2 Socioeconomic Inequality Created by Income and Racial Disparities and its Effect on Education
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 50 years, wealth has steadily increased in the United States, however this is not true for all Americans. Families classified in the 10th percentile, the bottom of wealth distribution, started with no possession of wealth to being $1000 in debt. Those of the middle class were able to more than double their wealth, and those in the 90th percentile were able to increase their wealth by fivefold. As we reach the very top of the social class and wealth distribution, we reach the 99th percentile also known as the top 1%. Over the past 50 years, the wealth of the top 1% of American society has increased by sevenfold (McKernan et al. 2017). Therefore, while it may seem that wealth in America is increasing, wealth inequality is simultaneously increasing as the gap between those at the bottom of wealth distribution and those toward the top of wealth distribution continues to widen.
What exactly is socioeconomic inequality? According to Dalton Conley, a Henry Putnam University Professor in Sociology at Princeton University, socioeconomic inequality is inequality created due to differences in income level, wealth level, occupational background, educational achievement and neighborhood impoverishment (BU Today 2020). Within the capitalist structure of the United States society emerges the three social classes that comprise our society today: the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class. According to a 2018 Pew Research Center Report using 2016 numbers, the lower class is classified as those making a median household income of $25,624, the middle class is classified as those making a median household income of $78,442, and the upper class is classified as those making a median household income of $187,872 (CNBC 2019). From an early age, Americans are taught that capitalism is beneficial for the people of America because it is believed that individuals from the bottom of society are able to work their way up to the upper class. A phrase commonly used is “rags to riches,” implying that one has the opportunity to start their life in poverty and work to the top of society. However, only 19% of Americans are living in what is to be considered the “upper class,” while 52% of Americans are to be considered middle-class and 29% are lower class (CNBC 2019). Therefore, there is a clear discrepancy between the American capitalist narrative in contrast to the numbers of those living in poverty. This discrepancy, in fact, is a result of capitalism in the United States, specifically within the American education system in both impoverished and affluent neighborhoods. Those living in low-income neighborhoods who attend high poverty schools lack the necessary resources to succeed, that are possessed by those living in affluent neighborhoods who attend low-poverty schools. Thus, in America, one’s wealth and income level greatly affect the outcome of one’s quality of life in a society that is heavily reliant on academic merit, as academic merit equates to greater opportunity to move up in American social rank.
In American society, it is nearly impossible to land a decently paying job without at least a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, one must attend and graduate from a 4 year university, minimum, to find themselves financially successful. Those that do attain this feat are generally those who have grown up in affluent neighborhoods with better-than-average public schools or private schools that have the necessary resources for one to succeed in today’s academic world; these include laptops, sufficient libraries with enough textbooks, school supplies, and iPads if needed. Unfortunately, many of America’s public schools are unable to provide their students with these necessities, especially in California, ranking as one of the top 10 lowest in state student expenditure (Nichols 2018).
Due to the socioeconomic situation of the students in low-income neighborhoods, which also happen to be primarily minority, these students are unable to spend thousands of dollars for the academic necessities required for the same success compared to those in affluent neighborhoods. For example, in California, those living in Rolling Hills Estates have a median household income of $145,628, while those living in South Park have a median income of $29,826 (Syed 2018). Although schools in affluent neighborhoods could also possibly lack the amount of resources provided by the school, affluent families have the financial ability to purchase these necessities, placing their children on the path to American capitalistic success. In Rolling Hills Estates (median income $145,628), a large portion of funding for students comes from parental donations. In addition, schools in affluent neighborhoods hold many fundraisers in which parents of the community are financially capable of donating hundreds of dollars to the school so that the school does not lack such necessities (Syed 2018). This is widely different from schools in low-income neighborhoods in which parents are just barely getting by, living paycheck to paycheck, trying their hardest to put food on the table for their kids. In South Park (median income $29,826), school administrators find it much more difficult to raise money for students locally, resulting in a lack of funding for laptops, specialized lab equipment, books, and transportation for school-sponsored trips (Syed 2018). Ultimately, fundraising in low-income neighborhoods by the local families to make up for the lack of money spent on students by the state is incredibly difficult and nearly nonexistent due to the fact that these families have no money to donate. As a result of the lack of resources in low-income neighborhoods, low-income students mainly of color become a marginalized group in the realm of academia and are not given an equal playing field to succeed. Attending college becomes much more difficult, therefore, financial success and moving up in American social class also becomes a goal further and further away from reaching as the vast majority of those born into poverty find themselves in the same social class through adulthood and throughout the rest of their lives.
