Predicting the Haves and Have-nots within Society:
Theoretical Concept of Power vs. Oppression

Nicholas D. Hartlep, M.S.Ed.
PhD Student – Urban Education and Social Foundations of Education
Advanced Opportunity Program (AOP) Fellow
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
E-mail:  nhartlep@uwm.edu

This article encompasses the works of Drs. Joel Handler, Yeheskel Hasenfeld, Ann Winfield, John Rury, and Jean Anyon.  These professors have each created their own theoretical framework.  

Handler and Hasenfeld

Handler and Hasenfeld’s research examines the “welfare state.” Handler and Hasenfeld (2007) assert plainly, “Women are more likely to be poor than men” (p. 39). They extend their argument by discussing the glass ceiling effect, showing that “gender discrimination continues to play a large role in the difference in earnings between men and women” (p. 40). The “glass ceiling” is most certainly a phenomenon we must treat with care and tackle head-on. The conjecture is that work done by men is highly valued, whereas work done by women is devalued. Consequently, men possess power within society, while women face oppression. One of many examples is the false assumption of the “welfare queen,” which not only unjustly stigmatizes, but also demonizes African-American women. This unjust balance of power and oppression merits more focused attention. Gender equality will only take place when and if this imbalance of power is corrected. As one can ascertain through the facts presented hitherto, a person’s gender is a critical component within Handler and Hasenfeld’s theoretical framework of welfare—informally a theory of empowered persons versus oppressed persons. Of similar importance within this welfare theoretical framework is a person’s race.

Handler and Hasenfeld specify, “Since the early 1970s, black-white male inequality has increased”1 (p. 35). As we are able to deduce from the data referenced in the previous quotation, impartiality is nonexistent in terms of racial equality. This lack of impartiality implies that the free world is not colorblind as many wish to believe. Institutionalized racism and prejudicial attitudes have and continue to be woven into the social fabric of the United States. There continues to be a clear division in relation to one’s race in regards to equality and fairness on several fronts. An example of this imbalance is the value society places on individuals. Whites have traditionally been treated as having more value than nonwhites. Clearly, a person’s race directly impacts his/her life experiences; however, socioeconomic status also plays a significant role in shaping a person’s life experiences. Race and socioeconomic class are clearly correlated and are often intertwined.

Handler and Hasenfeld note, “Instead, the most critical factors appear to be to socioeconomic ones” (p. 107). Both professors—Handler and Hasenfeld—posit that “socioeconomic status itself is a proxy for many underlying factors” (p. 107). The notion that socioeconomic status serves as an approximation for many factors in life experiences makes common sense. One’s socioeconomic status is a significant factor in mitigating one’s potential life chances. An example of this mitigation is someone occupying a low socioeconomic status. People occupying such positions in society have a higher likelihood of having little recourse in their ability to meet fundamental needs and inadvertently experience more problems such as irregular work hours, unemployment, and dodgy childcare arrangements.

There are a myriad of other problems that accompany the lives of people who constitute low socioeconomic levels. An example could be access to proper medical care. Many working poor have no insurance and therefore are unable to enter the health care system. Food insecurity also becomes an area of concern with those occupying a lower socioeconomic status. Food insecurity is when one is uncertain when his/her next meal will be, or one has to reluctantly skip one or more meals.

At the opposite end of the socioeconomic continuum are people occupying higher socioeconomic statuses. These people have adequate funds and adequate health care. These people have advantages people occupying lower socioeconomic statuses do not. Examples of these powerful and influential advantages include, but are not limited to the following: (1) access to quality education, (2) food security, (3) safe and affordable housing, and (4) lower levels of financial stress. These advantages serve to maintain the status quo (power) for those who have, and to continue to oppress those who have not.

Handler and Hasenfeld’s theoretical framework has a rich historical origin. This is a judgmental history, a history of blaming the victims, who are traditionally women. It is helpful to keep in mind that Handler and Hasenfeld’s theoretical framework of welfare is based upon inequalities preexistent within the social fabric of the United States. Handler and Hasenfeld so poignantly state, “The deserving poor programs are universal and administered at the federal level—Social Security and Medicare. The undeserving poor programs are administered at the state and local level—AFDC (now TANF) and general relief” (p. 187). As one can determine from the terminology used in the abovementioned quote, society clearly demarcates who the deserving and undeserving poor are through the use of value judgments. Society distinguishes between the deserving and undeserving poor through using a sociological lens that is color-conscious and prejudicial.

