Pretense, Putdowns, and Missing Identities in Activists’ Class Talk

Abstract

Americans are noted for not talking about social class. Does the same hold true for progressive group members? A study of 25 U.S. social movement organizations found that two class categories of progressive activists avoided explicit talk of class and, when asked about class identity, resisted the question or garbled their answers. First, lifelong working-class and poor activists (those lacking college degrees and professional/managerial jobs in both the current and the prior generation) were less likely to use conventional class terms. Second, voluntarily downwardly mobile activists (college graduates raised by professional parents who had chosen to work part-time jobs or no jobs to free up time for activism or to enact environmental or antimaterialist values) tended to equate themselves with involuntarily low-income people, misrecognizing their higher cultural capital. In the absence of clear, open class identities within activist groups, distorted class talk filled the vacuum. Falsely posing as working class sometimes conferred status. References to class and race privilege were sometimes used as insults. When the bottom half of the 99 percent do not name their class identity, and when some class-privileged activists deny their cultural capital, such missing class identities may harm the development of group cohesion in social movement groups.

William A. Gamson and His Legacy for Academia and Social Movements

“…The approaches, insights, and passions he cultivated continued, carried by many others (e.g., Alimi 2007;Alimi et al 2015;Croteau and Hoynes 2018;Finnegan 2013;M. Flacks and R. Flacks 2018;Gawerc 2012;Goodson 2019;Leondar-Wright 2013;Meyer 2021;Milman 2014;Ryan and Jeffries 2019;Ryan and Squires 2019;Tarrow and Meyer 2019;Williams 2016, n.d.). His was an extraordinarily generative career.…”

Neighbourhoods in Transition: Gentrification, Identity, and Social Inequality

“…This type of response, communicating frustrations to fellow residents in informal situations but not towards institutions or other stakeholders through a formal process, is a response that is often present in the neighbourhood, also beyond the postal code change. These types of conversations, in which residents express their dissatisfaction with what is happening around them in general or specifically in their neighbourhood, are often interwoven with sentiments of powerlessness and of not being listened to no matter what one does, and are ingrained in local cultural codes (see also Collins, 2017;Hauser & McClellan, 2009;Leondar-Wright, 2013). Furthermore, through this informal style of exchange, misinformation and opaqueness about the facts of any changes are perpetuated and often exacerbated.…”

“…working class versus elites, cf. Collins, 2017;Leondar-Wright, 2013), knowledge (of zoning laws, urban planning, bureaucracy, procedures), language (formal versus informal, and often Dutch versus local dialect or Dutch as a second language, cf. Hauser & McClellan, 2009;Paunonen, Vuolteenaho, & Ainiala, 2009;Volosinov, 1986), and resources (financial, legal, organizational).…”