This paper analyzes income and racial inequality in America and its effect on education, with a focus in California. Using multiple founders of sociology, I argue that the socioeconomic and racial inequality of today’s society are a result of capitalism. I argue that the socioeconomic inequality created by income and racial inequality ultimately hinders educational opportunities for low-income minorities. As a result, low-income minorities have a lesser chance of acquiring cultural capital, social capital, and thus economic capital. Using the contributions of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, I break down and explain the origin of capitalism and why socioeconomic inequality is a byproduct of capitalism. The findings of W.E.B. Du Bois as well as Max Weber are used in this paper to understand the racial inequality faced by African Americans, and the disadvantages placed upon African Americans by whites in American society. Analyzing the different forms of capital, Pierre Bourdieu’s theories on cultural, social, and economic capital are used in this paper in order to understand the advantages of the affluent and the disadvantages of the poor. Ultimately, Bourdieu’s theories on the different forms of capital demonstrate a direct correlation to the capitalist society we live in, as the acquisition, or lack thereof, of capital perpetuates socioeconomic inequality.
CAPITALISM AND INEQUALITY
Origin of Capitalism and the Division of Classes
According to Marx and Engels (1848), “The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie” (Marx and Engels 1848: 15). The 16th century began to pick up speed rapidly as America began to colonize. Domestic trade as well as foreign trade in markets such as the East-Indian and Chinese market “gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry,” giving a new impulse to society as the value in commodities shot up. This new impulse in society would ultimately crush the feudal system and give rise to the bourgeois class (Marx and Engels 1848). While the rise of the bourgeoisie eliminated feudalism, a new economic system emerged: capitalism. Capitalism is a system focused on the private ownership of the means of production (land, factories, and machines) in which private owners earn profit through production (Columbia University). These private owners are the bourgeoisie. However, due to the private ownership of large companies and factories, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels identify one of their biggest issues established by capitalism: the exploitation of the proletariat. Because the proletariat do not have the means to sustain themselves, capitalism ultimately allows the bourgeois class to exploit the proletariat by hiring the proletariat as factory workers, paying them the minimum earnings to survive in exchange for their labor. This factory labor leads to the mass production of commodities that are sold at a market price much higher than the wages in which capitalists pay their workers. Capitalists, therefore, extract surplus from the worker, allowing the capitalist bourgeois class the ability to maintain and increase their wealth at the expense of the proletariat. Consequently, those that do work are not rewarded fairly for their labor, thus creating class struggle (Marx and Engels 1848).
In addition to the exploitation of the proletariat, Marx and Engels identify many other issues with capitalism. Marx and Engels believe that those who have wealth and economic power in society also have political power and control over the rest of society such as legal systems, mass media, and education. As a result, the bourgeoisie use their control of social institutions to gain ideological dominance, and are able to control the narrative of society (Marx and Engels 1848). In the modern day capitalist society of America, the ideology that anyone can succeed from the bottom of American society is taught to us as young children, however this is completely false, and yet we look down upon those who are unable to make it to the top. Another effect of ideological dominance is known as false consciousness; the proletariat are tricked into thinking that their working and living conditions are normal when in fact these conditions are poor. As a result, the false consciousness created by the bourgeoisie enables the bourgeoisie to continue the exploitation of their proletariat workers (Marx and Engels 1848).
As capitalism constantly evolves, the bourgeoisie must also evolve in order to persist in their domination over the proletariat. The bourgeoisie cannot survive unless the instruments of production are constantly revolutionizing, therefore the relation with the proletariat, and ultimately the relations of society (Marx and Engels 1848). In explaining the constant drive for economic supremacy by the bourgeoisie, Marx and Engels state:
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country” (Marx and Engels 1848: 16).
Due to the drive for economic supremacy, Marx and Engels indicate that the bourgeoisie exploit not only the domestic market, but the world market. Hence, the proletariat are being exploited by bourgeoisie throughout the world. However, Marx and Engels (1848) believe that there is an upside to the evolution of capitalism. In their view, as the bourgeoisie becomes stronger due to the growth and the evolution of capitalism, the proletariat also becomes stronger and more unified as a group. Marx and Engels explain that although capitalism has now evolved and grown, there are a greater number of proletariat but also concentrated in greater masses, thus a newfound strength is born within the proletariat. As a result, improved means of communication and contact with one another within the workplace have now emerged, with the ability to create worker unions, ultimately strengthening the proletariat (Marx and Engels 1848).
