Abstract
A growing literature highlights the experiences of first-generation, low-income (FGLI) students on college campuses. However, these studies often conflate the positions of middle- and upper-class students. Using interviews with undergraduates at one elite institution, the author shows how upper-middle-class students responded to upward and downward cross-class encounters. Perceiving a status threat from above, students responded to interactions with rich peers through stereotypical denigration. Yet prolonged exposure to the rich resulted in another tactic, selective legitimation, which maintained that wealthy individuals who performed “awareness” could be morally rehabilitated. Encounters with FGLI classmates led respondents to view themselves as lucky or “privileged” for having escaped hardship, leading to rituals of deference aimed at muting the salience of class difference. Finally, despite their heightened recognition of class inequality, respondents drew equivalences between the problems of rich and poor students, ultimately denying the relevance of privilege in determining individual worth.
Class stratification on college campuses has been of growing interest to education scholars (e.g., Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; Lee 2016; Stuber 2011). This research typically focuses on working-class or “first-generation, low-income” (FGLI) students, especially on elite campuses where they constitute a small but symbolically important portion of the student body (Collier and Morgan 2008; Ferguson and Lareau 2021; Jack 2019; Lee and Kramer 2013). Studies tend to include the more affluent majority as a reference group, rather than the main object of study (e.g., Aries and Seider 2005; Jack and Black 2022). As a result, the literature often conflates middle- and upper-class students, suggesting that class matters less in these students’ lives because they possess substantial social, economic, and cultural resources, precisely what FGLI students lack (Hurst 2019; Stuber 2006, 2011). Thus, even as class relations have attracted greater attention, studies may have eclipsed key identity processes among the privileged (Bourdieu 1984). Specifically, studies have not explored how the classed worldviews and self-conceptualizations of middle- and upper-middle-class students may be influenced through encounters with those below and above them in the class hierarchy (Armstrong et al. 2014; DiMaggio 2012; Kraus, Park, and Tan 2017; Ridgeway and Fisk 2012).
Using interviews with Black and White upper-middle-class undergraduates at one northeastern U.S. private university, I show how students responded to cross-class interactions with upper- and lower-class peers using identity strategies aimed at reducing status inequality between themselves and the members of each class extreme. Regarding upward exposure, respondents first engaged in “high-status denigration,” referencing negative stereotypes of the rich while drawing moral boundaries that elevated their own implicitly nonrich position (Hahl and Zuckerman 2014; Hahl, Zuckerman, and Kim 2017; Lamont 2000). However, prolonged exposure to the upper class seemed to dull, if not eliminate, the significance of these upward boundaries, provided that rich students personally demonstrated “awareness” and acknowledged their privilege. Conversely, encounters with FGLI students made upper-middle-class respondents recognize themselves as similarly vulnerable to denigration by their lower-class peers. Respondents who formed close downward bonds sought to minimize the interpersonal visibility of class difference, ostensibly out of deference to hard-working FGLI students who were not as “lucky” as respondents. Yet despite their moral reservations about privilege, respondents ultimately denied its importance as a basis for “judging” individuals. Respondents drew equivalences between the problems faced by rich and poor peers (e.g., having poor family relationships versus struggling with financial hardship). Although these strategies were similar for Black and White respondents, I found slight differences in how they viewed the upper class as well as how frequently they described downward encounters before and during college.
Through a synthesis of status construction theory (see Ridgeway 2014) and social identity theory (Callero 2003; Stets and Burke 2000), I bring greater clarity to the moral boundary work of the upper-middle class, specifically vis-à-vis the upper and lower classes (Black and Davidai 2020; Horwitz and Dovidio 2017). The salience of class status in daily life at Middleton University (a pseudonym) compelled substantial reflection on the meaning of a newly acquired “privileged” identification among upper-middle-class students. Cross-class encounters alerted respondents to the reality of their lower status compared to the rich, yet also exposed them to the possibility of similar criticisms from FGLI students. This study invigorates research on class stratification, both on campus and beyond, by using social psychological frameworks to explore how individuals neutralize class identity threats (Petriglieri 2011; Snow and Anderson 1987; Sykes and Matza 1957). I also highlight the role of moral identity in how people understand class position, especially on the basis of cross-class encounters that highlight status (and material) inequality (DiMaggio 2012; Dromi 2012; Nenga 2011; Rogers 2017). Although upper-middle-class individuals may express discomfort regarding their advantages over less fortunate others, their responses serve mainly to legitimate their privilege (Sherman 2018). Moral objections to upper-class privilege can easily dissolve, contingent on wealthy individuals performing rituals of “awareness” aimed at reducing interpersonal status differences. Yet these practices do not fully eliminate the threat to moral identity that lower-class individuals may credibly pose. Thus, respondents must downplay the final significance of class in estimations of personal worth, doing so in ways that implicitly unite upper-middle- and upper-class students as one side of a binary “privileged” category opposite the lower class.
Class, Status, and Identity Threat
Sociological theories of identity emphasize the co-constitutive relationship between individual selves and social structure (Davis, Love, and Fares 2019; Stets and Burke 2000). Influenced by symbolic interactionism, this tradition examines how the self is primarily constructed with reference to others’ perceptions and appraisals (Cooley 1902; Serpe 1987; Stryker 2008). According to Mead (1934), “The individual . . . becomes an object to himself only by taking the attitudes of other individuals toward himself within a social environment or context of experience and behavior in which both he and they are involved” (p. 138). In other words, we come to define ourselves through encounters, real or imagined, with social others. Yet Stryker (2008) stressed “the utility in thinking of structures as social boundaries making it more or less probable that persons with different backgrounds and resources will enter particular social relationships” (p. 19). As a result, self-conceptualizations are much more closely linked to race, class, and gender than Mead originally suggested (Du Bois 1903). The selves that individuals develop are contingent upon social location, with each facet falling on a spectrum of “identity salience” (Hurtado, Alvarado, and Guillermo-Wann 2015; Stryker and Serpe 1994).
