Download Theories of Culture and Mobility

The Unbalanced Theoretical Toolkit: Problems and Partial Solutions to Studying Culture
and Reproduction but Not Culture and Mobility
Jessi Streib1
Many theories explain how culture is linked to class reproduction but few explain
how culture is linked to class mobility. This article argues that this theoretical
imbalance is problematic as it ignores key stratification processes. The article then
develops three concepts that link culture to downward mobility and three concepts
that link culture to upward mobility. These concepts offer initial steps toward
understanding how cultural differences between the classes are associated with
class mobility as well as class reproduction.
Keywords: Class, Culture, Mobility, Social Reproduction, Theory
After the 1960s culture of poverty debates, sociologists retreated from the study of culture and
inequality (Small et al, 2010). In recent years the study of culture and inequality has regained
legitimacy and is now a staple of stratification research (Charles, 2008; Lamont et al, 2014;
Massey, 2014; Small et al, 2010; Wilson, 2009). However, the recent take-off has been
decidedly unbalanced. In terms of social class, we have a robust study of culture and inequality,
but comparably little study of culture and equality. We have a robust study of culture and class
reproduction, but comparably little study of culture and class mobility.
This imbalance is reflected in cultural theories of social class inequality. Social scientists
have produced several influential theories of class and culture, including the culture of poverty,
cultural Marxism, Bourdieusian approaches, and cultural expectations states theory. Yet, each of
these theories does far more to explicate the connection between culture and class reproduction
than the connection between culture and class mobility. Only a small number of theories explain
how culture facilitates mobility (DiMaggio, 1982; Pattillo, 1999; Sewell et al, 1969), and these
theories are limited in scope. They explain how cultural similarities between the classes facilitate
upward mobility, but not how cultural differences between the classes do the same. They also
1
Jessi Streib is an Assistant Professor at Duke University. She can be reached at [email protected].
1
explain how culture facilitates upward mobility, but say much less about how culture facilitates
downward mobility.
Theory is used to select research questions and interpret findings. Given that theories
explain class reproduction far more often than they explain class mobility, it is unsurprising that
empirical research does the same. Maria Charles’ (2008) review of research on culture and
inequality features a section entitled “socioeconomic status and class reproduction.” There is no
equivalent section on “socioeconomic status and class mobility,” nor is there a study cited that
fits this description. William Julius Wilson’s (2009) review of culture and poverty research
discusses only studies that demonstrate how culture facilitates the poor’s class reproduction.
There is no mention of how culture facilitates the poor’s upward mobility or the middle-class’
downward mobility. Classic studies of culture and class, such as Kohn’s (1969) Class and
Conformity, Willis’ (1977) Learning to Labor, MacLeod’s [1995] (2008) Ain’t No Makin’ It,
Lamont’s (1992, 2000) Money Morals and Manners and The Dignity of Working Men, Bourgois’
(2003) In Search of Respect, and Lareau’s (2003) Unequal Childhoods show how culture
facilitates class reproduction. To the best of my knowledge, no classic study shows how culture
facilitates class mobility.
After further establishing the imbalance between cultural approaches to reproduction and
mobility, discussing the problems with this imbalance, and defining class and culture, this article
begins to balance the unbalanced toolkit. It does so by introducing three concepts that show how
cultural differences between the classes facilitate downward mobility and three concepts that
show how cultural differences between the classes facilitate upward mobility. These ideas
provide sensitizing concepts for qualitative researchers, generate hypotheses for quantitative
2
researchers, and offer the first steps toward building a study of culture and mobility that matches
the study of culture and class reproduction.
THE UNBALANCED THEORETICAL TOOLKIT
In her acclaimed Poverty Knowledge, Alice O’Connor reviewed the history of the study of
poverty. O’Connor (2001) traced what she saw as the most prominent scholarly approaches to
culture and class in American history. In each period she identified theories of how class
reproduction occurs through cultural mechanisms, but in no period did she identify a prominent
sociological theory of how mobility occurs through cultural means. Below I focus only on two
well-known theories of culture and class – the culture of poverty and its theoretical aftermath and
Bourdieu’s ideas of habitus and cultural capital. I do so to show that they are theories of
reproduction, not mobility. Yet, theories of culture and mobility do exist, even if they have not
received the same recognition as theories of culture and reproduction. I review them and
highlight their limitations. Doing so shows a double imbalance: just as theories of culture and
reproduction overshadow theories of culture and mobility, a particular type of theory of mobility
overshadows the rest. Theories of how culture facilitates mobility focus on the lower classes’
adoption of the culture of the classes above them; they rarely conceptualize mobility as resulting
from beneficial cultural practices of the poor and working-class or detrimental cultural practices
of the middle- and upper-classes.
The Culture of Poverty and Its Theoretical Aftermath
3
In the 1960s, Oscar Lewis’ (1959, 1966) theory of the culture of poverty constructed the link
between culture and class as one of reproduction. The theory suggests that a small segment of the
poor develop a set of approximately six dozen cultural adaptions to manage living in their class
conditions. These adaptions, such as a present-time orientation, helplessness, and hopelessness,
become internalized at a young age and passed down through the generations. According to the
culture of poverty thesis, these adaptions make it difficult for the poor to take advantage of new
opportunities that could change their economic situation, thereby trapping them in poverty. In
short, Lewis argued that the culture derived from living in poverty reproduces it.
The backlash against Lewis’ culture of poverty thesis was severe, and scholars retreated
from the study of culture and poverty to avoid being accused of victim blaming. Once
sociologists began to re-examine culture, they turned to social isolation theory. Social isolation
theory contends that due to high rates of joblessness and the out-migration of the middle-class
from inner-cities (Wilson, 1987, 1996) or hyper-segregation (Massey and Denton, 1993),
segments of the poor are spatially isolated from the middle-class. Spatial isolation eventually
leads to cultural isolation. The isolated poor develop values, norms, and behaviors that are useful
for navigating their neighborhoods but that are at odds with the norms and values of the middleclass. Aligned with the culture of poverty perspective, social isolation theory holds that the
poor’s cultural adaptations deter their mobility (Massey and Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1996;
Young, 1999).
Social isolation theory generated its own criticism, as sociologists argued that the poor
are not fully isolated from the middle-class. Rather, they share many middle-class values
(Duneier, 1992; Edin and Kefalas, 2005; Liebow, 1967; Newman, 1999). If anything, scholars
argue, the poor are too committed to mainstream American values – without many resources,
4
revering marriage makes it hard to find a suitable spouse just as revering fatherhood makes it
hard to take on a parenting role (Edin and Kefalas, 2005; Liebow, 1967). Other sociologists
claimed that if values between the poor and middle-class were the same, then the study of culture
and inequality should move away from the study of values and instead research aspects of
culture in which the poor and middle-class differed (Small et al, 2010). Most did not make a
point to say that shared values between the classes facilitate the poor’s mobility.
The move away from the study of values corresponded with a new conceptualization of
culture. Rather than being viewed as a cohesive set of values, norms, and behaviors, culture
became viewed as a fragmented collection of frames, scripts, strategies, and narratives that are
combined in multiple and contradictory ways (Small et al, 2010; Swidler, 1986). Cultural
heterogeneity theory (Harding, 2007, 2010) built on this understanding of culture by maintaining
that the poor are not completely isolated from middle-class culture but that their partial isolation
has consequences. Though the poor are exposed to middle-class culture, they are not immersed
in it. They then miss important cultural tools that would help their mobility. Furthermore, both
middle-class and alternative cultural models receive social support in poor communities, and
individuals vacillate between the two. These factors make it difficult for the poor to meet their
mobility-related goals, and culture instead facilitates their class reproduction. Thus, despite the
backlash against culture of poverty arguments, theories in its aftermath arrive at one similar
conclusion – that culture contributes to locking the poor in poverty rather than leaving it.