Racial Inequality
While Marx and Engels make it apparent that capitalism has a negative impact on an entire social class such as the proletariat, capitalism also has a negative impact on racial groups, particularly minorities. In order to understand Race-Conflict Theory, we must utilize the findings of W.E.B. Du Bois who conducted the first empirical sociology study as well as the first study to ever be conducted on a black community in the United States, The Philadelphia Negro. In a study conducted in Philadelphia towards the end of the 19th century, W.E.B. Du Bois immersed himself in the African-American culture in the 7th Ward of Philadelphia where he surveyed and collected data for an entire year. Initially, Du Bois found that most African Americans in Philadelphia were concentrated in the 7th Ward. Within this ward was a community of diversity and advancement, however, it was completely isolated from the white communities nearby. In fact, the African-American community was younger and more women lived in the community than in the white communities. However, Du Bois’s findings simultaneously demonstrated the reality of crime, poverty, and illiteracy within the community (Du Bois 1899). African-Americans in Philadelphia were excluded from the city’s industrial jobs, were compacted into particular areas, and were forced to pay high rent for incredibly poor living situations. Racial prejudices thus played a major role in the socioeconomic circumstances of African-Americans in Philadelphia (Du Bois 1899).
Within his work, W.E.B. Du Bois iterates the concept of “the color line.” The color line represents the division between races, disproportionately between whites and blacks. The color line essentially represents the higher quality of treatment, services, and opportunities that whites have in contrast to blacks, which Du Bois believed to ultimately lie at the center of “understanding of modernity and subjectivity” (Itzighson and Brown 2020: 19). When “race is both a category of oppression and exclusion and a form of group identification,” racial hierarchy in society is inevitable, putting people of color at a disadvantage (Itzighson and Brown 2020: 22). The concept of the color line and racial inequalities is also reflected in Max Weber’s article On Race, in which he states that the revulsion of whites mixing with blacks is due to a “tendency toward the monopolization of social power and honor, a tendency which in this case happens to be linked to race” (Weber 2005: 298). This concept not only reflects Weber’s view on race, but the “monopolization of social power and honor” also coincides with the concept of the color line in W.E.B. Du Bois’s work The Philadelphia Negro. This includes the prevention of blacks from overall success, limiting occupational opportunity and the ability to move up the ranks within a job position. Therefore, whites would remain financially superior in social power ranking within the bourgeois class as opposed to blacks, who are segregated in their own section of the proletariat class. In a broader sense, Weber’s argument on race also demonstrates the negative function of capitalism explained by Marx and Engels. The social power and honor whites desire to have above blacks in society is parallel to Marx and Engels’s idea of the bourgeoisie’s desire to have economic and social power over the proletariat.
In relation to W.E.B. Du Bois’s 1890s study, The Philadelphia Negro, as well as Weber’s On Race, a contemporary study conducted in 2014 titled “The Racial Achievement Gap, Segregated Schools, and Segregated Neighborhoods – A Constitutional Insult” by Distinguished Fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Richard Rothstein strengthens the concept of the color line by explaining that schools in which the most disadvantaged black children attend are segregated to primarily black students because they are located in segregated neighborhoods due to the high-poverty circumstances of these neighborhoods (Rothstein 2014). Rothstein explains that multiple generations living in such high-poverty neighborhoods perpetuates the lack of achievement, which ultimately characterizes many African-American children today. Thus, education policy is in fact limited and constrained to housing policy (Rothstein 2014). Rothstein states, “it is not possible to desegregate schools without desegregating both low-income and affluent neighborhoods,” hence impoverished schools will remain filled with African-American children living in poverty and affluent schools will remain filled with affluent white children until low-income neighborhoods are no longer predominantly people of color and affluent neighborhoods are no longer predominantly white people (Rothstein 2014: 1). According to Rothstein (2014), it has become ordinary for policy makers to claim that the low-income “residential isolation” of low-income African-American children is “the accident of economic circumstance, demographic trends, personal preference, and private discrimination” (Rothstein 2014: 1). However, according to America’s history, residential segregation is the result of “racially-motivated and explicit public policy whose effects endure the present” (Rothstein 2014: 1). This is apparent in W.E.B. Du Bois’s The Philadelphia Negro as blacks in Philadelphia were confined to the 7th Ward, paying high rent for the poorest of living situations, as well as an abundance of crime, poverty and illiteracy. Therefore, while capitalism allows the bourgeoisie to take advantage of the proletariat through the exploitation of their labor, racial conflict within capitalism has placed blacks and other minorities far below whites in social rank, making the journey to success incredibly more difficult for low-income minorities than for whites.
Forms of Capital
According to Pierre Bourdieu (1986), capital is the currency that buys an individual a higher position in society. Capital is the foundation of social life and ultimately decides one’s social role (Bourdieu 1986). Capital is the result of labor, and over time one can accumulate and increase their capital. However, not all forms of capital are equal in society. The more time one spends accumulating a form of capital, the more valuable that capital becomes (Bourdieu 1986). Therefore, one’s acquisition of capital ultimately affects their rank in society.