Symbolic interactionist accounts point to the importance of face-to-face encounters for identity construction, in part because such interactions allow individuals to grasp how others perceive them and estimate their own position vis-à-vis others (DiMaggio 2012; Mead 1934). Situational encounters may activate or mute the salience of particular identities in ways that shape the outcomes of such encounters (Collins 2004; Dromi 2012; Ridgeway and Fisk 2012). Social psychologists have conducted experimental studies to examine such processes, with scholars such as Ridgeway (2014) arguing that status is a crucial mediator in how individuals experience social interaction. Status is “inequality based on differences in the esteem, honor, and respect accorded individuals and groups in the social worlds in which they participate” (Ridgeway and Markus 2022:2). Ridgeway and Erickson (2000) argued that status beliefs are generated and spread through interaction, leading to the institutionalization of status advantage along particular axes of inequality. High-status groups benefit from more favorable evaluations, greater perceptions of legitimacy, and higher in-group solidarity compared with lower-status groups (Ridgeway and Markus 2022:13–14). In addition, “cultural matching” between high-status interactants can facilitate inequality in “gateway encounters,” which are settings of consequence such as job interviews that “mediate people’s access to valued life outcomes” (Ridgeway and Fisk 2012:145; Rivera 2015).
Because status is “an independent force in the maintenance of inequality” between groups, scholars have inquired how micro-level status dynamics intersect with different oppressive systems (e.g., gender, race) (Ridgeway 1991; Ridgeway and Markus 2022:14). Recently, social scientists have shown interest in how status operates during encounters across social class lines (DiMaggio 2012; Kraus et al. 2017; Markus and Fiske 2012). Status beliefs, institutionalized in the form of stereotypes, implicitly frame cross-class encounters in ways that likely favor higher class actors. The stereotype content model states that competence and warmth are two fundamental dimensions of all stereotypes (Durante, Tablante, and Fiske 2017; Fiske et al. 2002; Judd et al. 2005). Out-groups that do not pose a competitive threat can be “paternalistically stereotyped” as warm but incompetent, while “competitive out-groups frustrate, tantalize, and annoy, so they are viewed as having negative intent. . . . If out-groups are successful, they receive grudging respect for their envied control over resources but never are liked as warm” (Fiske et al. 2002:881).
In the realm of class, research suggests people view the rich as competent but cold, while the poor tend to be seen as warmer but less competent (Fiske et al. 2002; Ridgeway and Fisk 2012). These status-linked stereotypes constantly linger in the background, encouraging “interpersonally awkward cross-class interactions, where each side expects the other to hold an ambivalent stereotype, creating a dysfunctional dynamic” (Durante et al. 2017:154). This implies that both high- and low-status individuals may be insecure about their relative position, leading to protective identity work (Petriglieri 2011; Snow and Anderson 1987; Sykes and Matza 1957). Literature on “high-status denigration” has noted that elites may be criticized as inconsiderate and inauthentic: “Because status provides benefits and [because] deference entails the loss of dignity of the deferring party, then the target of deference benefits from the loss of dignity of another” (Hahl and Zuckerman 2014:520; Hahl et al. 2017; Lamont 2000). The rich may be of dubious moral character (even if they are perceived as more competent) should they appear too self-interested: “Ulterior motives for performance create a concern that the actor is more committed to the benefits of status than they are to performing for the audience” (Hahl and Zuckerman 2014:530). Altogether, this suggests that for status-sensitive higher-class individuals, cross-class encounters may present threats to moral identity insofar as lower-class individuals express distaste and cast aspersions on those above them (Nenga 2011; Rogers 2017; Sayer 2005; Sherman 2018; Stets and Carter 2011).
Class on Campus
Although cross-class encounters are rare in many contexts, research on higher education has revealed college campuses as intricately classed landscapes, especially private institutions where FGLI students must contend with peers from disproportionately affluent backgrounds (Ferguson and Lareau 2021; Lee 2016; Stuber 2011). 1 Studies emphasize that “because students come to college with varying social, cultural, and economic capital, they are unlikely to have the same experiences and opportunities while in college” (Hurst 2019:10). This research is broadly concerned with class stratification in on-campus and postgraduate outcomes, especially those of FGLI students (Bathmaker, Ingram, and Waller 2013; Burke 2015). 2 For example, in the extracurricular realm, Stuber (2009) found that affluent students’ greater inclination and ability to partake in activities led them to acquire useful skills, credentials, and network ties during college, thus exacerbating their preexisting advantage over FGLI students (Hurst 2019). Even if many colleges are class-diverse, institutional mechanisms such as Greek life tend to promote class segregation and social closure; cross-class encounters between students, when they occur, may be conflictual or unpleasant (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; Stuber 2006). 3 Research indicates that lower-class students draw moral boundaries against affluent peers in response to the social dislocation and “hidden injuries of class” that come with upward mobility (Armstrong et al. 2014; Lamont 2000; Reay 2001; Reay, Crozier, and Clayton 2009). Put differently, studies show the potentially heightened salience of class during college can lead status-insecure FGLI students to denigrate those above them on moral grounds, framing themselves as more disciplined and hard-working by comparison (Hahl et al. 2017; Jack and Black 2022; Lehmann 2009).
