In our last class, we discussed how lower-income workers often know more about the lives of the wealthy, than the wealthy do about the lives of lower-income workers. It seems like a strange paradox that although some wealthy individuals are paid more for their knowledge and expertise, they do not know the nuts and bolts of how society functions. On the other hand, lower-income workers work and experience the system, understand it like the back of their hand, and yet they are paid so little for their labor.
Do you think this is a good or bad phenomenon? Why? How might this ignorance on the part of the wealthy contribute to classism and discrimination in the United States? How might this phenomenon contribute to policies and rules that favor the rich and put the poor at a disadvantage?
When our author ventures to Minnesota, she spends a day interviewing an acquaintance of the lower class that has a few children and squeaks by renting a small home.
As far as research practices go, how effective do you think interviewing is in comparison to Ehrenreich’s immersion? In order to learn more about someone’s way of life, would you rather interview them or try to step in their shoes and experience first-hand what their life is like? Which research tactic is more effective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In regards to the interview vs. experience based research I think both are helpful but both have a tendency to be tainted. For instance, how do you diversify who you interview so that the voices of all low-wage-workers can be heard solidly without biases? This must include race, sex, sexual orientation, location in state, housing, what Federal assistance they are receiving etc. In the aspect of experience that too is limited to only one personal experience that varies from person to person based off of race, sex, housing, and family situation. Ehrenreich, being older is limited much of this because she is not responsible for a family and has her own form of transportation. How would this book change if it consisted of the experience of a family or a non-hetero female or a male or a non-English speaker? I feel that if any of these were to be applied her frustrations would be much rawer. Although I do recognize her work and respect her as a journalist I know that it is naïve to see this as the only true exposure of the life of low-wage-workers because it is so narrow and limited.
ReplyDeleteI think one major reason why the paradox is true is the proportions of people in each position. There is a greater number of people who are in lower income positions. So, for them to know more about the upper class would make more sense because there are fewer in the upper class. Many people in lower class positions look to their dreams and see what they want in the wealthy so they take interest in the lives of the wealthy. Also, I think that the paradox is slightly flawed. There are generalizations made about both upper and lower classes. So to say that the lower class knows more about the upper class is for the most part based upon stereotypes. It is not the job of any class to know about the other, so to say the upper class is ignorant is not a fair justification. I would not say that a knowledge or lack there of causes discrimination, I believe that the class system lends itself to discrimination. Finally, I would not say that the government "favors" the rich. The capitalist system creates a system in which those who take the greatest chances and succeed usually reap the greatest rewards and with rewards. The system is not set up to favor the rich, it is just effective in rising up the less privileged.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this paradox is neither bad nor good - it's simply reality. Of course, I do think that ignorance is the destruction of a society, no matter who is guilty of being ignorant... but this is something we cannot overcome. I couldn't imagine too many wealthy people volunteering to experience the life of someone less fortunate, but this could be one of the best ways to attack such ignorance. On the other hand, I'm sure plenty of members of the lower-classes would love to trade their lives for that of someone who is wealthy and comfortable - it just wouldn't happen that way. After having made it to the top, I don't think many people would be willing to experience the lower ranks again, and here lies the problem. As far as discrimination goes... you gotta love our society! There are certain aspects of our system that are designed to favor one person over another - how do you overcome that without re-designing the whole structure of this society?
ReplyDeleteI would think that interviewing, for Ehrenreich's purpose in this particular study, would be a very effective tool. She could still get a first-hand account of what was taking place without giving rise to a bias born from experiencing that life herself. We have already pointed out the many flaws in her methods - I think interview could counter some of these flaws and help her find balance between what she is experiencing and what she thinks she OUGHT to be experiencing. I think a combination of both methods would do her work justice.