Given that racism is ordinary and not aberrational, the overall ethos of majority culture promotes and promulgates this dichotomy of deserving and undeserving poor through “color-conscious” and “prejudicial” lenses. These two notions are mutually intertwined and serve to marginalize certain enclaves of people—predominately people of color. Color-conscious and prejudicial rhetoric serve two primary functions: first, they allow whites to feel consciously irresponsible for the hardships people of color face and encounter daily and, secondly, they also maintain whites’ power and strongholds within society.

First, a color-conscious lens legitimizes racism’s need for an “other” in order to flourish and maintain its influence within the fabric of society. Racism and white supremacy are not aberrant, insofar as the oppressors—the status quo—exploit the “others” (the oppressed) in order to maintain their elitist control, as well as to claim that they are neutral. Close examination repudiates this false sense of neutrality.

Second, a prejudicial lens allows the empowered—the status quo—to feel “good” and have a clear conscience: many would ask why the powerful would not have a clear conscience since they maintain a majority of the wealth and power in society. The powerful maintain power and only relinquish portions of it when they have nothing to lose; furthermore, they receive platitudes and compliments when they do choose to dole out portions of their power.

Historically-speaking, the establishment of the deserving and undeserving poor through legislation has acted and continues to act as the catalyst for the social stratification we continue to witness in the twenty-first century. Ladson-Billings and others write extensively on the haves and have-nots dilemma stating that urban renewal (now called city revitalization or urbanization) only makes city living more pleasant for the wealthy and whites, while continuing to exploit the labor of poor minorities. She explicates how city politicians and corporate leadership collude together in order to garner more property, power, and control (see e.g., Dixson and Rousseau, 2006; Taylor, Gilborn and Ladson-Billings, 2009).

Winfield

Winfield’s theoretical framework centers on eugenics in education. Power and oppression visibly flow through eugenic ideology. It (Eugenics), like the previous theory, follows along predictable and verifiable lines of gender, race, and socioeconomic class.

Eugenics is the aversive and racist attempt to create a perfect—Nordic—race. As Winfield clearly posits, “[A]ctions in the present that preserve and promote oppression from the past are, in effect, paramount to depriving non-dominant group members from the influence, and thus the capacities therein” (p. 27). The inequities that exist in education originate from eugenic practices of the past; however, the actions or inactions of current educators and those in the field of education have the power to either perpetuate or end the inequities therein. Educators who sit idly and watch while minority, underrepresented and underserved, and students of color are oppressed, perpetuate inequities in education; however, educators who voice concern(s) and advocate for oppressed student populations have the power to end educational inequities. Educators have been called to be emboldened and to end education inequities.

Gender biases were and continue to be active in carrying out eugenic practices. Eugenicists manipulated information regarding gender based abilities as a means of creating problems that could only be mitigated through eugenic solutions. Holistically, eugenics perpetuated gender biases by encouraging women to return to more traditional home-maker roles. Racial biases were also salient within Winfield’s eugenic theoretical framework.

Racial mixing was considered taboo and unthinkable under the banner of eugenics. Race was fabricated as a reliable determinant of one’s innate and potential intelligence. Winfield states that as late as 1954, “it might seem surprising that nearly 75% of African American students are classed as imbeciles” (p. 142). This classification was based on I.Q. (intelligence quotient) testing. I.Q. testing was an oppressive tool that was utilized to spread the false belief that African Americans were less intelligent than whites. Tests were premeditated and created in such a way (e.g. cultural biased, subjectively created, etc.) as to ensure that the desired end-results were obtained; these results were that whites were deemed more intelligent. American citizens as a whole believed these tests were credible and, therefore, indirectly supported African American inferiority.

Additional to racial oppression, socioeconomic class served as an element within Winfield’s theory. Socioeconomic class is embedded and ingrained deeply in this theory of power vs. oppression within society. Social class was used to evaluate human worth. Social inferiority was something that was linked with one’s socioeconomic status. If a person occupied a lower socioeconomic status, that person classified as inferior to those above him or her in the socioeconomic continuum.

Rury

Winfield’s way of thinking coincides well with the work of Rury. Winfield’s conjecture of eugenics and Rury’s theoretical framework pertain to education; Rury focuses especially on urban education. The critical components of Rury’s theoretic purview, like the other aforesaid professors, are gender, race, and socioeconomic status.