Bourdieusian Theories
5
Over a decade after the culture of poverty debate rippled through sociological circles, Bourdieu’s
opus introduced a different set of theoretical tools to understand the role of culture in class
reproduction. Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1984) posited that individuals internalize different
worldviews, perceptions, tastes, and practical strategies – a habitus – through repeated
experiences in their class conditions. The culture internalized by the dominant class is the
opposite of that of the dominated; for example, the former have a taste for items that distance
themselves from necessity while the latter have tastes that make a virtue of necessity. Bourdieu
maintained that the tastes, worldviews, and strategies internalized as part of the habitus are
transposable across social situations and somewhat durable even through social mobility.
Bourdieu believed that the internalized, transposable, and durable cultural differences between
the classes lead to class reproduction. Each class’s culture operates as “cultural capital” that is
exchangeable for economic and social capital. Institutions such as schools and workplaces favor
the cultural capital of the dominant classes, even while using supposedly neutral standards of
merit. The working-class senses that mobility-enhancing institutions will not reward them; some
opt out while others are pushed out. In addition, individuals, like institutions, use cultural
markers as a sorting mechanism. People prefer people who are culturally similar to themselves;
they also draw on cultural differences to create distinctions between themselves and people in
different social classes. The result is that marriage, friendship, and social networks are
segregated by class and the dominated classes are cut off from the dominant class’s resources. In
institutions and interpersonal relationships, culture facilitates class reproduction.
Bourdieu also considered culture’s connection to mobility, but here his focus was on the
changes in cultural capital and the habitus that accompanied or followed mobility rather than
preceded it. Referring to the habitus, Bourdieu (1990:116) wrote: “Habitus, as the product of
6
social conditionings, and thus of a history (unlike character), is endlessly transformed either in a
direction that reinforces it… or in a direction that transforms it.” In this formulation, new
experiences alter the habitus, rather than the habitus allowing for new mobility-enhancing
experiences. Bourdieu (1984:111) similarly described practical strategies as “the resultant of two
effects (which may either reinforce or offset each other): on the one hand, the inculcation effect
directly exerted by the family or the original conditions of existence; on the other hand, the
specific effect of social trajectory.” Individuals’ practical strategies are again conceptualized as
being altered by mobility, not as causing or explaining it.
Bourdieu has been widely criticized for under-theorizing how culture contributes to
mobility (Swartz, 1988). Despite this critique, Bourdieu’s critics revised the content of culture he
described rather than its inability to explain mobility. Omnivore theorists (Bryson, 1996;
Peterson and Kern, 1996) argued that middle-class institutions and individuals do not reward
high culture. Rather, people in higher classes are familiar with a wide breadth of cultural content
(they are cultural “omnivores”), whereas people in lower classes are familiar with a more limited
range of culture (they are cultural “univores”). The advantaged use their breadth, rather than only
their knowledge of high culture, to exclude the poor. Others argue that individuals do not only
use cultural criteria to draw boundaries between “people like us” and “people not like us” but
that they use moral and economic criteria as well (Lamont, 1992, 2000). Bourdieu’s critics then
expanded on how culture leads to class reproduction while not addressing how culture leads to
mobility.
Theories of Culture and Mobility
7
Theories of how culture facilitates mobility are less prominent than theories of culture and
reproduction but do exist. For example, cultural mobility theory (DiMaggio, 1982; Erickson,
1996) challenges Bourdieu’s assumption that the habitus is deeply internalized and resistant to
change. Instead, cultural mobility theory argues that new resources, networks, and experiences
lead poor individuals to adopt middle-class culture. Poor and working-class students also benefit
more from high cultural capital than the middle-class (DiMaggio, 1982). In this way, DiMaggio
(1982:190) argued: “Active participation in prestigious status cultures may be a practical and
useful strategy for low status students who aspire towards upward mobility.” Subsequent studies
have found at least partial support for the idea that the poor and working-class have some access
to high cultural capital (Chin and Phillips, 2004; Jack, 2016; Kisida et al, 2014) and that access
to high cultural capital is associated with the lower classes’ ability to get ahead (Aschaffenburg
and Maas, 1997; Jaeger, 2011; Morris, 2015). Accordingly, upward mobility is facilitated by the
poor and working-class mimicking the culture of those above them.
In another vein, code switching theories (Carter, 2003; Neckerman et al, 1999; Pattillo,
1999) suggest that segments of the poor alternate between using the culture of the poor and the
culture of the middle-class, and that they are able to match the culture they use to the institutional
setting. Doing so allows the poor to exhibit the culture that middle-class institutions reward,
thereby assisting their mobility efforts. In a different theoretical approach to culture and
mobility, the Wisconsin status attainment model foregrounds the association between adolescent
educational and occupational aspirations and adulthood class position (Sewell et al, 1969).
Aspects of status attainment research then seek to understand the extent to which classdisadvantaged students have aspirations and expectations that mirror their more advantaged
counterparts (for example, Bozick et al, 2010). While cultural mobility, code switching, and
8
status attainment theories are useful, they are also limited. Each relies on the idea that mobility is
a result of the poor adopting the culture of the middle-class. None of the theories explain how
cultural differences between the classes facilitate upward mobility, and none explain how culture
leads to downward mobility.
Ironically, ideas of how culture facilitates mobility also come from class reproduction
theories. For example, though much of Bourdieu’s work focused on reproduction, he also
identified ways that culture facilitates mobility. For instance, Bourdieu observed that cultural
capital varies in both volume and type. Upward mobility is likely when individuals increase the
volume of a form of capital they already possess, but not when mobility requires acquiring a new
type of cultural capital. In this way, a child of a teacher can more easily become a professor than
a business owner (Bourdieu 1984). In addition, Bourdieu (2000) argued that hysteresis – a
condition when the internalized dispositions of the habitus become out-of-synch with the
changing field – leads to less class reproduction as the dominant classes lose some of their
cultural advantage. However, Bourdieu (2000) believed that hysteresis occurs infrequently and
under unusual circumstances, whereas the processes by which culture leads to class reproduction
occur frequently and in ordinary times.
Bowles and Gintis (1976) also theorized the connection between culture and class
reproduction, but left some room for culture to also lead to mobility. They maintained that
schools teach students to become compliant subjects in a capitalist order. Schools teach skills
that are needed for workplaces to function: following rules, completing mundane tasks, focusing
on external rewards, and taking hierarchy for granted. Within this system, schools prepare
working-class students for working-class jobs by teaching them to follow rules; they prepare
middle-class students for middle-class jobs by teaching them dependability and the ability to
9
work without supervision; they prepare elites for capitalist jobs by encouraging them to
internalize norms aligned with organizations’ needs. Yet, Bowles and Gintis (1976:14) also
thought that schools create “misfits and rebels” as well as docile subjects; they teach elites how
to criticize capitalism as well as how to dominate those below them. A small minority of misfits,
rebels, and critics challenge capitalism, though most students do not. Bowles and Gintis’s theory
of change, like Bourdieu’s theory of hysteresis, maintained that class reproduction and the
perpetuation of unequal class systems occurs in ordinary times, whereas class mobility and
greater equality exist as possibilities that occur in extraordinary times. When Bourdieu does
theorize how mobility occurs in ordinary times, it is through the lower classes gaining the
amount of cultural capital that the higher classes already possess – not through cultural
differences between the classes advantaging the poor or penalizing the privileged.