Despite these advances, existing research is limited in three key ways that motivate the present study. First, with a few exceptions, such as Hamilton (2016), most studies use a binary class conceptualization that collapses the middle and upper classes into one “privileged” group in opposition of FGLI students (e.g., Aries and Seider 2005; Collier and Morgan 2008; Jack and Black 2022). Recently, Hurst (2019) offered a corrective to “previous research on college students that simplifies discussion to working-class versus middle-class students, or low-income students versus everyone else,” instead adopting the Bourdieusian opposition between those with high cultural capital and those with high economic capital to characterize the upper-middle and upper classes, respectively (p. 12). Bourdieu (1984) significantly advanced class analysis by highlighting the fundamental conflict within the dominant class: that between those who primarily hold economic capital and those who primarily hold cultural capital. The “dominant fraction” of the dominant class roughly corresponds with the wealthy upper class, and the dominated fraction is comparable with the upper-middle class, which holds professional jobs and high levels of education. Meanwhile, the dominated class consists of the lower-middle and lower classes, those with fewer resources and an overall lower station in society. Bourdieu argued that those who rely most on cultural capital do not try to accumulate substantial economic capital, but instead distinguish themselves from the rich through status boundaries. Conversely, the wealthy focus on building economic capital. The lower classes are much more preoccupied with meeting their material needs and less interested in fighting symbolic battles with the rich. In other words, the dominated classes face proximity to necessity, while the dominant classes enjoy distance from necessity, enabling the latter to partake in games of distinction centered around consumption and taste (Bourdieu 1984).
Second, these studies are focused on the experiences of lower-class students because on-campus marginalization likely contributes to these students’ overall worse outcomes across many important measures, such as social integration, academic performance, and labor market entry. The privileged are included as a comparison group, rather than the main object of study, specifically because they do not experience the same economic and cultural barriers as FGLI students. Third, and consequentially, because these studies may unintentionally misdirect from middle- and upper-class experiences, scholars have not fully grappled with potential status dynamics among students of the two fractions of the dominant class, nor how the lower class may function as a reference group for privileged students (Armstrong et al. 2014; Bourdieu 1984; Hurst 2019). True, neither middle- nor upper-class students experience “proximity to necessity” like resource-deprived FGLI students and thus are theoretically unencumbered from capitalizing upon campus resources and opportunities (Stuber 2009). This should not lead us to homogenize their social location and overlook the symbolic struggles possibly taking place among affluent students across different kinds of campuses (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; Jack 2019). This is particularly important as scholarly interest grows in moral identity, especially as it relates to class difference (Dromi 2012; Lamont 2000; Rogers 2017; Sherman 2018; Stets and Carter 2011).
Building on past research, I present findings based on interviews with upper-middle-class students at one elite private university (“Middleton”) located in a large northeastern U.S. city. Reflecting on peer interactions and social experiences during college, students often described cross-class encounters, both upward and downward. These encounters frequently enhanced their own sense of themselves as “privileged” members of the social hierarchy, both at Middleton and in society more broadly (though not the most privileged). Through the lens of status inequality, I explore how students responded to a dual identity threat, from both upper- and lower-class peers, through self-protective moral boundary work (Horwitz and Dovidio 2017; Lamont 2000; Lehmann 2009; Sherman 2018; Snow and Anderson 1987). Petriglieri (2011) defined identity threats as “experiences appraised as indicating potential harm to the value, meanings, and enactment of an identity” (p. 644). Identity-protecting responses target “the source of the threat and involve no change to the individual’s threatened identity,” whereas identity-restructuring responses “target the threatened identity in order to make it less an object of potential harm” (p. 647). Different conditions affect the likelihood an individual will adopt a particular strategy (e.g., threat strength; identity commitment; social support) (Petriglieri 2011).
Respondents used four distinct identity strategies depending on their relative status during upward versus downward cross-class encounters. Initially, upper-middle-class students responded to upper-class peers through high-status denigration, a protective tactic that maligned the wealthy on moral grounds related to consumption and character. However, through selective legitimation, a restructuring tactic, respondents also reconstituted “richness” as not inherently corrosive, holding up individual rich classmates as exceptions to negative stereotypes. On the other hand, after coming to realize their own privilege relative to FGLI students, upper-middle-class students responded to lower-class peers with rituals of deference. This protective strategy entailed hiding visible cues of their higher class when interacting with FGLI classmates. Last, respondents drew equivalences between the problems of the rich and the poor. However, this attempted recasting of “privilege” ultimately downplayed its importance, depoliticizing and delegitimizing lower-class struggles while dignifying upper-class dominance.
Research Approach
Institutional Setting
Middleton is an ideal context to examine status dynamics in cross-class encounters, both upward and downward. In many ways, Middleton resembles other elite U.S. private institutions: it is highly selective, with an admittance rate below 10 percent; it has an endowment in the billions; and its student body is unusually wealthy compared with the average institution. Students felt that Middleton has a reputation for being more “social” and preprofessional compared with peer institutions (see Binder and Abel 2018). Its urban location offers students a wide variety of (costly) activities to occupy their time. Greek life is fairly “big” on campus, with 25 percent enrolled in a fraternity or sorority. These conditions set the stage for cross-class interactions that may heighten status sensitivity, given the visibility of high-class cues among students.
Among domestic students, the average family income approaches $200,000 (see Aisch et al. 2017; Chetty et al. 2017). About three quarters of these students come from the top 20 percent of income. One in five comes from the top 1 percent ($630,000 a year), while 4 percent come from the top 0.1 percent (about twice that). Fewer than 4 percent of students come from the bottom 20 percent. Middleton’s annual cost of attendance exceeds $80,000, and nearly half of students’ families pay this amount in full. (Regrettably, no measures of wealth are available.) According to Middleton, 15 percent of undergraduates are FGLI, with “low-income” defined as receiving a Pell Grant. FGLI identity has seemingly been institutionalized over a short period of time, underscoring the rapid changes occurring in classed representations on college campuses. Middleton states that students organized a FGLI club in 2015, which advocates for their community needs while fostering an affirmative class-based identity.
