Illegitimate Opportunity Structure: A Crime Against the Classes

Who would have thought that the social classes that people are in could determine the types of crime they commit? In discussing street crime and white-collar crime this past week, I discovered that social status can drive people toward different styles of crime. Poorer people are more likely to commit street crimes, like mugging or robbery, because of the messages that society deals them; while our materialistic society socializes the poor into wanting everything from iPods to Xboxes, their financial standing doesn't support them obtaining those things. Poor people may also turn to stealign thigns because they see no other way to provide for their families. A good education, the number one tool for success, is often unattainable for the lower class, giving them no opportunity to move forward. 

While we may label all muggers as immoral, they may see no other way to provide for their family. Have you ever considered the motives behind street crimes before?
On the other hand, members of the upper and middle classes sometimes abuse their knowledge by channeling it into white-collar crimes, in attempts to aggrandize their social standing. White-collar crimes include evading income tax, bribing public officials, and embezzling, crimes that all take a certain amount of intelligence to execute.

Illegitimate opportunity structure causes the criminals of each class to commit crimes that specifically pertain to their own situations. While members of poor communities may turn to drug dealing to make a quick profit, perhaps out of necessity, members of the middle and upper class may use corporate crime to gain more prominence than they previously had. Though it makes sense to categorize crimes by people's social classes, I'd never really thought that social classes could condition people into committing certain types of crimes. Do you believe that the social class a person belongs to determines what kind of crime they will commit? 

This issue is eerily reflected in the lyrics of "Ain't No Rest for the Wicked" by Cage the Elephant, which tells of a prostitute, a mugger, and a corrupt priest, all who justify their corrupt actions by saying their social status gives them no alternative choices. If you don't feel like watching the whole lyrics video below, the gist of the poor crowd's rationalization of their actions can be attained from the chorus:

There ain't no rest for the wicked /

Money don't grow on trees /

I got bills to pay /

I got mouths to feed /

Ain't nothing in this world for free /

No I can't slow down /

I can't hold back /

Though you know I Wish I could /

No there ain't no rest for the wicked /

Until we close our eyes for good.

D is for Deviance

In light of this week's focus on social deviance, I've been thinking of examples of deviance in regard to social classes. As humans, we tend to make assumptions about who people are, what they have, and how they should live based on the class they're in. For example, it's socially deviant for someone considered poor to drive a flashy convertible, while it's also socially deviant for someone considered rich to walk the streets in raggedy clothing. Shouldn't the poor person be driving a used car, if they can afford one at all? And shouldn't the rich person be strolling around in a designer suit or dress?

Is he pumping his fist in the air because of his hot ride or because he lives for social deviance?

Not necessarily. We tend to assimilate people into groups without knowing their full stories; maybe the poor man driving the shiny convertible borrowed the car from a friend, and maybe the rich man enjoys downplaying attention to his appearance by wearing low-key clothing. Still, we often take these judgments too far. If someone saw a poor man driving a Mercedes, they might jump to the immediate conclusion that the car is not his, or may even go so far as to assume that he stole it. We simply can't handle it when people mess with the status quo and deviate from the roles their class predetermines for them.

Can you think of any other ways people could deviate from social norms, in terms of social classes?

Are You Jamaican? Because Ja'maican Me Reconsider the Status of America's Social Classes

Though this may sound dumb, it's kind of weird to think that other countries have their own economic and social issues. It's not because we're so self-absorbed that we Americans think we're superior and don't bother educating ourselves on the functions of other countries (hollaback, in-group!), but the American economy is such a talked-about issue in modern America, we haven't quite had time to evaluate class structure in other countries with our full attention. That ends now: let us take a metaphorical plane ride to the island of Jamaica, a country that awards people from all classes equally on National Heroes Day. In this  letter to the editor of The Jamaica Observer, a Jamaican citizen proclaims that the working class of Jamaica should receive awards, along with members of the other social classes, for rendering "Herculean service in various communities." He also calls for special recognition to be awarded to "those who have climbed the ladder of success and have experienced upward mobility into the middle-class group."

I was interested to find that the idea of social mobility was described in terms so similar to how we view it in America; it makes me feel like we have more in common with other countries than I previously could have imagined. Also, I think it's nice that Jamaica uses one of their national holidays to praise people of all classes for their hard work.

Four for you Jamaica, you go Jamaica!

