest at next-to-nothing wages (Henslin: 378). So it is plain to see we live in a culture effectively reliant on economically desperate people to make living cheaper and easier for those with a more secured social standing. In this way, the American system seems to be completely geared toward denying upward mobility for those who need it most. In short, the fulfillment of the “American Dream” costs the ruling class and is discouraged by all means. Yet blame for social injustice can not be focused on one nation in one hemisphere. If poverty is the antithesis to wealth here in the states it must be all over the world, throughout history.

The middle class is often titled the “working class” supposedly because the lower class cannot find work and the upper class doesn’t need it. It is within these vague terms that the largest social class in America, bloated and bland, is defined. Where as the lower class’s existence can be easily justified for taking up jobs no one else would ever want, the middle class is a much harder demographic to pin down. Within it lies that abundant brand of suburban social angst we like to romanticize endlessly in film and television. It seems because there is no clear-cut label for the millions of people in this tax bracket, teetering somewhere between the extremes of rich and poor, there lies a heightened desire to “make something of yourself (Henslin: 384).”

The common aspiration seems to be to ensure a positive social standing, preferably one that at least matches or improves on the economic standards set by your parents. Of course, it is important to make clear that this middle-class struggle for self-awareness is trivial in comparison to the lower class fight for food, shelter, and clothing. However, the social repercussions of this class-wide existential crisis-phenomenon are important. Often times these families hovering around the center of the socio-economic hierarchy enjoy the security of their neutral position so much that they in turn protect the status quo with near-religious devotion (Henslin: 386). This moderate push effectively goes on to slow change on a larger social scale, keeping the rich wealthy, the poor destitute, and the working class safely in the middle. Naturally, it is a completely logical inclination to have but when the system is thoroughly unjust protecting it makes you no more than an accomplice.

While socializing middle class children in order to teach them what it means to “be middle class” occurs, the American upper class goes even farther to indoctrinate generation after generation with a set of rigid social qualifications to be a member of the elite. At no other level of the social hierarchy is this sort of cohesion–woven within the walls of prep schools, country clubs, and boardrooms–such a valuable asset in maintaining (and excluding others from) wealth. While the stereotypical “rich” attributes of being a white, Anglo-Saxon protestant (or “W.A.S.P.,” colloquially) fade it seems the distinction between those with “old money” and the nouveaux riches endures (Henslin: 397). In a way, it seems where old class lines fall short sub-class lines are now be drawn. In a nation that holds such a large percentage of the world’s wealth in ratio to population, it is further disheartening to think how unjustly it is distributed even among its own citizens. One needs to look no further than the Social Registry, a publication started during the American “Gilded Age” of the late 19th century to establish who is “in” and who is “out,” to see that bank accounts are king to common morality in our nation (Henslin: 398). Today the most popular tenants of our culture are not heart-felt works of literature and art but rather pop music and tabloid media, both of which offer up wealth as the be-all and end-all objective of life.

In the end, no one can know for sure if fact follows fiction or vice versa. In discussing each of the three commonly-recognized social classes in America it is easy to wonder if each is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way: “The poor are poor because, after all, someone has to do the dirty work. The middle class are “middle class” because there will always be “average” people. The rich are rich because there must be a tangible end to human aspiration.” But in the end it is just as easy to ask, “Why?” Every social construct on earth is self-imposed by society and that is the really disheartening aspect of sociology. In a world full of chaos I think establishing a solid social hierarchy is a plausible way to make sense of the world but that does not make it right. Inequality is not an inevitable part of life as much as it is a side effect of our flawed human nature.