A few approaches do seek to understand how mobility occurs in ordinary times and in
cases when the classes have cultural dissimilarities. One approach starts from the observation
that upward mobility is more difficult than class reproduction. As such, the upwardly mobile are
culturally distinct from class reproducers; the former are harder working, smarter, more
motivated, and particularly socially skilled, savvy, and disciplined (Mare, 1980). However, this
theory is rarely tested, typically relies on assumptions about unobserved factors, and recent
research finds evidence that is inconsistent with it (Streib, 2015b; Torche, 2011).2 Other
approaches to understanding how, in ordinary times, cultural differences between the classes
facilitate mobility come from empirical studies. Bettie (2002) found that working-class (but not
middle-class) girls motivate and guide themselves by using their delinquent brothers as examples
2
Another perspective maintains that mobility occurs due to random events, such as the age at which children
experience their parents’ divorce or as the outcome of meeting an unusual gatekeeper (Conley, 2005; Rivera, 2015).
This perspective, however, considers mobility as a fluke rather than as a systematic outcome of cultural patterns.
10
of what not to do. Owens (2015) found that, compared to middle-class homeowners, workingclass homeowners are more aware of foreclosure scams, more willing to reach out to friends
when facing mortgage trouble, and more able to construct realistic assessments of the chances of
getting their mortgages modified. These strategies help working-class residents avoid downward
mobility while their middle-class counterparts who use other strategies are more at risk. Yet,
while studies by Bettie (2002) and Owens (2015) point to how cultural differences between the
classes advantage the class-disadvantaged, they do not offer general concepts that show how
culture facilitates upward and downward mobility in ordinary times.
THE PROBLEM
Class stratification entails upward mobility, downward mobility, and class reproduction. Current
cultural theories, however, heavily focus on reproduction. Not only is this a problem because it
neglects two of the three processes by which stratification occurs, but also because it neglects
how culture works in a majority of Americans’ lives. Recent research shows that 57% of
Americans born into the lowest income quintile do not remain there as adults. In fact, 13% make
it to the top two quintiles. Of those born into the middle income quintile, 77% do not stay there
as adults; 33% move into the lowest or highest quintile. Of those born into the highest income
quintile, 60% fall; 18% fall to the bottom two quintiles (Urahn et al, 2012). At every starting
point more mobility than reproduction occurs. Even if one argues that income quintiles are a
poor way to measure class reproduction and mobility, they still indicate that many people
experience some change in their class position. If the study of class and culture is meant to fully
understand how inequality occurs then it must include a study of culture and mobility.
11
CONCEPTUALIZING CULTURE AND MOBILITY
Having established the imbalance between theories of culture and reproduction and theories of
culture and mobility, I now turn to partial solutions. Before identifying concepts that link culture
to mobility, I first review how I use the terms mobility and culture.
Conceptualizing Mobility
Sociologists do not agree on what constitutes a social class, how many classes there are, or where
the boundaries between the classes lay (Lareau and Conley, 2008). Therefore, there is not a
consensus on what constitutes upward or downward mobility. Mobility is conceptualized
differently depending on if class is considered to be categorical or gradational, if it is categorical
what demarcates the groups, if the comparison is to one’s parents or one’s own life history, and
if absolute or relative mobility is considered. To make matters more complicated, mobility can
be considered a process or a static outcome; it is often measured at one point in time though it
can change throughout the life course (Beller and Hout, 2006; Lareau and Conley, 2008).
In what follows, I conceptualize classes as broad groups of individuals with similar levels
of education and occupational authority and autonomy. This definition is similar to that used in
many studies of class reproduction (Calarco, 2014; Condron, 2009; Kohn, 1969; Lamont, 1992,
2000; Lareau, 2003). However, within each class, gradients exist. Gradients are marked by
earnings, debt, and wealth. In this way, an experienced teacher and a surgeon are in the same
class because they share advanced degrees and considerable occupational authority and
12
autonomy. They are in different gradients of that class because their earnings differ. Even within
an occupation, individuals are located at different gradients of the same class. An assistant
professor at a community college occupies a different gradient than an assistant professor at
Harvard, and both occupy a different gradient than a full professor at Harvard. Though these
gradients are often overlooked by categorical class scholars, they have large effects on
individuals’ life chances and well-being (Corak, 2013; Sacks et al, 2010).
Relative mobility – the focus of this article – occurs when individuals move away from
their current or their parents’ class or gradient position. In this way, mobility is both inter- and
intra-generational and occurs to different degrees. Most importantly, I consider mobility to be an
ongoing process. As a process, mobility is composed of a series of continual and incremental
steps that put an individual on an upward or downward trajectory. In this sense, an individual’s
class and gradient positions are often stable but never fixed; secondary to structural opportunities
and constraints, reproduction and mobility are products of engaging in and avoiding particular
actions. For example, a long-time teacher and member of the middle-class will be downwardly
mobile if she abuses children, is fired, and is never rehired in a job that offers autonomy and
authority. Avoiding engaging in these actions helps the teacher maintain her class position. The
process of reproduction and mobility are not only – or even mainly – influenced by interactional
phenomena but neither do interactional factors play a negligible role.
Thinking about mobility and reproduction as processes that occur to varying degrees also
invites thinking about mobility that could have occurred but did not. Often this way of thinking
is applied to the poor but not to the middle-class. In studies of the poor, scholars assume that the
poor’s frames, scripts, and strategies allow them to navigate their own class environment
effectively while simultaneously preventing their mobility (Bourgois, 2003; Young, 1999). In
13
studies of the middle-class, scholars focus on how frames, scripts, and strategies common to the
middle-class help them navigate their social environment while ignoring how these same
strategies prevent their upward mobility. I use the term “stalled mobility” to describe instances in
which individuals have access to further upward mobility but do not capitalize on it.
Conceptualizing Culture
Like social class and mobility, the meaning of culture is contested. I consider culture to be ways
of making sense of the social world. Following Swidler (1986) and Small, Harding, and Lamont
(2010), I think of culture as fragmented elements such as frames, scripts, strategies, narratives,
dispositions, styles, and identities that are repeatedly used and combined in various and
sometimes contradictory ways. I share Lamont, Beljean, and Clair’s (2014) propositions that
outcomes regarding inequality are often the by-product of individuals’ cultural practices rather
than the goal, result from the routine use of taken-for-granted frames and scripts, depend on both
subordinate and dominant actors, and occur within the constraints and opportunities provided by
institutions. I also share with Bourdieu (1984) and others (Bettie, 2003; Lareau, 2003; Skeggs,
1997) the view that while there is a great deal of overlap between the elements of culture
available to and used by members of each class, there are also patterned distinctions so that,
other things equal, individuals who share a class share more culture than individuals in different
social classes. In sum, studying culture and mobility does not require a reconceptualization of
culture. Instead, it requires a new analysis of its role.
CONCEPTS LINKING CULTURE TO MOBILITY
14
Below I propose cultural concepts that link culture to mobility. I begin by describing three types
of culture that facilitate downward mobility for the middle- and upper-classes: (1) frames that are
too distant from necessity, (2) undetailed scripts, and (3) contingent culture. I next describe three
types of culture that facilitate upward mobility for the poor and working-class: (1) cultural
complements, (2) person-institution matches, and (3) narratives of disadvantages-as-advantages.
In each case, my focus is on the role of culture in taken-for-granted, ordinary situations; in
interpersonal or person-institution interactions; and in situations when the classes possess
dissimilar frames, scripts, narratives, or identities.
I offer illustrations of each concept below. The examples come from the literature on
social class and culture. Many examples come from studies related to school, work, and family
as these are key institutions through which mobility occurs. The concepts have overlapping
features and can occur simultaneously. In all cases, the cultural concepts are unlikely to have
mechanical effects on mobility, but instead change the odds that mobility occurs. These concepts
are suggestive rather than conclusive; they offer starting points for considering how cultural
differences between the classes lead to mobility.
