Graduate Level Writing Due Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Graduate Level Writing Requiredduewednesday February 12 2020 By 5p

Graduate Level Writing Required. DUE: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 by 5pm Eastern Standard Time. Provide a word response answering the following questions: Are there everyday behaviors that might be useful or functional in lower classes, but would not serve the same purpose for those of higher socioeconomic standing? What about interactions with peers, teachers, or other authorities? -Provide at least 1 Academic / Scholarly reference . -100% Original Work. ZERO PLAGARISM -Must Be Graduate Level Writing.

Paper For Above instruction

Socioeconomic status (SES) profoundly influences daily behaviors, interactions, and social functioning within different social strata. Behaviors that are adaptive or necessary within lower socioeconomic contexts may not serve the same purpose or may even be disadvantageous in higher socioeconomic environments. This dynamic underscores the significance of understanding how social context shapes individual behavior, particularly in terms of survival strategies, social interactions, and conformity to social norms.

In lower socioeconomic classes, behaviors that are considered functional often revolve around resourcefulness, adaptability, and resilience amidst scarcity. For instance, hyper-vigilance and heightened alertness serve as essential survival tactics in environments where safety and resource availability are uncertain (Wilson, 2012). These behaviors facilitate quick decision-making, risk assessment, and self-protection, which are often necessary to navigate unstable or dangerous settings. Conversely, in higher socioeconomic contexts, such behaviors might be perceived negatively, as signs of paranoia or anxiety, rather than adaptive strategies rooted in necessity.

Another example involves communication styles and attitudes toward authority. In lower SES environments, individuals might adopt assertive or even aggressive communication to establish respect or manage perceived threats. Such behaviors can be functional in contexts where negotiation and standing one's ground are critical for safety or resource acquisition (Sampson & Laub, 1994). However, in more affluent settings, assertiveness without diplomacy might be viewed as socially inappropriate or disruptive, potentially hindering educational or professional advancement.

Interactions with peers, teachers, and other authorities also vary significantly based on socioeconomic background. Youth from lower SES backgrounds may develop distrust toward institutions or authority figures due to experiences of marginalization or perceived discrimination (Lareau, 2011). These interactions, characterized by defiance or disengagement, may serve as adaptive responses to systemic inequalities. In contrast, students from higher SES backgrounds often exhibit deference to authority and strategic compliance, which aligns with cultural norms emphasizing respect for hierarchy and institutional authority. This divergence influences academic engagement, social integration, and long-term societal mobility (Lareau, 2011).

Furthermore, differences in social capital influence behaviors within educational settings. Lower SES individuals often develop informal networks for information and support, which are instrumental in their daily functioning (Bourdieu, 1986). These networks may be less formal but crucial for navigating societal expectations and institutional requirements. Higher SES individuals typically possess access to broader, more formal social capital, which can facilitate opportunities and advantageous interactions within institutions (Bourdieu, 1986). As such, behaviors that optimize social capital in each group are contextually dependent, serving different purposes based on socioeconomic resources and cultural norms.

Understanding these differences is vital for educators, policymakers, and social workers, as it highlights the importance of contextualizing behaviors within their social environment. Interventions aimed at fostering social equity must acknowledge that behaviors deemed problematic in one context may be adaptive strategies in another. Supporting lower SES individuals involves creating respectful and inclusive environments that recognize diverse behavioral norms and promote equitable opportunities for growth and social mobility.

In conclusion, everyday behaviors and interactions with authority figures are deeply embedded within socioeconomic contexts. Behaviors that function effectively in lower socioeconomic settings may not translate directly or may even be counterproductive in higher SES environments. Recognizing and respecting these differences is essential for fostering inclusivity and understanding across social boundaries.

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
• Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Crime and Deviance Over the Life Course. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 71-92.
• Wilson, W. J. (2012). The Declining Significance of Neighborhoods. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 66–78.