Finally, it is important to note that Middleton is not only a wealthy institution; it is also “historically” White. It is a racialized organization (Ray 2019), meaning that its class socialization effects will also be inflected with racial meanings (Anderson 2015; Cartwright 2022). According to institutional data, Middleton undergraduates are 45 percent White, 9 percent Black, 26 percent Asian, 12 percent Latinx, 0.1 percent Indigenous, and 6 percent multiracial Americans, with international students making up the remaining 13 percent. Thus, demographically it is fairly emblematic of elite U.S. private universities. I revisit the intersection between race/ethnicity and class in the discussion.
Data Collection
The initial goal of this project was to examine how students understood the impacts of attending an elite college (more below). After receiving approval from Middleton to conduct this research in January 2020, I began to contact third- and fourth-year students via e-mail, inviting them to participate in an anonymous, confidential interview about their time in college. I obtained contact information via student club directories, LinkedIn, and Handshake, a job-searching platform for college students. About two thirds of Middleton seniors and one half of juniors had a Handshake profile, suggesting a wide swath received an e-mail. In February 2020, prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shutdown, I collected 10 interviews in person in a Middleton library conference room. After the transition to online learning, I collected 32 additional interviews over Zoom, with 1 exception that took place outside. I completed my final interview in July 2021. Despite the trauma and uncertainty of the pandemic, students seemed happy to participate in interviews, given the difficult social isolation of “COVID times.” The pandemic seemed to increase the salience of class for some students, specifically because it highlighted the disadvantages faced by FGLI students, many of whom could not return home after campus abruptly closed (van Stee 2023). Interviews ranged from 25 minutes to 2 hours 50 minutes, with an average length of 80 minutes. Respondents did not receive financial compensation. The interview guide had three sections: precollege background; reflections on particular aspects of the college experience, such as academics and extracurricular activities; and reflections on how attending Middleton had shaped their identities and worldviews. All names are pseudonyms. Quotations have been minimally edited to protect anonymity as well as for clarity and brevity. For simplicity, I abbreviate race/gender when quoting respondents (e.g., Black man would be “BM”).
Sample Characteristics
My recruitment efforts yielded 42 interviews with upper-middle-class undergraduates (Table 1). I decided to interview Black and White students because research on class stratification has generally focused on White students (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; Stuber 2006). This approach at least allowed me to consider potential similarities and differences in how Black and White students from similar class backgrounds understood the impacts of cross-class exposure on their identities and perceptions of others. There are 17 Black and 24 White respondents, as well as one Black-White biracial respondent (ages 20–22 years). Most respondents had two U.S.-born parents; a few students had parents who immigrated to the United States. In keeping with the aims of this study, all respondents are upper-middle-class, which I define using a Bourdieusian framework (see above; Hurst 2019).
Respondent Characteristics.
Note: PPE = philosophy, politics, and economics.
Data Analysis
After gathering the interviews, I used Otter.ai to autotranscribe each one, then manually corrected any errors in the transcription. I used HyperRESEARCH, a qualitative analysis program, to code each transcript, following Deterding and Waters’s (2021) “flexible coding” approach. As a method, flexible coding recognizes that “contemporary qualitative sociology privileges cumulative theory building” (p. 714). Rather than proceeding solely through induction, qualitative analysis should proceed self-consciously “in dialogue with existing theory and findings from previous studies, including quantitative research” (p. 720). The first step of flexible coding advises researchers to develop index codes that allow for associations between interview questions or sections and particular content or themes. Afterward, researchers apply analytic codes that “represent concepts to explore in a single paper [and] integrate emergent findings with what is known in the literature” (p. 722). Scholars then systematically look for associations between respondent attributes, such as race/ethnicity or gender, and particular quotations or perspectives.
I anticipated based on past literature that respondents might describe identity changes related to cross-class encounters, interactions, and observations (e.g., Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). As I analyzed the transcripts, I noticed students frequently brought up class in response to questions about their initial experiences at Middleton and impressions of other students, as well as questions about changes in their worldview and sense of self during college. These index codes crystallized around the concept of privilege, specifically how respondents used it to compare themselves with the upper and lower classes. As I revisited the literature, I noticed its emphasis on FGLI students and the conflation of middle- and upper-class students, leading me to focus on the relative nature of privilege. This led me to studies on moral boundary work, status dynamics, and identity threat. As I show, respondents’ accounts frequently centered on consumption differences, in line with a Bourdieusian framework (Khan 2010). Had I asked a more direct set of questions specifically on social class, it is possible that students would have brought up additional dimensions. Finally, I searched for variation in how Black and White respondents characterized their cross-class experiences in terms of valence and frequency.
Upward Exposure
High-Status Denigration
This section shows how respondents morally distanced themselves from wealthy classmates on the basis of criteria that related consumption to character. In doing so, respondents implicitly framed their own “normal” backgrounds as more virtuous. Upper-middle-class students such as Daniel (WM) were taken aback upon meeting and interacting with rich students because of those peers’ apparently outlandish wealth, as made visible in daily interactions.
How were your first impressions of Middleton?
It was shocking to see rich people’s attitudes toward things, the brands they wore, their willingness and ability to spend a lot of money. Like, going out on a Friday, I’m gonna take the train because Ubers cost money, but for other people, it’s not even a question. You hear people talking about their yachts. That was eye-opening.
Daniel was not alone in his astonishment at how easily rich students supposedly spent money and what they spent it on. Jacob (WM) had a similar reaction: “It was very interesting to meet people who have immense amounts of wealth. My roommate was related to some European monarchy. It was crazy this person was living in the same room as me.” Observing rich peers’ spending on clothes, vacations, transportation, and meals loomed large in upper-middle-class students’ accounts of their time at Middleton. As one respondent noted, it was common for students to “fall over themselves” in awe, whispering about classmates whose families owned yachts and private jets.
