Jay Macleod Theory Of Social Inequality

Jay MacLeod claims that “families at the top of the social structure can use their superior status and resources to stay there, while other families, low on options, languish at the bottom” (MacLeod 2009: 240). MacLeod (2009: 240) proposes the idea that not many individuals obtain the social mobility that popular American ideology promises to offer. This achievement ideology, popularly known as the “American Dream” gives citizens of American society an individualistic approach in regards to success. Unfortunately, since this is the narrative that has been pushed for a prolonged period of time, individuals who do not meet the standards of this ideology, are looked at as societal failures. Structurally and culturally, this ideology most often
On a larger scale, there are issues with our current society that promote social inequality. Among these is racism. As MacLeod (2009: 42) cleverly remarks, “racism in lower-class communities stems from competition for scarce economic resources”, and one might even argue that this can be applied further beyond lower-class communities. In addition, MacLeod (2009: 45), argues that “we must also blame the economic and social conditions of lower-class life under competitive capitalism.” Moreover, it seems to be that this tension and racial turmoil heightens when a minority of individuals from different backgrounds are introduced into a setting that was composed of the majority population, as can be exemplified by the riots of 1971 and 1972 in response to public housing diversification (MacLeod 2009: 44). The fact that Clarendon Heights “tends to be a cloistered, insular neighborhood, isolated from the surrounding community” (MacLeod 2009: 73) structurally shows how society tries to sector off poor individuals in order to attempt to hide the fallacy of the achievement ideology, and
This agency can affect the manner in which individuals behave, what they surround themselves with, and how they view society as a whole. MacLeod (2009: 255) reaffirms the idea that “structural constraints on opportunity lead to leveled aspirations, which in turn, affect job prospects.” This argument connects to the idea that societal structure, cultural values, and one’s individual sense of agency can all drastically alter the life that one lives. Unfortunately, if individuals are told that they are not going to succeed, or are constantly surrounded by exemplars that lack success, individuals are more likely to perpetuate the same behavioral patterns. The Hallway Hangers are surrounded by models of violence, and their subculture is “at odds with the dominant culture” (MacLeod 2009: 119), making it easier for these individuals to have a reduced sense of agency. Although their creation of a subculture is a response to the structural inequality they are facing, it is the decision to isolate themselves from the norms of society that place these individuals at risk, and aid in preserving the inequality that they are succumbing to. In the case of the Brothers, it is their full belief and trust in our society that continually gives rise to the oppression and inequality that they face. These individuals choose to believe that programs such as affirmative action will positively aid them, and claim that