I definitely agree with the fact that the lower class knows more about how society functions. This is not necessesairly a good thing or a bad thing (though if anything it is more bad than good because it shows that there is a lot of ignorance in the world). The lower class is in a position where they have the ability to live their lives and also observe the lives of the upper-class especially if that is what their job entails, while upper-class people work their jobs and go about day to day not seeing the "invisible" people that have made their suit, served them their coffee, or cleaned their house. I think this definitely contributes to the classism, but at the same time whether or not the lower class is less ignorant, the gap would still be there because that is unfortunately how our society functions currently.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the research question I definitely think it is much more effective to first-hand experience what is going on because you get less of a bias however it just really isn't ethical. People are people and no one deserves to have their rights infringed upon. If I were a researcher I would stick to the interviewing process, but I would try to spend time talking to the person and getting to know them before going into the real questions so that I could gain their trust and hopefully get almost the same results as if I had been their first-hand.
I personally do not feel that this vast lack of knowledge from the upper class is a good thing. The fact that people from the lower working classes understand the way the world works is a display of how most of the upper class simply does not care about those who are less fortunate. This truly contributes to class discrimination because the those of the upper class do not know what lives other people may have. We talked before of how things might be able to change, but it’s all about reeducating people and that can take decades to do.
ReplyDeleteFor research, I think in order to truly understand something you have to live it. Interviews will get you the story, but never will somebody understand the emotion without experiencing it. Speaking in terms for the rich I do believe that a little reeducation and immersion would be beneficial for them, and to understand what the people who are below them do in order to lives.
I agree with the above paradox. I believe that when you work under people, you are more likely to observe the people working above you. Those that work in the "higher class" jobs tend to focus on their job and getting ahead, rather than taking time to consider those that work below them. I believe that this is an awful phenomenon because upper class individuals need to get to know those that are working below them and show them gratitude for doing the jobs that they do. One of the reasons why people in lower class jobs observe the upper class so much is because they use it as ammunition, as they rightfully should. If the upper class took time to get to know the higher class, there would be less judgments and critiques made.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the question of research, I believe that, in this situation, the interview tactic is more effective. It shows others that you are not trying to be fake and attempt to live their life; it shows others that you just want to get to know those you are observing and represent them. I believe that by doing the interview technique, your results will be more accurate and precise because they are coming from those who are truly submerged in a specific lifestyle.
I think that people in higher social classes may be unaware of the lifestyles of lower classes or the "nuts and bolts" of society because they inherit wealth. Wealthy parents invest in education for their children, and they often don't grow up working. Education is usually followed by higher paying jobs and so inherited wealth and social position becomes a cycle.
ReplyDeleteInterviewing is a good method of qualitative research, but observation in context is more insightful. People may tell you things that they would not tell an interviewer for various reasons. A researcher can also pick up on non-verbal aspects of a culture or situation, such as social hierarchy. Also, observing interactions between others could lead to more accurate conclusions. The roles of interviewer and subject shape identities and actions, so I believe that immersion is a more accurate way to draw conclusions in qualitative research.
I think that perhaps this is an unfortunate phenomenon, but not a bad one as in destructive or something. It seems inequitable that those who depend on the lower income populace do not understand them and what they do. I think that this feeling of injustice stems from the general idea that appreciation comes from understanding, so since the upper class does not take the time to understand others they will not or cannot appreciate them.
ReplyDeleteCall me an idealist but I like to think that this unfortunate social phenomenon is just that, a social phenomenon. The idea is supposed to be that rules and policies are made to favor no one in particular, but to support the greater good. This may or may not be how things really work, and I do acknowledge that it tends to be the poor who are at a disadvantage, but I like to think that it is not due to biased policies.
As far as research goes, I think experience-based and interview-based are valuable methods. There are drawbacks to both, experience-based cannot be completely accurate because no matter how realistic the experience may be the researcher will never BE what they are studying and interviewing can be biased since the interviewee may filter their disclosure. I think that both methods are necessary, especially since no two experiences are the same. Collecting as many experiences as possible would give on the best understanding.