Culture as a Precursor to Downward Mobility and Stalled Upward Mobility
Even though those born into class advantage start their lives close to the finish line, they can still
lose the race. Some get distracted, others stall, and others do not realize that on their way from
one track to another the rules of the game changed. As the middle- and upper-classes have
resources that can compensate for their cultural missteps the following conditions must be met
15
for downward class mobility to occur: problematic frames, scripts, and strategies must be used
over a prolonged time period; the resulting problem must be unresolvable by repetition (e.g.,
once one graduates from high school with a particular GPA, one cannot repeat high school); and
economic and social resources must not be able to fully compensate for their cultural missteps.
For downward gradational mobility to occur, only some of these conditions need to be met.
Frames that are Too Distant from Necessity
A frame is a “lens through which we observe and interpret social life” (Small et al, 2010:14).
Because frames structure perception, they also make some actions more likely than others.
Certain actions are unthinkable, possible, or probable based on a given frame. The selection of
frames coheres by class so that there is more similarity in frames and their corresponding actions
within classes than across them (Bourdieu, 1980). Bourdieu observed that one set of transposable
frames are common among the dominant classes: distancing oneself from necessity. Like most
frames, Bourdieu believed these frames reflect individuals’ class position and reproduce it. I
argue, however, that some frames are too distant from necessity. Instead of reproducing one’s
class or gradational position, they raise the likelihood of undermining it. I suggest that frames
that are too distant from necessity meet each of the following criteria: (1) they under-emphasize
financial, institutional, and social constraints and over-emphasize status, identity, or fun, (2)
there is a mismatch in the amount of time they are applied and the individual’s financial
resources to support them.
Frames that are too distant from necessity are evident in regards to higher education.
Middle- and upper-class students commonly frame college as a place for self-discovery and fun;
16
working-class and poor college students tend to frame college as a route to obtain credentials or
as a place to learn (Grisby, 2009; Stuber, 2011). Framing college as primarily about selfdiscovery and socializing encourages actions such as partying, hanging out with friends, and
heavily investing in extra-curricular activities. Simultaneously, this frame is associated with deemphasizing actions such as maintaining a high GPA and thinking about the connection between
majors and careers (Armstrong and Hamilton, 2013; Mullen, 2010). Armstrong and Hamilton
(2013) found that middle- and upper-middle-class college students who framed college as
primarily about socializing and engaged in its associated actions tended to be un- and underemployed after graduating. These women emulated the strategies of women in the class above
them for whom a social orientation to college had few consequences; given their own resources
they focused too much on fun and status and too little on their own credentials and futures
(Armstrong and Hamilton, 2013). Their parents also encouraged them to make college the best
four years of their life, join sororities, and attend parties. Their parents did not realize that by
encouraging their daughters to focus on fun over academics and career they were setting them up
for un- and under-employment (Hamilton, 2016). In another study of higher education, Arum
and Roksa (2014) concluded that students whose behaviors are consistent with the self-discovery
and socialization frames are more often unemployed, paid little, and fired than students whose
behaviors were more consistent with the frame that college is for learning. These frames and
their associated behaviors have a long influence on class and gradational position, as future
occupational opportunities and earnings are dependent upon past ones (Kahn, 2010).
A similar frame that is more common to the middle-class than the working-class is the
idea that jobs are meant to reflect passions (Sharone, 2013; Streib, 2015b). This frame places
identity and self-fulfillment over financial necessity as it contends that “the decision of what job
17
to pursue should be based on one’s inner desires rather than external labor-market conditions”
(Sharone 2013:40). In a study of laid-off professionals seeking new work, Ofer Sharone (2013)
found that framing a job as an expression of a passion was associated with downplaying labor
market constraints, ignoring mismatches between needed credentials and occupational passions,
seeking a job in a new field, and turning down or not applying for jobs that were misaligned with
their passions (Sharone, 2013). Doing so slowed laid-off professionals’ re-entry into the labor
market as they sought jobs they were unlikely to receive and put off searching for jobs that they
were more likely to obtain. When they did find new jobs, they were typically ones associated
with gradational and class downward mobility (Sharone, 2013). Though structural factors also
cause downward mobility, the idea that workers should pursue a new job that matches their
passion rather than a similar job that pays their bills elongates the time they are unemployed and
exacerbates downward mobility.
Frames that are too distant from necessity are not only about work and education, but
occur in the family sphere as well. Ann Bell (2014) found that poor infertile women frame
infertility as out of their control. Middle-class infertile women, however, frame resolving
infertility as within their control. As such, some of Bell’s middle-class respondents not only
spent tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatment but simultaneously dropped out of the
labor force to engage in time-consuming fertility procedures. This frame and its related actions
emphasizes personal fulfillment over financial savings, a consistent work history, and career
advancement – all of which increase the odds of gradational and class downward mobility or
stalled upward mobility. Frames that are too distant from necessity are enabled by privilege but
also increase the odds of losing it.
18
Undetailed Scripts
Frames are a lens through which individuals interpret the world; scripts are “cultural templates
for the sequencing of behaviors or actions over time” (Harding, 2007:346).3 Scripts vary in their
level of detail. Detailed scripts offer specific step-by-step instructions about what actions to take
to meet a goal. They allow individuals to take actions confidently and automatically. Undetailed
scripts, by contrast, lay out a general sequence of behavior but skip key steps or lack specificity
about how to take each step. Undetailed scripts leave people feeling stuck and directionless as
individuals have trouble knowing what the next step is or how to enact it.
When undetailed scripts are attached to frames that distance individuals from necessity,
they facilitate downward mobility or stalled upward mobility. Again, take the frame that one
should find a job that matches one’s passions. If an individual does not have a passion, a
common script is that one should spend time alone – possibly by leaving or not entering the labor
force – and reflect on one’s interests, goals, and skills (Sharone, 2013; Varshavskaya, 2014).
This script does not specify how to go from rationally thinking about one’s inner traits to
developing an emotional passion; it is undetailed. The result is that individuals struggle to locate
their passion, and, since they are meant to find a job that matches their passion, delay entry into
the labor force (Sharone, 2013). This undetailed script also slows entry or re-entry into the labor
force for recent college graduates and stay-at-home parents. Without a detailed script, they feel
paralyzed and stay in place (Newman, 1988; Streib, 2015b).
In a different example, women now spend more time unmarried than the generation
before them and ideas about how women should spend their early adulthood are being reimagined (Bell, 2013). Leslie Bell (2013) conducted longitudinal interviews with unmarried
3
Scripts are similar to Swidler’s (2001) strategies of action.
19
college-educated women in their 20s. She found that although many of her respondents initially
wanted both career success and a committed romantic relationship, few had a detailed script of
how to combine both. Without a script, they became anxious. They resolved their anxiety by
focusing on only career or only relationships – strategies for which they had detailed scripts.
Some respondents de-emphasized career success in order to further pursue romantic
relationships; they did so by taking jobs associated with downward class and gradational
mobility. In addition, as men increasingly prefer wives whose earnings match their own (Buss et
al, 2001; Sweeney and Cancian, 2004), women who de-emphasize work are likely to marry men
who put them in a lower gradational position than had they pursued work and relationships more
equally.
Outside of work and family, undetailed scripts also inhibit upward mobility. Structural
changes have hurt the middle class. Middle-class jobs feel harder to find, college costs have
risen, student debt has grown, and health care crises threaten middle-class families’ stability
(Hacker, 2006; Sullivan et al, 2001). Scripts about how to counter these changes are un-detailed.
Middle-class activists tend to stress raising awareness by educating the public (Leondar-Wright,
2014; Valocchi, 2013). The “raise awareness” script is undetailed as it does not impart what
individuals should do with their new knowledge. Some activists then feel frustrated that change
does not occur and drop out of the movement; others avoid joining the movement because they
do not have a script about how to solve problems about which they are aware. Paralysis also
occurs as activists observe that efforts to educate without stipulating next steps are ineffective.
