10 Inherited Injustice
Race-Based Self Perceptions
The unwillingness of the American power elite (Mills) to change or enable change in the racial demographics of the professional world restricts children of color from reaching their full potential. Based on the lives and traits into which children of color are born, they receive differing treatments from figures of authority, which derive from stereotypes and a lack of understanding that govern the way others see their behavior. For example, through Elijah Anderson’s “code of the street,” (Anderson, 33) young black children in “street” settings develop with factors that condition them to navigate the difficulties of a violent or unpredictable setting. But this “code of the street” functions in two ways, as it also conditions members of non-street families, such as teachers or other figures of authority into believing that black or inner-city children have violent tendencies. This false generalization may contribute to a misunderstanding of the behavior of young children of color, as proven by Adichie’s observation that “when [children of color] do what other little boys do, it becomes aggression” just because they “look different” (Adichie, 212). This disparity in perception and treatment contributes to the anomie that is characteristic of – and harmful to – children of color (Sanders-Phillips et al, 178). But it also hinders their senses of self-esteem through Cooley’s idea of the ‘looking-glass self’ (Cooley).
The damaging effects of this prejudice can also deny children of color the opportunity to establish self-worth and achieve professional success or look up to others who do. As proven in Gyasi’s Homegoing and Richard Wright’s memoir, color prejudice can impede hiring chances, whether in a part-time or professional context, and can then create an uncomfortable or skeptical environment within the workplace. As this effect in the workforce couples with the discriminatory nature of schoolteachers deterring students of color from pursuing admirable professions (Adichie, 212), children of color are repeatedly discouraged from pursuing lifestyles associated with the ‘power elite’ (Mills). This effect resembles the Indian caste system with striking accuracy. Within the Indian caste system, one’s birthright determines occupation or the set of occupations to which one has access (Deshpande). As the inherited color of a child’s skin seems to limit professional access and opportunity within American professional culture, it resembles the ludicrous determinism of Indian caste and strays from the meritocratic ideal that the American Dream promotes (Alvarado). The effects of this caste-like determinism may explain why there are only three black chief executive officers in the entire Fortune 500 (Roberts and Mayo). As this deterministic effect sets in, the shortage of professionally successful black adults deprives black children of role models who could help them set and work toward professional dreams and goals (Wilson) and join the ‘power elite’ (Mills).
As children of color face restrictions in life that derive from how other people see them or treat them, the prejudice hinders their identities as members of society as well. The lack of role models for young children of color deters these children from dreaming of themselves in elite positions or working toward them (Simon), as white children are encouraged to do. By contrast, rather than dream of future success, children of color fear a future in which “they, too, will go to jail” (Alexander). Such a distinction speaks to not only a predetermined element of self-perception but also derives from white children’s versus children of color’s reactions to what may appear to them as predetermined outcomes. This theme of predetermination resembles the determinism constant within the oppressive Indian caste system. And the reported disparities in socioeconomic mobility between white and black American children further prove the consequences of this caste-like system.
Inherited Socioeconomic Inequality
The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated socioeconomic inequality within the United States, and its effects are contributing to the caste-like divide in childhood opportunity based on inherited status. While the bottom 50% of the American populace has suffered from the effects of the pandemic more than the top 10%, the “windfall profits” (Oxfam America, 1) that large corporations and shareholders have experienced illustrate somewhat of a guaranteed position of profit. They reap the benefits of the shares and stocks they are wealthy enough to hold, while lower-class earners, many of whom depend on immediate, physical labor for income, have been forced into unemployment (Blustein et al). This development has contributed to record unemployment numbers and had “devastating effects” (ibid.) on both the economic and psychological conditions of poor and working-class communities.
This growing economic disparity will continue to strip lower-class children of the resources and opportunities with which their upper-class counterparts are raised. But it also hinders the quality of their socialization, as the demoralizing psychological effects of the pandemic on lower-class workers hinder their ability to successfully socialize their children (Sanders-Phillips et al, 4). Many parental anxieties or insecurities may transfer down to children and impact not only their psychological states but the cynicism with which they see the world around them, which can lead to a perceived lack of opportunity. This instance of psychological confinement and its potential for socioeconomic confinement resembles the determinism of one’s inherited Indian caste. In addition, there is an emotional toll that less-involved parenting can take on low-income children who compare the time they spend with parents with that of upper-class children whose parents live lives of wealth and leisure (Wingen et al).
The disparities in parental spending on children by socioeconomic class further illustrate this issue. The American parenting processes that are reshaping “along class lines” (Schneider et al, 28) illuminate the divisions in both how American children are raised in accordance with their inherited socioeconomic statuses and how they develop and encounter opportunities to improve these statuses. The corresponding discrepancies in test scores and cognitive development provide empirical evidence for this theme of inherited inequality (Schneider et al, 476). Regardless of the equal opportunities to which all children supposedly have access within the American education system, the unequal socializing factors and developmental resources – both emotionally and financially – to which lower-class children are subjected sets them at an inherent disadvantage. And as American social classes continue to stratify, both historically and in the economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic, the quality and characteristics of the typical ‘American childhood’ may continue to divide “along class lines” (Schneider et al, 28). This stratification thus restricts the opportunity for children born into low-income families to achieve class mobility or professional success – a caste-like phenomenon.