Gender inequality, according to Rury (2002), could result from insufficient levels of education opportunity for women in the United States. Rury repudiates the notion that education is egalitarian when he states, “Early in American history women were largely uneducated” (p. 18). There were many reasons why women were largely uneducated; however, for the purpose of this paper, the fact that women were less educated than men is our focus. Gender inequality has existed and currently thrives within our patriarchal, male-empowered society. Women have historically been oppressed and recipients of unequal treatment. Society has and continues to provide inordinate amounts of power to men. Another influential factor central to Rury’s theory of power vs. oppression is race.

In examining educational opportunities, Rury (2005) states that in the mid-1960s, “Overall, class sizes were 25 percent larger in Black schools” (p. 226). Class size impacts learning while lower class size affords more attention per pupil. The classrooms of Black schools in the past had disproportionately higher amounts of students than those of White schools. Why did Black schools and White schools have unequal class sizes? Again, asking this question is not as crucial as acknowledging that inequalities existed within Black—predominately urban—schools and continues to exist. It is essential to understand that the maintenance of power is something that has been going on for many years. A corpus of scholars suspects that this racial inequality and oppressive protocol was tolerated due to the de facto, as well as de jure, segregation prevalent in this particular era.

Society undoubtedly acted under a discriminatory and biased manner for particular sections of the aggregate. This oppressive experience appeared within urban education and was pervasive. Regrettably, this power vs. oppression dynamic transcended into different areas of education. An example is the unequal distribution of financial resources within schools—particularly urban (Black) schools.

Rury states, “[P]er pupil expenditures in majority Black schools were only two-thirds of those in White schools” (p. 226). White schools spent more money per student because they were given higher amounts of funding per student when compared to Black schools. This is a clear message that white students were determined to be more deserving and worthy of additional funding when compared to Black students. This racial inequality oppressed blacks, while empowering and granting additional privileges to White students.

Unfortunately, Rury’s theory of power vs. oppression is successful, insofar as he states that “social stratification was learned and enforced in personal relationships” (p. 20). Rury’s theoretical framework is based upon sociological principles. One of these principles may include, socially-speaking, blacks being undervalued when compared to whites. This culture and attitude (power vs. oppression) is learned; therefore, social stratification is learned and continues to grow in credibility. Equally tenuous is that it becomes commonplace and normal for everyone.

Deliberate social stratification is evident in the practice of redlining. The term "redlining" refers to discriminating against people because of who they are or because of where they live. While it is illegal in the U.S., violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, it continues to happen. Redlining within the real estate industry is an oppressive practice which leads to the polarizing of socioeconomic status within cities. The byproducts of “white flight” were: a segregated citizenry and city; higher concentrations of African Americans in the inner-city, or urban city centers; and higher levels of poverty. The perversity of white flight—whites fleeing urban neighborhoods as they become racially desegregated—resulted in an erosion of the urban tax-base, so profound, many believe it will be nearly irreversible. Handler, Hasenfeld, Winfield, Rury, and Anyon make this argument because it will take prolonged periods of time to undo the already highly splintered metropolitan cities.

Socioeconomic levels are powerful within Rury’s framework because socioeconomic status affects many elements in every citizen’s life. The oppressed inhabit environments that are not conducive to education, while the empowered inhabit educational-rich environments, environments that will serve to maintain the status quo; this is the powerful oppressing the powerless. Rury (2002) clearly explains, “Children with highly educated parents, for instance, have access to books, music, magazines, and media technology that may give them an advantage in school” (p. 7). Many have made the argument that a great many students in urban schools do not have these aforesaid luxuries; they quite possibly do not have anything. It is the power vs. oppression theory that serves as maintenance of the status quo. The powerful continue to oppress the powerless.

Rury’s theoretic purview is situated upon a diverse history. Rury (2002) states that “cultural capital are highly relevant to education today, but every historical period has been marked by one form or another of cultural advantage that can be transferred from one generation to the next” (p. 7). This quotation speaks to the issue at hand that is deeply embedded within this theory of power vs. oppression—an issue of powerlessness a number of people face. Oftentimes the nature of poverty is that it is cyclical and cross-generational. It is the powerless—minorities, the economically poor, the uneducated, etc.—who are the recipients of oppression because they are the dominated group.