Undetailed scripts then stall structural upward mobility.
Contingent Culture
20
Contingent culture occurs as culture that is rewarded in one institution, time period, or life stage
is penalized in other institutions or at later points in time. Individuals who continue to apply
frames, scripts, strategies, and identities that were useful in old situations but penalized in new
ones will experience downward mobility or stalled upward mobility. In short, people need to
regularly update the culture they use to match their new social situation; those who do not will
fall behind.
One example of this relates to white middle-class femininity. This type of femininity is
associated with deference, the appearance of kindness, and cooperation (Brown, 2003). It is often
rewarded by educators and is linked to middle-class reproduction for women (Froyum, 2010;
Morris, 2005). However, while this performance of femininity helps class reproduction efforts
when women are in school, it hampers them in workplaces. Some within firm promotional tracks
include advancement to managerial positions – positions that are coded as masculine (Haveman
and Beresford, 2012). These positions are imagined to require someone who is authoritative,
competitive, assertive, and stands out from the group – traits that are the opposite of those
associated with white middle-class femininity. Middle-class women tend to opt out of
managerial positions and their superiors tend not to consider them (Haveman and Beresford,
2012). Working-class-origin women who enter these organizations have an advantage as they are
more likely to internalize a femininity style that is more assertive (Brown, 2003; Streib, 2015b).
In another example of contingent culture, middle-class parents tend to give their children
a great deal of advice and bend institutional rules to prevent their failure. These strategies help
children succeed in school, get into college, and succeed there (Armstrong and Hamilton, 2013;
Lareau, 2011). However, institutional logics change between high school and college and
21
between college and work. Middle-class parents who intervene on their child’s behalf are often
successful in high school settings (Lewis and Diamond, 2015). Yet, in colleges, federal law
prevents professors from talking with parents about their children’s grades; professors also
expect to interact with students rather than parents. Middle-class parents who do not adjust their
strategies to fit into the college setting are unlikely to be successful in advocating for their
children. Their children, waiting for their parents’ advocacy, also forgo other more effective
strategies. Students and parents who do not recognize that the logics of effective interventions
differ in high schools and colleges will lose their advantage.
Similarly, middle-class children are raised to talk to adults as equals, intervene in
institutions to improve their personal situation, and pursue their own self-growth projects
(Calarco, 2014; Kusserow, 2004; Lareau, 2003). These strategies are aligned with middle- and
upper-class schools’ missions and help middle- and upper-class children succeed in them
(Calarco, 2014; Kusserow, 2004; Lareau, 2003). However, these same strategies are less aligned
with the expectations of many for-profit workplaces. In workplaces as opposed to schools, ideas
of hierarchy dominate ideas of equality, the growth of the company is more valued than the
growth of the individual, and the individual goes from the target of an organization’s (school’s)
help to being meant to help the organization (workplace). Individuals who do not recognize the
shifting logics of schools versus workplaces will be penalized if they apply the strategies they
used in the former to the latter. Upon graduating from college, working-class-origin individuals
are better positioned to adapt to entry level positions than their middle-class-origin counterparts
as the former are more likely to treat workers above them as superiors rather than equals, follow
company policies rather than ask for special treatment, and be less oriented toward self-growth
22
(Kohn, 1969; Mullen, 2010; Stuber, 2011). The contingent nature of frames and strategies
propels class reproduction up to a point then stalls or reverses it later.
Culture as a Precursor to Upward Mobility
People can fall down the class ladder without the help of gatekeepers. Yet, to climb the class
ladder, individuals need to be certified or supported by gatekeepers. Sociologists tend to think
that poor and working-class individuals get by gatekeepers due to luck or a breakdown in normal
class reproduction processes. These positions are hard to reconcile with the numbers: that one
third of men who transitioned to adulthood during the take-off of income inequality were
upwardly mobile (Beller and Hout, 2006). Another explanation is far more likely: that poor and
working-class people possess special tickets that allow them past gatekeepers’ gates. The
following section introduces cultural tickets to upward mobility.
Cultural Complements
Gatekeepers select applicants who share their culture – their tastes, leisure activities,
experiences, self-presentation styles, and senses of self (Bourdieu, 1984; Koppman, 2015;
Rivera, 2012). Because people who share a class share a great deal of culture, gatekeepers tend
to reward individuals who share their social class (Koppman, 2015; Rivera 2011, 2012). In
professional settings, gatekeepers typically have middle- or upper-class origins and destinations
and use shared culture to reward individuals with the same class history (Kingston and Clawson,
1990; Koppman, 2015; Rivera, 2011, 2012).
23
Gatekeepers, however, do not solely prefer individuals who share their culture. At times,
gatekeepers prefer individuals with a “cultural complement” – the obverse of a disposition
disliked in oneself or one’s team (Streib, 2015a). Individuals raised in different class conditions
develop distinct and obverse dispositions; these dispositions are transposable across social
situations, time, and, to some extent, social mobility (Bourdieu, 1984; Streib, 2015a). When
advantaged individuals perceive one of their own dispositions as having a cost, they frame
individuals who have the obverse of their own disposition – someone from a disadvantaged
social class – as having a disposition that solves their problem. In this way, gatekeepers from
middle- and upper-class backgrounds appreciate and reward applicants from poor and workingclass backgrounds.4
Gatekeepers and the organizations they serve have problems that they perceive a cultural
complement remedies. In schools, gatekeepers are teachers who regularly observe students. In
workplaces, gatekeepers are hiring committees or individuals who make decisions about
promotions. In each case, for cultural complements to be rewarded they must be observable and
presented by a person whose credentials legitimate them. Below, I describe cultural complements
that are particularly likely to be rewarded by gatekeepers, allowing individuals from poor or
working-class backgrounds to experience gradational or class mobility.
Handling Setbacks. Individuals from different social classes tend to develop different ways of
dealing with setbacks. Working-class and poor parents often see setbacks as an unavoidable part
4
Individuals explain their attraction to their cross-class spouse by identifying cultural complements. Middle-classorigin spouses felt that they grew up with parents who were overly involved in paid work and who were
insufficiently emotionally expressive. Though they disliked these traits, they felt they internalized them. Middleclass-origin respondents remembered feeling drawn to working-class-origin spouses with the opposite traits – an
ability to disconnect from work and express their emotions. Though selecting a spouse is different than selecting an
employee or advocating for a student, the same principles apply.
24
of life and teach their children to persevere through them (Kusserow, 2004; Streib, 2013).
Middle-class parents, however, have greater resources. They use resources to prevent their
children’s failure and teach their children how to intervene in institutions to do the same
(Calarco, 2014; Kusserow, 2004; Lareau, 2003). Some tasks require failing many times before
succeeding and persevering through challenging times. Institutional gatekeepers who regard their
current occupants as giving up too easily prefer individuals who are used to persevering through
failure – people who grew up in poverty or the working-class.
Instability. Poor individuals tend to grow up in unpredictable environments in which changes
occur suddenly. They then develop emotional strategies to stay calm in the face of change and
crisis (Cooper, 2014; Kraus et al, 2012). They also become skilled in “shifting” – the process of
changing tasks efficiently (Chiraag et al, 2015). Middle-class individuals experience less
instability, define lesser changes as unstable, tend to be more shaken when instability hits, and
take longer to switch their focus to new tasks (Chiraag et al, 2015; Cooper, 2014; Newman,
1988). When organizations switch from a stable situation to one of constant change they seek
individuals who are adept at dealing with instability (Fertig, 2013; Right Management
Manpower Group, 2014). Organizations looking for this cultural complement are most likely to
find it in individuals who grew up in poverty.