According to Pierre Bourdieu (1986), there are three main types of capital: cultural, social and economic capital (Bourdieu 1986). Cultural capital can be described as what one has and what one knows. Bourdieu (1986) divided cultural capital into three subtypes: embodied, objectified, and institutionalized cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). Embodied cultural capital includes the qualities of the mind or body such as the skills we possess, one’s accent, dialect, posture, and mannerisms. Embodied cultural capital also includes one’s tastes such as one’s taste in music, art, and literature. Embodied cultural capital is significant within society because more powerful social classes have the tendency to differentiate themselves from others based on how they look and behave. Therefore, one must essentially buy membership into these social classes with embodied cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). According to Bourdieu (1986), objectified cultural capital includes material objects or belongings that contain cultural significance. This cultural significance in material goods represents one’s social rank in society. Lastly, institutionalized cultural capital are symbols of cultural competence and authority, such as credentials and qualifications (Bourdieu 1986). University degrees are a powerful form of institutionalized cultural capital because one attains skills, a type of embodied cultural capital, as well as academic merit. On any given day, a university degree adds to one’s cultural capital, however, the more prestigious of a university one attends equates to more institutionalized cultural capital received. When one shares a form of cultural capital with others, they tend to have a feeling of collective identity, such as alumni of the same university or of equal prestige. Collective identity can also include the same values, beliefs, the same way of dress, and behavior (Bourdieu 1986).
According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital is simply created due to who an individual knows (Bourdieu 1986). The amount of social capital one possesses is dependent on one’s social network. Social capital is attainable in two ways: 1) by being connected with a large amount of people or 2) by having connections with a few people with high levels of capital, in other words, by being connected with a smaller amount of people who have more power (Bourdieu 1986). Essentially, the social capital one possesses is a product of their social relationships. One way to build social capital is through the relationships one builds throughout their own life. These are enacted, maintained, and reinforced through exchanges such as gift exchanges during the holidays or for birthdays. The second way to build social capital is through inherited relationships. This includes one being born into a family or when one shares the connection of graduating from the same university as others, enabling the infiltration of such relationships and connections (Bourdieu 1986).
Possessing social capital ultimately creates groups. Social groups are created because those within the group share their social capital so that it becomes their collective capital. By joining the group, one gains access to that collective capital meaning one has more overall capital and therefore is more powerful in general. When one possesses more social capital, the desire to know that person increases because of the relationships and connections they possess. If an individual can add the person rich in social capital to their own social network, the social capital of the individual seeking social capital would ultimately increase. The willingness of the person rich in social capital to form a connection with one seeking social capital demonstrates their own desire to form a strong and easy connection with the individual seeking social capital. Therefore, the individual who is seeking social capital does not need to spend as much effort into creating and maintaining that social connection with that person because of the relationship they have built. This makes it even easier for one to grow and maintain their social network and social capital. Alternatively, if one has very little social capital, it can be very difficult them to start and maintain as well as build on social capital and social connections (Bourdieu 1986).
Finally, the third form of capital is economic capital. According to Bourdieu (1986), economic capital is money as well as assets that are directly convertible to money (Bourdieu 1986). Economic capital is considered to be the most important type of capital in the social world because economic capital can be transformed into different types of capital over time. Both cultural and social capital can be derived from economic capital, but economic capital is also acquired through the accumulation of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu 1986).
Racial and Income Inequality in Education Statistics in the United States
According to a 2018 Pew Research Center report, 19% of American adults are classified as “upper income” making a median household income of $187,872 in 2016. Pew defines upper class adults as households whose income is more than double the national median income, after income has ben adjusted for household size (CNBC 2019). According to this report, approximately 52% of American households are considered middle class with a median income of $78,442. Lastly, 29% of American households are considered lower-class with a median income of $25,624 per household in 2016. The numbers in this report are scaled in 2016 dollars and represent a three-person household (CNBC 2019). According to McKernan and others (2017), wealth has steadily increased in the United States between 1963 and 2016. While this may seem promising, this has not been true for all American households. The bottom of wealth distribution is classified as the 10th percentile. Over the last 50 years, families in the 10th percentile started without possessing any wealth to being $1000 in debt. Those of the middle class were able to more than double their wealth, and those in the 90th percentile were able to increase their wealth by fivefold. At the very top of the social class and wealth distribution lies the the 99th percentile also known as the top 1%. Over the past 50 years, the wealth of the top 1% of American society has increased by sevenfold (McKernan et al. 2017). According to McKernan and others, families near the top of wealth distribution in 1963 had six times the wealth as family in the middle class ($6 for every $1), however in 2016 these families had 12 times the wealth as families in the middle class ($12 to every $1) (McKernan et al. 2017).