Respondents thus drew initial boundaries between themselves and the rich on the basis of subjective perceptions of normal versus lavish consumption. Everyday cues, such as the ease with which a rich classmate summoned an Uber, alerted these respondents to their own comparative lack of wealth and lower status position (see Table 2).
Class Reference Groups Used by Respondents.
Processing this initial shock led respondents to affirm negative stereotypes about the wealthy; the lifestyle differences that students identified were not morally neutral. Ray (BM) viewed excessive consumption by the rich as reflecting weak character. He strongly disparaged his classmates who “buy everything on daddy’s credit card,” eat out every night, and take Ubers very short distances “without even thinking about it.” Ray’s comment suggested it was not just that rich peers had much greater wealth but also how they displayed their wealth that respondents found offensive. Abby (WW) felt that rich students “flaunted their class . . . they have fancy vacations, fancy rooms, fancy this, and fancy that.” Flaunting wealth may be seen as morally problematic because it highlights the resource differentials among individuals in a social situation, potentially causing embarrassment to lower-status participants. Students thus responded to upward exposure and the status threat it posed by stereotyping the rich as immoral.
Reflecting further on their upward cross-class observations while at Middleton, students suggested that a lack of “family values” in rich households contributed to wealthy peers’ dubious moral status and undermined their complexity as individuals. Like other respondents, Caty (WW) spoke negatively about “people who are incredibly privileged and don’t know it.” There are students who say, “It’s so hard for me because I have to pay so much to be here,” and I’m like, “You’re wearing a $300 sweater right now and complaining how poor you are?” This one girl, for her birthday her mom sent her an entire case of expensive alcohol. She was turning 19.
Caty cast aspersions on oblivious peers who complained about not receiving any financial aid while their parents showered them with extravagant, illicit gifts. Rich parents could also constrain their children’s development by stifling creativity in favor of financial success. In contrast to her own more freethinking parents, Caty mentioned those of her upper-class friend who wanted to study English. Caty explained, “She’s really into poetry, and her mom was like ‘Uh, no. You’re doing economics.’ Whereas my parents are like, ‘You want to be an artist? Do it.’” Billy (WM) also stressed “the deficits these rich kids have” because of substandard childrearing: They have terrible family relationships. Their parents shove them on a psychiatrist and say, “Fix this kid for me.” These kids don’t understand how to be happy. I feel bad for them. This one girl I know, she’s socially stunted and has no preferences.
Billy viewed upper-class peers as pitiably underdeveloped because of neglect by uncaring parents. Admitting her view was “stereotypical,” Eleanor (WW) had similar observations, arising from close relationships with rich classmates.
A lot of [rich] people’s parents weren’t around because they were traveling doing whatever job they had that was consuming a lot of their time, or they had to move around a lot. Obviously that affects people psychologically to not be raised by their parents.
Coming to the East Coast from a large midwestern city, she also felt wealthy students’ class circumstances could lead them to become less “community oriented.” It seems like they don’t need a community to provide certain things for them. They just have everything, anything they want money-wise. Back home people would split the cost of things, or everyone would bring something to a potluck. But here it’s very much, “Okay, we’re gonna go out to dinner.”
Eleanor observed that elite lifestyles could be corrosive to group-level solidarity, as manifested in the substitution of communal potlucks for restaurant dinners. Through their relational disdain toward upper-class classmates, respondents thus constructed the rich as immoral, cold, unaware, and superficial. This was due not only to a lack of personal self-control, but also poor family socialization. Although rich students enjoyed a clear status advantage at Middleton, respondents reframed their own position as morally superior to counter this identity threat.
Selective Legitimation
Even so, despite a general distaste for the wealthy, respondents largely concurred that not all rich people were careless with money and insensitive to others’ constraints. Although many rich classmates conformed to stereotypes, respondents maintained that through humility and good intentions, upper-class peers could overcome the moral pitfalls associated with privilege. Put differently, respondents selectively legitimated upper-class position on the basis of the performance of “awareness.” This tactic suggested that moralized class boundaries could be muted or nullified provided that rich students properly acknowledged their privilege.
Respondents stated there was no reason to be ashamed of being rich so long as one went about it in the right way. Maria (WW) admitted to having “preconceived notions about the ultra-wealthy” before college: “There’s that stereotype of people who are ultra-wealthy being really obnoxious, but I’ve met a number of people [at Middleton] who defy that and are very down-to-earth about their privilege.” Acknowledging privilege and being humble, rather than “obnoxious,” could differentiate good rich people from their more objectionable counterparts. Class performance, rather than position itself, was subject to moral evaluation. Ray also rejected the notion that his peers should be embarrassed about being rich. Instead, he granted them the right to feel comfortable about their privilege, provide they are willing to “learn and empathize” with the less fortunate.
I have a friend who is ultra-wealthy. He is sometimes embarrassed about it.
Should he be embarrassed?
Not if he handles it right. There’s no inherent reason to be embarrassed about coming from money. I think that’s really crazy. As long as they’re aware that others don’t have those means and are willing to learn and empathize, there’s no reason to be ashamed. That’s just your context.
Thus, it was imperative to be cognizant of others’ class circumstances. Displaying awareness could salvage rich peers from the harmful effects of unchecked privilege. Few students hesitated to offer amnesty to the self-aware rich. Skye (BW) explained how her friend “doesn’t talk about it [being rich]. He’s said, ‘I want you to treat me like a normal person,’” a request she did not hesitate to oblige. Her friend’s abstract renouncement of elite status seemingly helped facilitate his own downward solidarity with peers such as Skye. In sum, although the boundaries respondents drew against the rich were sharp and numerous, they could be neutralized, thereby relieving the discomfort of navigating class difference and status inequality.