Can you think of any holidays or mediums that we use to reward members of the working class in America? What do you think of the similarities between Jamaican social classes and our own?

Redneckognizing Classes in America

You know her. You love her. Well... maybe you hate her. But if you do, you better start redneckognizing the beautimous creature that is Honey Boo Boo Child!

All hail the queen.

Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is the newest craze in reality television, edumacatin' the country and the world on redneck life in of the Thompson family. The show is centered around Alana (Honey Boo Boo), Mama (her mom, June), Sugar Bear (her dad, Mike), and her sisters Chickadee (Anna/the pregnantest), Pumpkin (Lauryn/the craziest), and Chubbs (Jessica/the favorite-est). Honey Boo Boo provides endless entertainment for all reality show lovers, Toddlers & Tiaras fans, and people who just like to see a family act shamelessly as themselves, regardless of how ridiculous people may perceive them to be.

Still, not everyone is feeling the love for Alana and her cahraaaayzee family. This article states that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is "an unintentional reality show documentary demonstrating what happens when the jobs go away, and there is little way to make an honest living... You see social dysfunction, teenage moms, semi-employed men who come and go... moms who actually think kiddy beauty pageants are their ticket out of poverty — if only their child can win the jackpot."

When viewing the Thompson family from a standpoint of cultural relativism, they may seem extremely taboo; after all, a life of washing one's hair in the kitchen sink, eating cheese balls for breakfast, and bobbing for pig's feet at the Redneck Games ins't one that the average American lives every day. But do we seriously view this family as a representation of the lower class, or do we simply watch looking to be entertained, not taking away anything besides joy at seeing Alana frolick around with her pet pig, Glitzy? 

Next time you indulge in the guilty pleasure of reality television, perhaps by watching Honey Boo Boo in action, keep in mind that what you're seeing could subconsciously be warping your views on social class.

They've Got 99 Problems but the Fad Ain't One

On the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, members of the 99% trekked out to the New York Stock Exchange to protest, only to be halted by police who were there waiting for them. It seems like the NYPD has learned from the past OWM, but have the protestors?

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is often criticized as being led by members who are more interested in making noise over the issues rather than finding solutions to them. They blame the wealthy "1%" of Americans for usurping power in the United States. One of the demonstrators defines the movement as a rebellion against American "corptocracy," referring to the unbalanced amount of control big businesses have in the United States. 

Demonstrations against a small, wealthy, industrial class have been prevalent in American society ever since the Populist movement of the Gilded Age. The OWS protesters are generally viewed in one of two ways: as brave souls who are willing to get arrested for standing up for their beliefs, or as deadbeat members of society who complain about being in the 99% of Americans yet do nothing to change their social status. Many of the protesters seem to have simply jumped on the Occupy bandwagon; when a demonstrator getting arrested was asked what he came to protest for, he said "freedom, the free-education movement... a lot of things." It seems as if the Occupy movement has become trendy for some, a modern movement that people can say they have participated in without actually knowing the movement's true purposes.

How many protesters do you think actually care about the state of the economy, let alone know what the occupy movement is about? Do you think the protesters are actually getting anything accomplished?

The Fur Coat Advantage

Besides hitting up Forever XXI and the Auntie Ann's pretzel sample lady every time I go to the Garden State Mall, I always end up going into Nordstroms. Not because I shop there (have we all seen those price tags?!), but because the mall entrance within it just happens to be the unspoken drop-off/pick-up spot of half the teenagers who go there. I remember going shopping with my friends during middle school, all of us savoring the "-teen" portion of our new-found ages, reveling in the coolness that only kids who could go to the mall by themselves could possibly achieve. While waiting for our rides to come, we would loiter in the shoe department, admiring pairs of shoes that we would never be able to afford, especially after spending what little money our moms gave us at Sarku Japan.

Oops.

One thing that stayed consistent throughout my Nordstroms loitering days was the snootiness of the employees. Granted, I was loitering, but their belittling treatment of me and my friends stuck with me and inspired this blog post (if you can't tell, I hold a grudge like it's nobody's business). Whenever a person goes into a more high-end store, like Nordstroms, Sephora, or Lord and Taylor, the employees give them an immediate once-over; if the shopper looks like he or she can afford the products being sold, they scurry over to assist, ask them about their day, and perhaps entertain the accordion of wallet-sized photos, fished out of a Louis Vuitton satchel, all to make a big sale. However, if someone wearing sweats and flip flops walked into an expensive store ready to purchase the shelves of all their merchandise, the employees wouldn't give the person two minutes of their time; an all-encompassing eye roll would probably be their only acknowledgement. My friend once told me that her mom went into Nordstroms and unwittingly tested that stereotype, and it held true; her sweatsuit-look classified her as an "unworthy shopper," but when she returned a week later in a full face of makeup and a minx coat, salespeople bombarded her like paparazzi. In today's society, all it takes is wearing some sweatpants into Coach to make the employees, and perhaps other shoppers, think you're poor.