In the United States, the wealth gap between white families and black and Hispanic families is massive. According to McKernan and others (2017), white households accumulate more wealth over a lifetime than do blacks and Hispanics. White families have approximately $147,000 more wealth in their 30s than do blacks, approximately three times as much. By the time they reach their 60s, whites have an average of over $1.1 million of wealth than blacks, approximately seven times as much (McKernan et al. 2017). According to the data of a 2018 Current Population Survey, the black-white income and wealth gap has persisted over time. As measured in 2018 dollars, the median household income between blacks and whites in 1970 to 2018 went from $23,800 in 1970 to roughly $33,000 in 2018 (Schaeffer 2020).
The margin of wealth and income between whites and blacks in the United States is directly reflected in education. In 1954, a watershed moment in American history occurred in the federal case Brown v. Board of Education when the United States Supreme Court ruled segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. However, in an article written in 2014 by Steven Hsieh of The Nation, the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights released comprehensive data with alarming trends showing the persistence of racial inequality in the United States education system. The data included 97,000 public schools in the US, representing 49 million students throughout the 2011-2012 school year. According to Hsieh (2014), the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Right found that black students made up 18 percent of the country’s pre-K enrollment, but accounted for 48 percent of preschoolers with multiple out-of-school suspensions. Black students were expelled three times more than white students, and black girls were suspended at higher rates than all other girls and most boys (Hsieh 2014).
The study also found American Indian and Native-Alaskan students represented less than 1% of students. However, this 1% represented 3% of expulsions. In fact, the study also found American Indian and Native-Alaskan girls faced higher rates of suspension than white boys or girls. American Indian and Native-Alaskan students also lacked necessary resources. Less than 50% of American Indian and Native-Alaskan high school students had access to the full range of math and science courses. These courses include Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, calculus, biology, chemistry and physics. In regard to minorities with disabilities, the study found that nearly one in four boys of color, including Latino and Asian American students, with disabilities received an out-of-school suspension in which they were to serve at home without participation in academics. Likewise, just about one in five girls of color with disabilities received an out-of-school suspension. In regard to classes offered, 25% of the schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino students did not offer an Algebra II course and a third of these schools did not offer chemistry. In regard to school enrollment, while black and Latino students accounted for 40% of enrollment at schools with gifted programs, blacks and Latinos represented only 26 percent of students in such programs. Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans were also subject to being taught by inexperienced or lesser experienced teachers. Black, Latino and Native American students attended schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers (3 to 4 percent) than white students (1 percent), and black students were more than three times as likely to attend schools with less than 60% of teachers who meet all state certification and licensure requirements. Latino students, specifically, were twice as likely to attend such schools (Hsieh 2014).
While the above statistics represent nation-wide issues, these trends of entrenched inequality are also present in California’s schools. In affluent communities, schools are filled with more experienced teachers as well as a lower student-teacher ratio. In comparison to schools in low-income neighborhoods, schools in affluent neighborhoods contain more modern facilities, more up-to-date computer and science equipment and more up-to-date textbooks. These schools offer more elective courses, more music and art courses, and more extracurricular programs. These schools also have better libraries, more guidance counselors and superior athletic facilities (Dreier 2014). It is clear that students attending schools in affluent neighborhoods have more resources and more opportunity than students at high-poverty schools. According to a January 2017 report conducted by the California Budget and Policy Center using data from the 2015-2016 fiscal year, California schools spent $10,291 per K-12 student in 2015-2016, which is about $1,900 less than the $12,252 per student spent by the nation as a whole (Nichols 2018). In fact, the $10,291 per student spending was $2000 more than California spent per student during the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
In a UCLA study conducted by top UCLA researcher, John Rogers, he and postdoctoral scholar and colleague Nicole Mirra surveyed a sample of 800 California teachers during the 2013-2014 school year, representing a wide demographic (Kelleher 2015). Rogers and Mirra compared 1) low-poverty schools, “where 25% or less of students receive free or reduced-price lunches”; 2) low- and mixed-poverty schools, “where 50% or less of students get such lunches”; and 3) high-poverty schools, “where 75% to 100% of students receive [free or reduced-price lunches]” (Kelleher 2015). Due to a plethora of class-time disruptions in high-poverty schools, the comparison found that the amount of time handling disruptions in high-poverty schools accumulated to 10 fewer days of academic instruction than low-poverty schools every year. According the Kelleher’s article, Rogers and Mirra found that teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to report that the time of academic instruction was lessened by problems due to school facilities, a lack of access to technology and libraries, classroom lockdowns, standardized test preparation, teacher absences and uncertified or insufficiently qualified substitute teachers. Rogers and Mirra also found that outside economic and social factors negatively impacted three to four times more students at high-poverty schools than at low-poverty schools. These stressors included unstable housing, hunger and lack of medical and dental care. Ultimately, students at high-poverty schools faced a 39% chance that life problems would decrease their time for academic learning — in contrast to a mere 13% chance for students at low-poverty schools. Lastly, Rogers and Mirra found that teachers at high-poverty schools experienced more class-time interruptions caused by unplanned events. These events included the arrival of transfer students and phone calls from the front office. These disruptions could consume up to 30 minutes a day of class time, accumulating to 10 days total of eroded class time. Teachers at high-poverty schools also spent time filling the role of counselors. Some teachers spent class time counseling students with emotional and social problems, advising them on colleges and careers and discussing community problems and societal inequities (Kelleher 2015). Thus, the socioeconomic circumstances of low-income students attending their local high-poverty schools place such students at an academic disadvantage in contrast to their affluent counterparts.
