This article proposes an agenda for research on the relation of structural inequality to the study of politics and consumption in the field of communication. The authors review evidence for increasing inequality in the United States and argue that (1) consumption choices and desires are strongly constrained by structural location; (2) political beliefs and attitudes are shaped by location in the income or class structure; and (3) consumption as a form of political self-expression or civic identity, for example, boycotting or “buycotting,” is also constrained by economic structural location. Given these propositions, it becomes critical to analytically situate notions of personalization of politics within the context of increasing economic inequality.
BartelsLarry M.2005. Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics3 (1): 15–31.
2.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BennettW. Lance. 2012. The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
4.
BlauPeter M.SchwartzJoseph E.1984. Crosscutting social circles: Testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. New York, NY: Academic Press.
5.
Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. 2011. Trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007. Washington, DC: CBO.
6.
CorakMiles. 2006. Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility. IZA Discussion Paper 1993. Available from http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf.
7.
DeParleJason. 4January2012. Harder for Americans to rise from lower rungs. New York Times.
8.
GarandJames C.2010. Income inequality, party polarization, and roll-call voting in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Politics72 (4): 1109–28.
9.
GilensMartin. 2005. Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly69 (5): 778–96.
10.
HackerJacob S.2006. The great risk shift. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2010. Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich richer—and turned its back on the middle class. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
12.
HacketRobert A.2001. News media and civic equality: Watch dogs, mad dogs or lap dogs. In Democratic equality: What went wrong? ed. BroadbentEdward, 197–212. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
13.
HungerfordT.2011. Changes in the distribution of income among tax filers between 1996 and 2006: The role of labor income, capital income, and tax policy. Report from the Congressional Research Service. Available from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42131.pdf.
14.
HymanLouis. 2012. The politics of consumer debt: U.S. state policy and the rise of investment in consumer credit, 1920–2008. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
15.
IyengarShanto. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
JänttiMarkusBratsbergBerntRøedKnutRaaumOddbjørnNaylorRobinÖsterbackaEvaBjörklundAndersErikssonTor. 2006. American exceptionalism in a new light: A comparison of intergenerational earnings mobility in the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. IZA Discussion Paper 1938. Available from http://ftp.iza.org/dp1938.pdf.
17.
KeisterLisaMollerStephanie. 2000. Wealth inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology26:63–81.
18.
KendallDiana. 2005. Framing class: Media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
19.
LaneRobert. 1959. The fear of equality. American Political Science Review53 (1): 35–51.
20.
LewisKristenBurd-Sharps.Sarah2010. The measure of America 2010–2011: Mapping risks and resilience. New York, NY: New York University Press.
21.
LiebersonStanley. 1985. Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22.
McCallLeslieKenworthyLane. 2009. Americans’ social policy preferences in the era of rising inequality. Perspectives on Politics7 (3): 459–84.
23.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
McLeodJack M.ZubricJessicaKeumHeejoDeshpandeSameerChoJaehoSteinSusanHeatherMark. 2001. Reflecting and connecting: Testing a communication mediation model of civic participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
25.
McPhersonMillerSmith-LovinLynnCookJames M.2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27:415–44.
26.
MolinasJosé R.de BarrosRicardo PaesSaavedraJaimeGiugaleMarcelo. 2010. Do our children have a chance? The 2010 Human Opportunity Report for Latin American and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank.
27.
MorganMichaelShanahanJamesSignorielliNancy. 2009. Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In Media effects, eds. BryantJenningsOliverMary Beth, 34–49. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
NortonMichael I.ArielyDan. 2011. Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science6 (1): 9–12.
29.
OliverMelvin L.ShapiroThomas M.1995. Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
PageBenjamin I.JacobsLawrence R.2009. Class war? What Americans really think about economic inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available from http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60238.pdf.
39.
VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay LehmanBradyHenry. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
WillisMargaret M.SchorJuliet B.2012. Does changing a light bulb lead to changing the world? Political action and the conscious consumer. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
41.
ZillmannDolf. 2002. Exemplification theory of media influence. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research, eds. BryantJenningsZillmannDolf, 19–41. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
