Social Class Connections
For many years the social system has seemed as if though there were only three different classes to it with huge differences between the highest and lowest affluent or SES (socioeconomic status) populations. The previous simple observation of the classes when approached from different angles and deeper research, as in Paul Fussell, Suniya Luthar, Lars Eighner and Paul Piff along with his colleagues’ articles, is proven to be permissible. The authors collectively have denoted that each social class is actually more complex and has multiple levels. While articulating through the complexities of social classes in this overview paper, it was found that the authors articles are conjoined together by the unforeseen comparisons …show more content…
In Luthar’s “The Culture of Affluence”, he focuses on the closeted problem that the high SES adolescents and parents have due to the parents’ desire for “more” (1590) . In doing this, he makes a reference to what Fussell calls, the “top out of sight class” (Fussell 2). The connection that Luthar makes is from bringing in studies from Weitzman and Wilson-Doenges that states that the houses in affluent communities “are often set far apart with privacy of all ensured by long driveways, high hedges, and sprawling lawns” (1585). With these self-inflicted barricades, the affluent become what Fussell would call, “out of sight” (Fussell 2). “Having Less, Giving More” by Piff and his colleagues was an article that focused on the dissimilarities between the rich and poor, yet still stumbled across findings that furthermore backed Fussell’s article like Luthar’s. In their research, they were testing if lower class individuals express more “prosocial behavior” than upper class individuals by doing four separate experiments that would either confirm or deny this hypothesis (Piff, et al. 771). Once conducted, the experiments proved that the low SES individuals were “more prosocial toward others than their upper class counterparts” (Piff, et al. 780). Though they proved how the two were not alike, they still ran …show more content…
Instead of focusing on the connections between rich and poor, he examines the complex and multi-faceted system of the absolute lowest SES classes during his times of being homeless. While sifting through garbage, treasures, tiers, and irony what he found was a bond with the affluent, in the fact that they “both know there is plenty more where what [they] have came from” (Eighner 8). Eighner compares both the highest and lowest “out of sight” classes while also making a connection to another one of Fussell’s ideas of “where your money comes from” and that, even if they lose what they have, they both have confidence that they could get it right back (Fussell 8). That confidence in knowing they could make it right back is what keeps them in their respective
For many years the social system has seemed as if though there were only three different classes to it with huge differences between the highest and lowest affluent or SES (socioeconomic status) populations. The previous simple observation of the classes when approached from different angles and deeper research, as in Paul Fussell, Suniya Luthar, Lars Eighner and Paul Piff along with his colleagues’ articles, is proven to be permissible. The authors collectively have denoted that each social class is actually more complex and has multiple levels. While articulating through the complexities of social classes in this overview paper, it was found that the authors articles are conjoined together by the unforeseen comparisons …show more content…
In Luthar’s “The Culture of Affluence”, he focuses on the closeted problem that the high SES adolescents and parents have due to the parents’ desire for “more” (1590) . In doing this, he makes a reference to what Fussell calls, the “top out of sight class” (Fussell 2). The connection that Luthar makes is from bringing in studies from Weitzman and Wilson-Doenges that states that the houses in affluent communities “are often set far apart with privacy of all ensured by long driveways, high hedges, and sprawling lawns” (1585). With these self-inflicted barricades, the affluent become what Fussell would call, “out of sight” (Fussell 2). “Having Less, Giving More” by Piff and his colleagues was an article that focused on the dissimilarities between the rich and poor, yet still stumbled across findings that furthermore backed Fussell’s article like Luthar’s. In their research, they were testing if lower class individuals express more “prosocial behavior” than upper class individuals by doing four separate experiments that would either confirm or deny this hypothesis (Piff, et al. 771). Once conducted, the experiments proved that the low SES individuals were “more prosocial toward others than their upper class counterparts” (Piff, et al. 780). Though they proved how the two were not alike, they still ran …show more content…
Instead of focusing on the connections between rich and poor, he examines the complex and multi-faceted system of the absolute lowest SES classes during his times of being homeless. While sifting through garbage, treasures, tiers, and irony what he found was a bond with the affluent, in the fact that they “both know there is plenty more where what [they] have came from” (Eighner 8). Eighner compares both the highest and lowest “out of sight” classes while also making a connection to another one of Fussell’s ideas of “where your money comes from” and that, even if they lose what they have, they both have confidence that they could get it right back (Fussell 8). That confidence in knowing they could make it right back is what keeps them in their respective