Anyon

Anyon’s theoretical framework focuses on the idea that there are enumerable amounts of sociological factors that influence education. Anyon’s theory classifies gender, race, and socioeconomic class as sociological influences within society.

Society has the ability to grant power and oppress simultaneously. Society follows along predictable and verifiable lines of gender, race, and socioeconomic class. Gender biases saturate our world. Anyon (2005) indicates, “women with post bachelor’s degrees earn less than men who have just a bachelor’s” (p. 34). The irony in this is that education is highly revered as the panacea for securing a financially secure life. However, given Anyon’s alarming information, it appears that simply being a man helps individuals earn more money than education, which many claim to be the “great equalizer.” The aforesaid panacea for securing a financially secure life is education; however, this is the “boot strap,” or “American Dream” story. Many minorities have been told this line, only to not achieve it due to the fact they have not been empowered, nor given the tools and resources to realize it.

Additional to gender, race is a critical influence within Anyon’s theory. Race is a quasi-determinant whether one will be an empowered or oppressed citizen. On frequent occasions, nonwhites are oppressed individuals, whereas, whites frequently maintain power in society. Racial power is exposed through institutionalized practices. Moss and Tilly indicate, “Thus, the increased desire by managers for soft skills may make it harder for non-White applicants, because it may increase racial discrimination by employers” (as cited in Anyon p. 42). Racial discrimination is manifested through hiring practices. The soft skills whites possess may not be the soft skills nonwhites possess. Keeping with this power vs. oppression dynamic, those individuals who are more often hired possess soft skills more aligned with whites. Keep in mind, soft skills are often determined and created subjectively. In order for the have-nots to succeed and be recognized requires them to adapt to and to operate under the haves’ rules and operating system.

Socioeconomic class has the power to either assist or hinder one’s life. Anyon notes, “Persistent residential segregation still prevents large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics from moving to better neighborhoods” (p. 79). Socioeconomic status affects where one lives. The amount of money a person makes and that person’s race influence in what neighborhood a person will reside. Redlining is the singular contributor for the maintenance of racial apartheid in terms of housing.

We must acknowledge that social and structural inequalities exist in society. The United States continues to be a society plagued by racial, socioeconomic, and gender discrimination; therefore, we must realistically think of possible solutions. I am hopeful our precarious problems are correctable. I would argue that society must reverse the elements that have led us to where we find ourselves currently. For this reason I would also argue that redlining needs to be eradicated. Breaking apart the many enclaves that formed as a result of redlining will reduce racial segregation and serve to enrich the eroded tax-base. This mixing and movement of people from all walks of life can be realized through the assistance of the United States’ Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Low-income housing needs to be offered in all sections of cities and towns. Mobility programs need to be constituted and carried through these reforms so that there will be an increase in employment. This is particularly important because depending on the city, the majority of jobs may lie on the outskirts of town where there are limited modes of transportation.

It is naïve to believe there will be an improvement of power vs. oppression overnight. However, it is also naïve to believe we are incapable of improving this dynamic. Those who posses power do not want change. They—the status quo—reap the benefits of oppressing others. Whites, males, and the socioeconomic elite—who are empowered—will promote racial equality when it is in their own self-interest. What is more, those in power will not support inclusionary policies that will threaten their status. However, the oppressed must acknowledge they have collective power if they work with one another. The veil will be torn and there will be a day of equality; the oppressed will overcome!

References

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical Possibilities (M. W. Apple, Ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. (Original work published 2005)

Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006). They're Trying to Wash Us Away: The Adolescence of Critical Race Theory in Education (G. Ladson-Billings, Ed.). In Critical Race Theory in Education (pp. v-xiii) [Foreword]. New York: Routledge.

Handler, J. F., & Hassenfeld, Y. (2007). Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mertens, D. M. (2008, March). Which Public? Whose Interests? Two Points of View. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 101-105.

Rury, J. L. (2002). Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rury, J. L. (2005). Urban Education in the United States: A Historical Reader. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. (Original work published 2005).

Taylor, E., Gilborn, D, & Ladson-Billings (Eds). (2009). Foundations of Critical Race Theory In Education. New York: Routledge.

ENDNOTES

1.In terms of earnings, incomes, positions of management/administration, and periods of unemployment, with comparable levels of education

You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)

Return to AE Home

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.