Analysis
Capitalism and Economic Inequality
In examining socioeconomic disparities and its effect on education in the United States, it is important to consider the structure of capitalism, the history of racial segregation, and the overall effect of income on educational opportunities. The discrepancy between wealth, income, and race in the United States is a direct product and failure of the capitalistic system. According to Marx and Engels, the divide between the social classes, specifically between the upper class and the rest of society, is purely due to the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie. The exploitation of the working class allows the bourgeoisie to pay their workers a wage that is lower than the market price of the commodity being sold, ultimately allowing the bourgeoisie to make a profit (Marx and Engels 1848). This wage is generally very low and underpaid for the type of labor being completed. Thus, it is nearly impossible for an individual of the working class to increase their economic capital while working for the bourgeoisie.
As we see in McKernan and others’s 2016 statistics, those in the 99th percentile, the top one percent, have increased their wealth by sevenfold over the past 50 years while those in the 10th percentile who started with no wealth 50 years ago, are now in debt of $1000. Wealthy households in America have clearly become wealthier, while low-income households have only become poorer, and have lost the wealth they never had. Therefore, those with already high levels of economic capital were able to increase their economic capital, while those with no economic capital were pushed below the levels of zero economic capital. If making ends meet is difficult to achieve with the income one is earning and the wealth one has collected, the capitalist system makes it nearly impossible for working class workers to accumulate enough wealth to climb from the depths of poverty. According to McKernan and others (2017), people who earn less have a harder time saving (McKernan et al. 2017). Therefore, working class workers who earn the bare minimum from the bourgeoisie in exchange for their labor are unable to save enough money to climb out of poverty. Working class workers are simply unable to accumulate enough economic capital. The working class is forced to spend their income in order to survive and are ultimately stuck in the same social class. The working class is thus unable to transform their economic capital into greater cultural or social capital and move up in social class. Marx and Engels view this issue as the main flaw of capitalism.
These same issues that Marx and Engels attribute to capitalism are undeniably apparent in the differences in median household income levels in the United States. According to the 2018 Pew Research Center report measured in 2016 dollars, the upper class median household income was $187,872, the middle class median household income was $78,442, and the lower class median household income was a mere $25,624. While America’s middle class makes up the largest percentage of the income levels at 52%, only 19% of American households qualify for the upper income level; this is less than one-fifth of all of America’s households (CNBC 2019). Thus, the lower class is the second largest social class in America, containing 29% of America’s households. These vast gaps in numbers are a direct reflection of the issues identified by Marx and Engels. The bourgeoisie make up the smallest group of people by percentage, however, they make the most income, accumulate the most wealth, and have the highest economic capital, cultural, and social capital in society. The middle class and the lower class are essentially forced to work for the bourgeoisie, yet the middle and lower class combined make up over 80% of America. Evidently, the differences in income and economic capital between all three social classes and their respective percentages that make up American society are products of capitalism, which has refrained the lower and middle class from moving up in social class.
