This
post is a reflection on the writing I’ve done over the years concerning
economic and social inequality in our country. A slightly shorter version
appeared in the May 16, 2014 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Chronicle
Review.
***
For close to
thirty-five years I’ve been writing about a cluster of issues that involve
social class, education, and work: literacy, intelligence, academic
underpreparation, and the purpose of schooling. Looking back on it all, it
seems that I’ve been using writing for a long time to try to understand and
portray the ways opportunity and inequality play out in American life. One of
the challenges I’ve faced is rendering the kind of complexity I have found in
the lives of the people I’ve interviewed. They bear witness to the damage
wrought by inequality but also to the resilience and intelligence of those
affected by it. Let me offer an example from close to home.
Several years
before my mother died, I interviewed her about the waitressing she had done for
much of her working life. She was pretty sick by then, but she liked to
reminisce about her work and had keen recall of the details of restaurant
service. We would clear off the kitchen table, and she would demonstrate taking
orders and delivering them, talking about the way she would organize the flow
of work and the memory tricks she’d use to remember who got the steak and who
got the chicken sandwich. She could still balance plates along her right arm
while holding tight to two cups and saucers. As well as I knew my mother, my
interviews with her would reveal a more complex set of feelings and beliefs
about work than I had imagined.
Waitressing
was physically punishing but provided my mother, a woman with a 6th
grade education, a way to exercise some control over her life—she knew, she
said, that she could always find work. A customer might be rude and insulting,
but she defined such behavior as ignorance and mocked it with her co-workers.
My mother grew up destitute and isolated in the domestic labor of her
household, and waitressing enabled her to “be among the public,” a source of
pride and enjoyment for her. That social exchange helped create an educational
setting: “There isn’t a day that goes by…that you don’t learn something.” For
all its constraints and demands, the restaurant provided the occasion for my
mother to display a well-developed set of physical, social, and cognitive
skills. It was her arena of competence.
The
interviews with my mother became the most personal part of The Mind at Work,
a study documenting the significant cognitive content of physical work. The
dynamics of social class and occupational status as well as our enchantment
with high technology blinker our perception of the mental acuity involved in
blue-collar and service occupations, waitressing to welding. I wrote what I
called cognitive biographies of people like my mother, for so often our
depiction of the inner lives of working-class people, and certainly of the
poor, might give us fortitude or courage or, conversely, conflict and despair,
but not a fuller picture of their intelligence and everyday creativity.
As I tried to
capture this fuller picture, I drew on a range of disciplines—cognitive science
to labor history to sociology and economics—consulting experts in each of these
fields. Each discipline provided a different line of sight on inequality,
brought into focus a particular aspect of it. I remember listening years ago to
a lecture by an economist on the devastation of neighborhoods in South Central
Los Angeles, an area I knew well, having grown up there and written about it.
The economist was right on many levels: local industries were long gone,
unemployment was high, street crime and gang violence plagued the area. But as
he spoke, I kept thinking of the side streets where houses had mowed lawns and
flowerbeds, where people had turned an empty lot into a community garden, where
small churches distributed food and clothing. None of this negated the
economist’s analysis, but could have enhanced it, an ethnographic portrayal
that suggests a pulse of rejuvenation amid the terrible problems his analysis
revealed.
One
of the likely differences between me and the economist is that we have
different goals. He was presenting a quantitative summary of key trends for an
audience of other scholars or of policymakers. In quite a different way, my
work, I hope, also reaches some in those audiences. But I have another audience
in mind as well: those affected by inequality. Two high school girls from South
Central are watching a feature about their neighborhood on the evening news.
The camera pans an empty street as the newscaster says this is like a
Third-World country. The girls are more than aware of the poverty and danger in
their neighborhood; they were just talking about it before the newscast. But
they’re taken aback by the reporter’s characterization. “This isn’t the
Third-World,” one says. “This is where we live.” My goal is to write in a way
that combines the economist’s analysis with a more anthropological
investigation of those side streets, a combination that might assure those
girls that they and their community are more than the sum of economic
indicators or a stigmatized catch-phrase, yet also get them to consider the
broader forces impinging on their lives.
To
achieve this end, along with the use of multiple disciplines, I attempt to
blend genres, to weave together analysis with narrative, descriptive detail
with exposition. This experimentation began while writing Lives on the
Boundary, a book about academic underpreparation in American schools and
colleges and, therefore, about education and social class. I present, for
example, vignettes of students struggling to make sense of a lecture in
psychology or philosophy or to write a paper explicating a poem, and, as with
the cognitive biographies I mentioned earlier, I try to convey not only these
students’ backgrounds and the feelings triggered by their academic struggles
but also their thought processes, the reasoning behind an error, or previously
learned reading or writing strategies that don’t work now, or insight that gets
lost in confusing syntax.
These
vignettes are set within a discussion of the history and sociology of
underpreparation in higher education. I think that embedding such vignettes
into an examination of the conditions that lead to them gives a conceptually
more substantial account of underpreparation than would vignette or
disciplinary analysis alone. Also, from the feedback I’ve gotten, it seems that
this blend of genres resonates with students who themselves struggled in
school. The pairing of vignette and analysis helps make the analysis come
alive, humanizes it. Equally important, a story or descriptive portrait doesn’t
stand alone, but connects to explanatory ideas. The people being portrayed
aren’t lone actors, aren’t odd or unusual—there are reasons for their
circumstances.
Inequality
has caught the public's attention, and it is the writer's job to hold that
attention when so much else competes for it. How do we find the words to
capture the brutal magnitude of the problem and the political and social forces
that created it? At the same time, how can we portray the minds and hearts of
the residents of a beleaguered neighborhood, of young people struggling in
school, of workers on the factory or restaurant floor, of those on the street
with no work at all? There are many ways to analyze and write about inequality.
I try to look for the trend and the life lived within the trend.
You can share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader through the "share" function located at the top left-hand corner of the blog.
