Classifying Groups of People

1. Classifying a person as “disabled” presupposes a dichotomy within the human condition—that a person is either “disabled” or not. This essentialist view is oversimplified, but remains pervasive, resulting in far-reaching implications. This is so regardless of whether one adopts a medical model of disability (conceptualizing the body as a machine that is “broken” because it does not perform pursuant to societal norms), or the social model of disability (conceptualizing disability not as an outgrowth of a medical problem, but as a result of the societal exclusion of someone not among the master class along this axis of difference).

Classification according to this dichotomy influences both how others perceive an individual, and how that individual experiences society. Individually, a child becomes aware that they are “different” by learning from their parents, peers, the media, and others who exert influence on this formation of self-identity. Upon making this realization, many experience shame and anxiety, and wish that they could be “normal,” as all of these outside influences seem to prefer (whether this preference is expressed consciously or not). Among those who are not disabled, there is a quiet gratitude that, at least along this particular axis of difference, they belong to the master class. This is often coupled with feelings of pity or disdain for the minority.

This disability dichotomy shapes our understanding of the social world, whether we are considered disabled or not. Special programs and laws intended to protect the disabled do, in some measure, help them participate in society. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires wheelchair-accessibility for many buildings and facilities, allowing people who cannot walk to access places they otherwise might not be able to. But even such “accommodations”—though sometimes necessary—perpetuate a conception of the disabled as sub-standard members of society. In teaching children to be inclusive of the physically handicapped, for example, we highlight the “disabled” status of those individuals. Moreover, the essentialist view of disability oversimplifies the spectrum of struggles faced by various members of society, as reality is more complicated than this blunt divide.

It is impossible for such a dichotomous conception of disability not to impact opportunity. This is a result of both external and internal pressures. Externally, government and advocacy groups attempt to prevent disability discrimination, but the result is hyper-awareness and perpetuation of the divide between “normal people” and the “disabled.” Internally, disabled individuals may avoid seeking certain opportunities because of shame and self-consciousness.

2. Being “white” remains a largely essentialist classification in society, despite the existence of significant racial diversity among “white” individuals and communities. This is in part because diversity among whites is not as pronounced as differences between “whites” and each individual racialized category. The notion that “whiteness” indicates a lack of diversity is also perpetuated by several other factors, many of which are so deeply ingrained in our culture and the lens through which we view the world that most people seldom question them.

When light-skinned Europeans settled the land that is now the United States of America, they asserted their status as the “master” group by laying claim to the land and establishing governments that overtook the systems in place among the native people. Individuals with light skin cemented this status by retaining most of the power in society throughout the past few centuries, including by importing dark-skinned slaves from Africa. Thus, in addition to the general observation that “white” people are more similar to one another than they are to non-white groups, “whiteness” is considered a lack of diversity in large part because it occupies the position of master status. Powerful “whites” considered themselves “normal,” and grouped the rest of society into various categories of “non-whiteness.” This began with the Native Americans, continued with slaves from Africa, and remains common practice today, as immigrants of Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and other descent move to the United States and are classified into sub groups by our culture. (Indeed, even the government is complicit in this, as the Census groups people into “white” and other categories). Thus, whiteness is lacking in diversity because the one characteristic that all other racialized identifiers share is their lack of “whiteness.”

As a result of the development of racialized identifiers to describe the various ways of being “non-white,” the cultural content of “whiteness” is reduced to the lack of any other racialized identifier. “White” is the “neutral” racial classification, and is supposed unless some measure of “difference” is explicitly articulated. Since anything different is described in terms of the specific way it is non-white, “whiteness” has become an “unmarked” cultural category. When someone is white, there is nothing left to define them with, as all such classifiers arise out of non-whiteness. Other “racial” groups are “marked”—by their color, another distinctive physical characteristic they share, or perhaps the accent with which they speak the English language (if at all). These “marks” help define what type of “abnormal,” “non-white” these individuals are. White people, then, are left “unmarked” as a racial group.

3. There is undoubtedly a correlation between race and social class in society. Many statistical studies take pains to document this—for example, by grouping measures of unemployment, income, education, and other potential indicators of social stratification by racial group. Adopting Michael Zweig’s conception of social class as “power,” one can readily observe that, especially over time, certain racial groups (like white people) have remained “powerful,” and have generally occupied higher rungs on the social ladder. Other racial groups have typically lacked power, and had correspondingly low social status—African Americans are an example of one such racial group. Certain racial groups, such as Asians, initially immigrated to the United States with little power and occupied the lower classes, but over time, have gained power and this, a corresponding increase in societal prominence.

This correlation informs our understanding of both social class and race in American society. For example, when making an empirical observation of someone’s race, an observer will often make at least some assumption about that person’s social class. This happens unconsciously, via rapid cognition. Of course, the certainty and specificity of the assumption depend upon the degree of the correlation between a particular racial group and a social class, as well as the individual observer’s experiences and biases. The assumption of correlation, however, is only triggered during rapid cognition because it has been perpetuated by the media, sociologists, statisticians, and an individual’s empirical observations. Further compounding these assumptions is confirmation bias among individuals, which may cause them to give more weight to empirical observations that confirm their existing assumptions about race as a predictor of social class than those that refute it.

This correlation also has implications for purposes of our understanding of class. Some scholars have argued that racial minorities among the lower classes should ignore their racial affinities, instead uniting with others of different races based on their shared social class. In this way, these scholars argue, members of the lower social classes can achieve the critical mass necessary to influence society for their benefit. This is unlikely to materialize, however, as it grows out of a dichotomous conception of two social classes—the “rich” and “poor,” which ignores the reality of the middle class, as well as the upwardly mobile racial groups in America.

4. Educational, peer, and occupational opportunities are heavily related, and influenced by social class. Generally, the higher a child’s social class, the better educational, occupational, and peer opportunities that child has. Better opportunities during childhood translate to better opportunities in adulthood and, with some exceptions, perpetuation of much of the American social class system. The place where a child grows up is often largely dependent upon his social class. Location, in turn, determines the educational opportunities available to young children. Where a child attends school plays a large role in determining who his peers are. And these peers will exert an influence on the child as he makes decisions about what paths to pursue in life.

Indeed, poorer neighbourhoods typically have less effective school systems, where a child’s peers are less likely to come from stable homes with parents who value education and were educated themselves. In these environments, the model set by parents is less likely to be one of pursuing higher education and professional degrees (otherwise, there is a good chance the parents would make more money, and not be members of the lower class). Instead, the attitude and culture may not value studying and seeking a professional degree, but some other way of making a living—possibly one that involves low-paying manual labour or service jobs, or worse, crime and violence. Because decisions about which path to take in life do not take place in a vacuum, and children are heavily influenced by peers, such an environment makes it less likely that a child will make choices which will allow him to elevate himself out of a lower social class.

Members of the higher social classes, on the other hand, tend to live in wealthier neighbourhoods, where public schools are better (and parents are more inclined to pay for private school if public schools are sub-standard). These children will be influenced by peers from higher social classes, who are more likely to value education, in part because they were raised by educated parents with professional jobs. Similarly, children of higher social class are more likely to have parents and peers who will encourage them to pursue professional success. Thus, in part because of these environmental factors and the desire of children to belong, social class in children creates something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, perpetuating social class in America.