Social Stratification & Toxic Solidarity
Sociological Meanderings Towards Collective Well-Being
When we talk about social stratification, we are talking about how people are ranked in society, in addition to their access to social mobility. There are two types of systems — class and caste — and what we learned from Isabel Wilkerson is that we need to utilize our critical thinking skills to see how the United States is organized as both a class and a caste system. Capitalism, as a way to organize the economy, requires there to be both wealth and poverty, and there is a continuum of access to resources in between those two poles. Thus, there is movement in capitalism, but it is limited.
One of the main tenets of the “sociological imagination” (Mills) is that nothing is random: rather, all aspects of our society are organized and shaped by the history we’ve inherited and the accumulation of our daily actions. What does this mean in relation to social stratification? It means that who is wealthy and who is poor isn’t random, but requires social organization.
Per Wilkerson’s argument, racism in the United States — let’s name it what it is: white supremacy — functions as a caste system to effectively block the social mobility of most people of color. One way this has operated in the late 20th and into the 21st century is through mass incarceration. Michelle Alexander presents this argument in her book, The New Jim Crow, whereby the “war on drugs” and the ensuing increases in rates of incarceration have functioned to block access to resources (housing, food, employment, safety) to those with a felony charge. And despite the hegemonic belief that the law is “color-blind,” in actual practice, mass incarceration disproportionately impacts people of color (Alexander). So while it is true that there is some individual mobility that is possible (think Jay Z and Beyoncé), the pattern for the group is static.
And, remember how C. Wright Mills argues that history shapes biography (and vice versa)? It was in this context that I outlined how white supremacy shaped my personal biography: I illustrated how the G.I. Bill benefitted white GI’s like my grandfather, opening up access to education and housing, and thus wealth, to my family. At the same time, as a result of the racial caste system, Black GIs were not granted the same support. As historian Joseph Thompson wrote, “…while white veterans got into college with relative ease, Black service members faced limited options and outright denial in their pursuit for educational advancement. This resulted in uneven outcomes of the GI Bill’s impact.” Thus, white supremacy — the racial caste system — opens doors for social mobility amongst white people and closes doors for people of color.
Binary thinking (hegemony!) asks us to think that we have to argue one way or the other — that we either have a class system or a caste system. But, the sociological perspective encourages a more critical approach that encourages us to see the more complex both/and dynamics at play.
Herbert Gans also teaches us about how social stratification is organized through Capitalism in the United States. In particular, he argues that there is a reciprocal relationship between wealth and poverty. While we have explored Marx’s argument about the mutually dependent relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Gans takes this analysis further, to articulate some specific ways that poverty functions to the benefit of wealth production. One function of poverty, according to Gans, is scapegoating, where poor people become the targets of vitriol rather than the economic system itself. As Marx, Gans and Wilkerson have argued, poverty is a prerequisite for a capitalist economy, and yet, the hegemonic ideology encourages us to blame poor people for their circumstances. As sociologists, we call out these “single stories” (Adichie) and instead come to understand how social organization, in particular the way we’ve chosen to organize capitalism in the U.S., is the root cause of poverty. A concerning kind of “toxic individualism” (Edwards) emerges from this scapegoating: we engage in a dehumanizing practice that leads people to becoming willing to let some members of our collective society go uncared for. This weakens social solidarity and increases the likelihood for “dangerous dependencies” (Scott).
As I’ve argued each week, the goals of utilizing the sociological perspective are twofold:
- Coming to understand how and why or society is organized the way that it is.
- Thinking through how to (re)organize towards greater collective well being.
That means we have to do a deep learning dive into dynamics of social stratification — and racism — to understand our society better and to think towards the kinds of changes we’d like to explore. Stratification is a painful hindrance to both personal health and to collective well-being, so coming to understand inequality (as uncomfortable as that may be sometimes) allows us to reach towards better health, personally and collectively. You can’t change what you don’t fully understand. The sociological perspective is one tool to help us get there.
Isabel Wilkerson’s work in Caste highlights an uncomfortable truth about the United States: Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa developed their systems based on the policies and practices of white supremacy in the Jim Crow American South. That’s right: our racial caste system was a model for two of the most brutally notorious caste systems in history.
Alice Mogwe, who studied law in apartheid South Africa, talks about the Botho worldview that argues that “how I see myself in the world should form the basis of how I see others” (Mogwe). This kind of thinking is an antidote to the “toxic individualism” that emerges out of and justifies social stratification and racial caste systems. Ubuntu is another African philosophy that “underscores the importance of agreement or consensus, and gives priority to the well-being of the community as a whole.” And Emile Durkheim presented us with a similar argument: true solidarity comes from seeing ourselves in others, and in caring for others in the way we care for ourselves. We don’t endeavor to do this blindly (spiritual bypassing can perpetuate racism), but with an informed knowledge base regarding how social stratification and racial caste systems function, so as to construct an informed path towards repair.
As Gans argues, scapegoating people is not a solution to stratification, but rather, a way to perpetuate inequality. Seeking out reasons to justify someone’s poverty — ”but, they made bad choices!” — functions to weaken solidarity and dehumanizes people. All of us make mistakes, but stratification and the racial caste system (Wilkerson) shapes who is punished — and who isn’t — for those mistakes and with what consequences. Rather than continue down this dehumanizing path, the “sociological imagination” joins the chorus of Botho and Ubuntu philosophy in the hopes that we instead see everyone as worthy of protection and care.
Take good care of yourselves and each other,
Dr. Monica