Team Work. Class differences yield different dispositions regarding how to behave in groups.
Working-class and poor individuals typically have interdependent relationships with family
members and friends (Stephens et al, 2014). They also tend to grow up in smaller spaces with
less privacy and around more extended family (Kusserow, 2004). As a result, working-class
25
individuals are often generous with resources, get along well with others, and work toward group
cohesion rather than standing out (Piff et al, 2010; Snibbe and Markus, 2005). Middle-class
individuals tend to grow up with more independence from friends and family members, more
privacy, and a greater imperative to develop their individuality (Kusserow, 2004; Lareau, 2003;
Snibbe and Markus, 2005; Stephens et al, 2014). As a result, middle-class individuals focus more
on how they can stand out from a group rather than work within it (Snibbe and Markus, 2005).
Schools and workplaces that use team-based approaches view too much individuality as a
problem. Individuals who grew up in poverty or the working-class are more experienced with
teamwork and are well positioned to offer a cultural complement.
Awareness of Constraints. Poor and working-class individuals have few resources to circumvent
obstacles; they tend to be particularly aware of constraints (Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Kraus et
al, 2011; Kraus et al, 2012). Middle-class individuals have more resources and less need to be
aware of structural constraints (Kraus et al, 2012). They also have greater confidence in their
ability to overcome constraints (Kraus et al, 2012). To the extent that individuals who grew up
poor and working-class present themselves as skilled at understanding external landscapes,
organizations that feel they have been blindsided by obstacles and harmed by overconfidence
will reward them. In these cases, credentialed individuals who grew up in poverty and the
working-class will receive jobs more often than their counterparts who grew up in the middleclass.
In sum, poor and working-class individuals internalize and project a set of dispositions that are
distinct from those internalized and projected by the middle-class. When professional
26
gatekeepers observe credentialed individuals with current or former class disadvantages and
when gatekeepers experience problems that they wish to solve, they hire, promote, or offer
opportunities to individuals from poor and working-class backgrounds due to their cultural
complements. In these cases, culture facilitates upward class or gradational mobility; those born
poor and working-class possess tickets that gatekeepers use to usher them past the gates.
Person-Institution Matches
The idea of cultural complements suggests that in specific situations individuals from
disadvantaged classes are rewarded by middle-class gatekeepers as their mismatching culture
helps gatekeepers solve particular problems. The idea of person-institution matches, however,
suggests that some institutions routinely reward individuals who grew up in poverty or the
working-class due to a match between their cultural frames, strategies, and skills and an
organization’s needs. Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) argued the opposite; cultural mismatch
theory suggests that the poor and working-class lack the cultural traits that middle-class
institutions expect and reward. Yet, this is unlikely to be true in all organizations. As Stuber
(2005:139) explained: “The ‘class’ of a job does not necessarily determine the class culture
needed for that job.”
The skills acquired through a disadvantaged background or through upward mobility are
routinely rewarded in particular jobs. People born into poverty and the working-class will be
disproportionately rewarded when the experiences and skills they gain from growing up in
disadvantaged settings are not taught in the schools or settings predominately occupied by the
middle and upper classes. For instance, jobs such as social work, human resource management,
27
and sales involve interacting with people from a variety of social classes. Jobs such as doctors,
dentists, veterinarians, and IT professionals involve being skilled with one’s hands.5 Accountants
follow strict rules.6 Politicians, preachers, and trial lawyers express a wide range of emotions. 7
Each of these jobs demand what middle-class and elite schools do not teach but that poor,
working-class, and upwardly mobile people learn from experience: how to understand and
interact with people from a variety of social classes, use their hands, follow others’ rules without
question, and express a wide range of emotions. The minority of poor and working-class people
who gain the credentials needed to enter these professions are equipped to out-perform their
counterparts born into the middle-class. These examples also go beyond Bourdieu’s idea that
upward mobility occurs as individuals increase the volume of capital within the same field (i.e.
the children of teachers become professors). Rather, the poor and working-class develop
generalizable skills that are useful in occupations that both overlap with and differ from their
parents’ fields.
In addition, in the mid-skill labor market, hiring managers reward the cultural tastes
associated with individuals who grew up in the working-class. A four-city résumé audit study
found that for jobs that do not require customer service, men who signal working-class tastes
(participation in a country music club, bowling league, bluegrass festival, and enjoying
barbeque) are more likely to be hired than men who display upper-middle-class tastes
5
Consider two early career doctors. The first grew up in an upper-middle-class suburb, exceled in extra-curricular
activities such as theater, singing, and swimming, attended an elite college, and graduated with high grades from a
top-tier medical school. A second early career doctor grew up in the working-class, routinely helped his brother fix
cars, assisted his father with his work as an electrician, and developed a hobby of wood-carving while attending a
mid-ranked college and medical school. The first begins his job as a doctor with little experience with one of the key
skills doctors need: using their hands to gain knowledge and to solve problems. The second begins the same job with
deep experience using his hands. The second is likely to pick up hands-on information faster, become more skilled
at intricate procedures, and more accurately diagnose problems that involve feeling patients’ bodies.
6
Anyon (1981) finds that working-class schools teach students to follow rules without question while middle-class
and elite schools do not.
7
Walkerdine, Lucey, and Melody (2001) and Streib (2015b) found that people who grow up in the working-class
learn to express a wider array of emotions.
28
(participating in a classical music club, tennis league, jazz festival, and enjoying gourmet
cooking) (Thomas, unpublished manuscript). A survey experiment of a panel of 1,428 hiring
managers found that when applicants’ perceived demeanor is held constant, hiring managers
prefer applicants with working-class tastes (Thomas, unpublished manuscript). This occurs
because hiring managers associate working-class tastes with likeability and warmth whereas they
associate upper-middle-class tastes with interpersonal coldness (Thomas, unpublished
manuscript). The tastes and skills gained by growing up in disadvantage serve as tickets to
succeed in fields associated with advantage.
Narratives of Disadvantages-as-Advantages
Narratives are stories with characters as well as beginnings, middles, and ends (Somers and
Gibson, 1994). College admissions officers and employers ask candidates to tell narratives about
themselves in exchange for admission into their institution (Brown et al, 2004; Rivera, 2015).
Applicants from poor and working-class backgrounds can tell one type of story that applicants
from middle- and upper-class backgrounds cannot: stories of how their disadvantage offers them
unique advantages.
There are several types of disadvantage-as-advantage narratives. “Rags to riches”
narratives highlight hard work, determination, and virtue in traveling from the bottom of the
class ladder toward the top. Narratives about being a “working-class hero” – formerly being a
soldier, firefighter, police officer, or paramedic – highlight bravery, physical prowess, national
loyalty, generosity, and good will. Narratives of “lifting as I climb” and “giving back” highlight
both close relationships to people in poverty and a sincere desire to help others – traits useful in
29
jobs that involve working with the poor. Narratives of being “the son of a mill worker” intimate
an understanding of economic disadvantage and a desire to help others – a strategy that helps
politicians win jobs as elected officials (Carnes and Sadin, 2014). Answers to common interview
questions like: “Tell me about a time when you overcame a challenge,” “How do you deal with
pressure in a stressful situation?” and “What motivates you?” offer poor and working-class
individuals opportunities to tell narratives of successfully overcoming difficult barriers with
humor and grace. As one human resources executive from a disadvantaged class background put
it: “If you’ve survived poverty, a crazy father, and several muggings, you think, business
challenges? Really? Piece of cake. I’ve got this” (Hartley, 2015). Not all disadvantage-asadvantage narratives will be rewarded by institutional gatekeepers, but those that sanitize
hardships, minimize class-based resentment, and end on a positive note have a high exchange
rate (Rivera, 2015). These types of narratives resonate with widely held values and national
discourses about the American Dream. In doing so, they invoke a commitment upon the part of
gatekeepers to help others’ mobility efforts (Rivera, 2015).
