The Global Sociology Blog

This is not exactly news to sociologists but we know that greater social inequalities have negative social effects across the board and across the class structure and not just for those on the lower rung of the social ladder. Now, more evidence is in:

saez-UStopincomes-2007 –

Now, this should be the subject of intense debate (and it is not unrelated to the health care debate, if you can call one side’s vociferation from the Twilight Zone opposed to snake oil selling town hall meetings debates. But maybe this is related to this aspect of American society (hat tip, my pal Vastleft):

Who Is IOZ?: Alexis de Toquewho? via kwout

The absence of class analysis and discourse is partly based, I think, on some of the points made in the quotation above. And because class is hardly ever discussed (apart from a few college classes), it is no wonder that people do not see it as a relevant variable in reflecting on their own circumstances and social conditions. It is also no wonder then, that identity-based movements are much more popular here than social class-based movements (see for instance, the contempt for social class issues in the Obama campaign and with his supporters).

But identity politics does not lead to broad-based social changes, rather to more accomodationism where being nicer to all sorts of people is a political goal in itself, rather than changing structural conditions that address structural violence and promote less hegemonic social relations. In other words, it is easier to campaign for gay marriage (a worthy goal, to be sure) rather than push for a radical reexamination of the very concept of gender. Similarly, it is easier to provide subsidies for low-income people to purchase health insurance than to have a broad-based overhaul of the system in favor of the more equal, fair, simple and effective solution proven to work. That debate simply did not happen.

Another aspect of this (and that leads me back to my post on the lack of public presence of sociology) is that the terms of many discussions have been polluted by puritan religiosity. One cannot discuss health care policy without having to have an obligatory mention of people making the “wrong” lifestyle choices (such as not exercising enough even though the average American works more hours, and these longer hours involve sitting at a computer, or eating unhealthy food, never mind the political and cultural hegemony of the food industry, THAT structural and class-based aspect of things is hardly ever mentioned). One cannot have a discussion on social policy without having to hear yet again inane and fact-free rantings about welfare queens and deadbeat dads (black being the unmentioned part of the argument). This tendency to turn social policy arguments into moral / scolding arguments stems from the suffocating presence of puritanical religiosity (catholic or protestant) in the public sphere.

Add to that the oft-mentioned individualism that is the default starting point of any discussion and you have a pretty good explanation of the lack of discussion of structural issues outside of individuals making right or wrong decisions and who should therefore live with the consequences (ergo: the wealthy are obviously the people who made the “right” decisions – thereby erasing any discussion of social privilege – and should keep their money rather than have to have it taxed and redistributed to people who made the “wrong” decisions). This is, of course, a recipe for conformity to social hierarchies.