Girl, you are not fooling anyone with those booties, sweatpants =  low class! DUH.

The reverse effect is also prominent: if you don't look the part to shop at certain stores, you might get a little too much attention from staff there, who'll go far enough to assume that you'll shoplift since your outfit is clearly the best indicator of your ability to afford their merchandise. Ageism and racism come into play here often; in a stuck-up employee's mind, how could a teenager ever afford a $200 wristlet when they're dressed... comfortably? Even worse, there are prejudiced employees that will take skin color into account for judging the likelihood of someone to shoplift. this brings to mind that episode of That's So Raven in which Raven goes undercover to expose Chelsea's boss of being racist. She instructs Chelsea to keep a special eye on undercover-Raven, simply because she's black and assumes that he-who's-really-a-she is more likely to shoplift than all the other customers in the store.

Bottom line, what you wear, what you look like, and who you are should have nothing to do with how employees judge you. It's ridiculous to think that you can't go shopping without getting undeserved attitude from stores that you're patronizing. Next time you go to the mall, walk through Nordstroms or Sephora in baggy sweatpants, and count the disdainful looks or (negative) extra attention you get. If you had a nickel for every judgment passed against you, you'd probably be rich enough to clean the shelves of those high-end stores off, but after being so judged, I doubt you'll want to.

The Middle Class: The Cream Filling of the Social Ladder

As the first of a series of hard-hitting questions I'll be asking readers in the future, I must ask you all: what would an Oreo be without its cream filling? While it gives the Oreo its sleek, symmetrical appearance,  the cream also provides a cushion between the two extreme wafers of crunchy, chocolate-y goodness, a stable middle-ground, if you will. No, I'm not just talking about Oreos because I'm craving a midnight snack, but because milk's favorite cookie serves as a wonderful analogy for the American middle class, the buffer group between the rich and the poor. 

Today's poor economy has caused the middle class to shrink, as if a giant tongue of unemployment has licked its way across the central rungs of the social ladder, a.k.a. our beloved cream filling (kind of a gross metaphor, but accurate!). In this article, Kenneth Repoza, a Forbes contributor, reports that a study that Pew Research conducted shows that a full 32% of Americans now report themselves as being members of the lower class, when only 25% reported themselves as such in 2008. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, American incomes are at a standstill, the job market is a disgrace, and the unemployment rate nearly makes history at 8.1%. The types of people who occupy these classes has changed, too; people under 30 make up the majority of the self-defined lower class group while the numbers of Hispanics and whites in the lower class grows. However, the unemployment rate of black Americans has stayed the same while those of the other races grew, placing a nearly equal percent of whites and blacks in the lower class. 

The four subsections of the middle class: the Top of the Class,  the Satisfied Middle, the Struggling Middle, and the Anxious Middle.

The concept of the middle class disappearing is interesting (and worrying) to me in itself; the fact that more and more people are slipping into the lower class is a legitimate manifestation of the dire state of our economy. However, Repoza's approach to this article is the thing about it that really struck me. He decides to attack the demographics behind each social group, making a point to single out white and black Americans. He says that "as a consequence, a virtually identical share of blacks (33 percent) and whites (31 percent) now say they are in the lower class," and he even titled the article "America's Middle Class Shrinks Further... Now, Blacks And Whites [Are] Equally Broke." He obviously thought that highlighting the social equality between black and white people would compel people to read the article, probably because they'd be surprised by that fact. I found it interesting that though the article was supposed to be about social classes and the dwindling middle class, but the author spun it in a way that compared the types of people who made up each class. Although the demographics of members of each social class should be put on record, using them as the basis for evaluating the social classes seems to be besides the point. Since the author used races of people to draw attention to the article, it's clear that people are more intrigued by seeing how their own race measures up to others than reading about the facts and figures of the economy.

*generic joke about how that is the way the cookie crumbles*