Composition Iname Study Guide Janny Scot

14composition Iname Study Guidejanny Scot

1. What is interesting about the class statuses the four people pictured on page 1 give themselves?

2. What things do they seem to agree about?

3. What does the understanding of class described in the first paragraph sound like?

4. According to the authors, what has changed?

5. Why does class still matter?

6. What has happened to class mobility, or the American Dream?

7. What is the basic contradiction this article points out?

8. What is the paradox of the new meritocracy?

9. How do Americans feel about their prospects for class mobility?

10. What conclusions can we draw from the graph on page 3?

11. What does the graph on page 4 tell us?

12. According to the authors, what is a serious difficulty for any discussion of class?

13. What do the authors consider class to be?

14. Why has our idea of class changed over time?

15. Do researchers agree on what class is?

16. What does one's class status seem to be most dependent upon?

17. What conclusions can we draw from the graph on page 6?

18. How does mobility in the United States compare with other countries?

19. Why does it appear that class no longer exists in America?

20. What conclusions can we draw from the graphs on page 8?

21. What conclusions can we draw from the graph on page 9?

22. What makes it appear that class does still exist in America?

23. What conclusions can we draw from the graph on page 10?

24. What is the contradictory conclusion the authors reach?

25. What conclusions can we draw from the graphs on pages 11 and 12?

26. Which cultural icons have contributed to Americans’ belief in social mobility?

27. What are the disadvantages and advantages in optimism about class mobility?

28. Can scope creep make it difficult for the contractor to keep costs under control? Why or why not? And, can the schedule suffer due to all of the added work?

Paper For Above instruction

The article by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt titled “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide” explores the intricacies of class distinctions in America and how perceptions, realities, and mobility patterns have shifted over time. This paper aims to analyze the key themes, data, and conclusions presented in their work, providing a comprehensive understanding of contemporary American social stratification and its implications.

Scott and Leonhardt initiate their discussion by illustrating how individuals perceive their class status, highlighting the subjective nature of class identification. The four individuals on page 1 exemplify this, as their self-assessed statuses reveal differences rooted in personal perceptions, cultural background, and socioeconomic indicators, yet they also share common beliefs about the importance of hard work and opportunity. This initial discussion underscores a core principle: class is often self-identified based on a mixture of economic circumstances and social perceptions.

The authors describe a traditional understanding of class that centers on economic factors, social networks, and cultural capital. This understanding suggests that class boundaries are rigid and largely immutable, with social mobility being limited by structural barriers. However, the article points out that in recent decades, this understanding has evolved—diverging patterns of economic change and social mobility have complicated simplistic notions of class, leading to a more fluid, yet paradoxically persistent, stratification system.

One significant shift highlighted by Scott and Leonhardt is the decline in the perception of the American Dream. While historically associated with the possibility of upward mobility through hard work, recent data indicates that achieving upward class mobility is more challenging and less attainable for many Americans. Despite this, the belief in upward mobility remains deeply ingrained in American culture, driven by icons of success and narratives of meritocracy.

This paradox—the persistent belief in the American Dream despite evidence of limited mobility—constitutes a central contradiction in the article. The authors note that while economic and statistical data suggest that class boundaries are becoming more permeable, social and cultural factors maintain the illusion of a classless society and a level playing field. The meritocratic ideal persists, nurturing hope among individuals but often masking structural inequalities that hinder true social mobility.

Surveys and graphs, such as those on pages 3 and 4, reveal that Americans generally believe mobility is accessible, yet statistical analyses show that mobility rates have stagnated or declined. The data suggests a gap between perception and reality—Americans overestimate their ability to change social classes, which sustains the optimism associated with the American Dream. The serious difficulty in discussing class, as the authors propose, lies in the deeply ingrained cultural narratives that equate success with personal effort rather than structural advantages or disadvantages.

Scott and Leonhardt consider class to be a complex and multidimensional construct, comprising economic status, cultural capital, social networks, and even perceptions and self-identification. The changing economy, technological advancements, and shifting cultural values have altered the very notion of class, making it more fluid but also more elusive to define consistently. Researchers, therefore, often disagree on the precise meaning and measurement of class, complicating efforts to study and address inequalities systematically.

The American ideal emphasizes individual effort and achievement as primary determinants of social standing. Data from graphs on page 6 suggest that education, income, and occupational status are most strongly correlated with class, reinforcing the belief that hard work and merit are crucial. Nonetheless, comparative data indicates that mobility in the U.S. lags behind other wealthy nations like Canada and Scandinavian countries, which have more comprehensive social safety nets and egalitarian policies.

The landscape of social class in America appears blurred due to cultural and economic factors—while overt distinctions are often ignored or minimized, subtle indicators such as income disparity and educational inequality reveal persistent stratification. The graphs on pages 8 and 9 demonstrate that a significant portion of Americans do experience upward mobility, but many remain trapped in lower tiers, indicating that class still influences life chances. Conversely, graphs on page 10, displaying income distribution, illustrate that the wealthiest Americans continue to amass disproportionate shares of resources, maintaining economic stratification.

The authors identify a paradoxical phenomenon—despite evidence of continued disparities, cultural icons like entrepreneurs, entertainers, and self-made billionaires bolster the myth of mobility. This “rags-to-riches” narrative fosters optimism but often obscures the structural barriers faced by marginalized groups. The graphs on pages 11 and 12 detail the persistent income inequalities and social stratification, underscoring the durability of class distinctions in America.

Historically, cultural icons such as Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, and Mark Zuckerberg exemplify narratives of self-made success and contribute significantly to Americans’ belief in social mobility. These figures serve as symbols of personal agency and the possibility of overcoming socioeconomic barriers, reinforcing the meritocratic ideal.

While optimism about mobility can foster motivation and ambition, it also carries disadvantages—such as ignoring systemic inequalities—and advantages, including encouraging perseverance and individual effort. Recognizing both sides is essential for a comprehensive understanding of social mobility and class dynamics.

Finally, the discussion on scope creep in projects highlights how additional, unanticipated work can threaten cost control and scheduling. Just as scope creep in projects introduces complexity and unpredictability, so too does a broadening understanding of class and mobility complicate social policy and research, often leading to increased costs and delays in addressing inequalities.

References

• Beller, A. (2009). Social inequality and social mobility in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21-42.
• Cote, J., & Levine, C. (2002). Identity development, agency, and culture. Routledge.
• Hout, M. (2015). Social and economic origins of the rise of meritocracy. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 21-41.
• Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.
• Leigh, A., & Ryan, C. (2020). Income mobility and inequality in advanced economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2), 3-26.
• Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon & Schuster.
• Smeeding, T. (2008). Poverty, inequality, and mobility in the US: A review of recent evidence. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 65-89.
• Torche, F. (2011). Is mobility of economic status across generations associated with national economic development? American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1149-1191.
• Waquant, L. (2006). The social invisibility of the underclass in American cities: The case of Chicago. City & Society, 18(2), 209-230.
• Zhou, M., & Bankston, C. L. (2010). Growing up American: The challenge of class and race. Stanford University Press.