Well, sorry for the monotonous title. I want to write down everything that's bouncing inside my head before they all disappear.
Today we talked about Loewen, Zinn and social stratification. This is what I will be writing for my thesis report coming week.
Loewen, in Land of Opportunity, says that social class is a fundamental aspect of the society and the people in it. America is portrayed in the textbooks as a society with no class distinction, that everyone were middle class. But that was far from the truth. Their history textbooks say nothing about social stratification, making the students believe that there was equal opportunity and meritocracy holds true for all scenarios. To the average American, people deserve what they get and when they don't get what they want, they are not working hard enough.
I regret to say, that is hardly true. America, like any other capitalist country, has distinct social classes and the textbooks, by hiding the fact, make it harder for students to see the separation. He spoke of the American education system is ineffective and is indirectly causing the working class (or the middle class) to stay in a cycle, not wanting to break free or never able to. He hinted that it was difficult for the lower class people to even try to penetrate the barrier and that affluent Americans have what it takes to make more money.
This is because the lower class has way less opportunities compared to the higher class to be successful. The higher class starts off better, is more connected to successful people who have the resources to help them succeed. The lower class may start of with a poorer education, with less links or recognition from other people needed for success. Can you see the difference between an average high classman and an average low classman? In short, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the high school education system is doing nothing to stop this.
Zinn also talked about social stratification in his book, A People's History of America. Zinn told of corrupt politics help keep the situation as such. But why would a government for the people try to keep everyone within certain boundaries? The answer is simple. Those who dominate in the realm of politics are those of the higher echelons, and it is in their best interest to keep these people in their social classes as the system allows these upper classmen to benefit from it. And so we have philanthropists, funding educational institutes to produce 'professional' work force which "loyally act as buffers against trouble".
Here is my two cents on it. This is but a simple case of conditioning. America has most often been regarded as the land of the free. I mean, let's look at the facts, Americans get the right to free speech, demonstration, property, etc. How much better can it get?
From here on, consider a fictional society, which is the epitome of freedom. A society that enjoys even more freedom than America. Children, at one point of time, will have such a society in their naive and untainted mind. However, in the midst of a high degree of social freedom, there lies a way to use this title to gain benefits.
In many countries, there exist a governmental body that controls what is shown in the media and it may not publish certain materials as it sees fit and at its discretion. Now, let's assume such a body exists in a society that is the epitome of freedom. If such a body exists in a community that believes it has a lot of freedom and transparency, they people in it may be fooled into believing that they have been told everything.
In societies that cencorship and opacity is apparent, the people in it knows that they are being shielded from something. Some will even make the effort to find out what they are missing. In our imaginative community, these people will not even know that they are being manipulated using the media and by not knowing, how do they find out the truth and do something about it?
This is what is happening. Children believe that their community is transparent and freedom is at its peak. When this happens, it will be drilled into their heads that there is no social strata. When they see no social strata, they will not be able to apprehend the issue. Let's look at this from the 2 different social classes that are affected by the system;
1. The Working Poor and Impoverished - These students may know of the existing social strata when they are younger. When they are inquisitive. They ask, why do the rich people deserve more than us? Why are they better off? Is it because they work harder, are smarter? Over time, as they grow up and try to break free of poverty, they find it very difficult. They have less opportunities compared to the upper class, and they have more hurdles to face. The world seems to be against them and they will be pushed very close to their breaking point, if not over it. Generally, they will not break free and this coupled with the society's view that the poor are undeserving, eventually make them believe that they are not worthy. In short, conditioning.
2. The Middle Working Class - To these people, the social strata is less distinct. It's more of a blur thin line, which people tend to discard. As they go through school, the education system further enforces the fact that social strata does not exist, and they, being young and naive, believes that the society works on meritocracy. Being above the poverty line allows them to look at the society and say, 'Hey, I'm doing well. I've worked for it and I believe those bums deserve being poor because they slack off!' If the education system does not discuss about social stratification, most will never find out and will be less keen on giving opportunities on the lower class to break free. The system conditions them to, as Zinn put it, "act as buffer against trouble". So, you might counter argue that, 'Hey, they will learn that in college!'. But, wouldn't that be a bit too late?
The social structure and system put the students in invisible cages and lead them unknowingly into traps set to keep them where they should be.
You might counter argue of financial aid being provided. Scholarships, grants, etc, are offered to give hope and keep the belief of meritocracy running. What is 1% breaking free, compared to having more than 50% revolting? Then again, most of those who are able to break free are unable to pierce the barrier to reach the state of the upper classmen. They remain middle working class, maybe earning more than before, and a loyal defender of the system. Once again, they are conditioned.
Zinn said that, "Control in modern times require more than force, more than law. It requires that a population dangerously concentrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught all is right as it is." How do you do that? A simple one word answer - conditioning. In this fabricated society of ours, the middle class live their lives happily being part of the system, happily oppressed, ready to defend what they intend to break free of. Sounds very much like Matrix, no?
Now, stop considering the fictional society and look back at history. In 1960s-70s, unions were formed. Organized labor movements started fighting for their rights. Then in 1980s, the number of unions decreased. And today, the union activities have dwindled to an all time low for the past few decades.
So what happened in between?
Let me quote Zinn, "Perhaps it was the recognition that day-to-day combat was not enough, that fundamental change was needed...". For people to change, they must recognize the problem and notice that change is needed. In the fictional society we considered, there seemed, to the people, to be no recognition of the problem hence there will be no change needed. Perhaps, that is what happened to the decrement of unions. Philanthropists gave the people a means of trying to break free and by giving them hope, no need for change is seen.
Or perhaps it's just that the problem is solved and all is equal. I'll leave it to you.
Here is the shot. Look at Roy's markings.