DISCUSSION
The study of culture and inequality has regained a prominent position in stratification research.
However, in terms of social class, the comeback has been one-sided. Although mobility entails
upward mobility, downward mobility, and class reproduction, the current literature on class and
culture focuses only on the latter. To respond to this problem, the article introduced three cultural
concepts that increase the odds of upward mobility and three cultural concepts that increase the
odds of downward mobility. These concepts build on the work of scholars who framed culture as
30
fragmented, emphasized gatekeepers and institutions, and analyzed how culture matters in
schools, workplaces, and families. That examples of the concepts are found in existing studies
suggests that what is needed is not necessarily new studies, but new ways of analyzing them.
The most productive way to further develop the study of culture and mobility is to collect
longitudinal panel data that includes detailed information about the frames, scripts, narratives,
dispositions, identities, and cultural capital used across individuals’ life courses.8 Absent this
major data collection effort, qualitative researchers can re-examine their own ethnographic and
interview-based data for ways that culture is associated with mobility, conduct new studies on
the criteria gatekeepers use to admit some from disadvantaged roots and reject some from
advantaged roots, and use the cultural concepts identified above as sensitizing concepts in future
analyses. Quantitative researchers can use the identified concepts to generate hypotheses about
cultural explanations of mobility. They can examine the frequency in which such concepts are
used, identify which concepts have the largest effect on mobility, investigate what interaction
effects change the likelihood that the cultural concepts lead to mobility, and determine how
different operationalizations of class relate to the cultural concepts’ ability to explain mobility.
Both sets of researchers can also do more to analyze within-class variation in the use of cultural
concepts, identify the circumstances under which such concepts are relevant, and further
examine the ecological factors under which gatekeepers reward the culture associated with the
class disadvantaged. Moreover, while many scholars conclude that processes that are meant to
lead to mobility in fact lead to class reproduction (Armstrong and Hamilton, 2013; Bourgois,
2003; Kusserow, 2004; Streib, 2011; Young, 1999, 2004), scholars can also turn their attention
8
Lareau (2011) and MacLeod (2008) have followed their respondents for years. While these studies are exceptional,
what I have in mind is borrowing the research design used in the National Study of Youth and Religion and applying
it to the topic of culture and mobility. This means collecting detailed survey and interview data on culture and class
with a nationally representative panel.
31
to what factors that are meant to lead to reproduction actually lead to mobility and what factors
that are meant to lead to mobility indeed do so. Overall, what is needed is more attention to that
the systematic ways by which culture undermines the social reproduction of the advantaged and
facilitates the upward mobility of the disadvantaged. This article offers a call to build a study of
culture and mobility.
32
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Elizabeth Armstrong, Jane Rochmes, Duke
Sociology’s culture workshop, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jessi Streib is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Duke University. Her research uncovers
mechanisms and builds theories about how social class inequality is experienced, reproduced,
and alleviated. She is the author of The Power of the Past: Understanding Cross-Class
Marriages.
33
REFERENCES
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry 11(1):3-42.
Armstrong, E. and Hamilton, L. (2013). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains
Inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2014). Aspiring Adults Adrift: Tentative Transitions of College
Graduates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aschaffenburg, K. and Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics of social
reproduction. American Sociological Review 62:573–587.
Bell, A. (2014). Misconception: Social Class and Infertility in America. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Bell, L. (2013). Hard to Get: Twenty-Something Women and the Paradox of Sexual Freedom.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beller, E. and Hout, M. (2006). Intergenerational social mobility: The United States in
comparative perspective. The Future of Children 16(2):19-36.
Bettie, J. (2002). Exceptions to the rule: Upwardly mobile White and Mexican American high
school girls. Gender & Society 16(3):403-422.
Bettie, J. (2003). Women without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bodovski, K. and Farkas, G. (2008). ‘Concerted cultivation’ and unequal achievement in
elementary school. Social Science Research 37(3):903-919.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
34
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. New
York: Sage.
Bourgois, P. (2003). In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the
Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books.
Bozick, R., Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., Dauber, S., and Kerr, K. (2010). Framing the future:
Revisiting the place of educational expectations in status attainment. Social Forces
88(5):2027-2052.
Brown, L. (2003). Girlfighting: Betrayal and Rejection among Girls. New York: New York
University Press.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A., and Williams, S. (2004). The Mismanagement of Talent: Employability
and Jobs in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryson, B. (1996). ‘Anything but heavy metal’: Symbolic exclusion and musical dislike.
American Sociological Review 61(5):844-899.
Buss D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L. and Larsen, R. (2001). A half century of mate
preferences. Journal of Marriage and Family 63:491-503.
Calarco, J. (2014). Coached for the classroom: Parents cultural transmission and children’s
reproduction of educational inequalities. American Sociological Review 79(5):1015-1037.
35
Carnes, N. and Sadin, M. (2014). The ‘mill worker’s son heuristic: How voters perceive
politicians from working-class families – and how they really behave in office. The Journal
of Politics 77(1):285-298.
Carter, P. (2003). ‘Black’ cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for lowincome African American youth. Social Problems 50(1):136-155.
Charles, M. (2008). Culture and inequality: Identity, ideology, and difference in ‘postascriptive
society.’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619:41-58.
Cheadle, J. (2008). Educational investment, family context, and children’s math and reading
growth from kindergarten through third grade. Sociology of Education 81(1):1-31.
Cheadle, J. and Amato, P. (2011). A quantitative assessment of Lareau’s qualitative conclusions
about class, race, and parenting. Journal of Family Issues 32(5):679-706.
Chin, T. and Phillips, M. (2004). Social reproduction and child-rearing practices: Social class,
children’s agency, and the summer activity gap. Sociology of Education 77(3):185-210.
Chiraag, M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J., Sung, S., and Young, E. (2015). Cognitive
adaptations to stressful environments: When childhood adversity enhances adult executive
function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(4):604-621.
Condron, D. (2009). Social class, school and non-school environments, and black/white
inequalities in children’s learning. American Sociological Review 74:683-708.
Conley, D. (2005). The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Cooper, M. (2014). Cut Adrift: Families in Insecure Times. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
36
Corak, M. (2013). Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility.
IZA Discussion Paper, No. 7520.
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status-culture
participation on the grades of U.S. high-school students. American Sociological Review
47(2):189-201.
Dumais, S., Kessinger, R., and Ghosh, B. (2012). Concerted cultivation and teachers’ evaluation
of students: Exploring the intersection of race and parents’ educational attainment.
Sociological Perspectives 55(1):17-42.
Duneier, M. (1992). Slim’s Table. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Edin, K. and Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I Can Keep. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Erickson, B. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology 102(1):217–
251.
Fertig, A. (2013). “5 Employee Qualities on Every Employer’s Wish List.” US News & World
Report. September 10. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voicescareers/2013/09/10/5-employee-qualities-on-every-employers-wish-list
Froyum, C. (2010). The reproduction of inequalities through emotional capital: The case of
socializing low-income black girls. Qualitative Sociology 3(1):37-54.
Grisby, M. (2009). College Life Through the Eyes of Students. Albany: Suny Press.
Hacker, J. (2006). The Great Risk Shift. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hamilton, L. (2016). Parenting to a Degree: How Family Matters for College and Beyond.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harding, D. (2007). Cultural context, sexual behavior, and romantic relationships in
disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review 72(3):341-364.
37
Harding, D. (2010). Living the Drama: Community, Conflict, and Culture among Inner-City
Boys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hartley, R. (2015). Why the best hire might not have the perfect resume. Ted Talks
<https://www.ted.com/talks/regina_hartley_why_the_best_hire_might_not_have_the_perfect
_resume?language=en>
Haveman, H. and Beresford, L. (2012). If you’re so smart, why aren’t you the boss? Explaining
the persistent vertical gender gap in management. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 639(1):114-130.