Overall, Black and White respondents described similar reactions to meeting upper-class peers from economically, politically, and/or culturally elite families. Among both groups, initial shock and distaste gave way to a softer, more accommodating view of the rich on the basis of self-awareness and social grace. However, Black respondents sometimes spoke more favorably about rich Black people, who could be perceived as noble and poised to uplift the race. Theresa (BW) recounted surprise at meeting Black peers who came from wealthy families. A varsity athlete, visiting wealthier teammates’ homes for Thanksgiving and other occasions showed Theresa that it was possible for Black Americans to attain success. Coming from a small southern town, at Middleton she was struck by individuals, such as Black CEOs and successful entrepreneurs, who challenged pervasive cultural portrayals of Black people as poor.
Are there any ways Middleton has changed your worldview?
Interacting with Black people from around the country, compared to what I’ve been taught, it’s amazing to see we can do positive, big things. We’re smart. We’re entrepreneurs. In my mind it was crazy to see rich Black people here. That’s not something I saw back home. I realized I can be successful. Once I got to Middleton, I met Black engineers, Black philosophers, Black politicians. That’s been a wakeup call.
Theresa’s perspective implies that Black entry into the rich through business success can be seen as comparable with achievements in other fields, such as science, academia, and government (i.e., as progress for Black Americans). Construed this way, upper-class position could represent a rare, monumental accomplishment linked to racial uplift, a second basis for selective legitimation only mentioned by Black respondents.
Downward Exposure
Performing Awareness
Alongside their reflections on the rich, respondents’ accounts revealed a parallel emphasis on consumption and character in the class boundaries they drew on the basis of downward peer encounters. Just as many upper-middle-class students were shocked by the rich, they were often equally surprised by the struggles faced by students from poor families (Table 2). Although Black students tended to describe greater downward exposure both prior to and during college, there were respondents in each racial group who described having “no idea” about the extent of lower-class struggles until they encountered FGLI students at Middleton. Meeting classmates who faced financial hardships led respondents to reconceptualize themselves as lucky in relation to deprived FGLI students, who deserved “respect” for their resilience. Maria explained:
It’s been eye-opening to realize that I was really lucky. It wasn’t just that I worked hard to get here. There were things that lined up that let me do that.
What showed you that?
Just interacting with students from different backgrounds. I definitely didn’t face a lot of the hardships that some of my FGLI friends did. Some people here have had to overcome a lot of things that I was lucky not to face. And I respect them so much for that.
Encountering FGLI students from “different backgrounds” led some respondents to reflect on the relative ease with which they made it to Middleton. As Maria realized, “It wasn’t just that I worked hard to get here. There were a lot of things set up for me to do that.” Zoe (BW) similarly described thinking more about her own “privilege” in light of conversations with peers.
There were definitely aspects of privilege that I realized before college, but through more reflection those things intensified.
How did that occur?
I think through social interactions, different courses I’ve taken, and just meeting FGLI peers. I don’t identify as FGLI, but I have friends who are. Definitely getting to know students who don’t have my same background. We have formal and informal discussions about these things.
Some students acquired knowledge of their lower-class peers’ struggles through secondhand means; not all respondents had close FGLI friends. As vice president of her sorority, Eleanor had to choose (anonymously) who among her sisters would receive financial support for dues. This alerted her to the “dire situations” some of her peers face.
I picked which girls got the scholarships. That was hard because we had very limited money. I didn’t realize people were in dire situations I had no idea about, and there could be so many more people than I had realized who can’t afford things other people can.
Thus, cross-class interactions and relationships with FGLI students could enlighten upper-middle-class students to the realities of class inequality, leading them to adopt a “privileged” identity by comparison. Ironically, although respondents often criticized upper-class students as oblivious, they used identical language to characterize themselves as similarly unaware vis-à-vis FGLI peers (and thus equally morally at risk).
Although their reactions to downward encounters were largely similar to those of White respondents, Black respondents felt that racial segregation at Middleton, coupled with the lower socioeconomic status of Black students on average, promoted greater same-race, cross-class interaction (see Ferguson and Lareau 2021). Contrasting “Black Middleton” with White Greek life, the apparent apex of Middleton’s social scene, Black students such as Janet felt the class divide was more socially consequential among White students. Yet she also felt that upper-middle-class Black students could more easily gain acceptance than Black FGLI students who lacked financial resources and familiarity with affluent White cultural norms.
I think because of the way I talk or where I come from, [White] people treat me better than they do my friends from Atlanta who went to public school, and it’s very apparent in the way [those friends] talk. Why was I accepted into a community that I didn’t necessarily want to be accepted into, but someone won’t give this other person a second look or talk to them at a party?
And this is White students’ interactions with Black students?
Yeah, especially in Greek life. In Black Middleton, I don’t think the socioeconomic divide is as apparent. In White Greek life, they literally won’t let people in whose families are below a certain class, so those who don’t have money have to fake it. Whereas in Black Middleton, if you don’t have it, you don’t have it. No one’s really gonna put someone else down or not invite them to a party based on what class they’re in.
Although Janet’s FGLI peers might not necessarily agree with her assessment, she felt that wealthier White students were less friendly toward FGLI Black students who “don’t have it,” meaning money, or come off as less educated. She implied that these students would be less stigmatized among their same-race peers, a sense possibly contradicted by the similarities between their responses to downward encounters and those of the White participants in this study.
Replicating their behavioral prescriptions for upper-class peers, respondents held themselves to the same moral imperative of performing “awareness” of one’s privilege. For respondents who did form close downward bonds, these friendships compelled them to “accommodate” FGLI peers’ financial limitations. Although upper-middle-class students normalized their own consumption compared to that of the rich (see earlier), being able to regularly afford dinners out at all clearly marked respondents as advantaged over FGLI students. Grasping these boundaries led some respondents to downscale their own consumption in certain situations as a gesture of solidarity with lower-class peers. A common example involved making meals at home rather than going out to eat. Simon (WM), who came from suburban Long Island, mentioned downward cross-class contact during college as leading to changes in his worldview: A lot of my friends don’t come from middle-class backgrounds. Like, I work a job just for extra money, versus my friends who need to work to be secure and get their financial aid. I’ve become cognizant of the scenarios people find themselves in and the fact that not everyone can go out to eat twice a week or go to happy hours, that kind of thing.