I agree a strange paradox occurs in this imbalance of class knowledge, but it is not necessarily a good or bad phenomenon. Instead, this is more of a biased opinion. Although there may be some wealthy individuals who are unaware of how society functions, wealthy individuals must still have some level of awareness concerning society in order to function as an employer or employee in society. It is a bad phenomenon for wealthy individuals to go out about their lives without considering lower-income workers, but it is not so cut and dry that all wealthy individuals are unaware. Bill Gates runs one of the largest philanthropic organizations so he must possess some level of awareness concerning society. While I do not know how exactly he treats the lower-income employees working at his factories or in other areas of his company, I assume he still possesses some knowledge about the lower-class if he contributes to the world through philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteIn order for someone to learn the most about another person’s way of life they must completely immerse themselves and experience first-hand what the person’s life is like. Although this may create a more subjective interpretation of the experience, it will give the best representation of the person’s real experiences. At the El Pomar Leadership Summit Leaders Wanted: Uniting to End Poverty, we engaged in a poverty simulation in which each week (a 15 minute time period) we were given specific tasks to complete with a certain amount of money and certain obstacles. While this was not complete immersion, it still gave me a more in-depth look at what people of lower-incomes experience. If I had simply interviewed lower-income families, I would not have made the same connections to these experiences of poverty issues.
I think that it is really unfortunate that the discrepancies of knowledge occur between classes in our society. The people who are wealthy and successful who don't know much, if anything, about the struggles that the lower class goes through are the ones who would have to means to help them out and change things. I also don't think the upper class understands how much they rely on the lower class to get through their daily schedules. They don't realize that every product they are using has been produced by working class factory workers, and every coffee they order is being prepared by someone who is working there because it is an option, and not because they necessarily choose to. I agree with Corinna that the upper class needs to understand the lives of lower class workers in order to appreciate them. I don't know, however, if the lower class really understands the lives of the upper class either, because they could just be believing stereotypes as well.
ReplyDeleteI think that interviewing and getting first hand experience by immersing one's self into a culture/class are both better than reading past research studies because they provide knowledge but through a more personal lens. However, I do think that immersing one's self into the culture/class structure that they do not belong to is a much better method. This is the only way you can truly feel similar to how the people in the culture/class feel and that will bring a much better understanding. By immersing herself into the working class, the author really "takes a walk in their shoes" and can understand much better the struggles and problems people go through, as well as problems in the class structure as a whole.
As far as the phenomenon mentioned above, I think it is a bad phenomenon. It is certainly a good point that high wage workers are paid for their knowledge and expertise, when they hardly know anything about society. I think it would be important for those workers to examine their lives and decide whether or not they have a realistic view about society. I am not sure what laws or practices can be put in place in order to change this way of thinking, but it certainly does need to be changed.
ReplyDeleteAs for types of research, I would personally like to interview someone to understand their experience. This does not necessarily mean that I think this is the best type of research. Actually, I think that actually entering the situation at hand is the best type of research, I just do not think that is the type of research i am cut out for.
Here's Briana's comment:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the phenomenon of the disparity of knowledge between the wealthy and the lower income peoples is not acceptable. I believe that every person should be aware of those around them and have an understanding of how the community around them is functioning. I think that much of the ignorance found in the American upper class is due to our historical origins in Empirical England. By living in a system that is consumerism and materialism, the poor become the “untouchables”, and therefore are deemed unworthy of the upper class’ commitment and compassion. This monetary sense of superiority also further contributes to the lack of supportive legislation for lower income brackets because of the higher status and income associated with education and extensive legal knowledge. Thus, those struggling to make ends meet do not get their due representation, and are further discriminated against in the financial sector.
I, being a self-serving human, would not put myself in anyone else's shoes unless there was some personal incentive other than just pure knowledge. I would rather interview anyone who is experiencing what i am researching, instead of suffering through that myself. however, i do believe that the emersion of the investigator is much more effective at producing a more well-rounded and holistic piece of writing. I believe that Ehrenreich’s interview is very powerful, but i do not think that the book as a whole would be nearly as interesting or comprehensive in the subjects it covers and the data that it presents.