An Overview of Socioeconomic Class Differences

"You can determine a lot about a person by the way he eats sunflower seeds..."

In The Status Seekers, Vance Packard offers an in-depth study of class in the late-1950's America; but nearly a half-century later, the primary focus of class differences is the "socio-" rather than the "economic"-- it's less about what you have than where you're from. Income level and field of employment are far less relevant than background in recognizing the differences in attitudes, behaviors, lifestyle, and relating.

Packard's chapter "Behavior that gives us away" is as insightful and directly to the point in 2007 America as it was when it was written-- and gives a clear view of the difficulties which occur when an individual relocates to a geographical region where the class he or she was brought up in and has been familiar with does not exist. It is virtually impossible to explain middle-class values, lifestyle, behavior, etc., to those in the lower and upper classes who have no personal frame-of-reference by which to understand the concept.

In one specific location, for example, the middle class seems to not exist. While being careful to note that the term "class" is not meant in a derogatory fashion, a "middle" is both sandwiched in-between and isolated amongst the population of lower class and upper-middle class, which co-exist side-by-side, having much in common, yet disliking each other intensely. One factor they have in common is they both tend to view the middle class as idiots and fools.

One can sum up the differing attitudes toward life in general in terms of the lower class opinion "We have nothing, and never will;" the middle class principle "What we have, we earn;" and the upper-middle class belief "We are entitled to everything." With that view on life, it is not difficult to understand the differences, or the reasons for them.

The middle class is, in general, very family-oriented. It is the "self" within the context of the family which makes life, and makes life worthwhile. Children, parents, and spouses are not considered to be disposable or interchangeable; and growing up means attaining a state of maturity which includes stability, appropriateness, and accountability. When mistakes are made, the need is to resolve and right them; also decidedly middle class concepts include the determination to not engage in behavior which would bring shame onto oneself or one's family, and to take care of one's possessions and property because you or someone else worked hard for the money to buy those items. To the middle class, wastefulness and being careless with possessions is almost sinful; the lowers figure "nothing lasts very long anyway," and the upper-middles operate on "someone will buy me more."

As the everyday lives of the lower class is based on survival, and those of the upper-middle is based on entitlement, both exhibit behavior similar to each other but for different reasons. As one of the main concepts of the lowers is that life is to be lived in the moment because not much potential for either time or betterment can be seen, and the upper-middles' odd desire to "show" that they are "above" others, middle class values and morality are totally out-of-sync with both.

The lower class demands instant-gratification, on an animalistic-survival level-- "grab it or lose it," "survival of the fittest," "might makes right;" and as the upper-middles mimic similar behavior "just because they can," both consider laughable or cause for scorn the middle class behavior patterns of self-restraint and "anything worth having is worth waiting for, working for, persevering toward." For a middle to be in an environment of sexual standards-- or lack thereof-- which are based on nothing more than biology and hormones is an example where compromise represents sacrifice which one must not be willing to make.

As the life of the lower class is about survival and survival instincts, and that of the upper-middles is about attainment, it is interesting to note how the subject has evolved since the era of Packard's book. For the most part, one of the most important factors between then and now is during the last couple of decades many people have become less and less bound to their original geographical location; and this relatively new sense of mobility has led to individuals of differing classes who likely would never have even known each other in the past to now live side-by-side. Lesser emphasis on family and roots, more cash-flow, later marriages, and educational opportunities, all figure in to why classes are no longer separated as they used to be; job titles and income levels are far less important than they were in Packard's day.

Whether this is a good thing or not depends on one's perspective. But it is important to recognize that these differences do indeed exist, and to decide whether one's theme is "When in Rome, become as the Romans" or "To thine own self be true." Attempting to discard one's background for the sake of "fitting in" is never a good idea, whichever direction such fitting in might take-- for what is to be gained by shedding everything that makes you who you are and trying to live a life which is not yours?