Rich kids have it better in life

This post was inspired by a comment made in TCS tonight, the title of this post was that comment.

So if we look at this idea, the notion that children brought up in a 'rich' environment tend to be more successful later on is an interesting one. Now if we are going to be pedantic, we can always argue that 'rich' doesn't necessarily refer to relative economic wellbeing, but for all intents and purposes (thank you Bagle), that was the intended definition and one which we will follow through with.

When it comes to the implementation of governmental economic reformist policies, there has been an emphasis on creating 'equality', and 'equal opportunity'. An example of this would be the public school system. What these fail to take into account is the place of inherited opportunity - to which the title of this post refers to. The idea that people born into economic comfort are given an irreversible 'head-start' so to speak. They have access to more. Simple.

But is it simply access to more economic capital that grants these 'rich kids' the ability to be more successful in life? I think to some extent, other factors rest on it. The idea of capital can be observed as multidimensional. While it does have a physical sense, such as money, resources, property, savings etc, there are also social and cultural dimensions that shape peoples abilities to move forward in their life.

Cultural capital refers to non-economic assets that can be used in the further production of other assets, such as education, books, and things like that. Obviously, these assets can help to ensure the maintenance of structural inequalities within a society.

Similarly, the notion of social capital refers to the idea of 'community connectedness' - or social networks/involvements. What having relationships does, is grant access to individuals and groups through durable networks, which acts as a catalyst for resource accumulation. Once again, this allows children born into such an environment to create stronger networks and hence have access to further resources. This can further be broken down into 'bonding' and 'bridging' capital, which refers respectively to the close and weak interpersonal ties we have which serve different purposes in and of themselves.

So we can see that it is not necessarily, or simply the fact that a kid is 'rich' that allows him/her to 'have it better in life', but there are several aspects (few of which I have even mentioned) of inherited advantage that allows one to progress with relative ease.

In finishing (I could go on all day), I would like to propose something further to which I encourage you to express thoughts in the comments. It is on the idea of 'habitus'. What this is, is a suggestion posed by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, referring to the way that individuals internalise their objective chances at success. That is, people actively want to be in their inherited position regardless of the supposed affluence that is attached to it - class consciousness does not necessarily lead to a desire of class mobility. For example, children who's father is a builder often wish to follow through with a similar career path, despite the potential ability to access more lucrative sections of the labour market.

Do you think this notion of habitus is likely to determine potential success, or is it simply an abstract concept that may or may not empirically challenge the inherited opportunity detailed above?

The Sociological Imagination

Recently it was presented to me a way of perceiving things that I had not previously thought of doing so. The idea of having a 'sociological imagination' as conceived by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills, is a fundamentally simple, yet largely unrecognised system of societal perception (outside of sociological circles obviously). It challenges us to 'dispel assumptions and visualise the operation of the social world more clearly'.

What this 'imagination' gives us, is an ability to perceive the connectivity between our own personal troubles, and the social structures that are anchored in modernity and the institutionally-based world in which we live. It is these societal structures (and authority/power structures) which make many (seemingly trivial, uninteresting) social processes take place, and often repeat themselves.

An example that was given was the simple act of going to the toilet. As we are today, going to the bathroom has become somewhat a ritual. Think about it. We are separated into male/female, we are then further divided into our own personal spaces, and we do our thing. It has reached the point where our natural bodily functions are now being socially managed and ordered to the extent where we can even observe the interpolation of gender divisions, which once simply did not exist.

Through this example we can see how this sociological imagination lets us see just how closely our everyday actions are being directed and ordered in a certain way, and how social events are closely associated with the development and dynamic nature of social relations and structures. You may know by now that society is heading in the direction of individualization. What you may not know however is that this isn't 'just happening'. The sociological imagination allows us to see that societal elites and authorities have an interest in cultivating citizens to think autobiographically and be absorbed by their own personal situations, for the obvious reasons as to prevent individuals from being able to pose a direct challenge to those in a position of power.

Perhaps the most interesting (if a little dim) demonstration of this is Emile Durkheim's 19th century sociological analysis of suicide. Durkheim analysed suicide and the association between the nature of suicide and social relations. By doing so he demonstrated that suicide rates (and many other social events) were strongly influenced by social forces. I strongly recommend looking at his typology of suicide if you get a chance.

I'll leave you with this quote:

"You have known for a long time that you live in a society. Yet until now you may not have fully appreciated that society also lives in you" (Furze et al., 2008: 6)

Any thoughts on the idea, leave a comment and let me know what you think. Feedback is always appreciated and I hope to see you soon.

Cheers,

Loads

Portrayal of teens in the media

You know the one. You see these kids on TV, engaging in a range of generally unacceptable acts of social rebellion and disobedience. Is this the truth? My question today, is how has the widely accepted portrayal of the teenage demographic in the media affected the commonly held view of us (I am a teenager, for those who are not aware)?

I have mentioned it in a previous post, and I think it is time to blow the dust off it and show it to you again. It is through the worst of something that we tend to judge things placed in a particular grouping. The example I used before, was the stigmatization of Islam, while the only real trouble comes from isolated strands of fundamentalist, extremist believers, we see Muslims as a whole, as the ones to blame for religious unrest.

In a similar fashion, (while not everyone believes this, and I am fully aware of that) society is often too quick to look at the young people, AS A WHOLE, rather than those isolated groups, (who only need a bit of support from those who are blaming them), as a scapegoat for many societal issues. The fact of the matter is it is simply not true.

As a teenager myself, I am with, and around people of this very age bracket most of the time, and I, as much as anyone, know that many of us, (the vast majority in fact), have an intelligent, mature engagement of society. It is all a matter or misinterpretation. My own perspective of the issue, however, is likely to have been affected by my contextual environment. I understand that possibly if my own upbringing was different, and I was not associated with the people I am, then naturally, the story may be very different.

My general theory is, that upon realizing that blaming minority ethnic or religious groups was unacceptable, the media then moved to shift their focus onto the next best thing – teenagers. While I believe this problem is currently looking to be dealt with, there is still a lot of work to be done.

If anyone feels naturally compelled to share their thoughts on the matter, please leave a comment. Thanks guys, and enjoy what remains of your day.