Racial Inequality and Education
According to comprehensive data on 97,000 public schools in the US taken by the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights during the 2011-2012 school year, non-white students (black, Latino, Native-American or Native Alaskan) were suspended and expelled more than whites, attended schools that did not offer essential math and/or science courses, attended schools with old facilities, old computer and science equipment and old textbooks, and attended schools with inexperienced teachers (Hsieih 2014). According to the data collected by Rogers and Mirra (2015) on 800 California public school teachers, students attending high-poverty schools had 10 days less of academic instruction due to disruptions in class such as the arrival of transfer students and phone calls from the front office. Teachers at these schools also filled other roles such as counselor. Shouldn’t the state try and even the playing field for high-poverty schools? The disparity between the lack of resources in schools in high-poverty neighborhoods and affluent neighborhoods is a direct reflection of California as a state, ranking 41st in the United States in per student spending. This data is directly correlated in the disparity between income and wealth accumulation between whites in comparison to blacks and hispanics in high-poverty neighborhoods. According to McKernan and others (2017), white households accumulate more wealth over a lifetime than blacks and hispanics. Specifically, the black-white income and wealth gap has persisted over time and has grown by roughly $10,000 over the past 50 years. The disparities in education, specifically focusing on black students, is a direct product of the high poverty and racial segregation of the neighborhoods in which such schools are located, according to Rothstein (2014).
However, these high-poverty and segregated neighborhoods are a result of W.E.B. Du Bois’s generationally applicable concept of the color line and Weber’s idea of the “monopolization of social power and honor” driven by race. African-American students attending high-poverty schools in high-poverty segregated neighborhoods are victims to the color line from generations before, and as a result, are stuck attending schools without the necessary resources to succeed. These students are born into families with low economic capital, hence why they are living in high-poverty neighborhoods and attend high-poverty schools. Thus, because the facilities and resources are so poor, these same students are unable to advance into higher education. In other words, these students are unable to attain high levels of cultural capital such as a college degree or other credentials and qualifications. This is particularly relevant for a state such as California where per-student spending is so low. Because this level of cultural capital is unattainable, these same individuals are unable to acquire the social capital that they would receive by meeting, for example, alumni from a prestigious university. Thus, they are unable to adopt a collective identity, make connections, and build relationships with others of higher social capital because there is no form of shared social capital between those who could not attend college versus those who graduated from a university. As a result, these same individuals are unable to acquire economic capital and move up in social class, thus remain stuck in the depths of poverty. This recurring cycle of poverty ultimately affects education because people living in high-poverty neighborhoods are unable to acquire the capital to move to an affluent neighborhood with a decent education system, or send their children to schools located in affluent neighborhoods. Because education is ultimately affected by one’s socioeconomic circumstances, those attending high-poverty schools without the necessary recourses are set up for failure, as success in America’s capitalist society remains so heavily dependent on institutionalized cultural capital.
Conclusion
Income and racial inequality are two of the most prominent inequalities in American society. However, income and racial inequality intertwine and contribute to one of the greatest inequalities in American society: education inequality. This paper analyzes the socioeconomic inequality in America created by income and racial disparities and its effect on education. My argument is that income inequality in America is a result of capitalism, and racial inequality is created by the racist components of capitalism. In addition, I argue that education is greatly affected by such income and racial factors, and those without social, cultural, and economic capital are unable to move up in social class and escape poverty. Thus, a recurring cycle of generational poverty continues to repeat in full circle.
To understand the different levels of wealth and income, it is first necessary to understand how economic inequality began. Using the findings of Marx and Engels (1848), the proletariat, otherwise known as the working class, is exploited by the bourgeoisie, the upper class. The bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat by hiring the proletariat as factory workers, paying them the minimum earnings to survive in exchange for their labor. The wages being paid to the proletariat are lower than the price of the commodity being sold by the bourgeoisie. Capitalists, therefore, extract surplus from the worker, allowing the capitalist class the ability to maintain and increase their wealth at the expense of the proletariat (Marx and Engels 1848). As a result, the bourgeoisie get richer, while the proletariat remain stagnant at the bottom of the social class. The exploitation of the proletariat is the main issue with capitalism, identified by Marx and Engels. Using the ideas of Marx and Engels, we can begin to understand why the upper class only consists of 19% of America’s households, and why the middle and lower class combines for a total of 81% of America’s households (CNBC 2019).
Next, it is critical to understand the racial inequality in America and why exactly it persists today. Using concepts from both W.E.B. Du Bois as well as Max Weber, we learn the concept of the color line and how it was perpetuated by white people in America. The idea to keep African Americans inferior and separate are motives behind the concept of the color line. Ultimately, the color line segregated African Americans to a lesser quality of treatment, services, and opportunities in comparison to whites. In his study, The Philadelphia Negro, Du Bois found that qualified African-Americans in Philadelphia were excluded from the city’s industrial jobs, were compacted into particular areas, and were forced to pay high rent for incredibly poor living conditions. Racial prejudices thus played a major role in the socioeconomic circumstances of African-Americans in Philadelphia (Du Bois 1899). In addition, in Max Weber’s article On Race, Weber mentions the white tendency toward “monopolization of social power and honor” driven by race (Weber 2005). Weber’s statement ultimately reinforces Du Bois’s concept of the color line demonstrating the intention to make whites the supreme race.
