Jay MacLeod (2008) so brilliantly lands on this
conclusion more than 30 years ago in his epic ethnography "Ain't no makin' it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-
MacLeod offers a counter-narrative to the overly simplistic rationale of a "culture of poverty" by analyzing the underlying logic of the two groups of boys. From their perspective, it seems that there are only two options for the youth in this impoverished East Coast neighborhood: resist the achievement ideology put forth by the educational institution and fail quickly, or accept the achievement ideology and fail slowly.
For the Hallway Hangers, "the possibility of upward social mobility is not worth the price of obedience, conformity, and investment of substantial amounts of time, energy, and work in school" (MacLeod, p. 106). A loss of agency and self-esteem are at stake for these boys, as well. The Brothers, on the other hand, seem to have internalized their own oppression, what MacLeod calls "anticipatory socialization." Regardless, with one exception, at 20 years later neither the men who had "tried hard" nor the men who had "given up" had managed to escape their social class.
Simply put achievement ideology that says if you work hard, you will succeed. There are many stories of social mobility, but people generally achieve relatively modest gains or losses in the grand scheme of the whole social order. The true "rags to riches" story rarely happens. MacLeod's narrative contributes further to the idea that divisions between racial groups only serve to solidify the position of all the lower class at the bottom of the economic hierarchy.
MacLeod's
work does not downplay the devastating effects of poverty on families,
individuals and entire communities. If
anything, he gives a compelling and realistic picture of poverty. However, the
picture he paints is far from simplistic; the interaction between structures
and human agency is complex and profound.
Overall, he argues against the idea that young people in poverty fail to achieve because of their inherited "culture," and instead contends that the structures and ideology upholding a rigid class-system in this country are the very same forces that inhibit social mobility.
MacLeod offers a counter-narrative to the overly simplistic rationale of a "culture of poverty" by analyzing the underlying logic of the two groups of boys. From their perspective, it seems that there are only two options for the youth in this impoverished East Coast neighborhood: resist the achievement ideology put forth by the educational institution and fail quickly, or accept the achievement ideology and fail slowly.
For the Hallway Hangers, "the possibility of upward social mobility is not worth the price of obedience, conformity, and investment of substantial amounts of time, energy, and work in school" (MacLeod, p. 106). A loss of agency and self-esteem are at stake for these boys, as well. The Brothers, on the other hand, seem to have internalized their own oppression, what MacLeod calls "anticipatory socialization." Regardless, with one exception, at 20 years later neither the men who had "tried hard" nor the men who had "given up" had managed to escape their social class.
Simply put achievement ideology that says if you work hard, you will succeed. There are many stories of social mobility, but people generally achieve relatively modest gains or losses in the grand scheme of the whole social order. The true "rags to riches" story rarely happens. MacLeod's narrative contributes further to the idea that divisions between racial groups only serve to solidify the position of all the lower class at the bottom of the economic hierarchy.
Overall, he argues against the idea that young people in poverty fail to achieve because of their inherited "culture," and instead contends that the structures and ideology upholding a rigid class-system in this country are the very same forces that inhibit social mobility.
This work
also forces me to remember that social construction of "race" through
laws and institutions was always about the preservation of the upper
class. While "race" has become
the most salient aspect of our identity, class is surely only a few steps
behind. Regardless of a person's racial
identity, we are more or less bound to the class into which we were born,
although "race" certainly impacts the "more or less."
It
seems that the larger community of educators was not truly listening to the
theoretical framework and powerful stories put forth by MacLeod because we are still having conversations surrounding the "culture of poverty" and its
impact on educational achievement. The role
of the educational system should not be underestimated in how it promotes social reproduction by privileging one set of cultural values and
linguistic codes, while disadvantaging others.
"Whereas force and coercion often have ensured the cohesion of societies and the maintenance of oppressive relationships, ideology is more important in fulfilling this function in contemporary America" (MacLeod, 2009, p. 113).
So it seems there are layers upon layers that reify the hierarchy that keeps the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer.
"Whereas force and coercion often have ensured the cohesion of societies and the maintenance of oppressive relationships, ideology is more important in fulfilling this function in contemporary America" (MacLeod, 2009, p. 113).
So it seems there are layers upon layers that reify the hierarchy that keeps the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer.
References
MacLeod, J. (2008). Ain’t no
makin’ It: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood (3rd
ed.). Westview Press.