According to Simon, navigating FGLI peers’ unfortunate circumstances required deliberate cognizance of those friends’ constraints (e.g., refraining from proposing costly social plans). Some students worried that failure to properly monitor their own semi-automatic classed thoughts and actions could cause unintended offense to FGLI friends. Reggie (BM) was concerned that his own consumption habits could be read by FGLI students as excessive and morally questionable, causing him to “adapt” in anticipation of such reactions: “The bulk of my social circles here are FGLI. I feel I’ve been able to adapt relatively well. There might be moments where I try to buy something that’s too expensive, and they say they can’t afford it.” This approach sought to mute status inequality by suppressing evidence of class difference. These examples demonstrate how upper-middle-class students held themselves accountable to a standard of “awareness” that they attempted to enact through daily practice.
Repeated blunders vis-à-vis FGLI peers’ limitations could culminate in students viewing themselves as holding the potential to “say something ignorant” or make erroneous assumptions about others’ financial capacity. Reggie expressed gratitude for FGLI friends who demonstrated patience with him in such instances of personal offense: The big thing is to be conscious and acknowledge my privilege. Seemingly little things can be important, like going to the dining hall rather than eating out. I’m thankful for my friends who are gracious when I slip up. They know it’s not malicious intent.
During college, respondents described becoming sensitized not only to the limits others face, but also the proper conduct for negotiating class difference. In Reggie’s view, insufficient conscientiousness could even appear as “malicious intent,” though fortunately his FGLI friends were gracious in excusing his faux pas. This danger was ever present but manageable in theory. Through discourse and social practices, respondents attempted to win authenticity in the eyes of FGLI students, who ultimately held the power to sanction their privileged peers’ behavior.
Drawing Equivalences
Yet these self-protective strategies of deference had inherent limitations, precisely because they acknowledged FGLI students’ rightful claim to denigrate “privileged” respondents using the same moralized criteria that respondents used to criticize (or legitimate) the rich. Simply performing awareness did not eliminate the threat to moral identity that FGLI students could credibly pose. This led respondents to deploy another tactic for discharging their class discomfort once and for all: drawing equivalences between upper- and lower-class “problems.” This approach rendered both groups as equally deserving of sympathy and made class irrelevant in estimations of personal worth. In drawing equivalences, upper-middle-class students also implicitly relieved themselves of further obligation vis-à-vis the less privileged, in part because class origins are not actively chosen at birth (see Ray earlier).
In drawing equivalences between the different “struggles” that upper- and lower-class peers each faced, respondents equated socioemotional or relational difficulties in rich households with the financial insecurity faced by poor families. As previously shown, respondents had an extensive repertoire to draw on regarding wealthy peers’ supposed poor family values when justifying charitability toward the rich. Despite her disdain for the wealthy, Caty explicitly characterized the experiences of a rich student with family issues and those of an impoverished FGLI student as both being “tough.”
[Middleton] has taught me compassion and trying to understand people before you form an opinion. A lot of people didn’t have good childhoods.
Are you thinking about wealthy students, poor students?
Both. Like, say you’re poor and you don’t have enough money. That’s tough. But there’s also people who grew up rich, and their parents hate each other. I had a friend whose mom was kinda crazy and maybe an alcoholic. But she had all the money in the world. I’ve learned to have compassion for people that you think have it all.
Caty described acquiring greater compassion toward the rich because of her firsthand observations of their personal challenges, such as “having a mom who is crazy,” which she equated with “not having enough money.” She argued rich students’ pain has validity despite their origins, which would otherwise make them unsympathetic. Jeremy (BM) was even more generous: I believe what people know is relative to their best and worst life experiences. For some people, when their parents say they can’t eat out for the fifth time this week, they’ll act like everything’s falling apart. They want to complain about it, and rightfully so because your feelings are valid. If I stub my toe, I’m gonna be mad, even if there are people getting their legs cut off, like people who are struggling to pay for school. I don’t invalidate either upsetness.
Jeremy compared a rich student “not being able to eat out for the fifth time this week” with a poor student “struggling to pay for school.” He saw a difference in degree but not kind: taking class origins into account, both situations were valid as reasons for “upsetness,” even if one was clearly more severe than the other. Billy, who called his wealthy peers “socially stunted,” also expressed sympathy for upper- and lower-class students, both of whom he saw as “struggling” at Middleton. Unlike others, he resisted the temptation to draw equivalences: I realized that people who are richer than God and people that barely have any money are both struggling here. I feel just as bad—well, not just as bad, absolutely not—but I see the deficits these wealthy kids have, and I see how FGLI kids have a lot less than I do. Like, I have the privilege of not having to work while I go to school.
Although Billy stopped short of fully equalizing his wealthy peers’ deficits with FGLI peers’ financial struggles, he suggested both warrant the same response: pity. Thus, whereas selective legitimation undermined the strength of respondents’ upward boundaries, drawing equivalences downplayed the importance of class difference altogether. Because performing awareness was not fully sufficient to defeat the moral threat of privileged identification, it was prudent for respondents to devise a second tactic that creatively exploited the rich’s dubious status to neutralize the relevance of privilege in determinations of personal worth.
