In Privileged, sociologist Shamus Khan discusses what he learned by studying one of the most elite boarding schools in the country, St. Paul’s School. The school molds some of the most privileged members of our society, sending them off into some of its most powerful positions. So, how do these high school students think of themselves?
Khan argues that new social mandates to diversify elite education may have some pernicious negative effects. A generation ago, when most students who attended the high school came from rich backgrounds, St. Paul’s students knew that they were there because they were members of the privileged class. Today about 1/3rd of students do not pay full tuition. Students, then — both those on scholarships and those who aren’t — learn to think of themselves as individuals who have worked hard to get where they are.
The problem, as Khan articulates it, is that identifying as a member of a class acknowledges that privileged individuals are lucky and may owe some gratitude to a society that has boosted them up. Thinking of oneself as a uniquely talented individual, in contrast, encourages a person to attribute all of their privilege to their own merits, so they not only feel no gratitude to society, but also fail to notice that our social institutions play a part in disadvantaging the disadvantaged.
And, in the end, students at St. Paul’s School may very be talented individuals who have worked hard, but they’re also members of a class. Two-thirds of St. Paul’s students pay full tuition — $45,000 per year — so 2/3rds of the students still come from the top 1% of society. Now, more than ever, they fail to recognize their privilege.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 23
DS — June 21, 2012
EXACTLY! This process is alive and well in many institutions of higher learning. In law school, the same process is at play. Class privilege brought many of the young lawyers to law school, but the 3 years of hard work (which is fetishized) transforms that class privilege into something 'earned' - something that the individuals have to hide.
It is a way of laundering class privilege. And just like money laundering - turning the ill-gotten proceeds of crime into legitimate business ventures - the appearance is fundamentally altered. Instead of rich brats who had everything handed to them; they become bright, hard-working, intellectual go-getters who earned everything they have. Brilliant.
decius — June 21, 2012
"Two-thirds of St. Paul’s students pay full tuition — $45,000 per year —
so 2/3rds of the students still come from the top 1% of society."
Factual error there. The top 25% of two-filer households could affort $45000/yr as one-third of income. The top 1% of 'single, head of household' families could also afford that amount as one-third of their income.
90% of households cannot come from the top 1% of society. 90% of households make more than $150,000 per year.
Alex — June 21, 2012
Ahh, thank you (and Khan) for understanding how society works! Reading your blog has been a breath of fresh air from some seriously near-sighted views about money, class and privilege in my community.
I think a graduation requirement (from high school or college) should be to analyze one's own socioeconomic/"class" background and prove understanding of what kinds of privileges may have led them to their beliefs and locations in life.
MPS — June 21, 2012
This is a theme I've seen before.
Another context is: affirmative action, and other means to expand the pool of applicants to elite credentialing institutions, is not just about providing equal opportunity. It's also about legitimatizing the elite credentialing institution.
For example, if Harvard only accepts students from the old boy's network, then the legitimacy of the Harvard degree as an elite credential becomes suspect. It's important that this doesn't happen, because the world is much more of a meritocracy than it used to be. Harvard has since expanded access, and most students at Harvard are exceptionally brilliant, and Harvard strives to be open to students who might also be brilliant but haven't had the background to really develop / demonstrate it to the extent of those from affluent backgrounds. This is good, but also serves to convey the status of these people to the significant fraction of the Harvard class that is still drawn from the old boy's network. That is, the legacy students get the advantage of being lumped with the brilliant students, and might believe they have earned that advantage because they are lumped with a group that has.
Exhominem — June 21, 2012
What we're seeing here is the death of "Noblesse Oblige". The guillotines won't be too far behind.
John — June 22, 2012
The video is now password protected. Is there any way to unprotect it?
The Perils of Meritocracy | Joshua Curtis Kidd — July 13, 2012
[...] argument and I won’t rehash them here. When I read the Brooks piece, I was reminded of an article that I had seen on Sociological Images about a month ago on Shamus Khan. Khan isn’t mentioned in the op-ed, but his latest book, Privileged: The Making of an [...]
[quote] The new elite: attributing privilege to class vs. merit « slendermeans — August 23, 2012
[...] [Read more: sociologicalimages [...]
quick hit: The new elite: attributing privilege to class vs. merit | feimineach — December 30, 2013
[…] [Read more: sociologicalimages] […]
Socofed — January 13, 2014
If only the author was truly reflexive with regard to his own privlege...and that of his position within the academy...