In tying both income and racial inequality together, African Americans in America accumulate significantly less wealth than do whites. This is contributed to the history of the color line and the generational poverty families were stuck living in due to the limitations brought forth by the color line. Today, many African Americans remain in impoverished neighborhoods with school systems that lack resources. These schools are segregated to primarily black students because they are located in segregated neighborhoods due to the high-poverty circumstances of these neighborhoods (Rothstein 2014). As a result, the poor quality of school limits these students to the capital they can acquire. The low levels of economic capital leads to low levels of cultural capital, which leads to unattainable social capital, ultimately starting the cycle of low economic capital over again (Bourdieu 1986). Due to their economic capital, these students are forced to attend the run-down public school, unable to afford a proper education. Without the proper education, these students are unable to go to college to attain cultural and social capital and, quite frankly, do not have the economic capital to pay for college. Thus, these students are unable to attain cultural capital by earring a college degree and/or social capital by networking. As a result, there are no strong and valuable connections made with others of higher capital who share the same collective identity. Therefore, acquiring economic capital is unattainable.
As a college student going to school with students of all backgrounds, this topic interested me personally because I go to school with students who are breaking this cycle, as many are first generation college students and inspire me. Some of my closest friends at school are first generation students and are some of the brightest individuals I know, yet they have grown up in a society in which they were not supposed to make it this far. While it is difficult to change a cycle that has been engrained in the structure and history of our country, I believe one way to fix the disparities in education based on income and race is for states like California to increase their per-student spending. California is home to the second largest school district in America, Los Angeles Unified School District, however California ranks 41st in the nation in per-student spending. I believe California as well as the nation as a whole can overcome such economic and racial barriers and make a change for the students of our country. While the main goal is to create an even playing field for all students, as a society we must be able understand and the economic and racial elements of capitalism and how it is perpetuated. As a society we must be able to understand and accept the reality that almost a third of our country is harmed by capitalism, and this percentage has the potential to increase. Therefore, we must change and we must do so quickly.
Works Cited
Bourdieu, P. (n.d.). The Forms of Capital. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm
Commentary • By Richard Rothstein • November 12. (n.d.). The Racial Achievement Gap, Segregated Schools, and Segregated Neighborhoods – A Constitutional Insult. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/the-racial-achievement-gap-segregated-schools-and-segregated-neighborhoods-a-constitutional-insult/
Dreier, P. (2016, August 14). California’s Public Schools: Separate and Definitely Unequal. Retrieved from https://capitalandmain.com/californias-public-schools-separate-and-definitely-unequal
Educational Disparity: How Teachers Can Rescue the System. (2018, July 11). Retrieved from https://highschool.latimes.com/palos-verdes-peninsula-high-school/educational-disparity-how-teachers-can-rescue-the-system/
How Does Socioeconomic Inequality Affect Social Class, Especially for People of Color? (2020, October 21). Retrieved from https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/how-does-socioeconomic-inequality-affect-social-class-for-people-of-color/
Hsieh, S. (2015, June 29). 14 Disturbing Stats About Racial Inequality in American Public Schools. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/14-disturbing-stats-about-racial-inequality-american-public-schools/
Itzigsohn, J., & Brown, K. (2020). The Sociology of W. E. B. Du Bois: Racialized Modernity and the Global Color Line. New York: New York University Press.
Kathleen_elk. (2019, September 14). 19% of Americans are considered ‘upper class’-here’s how much they earn. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/14/how-many-americans-are-considered-upper-class.html
Kelleher, K. (n.d.). Unequal Schools, Generations of Poverty. Retrieved from https://blueprint.ucla.edu/feature/unequal-schools-generations-of-poverty/
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party: By Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Moscow: Progress Publisher.
McKernan, S., Quakenbush, C., Ratcliffe, C., Kalish, E., & Steuerle, C. E. (2017, October 04). Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated). Retrieved from https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
PolitiFact, & Delaine Eastin Candidate for California governor https://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/01/13/watch-california-gubernatorial-town-hall/. (2018, January 18). PolitiFact – Mostly True: California ranks 41st on per student spending but No. 1 per prisoner. Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jan/17/delaine-eastin/does-california-rank-41st-student-spending-no-1-pr/
Schaeffer, K. (2020, May 31). 6 facts about economic inequality in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/07/6-facts-about-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=4Overall, 61% of Americans,party and household income level.&text=Among Democrats, the reverse is,% of lower-income Democrats
Theory of Capitalism. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://capitalism.columbia.edu/theory-capitalism