How symbolic or cultural boundaries of social class are related to material or structural inequalities between individuals in society
Scholars have examined class through the lens of quantitative and subjective measures such as income, education, and labor market status. However, these quantitative tools of measurement do not always align with how individuals perceive themselves within the context of class hierarchy. McLean (2023) notes that social class boundaries are marked through symbolic or cultural means. Also, symbolic or cultural boundaries are related to material or structural inequalities in society.
??????????? The realities of material or structural inequalities influence cultural or symbolic boundary work in social class. This is seen in the cultural or symbolic boundary work undertaken by aristocratic elites across different epochs of material inequality (Friedman and Reeves 2020). Initially, certain activities of leisure such as hunting, fishing, sailing, shooting, yachting, rowing, and horse-related engagements were culturally or symbolically employed to draw the boundaries between the elites and others. However, these cultural boundary markings were also related to material inequalities since only the wealthy could participate in them due to the vast financial commitments they required. Thus, material inequality served as a barrier to the cultural or symbolic boundaries of elite status. Further, as Bourdieu put it, “the ability of elites to generate widespread belief in the inherent value of their own interests and recreations” (Friedman and Reeves 2020:325) is a demonstration of the impact of material or structural inequalities on the cultural or symbolic boundary work of class distinctions. Here, material or structural inequalities imply that only the elites can truly construct the symbolic or cultural boundaries of what it means to belong to the elite class. This contrasts with the misrecognition of symbols of elite class distinction by socially subordinate groups. Finally, the elites’ cultural or symbolic boundary work is done through regular activities (such as caring for kids and pets) that allow them to exude an air of normalcy and ordinariness which they use to connect with the more materially disadvantaged while simultaneously maintaining their elite status.
??????????? Harvey (2023) demonstrates that material or structural inequality is a major determinant of what school a student ends up in. Truman was the school of the haves and Brighton was for the have-nots. While the material inequality between both schools is evident, there is ongoing symbolic boundary-marking work undertaken by school actors through the socialization of the students. At Truman, the students were taught to see themselves as inherently valuable while at Brighton, value was predicated on following externally set rules. Here, how students perceive their social station is based on the symbolic boundaries (such as through school curriculum) enacted by school actors but also on the material inequalities between the students at the Truman and Brighton schools. Further, the cultural or symbolic boundary marking produces outcomes that have objective consequences. At Truman, students are conditioned to see themselves as agentic, able to steer their own paths while at Brighton, the world is viewed from a rigid perspective. According to earlier scholarly work, this variation in the perception of self will ultimately produce material inequalities between the students socialized within the frameworks of the Truman and Brighton schools. Additionally, at Brighton, boundary marking work varied by material and structural differences such as class and race.
??????????? Mclean (2023) explores the use of material and structural inequality in teacher salaries, education, and gender to construct symbolic boundaries within the teaching profession. Specifically, symbolic boundaries created a us (that is teachers who were ambitious and professional) and them (that is teachers who were less professional and content) narrative. This boundary work was largely done through the Queen’s Summer School Association (QSSA) President’s Bulletin. Boundary work involved the use of symbolism (professional and less professional) and was related to material and structural inequalities between teachers who earned better and occupied more prestigious positions in urban schools – that is the teachers defined as professional through symbolic boundary work – and teachers who earned less – that is teachers symbolically categorized as less professional. This is evident in the QSSA Bulletin messages that focused on future returns (career growth and development) to the individual through enrollment at Queen’s University Summer School during a period of pay inequality between primary and secondary school teachers, and later, declining teaching salaries vis-à-vis other professions due to the consequences of the Great Depression. In the 1940s to 1950s, increases in university attendance among teachers and increasing teaching salaries post-World War II led to changes in material or structural inequalities captured by university attendance and salaries. These changes led to a change in the symbolism employed by the QSSA Bulletin to construct the class boundaries within the teaching profession. Specifically, the narrative focused on attendance at the Queen’s Summer School as a great and fun way to spend the summer holiday. Attendance at the Summer School was a symbolic boundary between teachers who knew how to effectively mix business with pleasure and those who did not. Also, boundary work of the teaching class done through the QSSA Bulletin interacted with gender inequalities by shifting from masculinity-centered narratives of social progress and career growth to feminine-laden concerns of leisure, participation in social events, and companionship. Since the overall status of teachers had risen in the years following the end of the Second World War, symbolic boundaries of social class within the teaching profession were employed through boundary work specifically undertaken through the messages in the QSSA Bulletin.
??????????? Waterfield et al (2019) shows how the cultural or symbolic boundaries of academia are related to material or structural inequalities in the form of lower-class upbringing and in some cases, racialized identities. Specifically, material and structural inequalities in the form of working-class upbringing and race made the participants feel out of place within the context of the cultural or symbolic boundaries of what it means to belong in academia. Also, they sometimes engaged in cultural and social activities (such as paying for an expensive meal at a restaurant) that they were ill-equipped for in a material and cultural sense to construct themselves as legitimately within the boundaries of the academic social class. The use of morality was also employed by some participants as a symbolic boundary to continue to embrace their working-class backgrounds (and simultaneously disavow their current class status) while describing the cultural boundaries of how to properly behave at academic events (such as conferences) in hypocritical terms. Others engaged in boundary work to create identities that allowed for a less disruptive merger between their current social class and their working-class origins.
??????????? Thiel (2007) shows that cultural or symbolic boundaries of social class play a role in material or structural inequalities. Cultural or symbolic boundary work conducted by the workers on the construction site influenced inequalities in salaries and compensation. For example, cultural or symbolic boundaries within the trades produced a hierarchy of clean and dirty jobs and ultimately material and structural inequalities between the different trades. Also, material means influence cultural or symbolic boundaries of social class. For instance, one quantity surveyor described himself as ‘lower to middle class’ but noted that his wife would consider herself ‘middle to upper class’ because he considered her a snob – perhaps a reference to their higher material or financial status (p.238). Additionally, the builders considered themselves to be in a social station above the unemployed, illegal immigrants, or street criminals. Here, symbolic boundary work is done by the builders to differentiate themselves from those in lower material or structural stations.
??????????? The five articles considered show the relations between cultural or symbolic boundaries of social class and material or structural inequalities between individuals in society. This is seen in boundary work by the aristocratic elite, school actors at upper-class and working-class schools, teachers in Canada, professionals in academia, and workers at a London construction site.
References
Friedman, Sam, and Aaron Reeves. 2020. “From Aristocratic to Ordinary: Shifting Modes of Elite Distinction.” American Sociological Review 85(2):323–50. doi: 10.1177/0003122420912941.
Harvey, Peter Francis. 2023. “‘Everyone Thinks They’re Special’: How Schools Teach Children Their Social Station.” American Sociological Review 88(3):493–521. doi: 10.1177/00031224231172785.
McLean, Scott. 2023. “From Missionary Zeal to Holiday Appeal: Summer School, Professionalization, and Teachers in Canada, 1915-1959.” History of Education Quarterly 1–28.
Thiel, Darren. 2007. “Class in Construction: London Building Workers, Dirty Work and Physical Cultures 1.” The British Journal of Sociology 58(2):227–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2007.00149.x.
Waterfield, Bea, Brenda L. Beagan, and Tameera Mohamed. 2019. “‘You Always Remain Slightly an Outsider’: Workplace Experiences of Academics from Working‐Class or Impoverished Backgrounds.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie 56(3):368–88. doi: 10.1111/cars.12257.