Hout, M. and Beller, E. (2010). Intergenerational social mobility: The United States in
comparative perspective. The Future of Children 16(2):19-36.
Jack, A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement
at an elite university. Sociology of Education 89(1):1-19.
Jaeger, M. (2011). Does cultural capital really affect academic achievement? New evidence from
combined sibling and panel data. Sociology of Education 84(4):281-298.
Kahn, L. (2010). The long-term labor market consequences of graduating from college in a bad
economy. Labour Economics 17(2):303-316.
Kingston, P. and Clawson, J. (1990). Getting on the fast track: Recruitment at an elite business
school. In Kingston and Lewis (eds.), The High-Status Track: Studies of Elite Schools and
Stratification. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 231-254.
Kisida, B. Greene, J., and Bowen, D. (2014). Creating cultural consumers: The dynamics of
cultural capital acquisition. Sociology of Education 87(4):281-295.
Kluegel, J. and Smith, E. (1986). Beliefs about Inequality: Americans’ Views of What Is and
What Ought to Be. New York: A. de Gruyter.
38
Kohn, M. (1969). Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Koppman, S. (2015). Different like me: Why cultural omnivores get creative jobs. Administrative
Science Quarterly 61(2):291-331.
Kraus, M, Horberg, E.J., Goetz, J. and Keltner, D. (2011). Social class rank, threat vigilance, and
hostile reactivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(10):1376-1388.
Kraus, M., Piff, P., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. and Keltner, M. (2012). Social class,
solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological
Review 112(3):546-572.
Kusserow, A. (2004). American Individualisms: Child Rearing and Social Class. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American
Upper-Middle-Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, M. (2000). The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class,
and Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lamont, M., Beljean, S. and Claire, M. (2014). What is missing? Cultural processes and causal
pathways to inequality. Socio-Economic Review 12(3):573-608.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal Childhoods. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A. and Conley, D., eds. (2008). Social Class: How Does It Work? New York: Russell
Sage.
Leondar-Wright, B. (2014). Missing Class: How Seeing Class Cultures Can Strengthen Social
Movement Groups. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
39
Lewis, A. and Diamond, J. (2015). Despite the Best Intentions: How Racial Inequality Thrives in
Good Schools. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, O. (1959). Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty. New York:
Basic Books.
Lewis, O. (1966). La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty -- San Juan and
New York. New York: Vintage Books.
Liebow, E. [1967]( 2003). Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
MacLeod, J. (2008). Ain’t No Makin’ It. Boulder: Westview Press.
Mare, R. (1980). Social background and school continuation decisions. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 75:295-305.
Massey, D. and Denton, N. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the
American Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Massey, D. (2014). Filling the meso-level gap in stratification theory. Socio-Economic Review
12(3):610-614.
Morris, D. (2015). Actively closing the gap? Social class, organized activities, and academic
achievement in high school. Youth & Society 47(2):267-290.
Morris, E. (2005). ‘Tuck in that shirt!’ Race, class, gender, and discipline in an urban school.
Sociological Perspectives 48(1):25-48.
Mullen, A. (2010). Degrees of Inequality: Culture, Class, and Gender in American Higher
Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Neckerman, K., Carter, P., and Lee, J. (1999). Segmented assimilation and minority cultures of
mobility. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(6):945-965.
40
Newman, K. (1988). Falling from Grace: Downward Mobility in the Age of Affluence. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Newman, K. (1999). No Shame in My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City. New York:
Russell Sage.
O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in
Twentieth-Century U.S. History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Owens, L. (2015). Intrinsically advantageous? Reexamining the production of class advantage in
the case of home mortgage modification. Social Forces 93(3):1185-1209.
Pattillo, M. (1999). Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle Class.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peterson, R. and Kern, R. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American
Sociological Review 61(5):900-907.
Piff, P., Kraus, M., Côté, S., Cheng, B., and Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The
influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
99(5):771-784.
Right Management Manpower Group. (2014). “The Flux Report: Building a Resilient Workforce
in the Face of Flux.” http://www.rightmanagement.co.uk/wps/wcm/connect/350a18c6-6b19470d-adba-88c9e0394d0b/Right+Management+Flux+Report+Spread.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Rivera, L. (2011). Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational
credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 29(1):71-90.
Rivera, L. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms.
American Sociological Review 77(6):999-1022.
Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree: Elite Reproduction in Hiring. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41
Roksa, J. and Potter, D. (2011). Parenting and academic achievement: Intergenerational
transmission of educational advantage. Sociology of Education 84(4):299-321.
Sacks, D., Stevenson, B., and Wolfers, J. (2010). Subjective well-being, income, economic
development and growth. CESifo Working Paper: Fiscal Policy, Macroeconomics and
Growth, No. 3206.
Sewell W., Haller, A., and Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early occupational
process. American Sociological Review 34:83-92.
Sharone, O. (2013). Flawed System/Flawed Self: Job Searching and Unemployment Experiences.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Small, M., Harding, D., and Lamont, M. (2010). Reconsidering culture and poverty. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 629:6-27.
Somers, M. and Gibson, G. (1994). Reclaiming the epistemological ‘other’: Narrative, and the
social construction of identity. In C. Calhoun (ed.), Social Theory and the Politics of Identity.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 37-99.
Snibbe, A. and Markus, H. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Educational attainment,
agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88:703-720.
Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of Class & Gender: Becoming Respectable. London: Sage
Publications.
Stephens, N., Markus, H., and Phillips, L.T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three
gateway contexts shape selves and fuel identity. Annual Review of Psychology 65:611-634.
Stuber, J. (2005). Asset and liability? The importance of context in the occupational experiences
of upwardly mobile white adults. Sociological Forum 20(1):139-166.
42
Stuber, J. (2011). Inside the College Gates: How Class and Culture Matter in Higher Education.
New York: Lexington Books.
Sullivan, T, Warren, E., and Westbrook, J. (2001). The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in
Debt. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Swartz, D. (1998). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Sweeney, M. and Cancian, M. (2004). The changing importance of white women’s economic
prospects for assortative mating. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:1015-1028.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review
51(2):273-286.
Thomas, K. (unpublished manuscript). The hidden value of highbrow taste: How cultural signals
of class shape U.S. labor market outcomes. Presented at the 2016 American Sociological
Association conference.
Torche, F. (2011). Is a college degree still the great equalizer? Intergenerational mobility across
levels of schooling in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 117(3):763-807.
Urahn, S., Currier, E., Elliott, D., Wechsler, L., Wilson, D., and Colbert, D. (2012). Pursuing the
American dream: Economic mobility across the generations. Washington DC: Pew
Charitable Trusts.
Valocchi, S. (2013). Activism as a career, calling, and way of life. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography 42(2):169-200.
Varshavskaya, D. (2014). 4 practical ways to find your life’s passion and a career you love.
Forbes, July 2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2014/07/02/3-practical-waysto-find-your-lifes-passion-and-a-career-you-love/ Accessed December 22, 2014.
43
Walkerdine, V., Lucey, H., and Melody, J. (2001). Growing Up Girl: Psychosocial Explorations
of Gender and Class. New York: New York University Press.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labor: How Working-Class Kids Get Working-Class Jobs.
Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public
Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W.J. (1996). When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York:
Knopf.
Wilson, W.J. (2009). More Than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Young, A., Jr. (1999). The (non)accumulation of capital: Explicating the relationship of structure
and agency in the lives of poor black men. Sociological Theory 17(2):201-227.
Young, A., Jr. (2004). The Minds of Marginalized Black Men. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
44