Discussion
In this study I have used a status construction lens to explore how upper-middle-class students at one elite institution responded to upward and downward cross-class encounters during college. Research on class stratification in higher education has tended to focus on FGLI students and often conflates the middle and upper classes, overlooking how each “big class” is relationally positioned. The literature has a normalizing bias that frames “privileged” experiences of the university as standard and, despite efforts to avoid “deficit framing,” consistently argues that a lack of capital holds FGLI students back. Amid growing interest in class on campus and beyond, scholars must acknowledge the moral boundary work taking place among students of the dominant classes (Bourdieu 1984; Hurst 2019; Lamont 2000). Using an identity threat perspective, I explored how upper-middle-class students responded differently to upward versus downward encounters at Middleton. After denigrating the rich on the basis of stereotypes, respondents adopted a gentler view toward them, engaging in selective legitimation on the basis of “awareness.” Meanwhile, respondents held themselves to an identical standard vis-à-vis FGLI students, who ultimately held the power to sanction respondents (i.e., selectively legitimate them). Finally, respondents drew equivalences between the problems of rich and poor students, denying the importance of class when determining whether an individual deserved sympathy.
These findings reveal how upper-middle-class students may come to conceptualize social class through peer interactions within the context of an elite institution. Similar to how scholars have critiqued FGLI as a monolith that obscures differences among working-class students (Jack 2019), we might also critique FGLI for delineating a “privileged” foil that combines the middle and upper classes into one group. Analytically, this is problematic for obvious reasons: it likely misrepresents the experiences of one or both fractions of the dominant class. Yet respondents themselves did not necessarily recognize this unintended conflation. Thus, more concerning may be the real-world, political implications of middle- and upper-middle-class individuals’ seeing themselves as not so different after all from the rich. Scholars recognize that wealth inequality continues to worsen both in the United States and globally (Pfeffer, Danziger, and Schoeni 2013; Saez and Zucman 2016). Thus, studying how individuals think about and respond to the rich offers potential clues into the current state and future prospects of class relations. Even though they held generally negative views of the wealthy, respondents were quite forgiving toward the rich, exonerating upper-class peers who were aware of their privilege. Respondents also extended sympathy toward wealthy peers who had “crazy” or absentee parents. However, respondents’ reactions mainly centered around downplaying the significance of class difference. Inequality of status, not resources per se, was the main target for neutralization.
This study paves the way for further research on class privilege, both on college campuses and beyond (Farrell 2020; Sherman 2018). Unlike the New York elites Sherman (2018) interviewed, the Middleton students in my study were not rich. Yet they drew similar class boundaries and exalted the performance of awareness as ways of defusing the unsettling moral implications of their own privilege. This suggests that privilege is both binary and relative, a tension obscured by drawing equivalences. Surely if the rich deserve sympathy, the middle classes do as well. Proximity to necessity seems objective. FGLI students cannot afford “the things everyone else can,” meaning basic needs as well as minor luxuries. Yet defining privilege as simply being not-poor suggests there is no meaningful difference between upper-middle-class respondents and their upper-class peers. Although the rich clearly benefit from the preservation of the status quo, the case is more ambiguous for participants in this study. Is it in respondents’ interests to view themselves as “privileged” amid growing societal inequalities? Wildhagen (2015) raised similar questions about FGLI categorization, which “can have negative consequences for students who are categorized as such, pushing them to reject their social origins in the quest for upward mobility and obfuscating antagonistic class relations” (p. 300). When upper-middle-class students accept the legitimacy of FGLI, they also unintentionally embrace a class framework that conflates their own position with that of the rich. This does not mean respondents ignore the upper class. Rather, they incorporate the rich into their class worldviews as an object of status competition, rather than performative deference.
Future research should continue to interrogate the realm of contemporary class discourses in higher education by shifting the focus beyond FGLI students (Collier and Morgan 2008; Jack 2019; Lee 2016). At the same time, scholars should continue to examine these students’ experiences, for example to understand how they may respond to privileged students’ strategies of deference and attempts to perform awareness. Do these strategies promote solidarity, or do they leave FGLI students feeling even more isolated? Do FGLI students also conflate the upper and middle classes as privileged? Moreover, as scholars advance the study of elites, research will be needed to examine how wealthy students experience higher education, especially with respect to possible changes in their class worldviews (Khan 2010). Studies should also compare across institutional types to gather more fine-grained insight into class dynamics on campus (e.g., public universities vs. elite liberal arts colleges) (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; Lee 2016).
Finally, although this study was focused on class awareness, I also offer insight into the relevance of race/racialization in perceptions of how class matters, both on campus and beyond it. Although space limitations prevent a thorough delving into how respondents conceptualized the intersection of race and class at Middleton, these findings can be generative for future research. Although I found that Black and White respondents described similar transformations in their class awareness while at Middleton, at a deeper level the intersection of race and class was only consciously salient for Black respondents (Du Bois 1903). Although White middle-class students often had much to say spontaneously about social class in interviews, they said little about race (Nelson, Graham, and Rudin 2023). Nor did their very occasional references to race suggest much reflection on exactly how race and class might intersect. In contrast, Black respondents had more to say about downward cross-class experiences, presumably as a result of segregation at Middleton and in broader society. According to respondents, social class was discussed more openly within “Black Middleton” compared with the mainstream White social scene. Downward cross-class contact seemed more common for Black upper-middle-class students, though it was hardly rare for their White counterparts. In general, Black students’ accounts betrayed a sense of class and race/racialization as two distinct axes that “overlap” for individuals, rather than two inextricable components of a singular position in racialized social space (Bourdieu 1984; Cartwright 2022; Crenshaw 1989). For the present study, which emphasizes the salience of class in peer encounters, I have presented Black and White students’ discussions of upward and downward exposure alongside one another, highlighting similarities while also acknowledging the differences I observed. More research is needed to examine the intersections of race and class.
Conclusion
This study has advanced the literature on class stratification in higher education by combining the insights of status construction and social identity theories to understand how upper-middle-class students conceptualized their social position vis-à-vis their upper- and lower-class peers. In a context where class was highly salient, participants experienced a dual identity threat, sensitive to how rich students “flaunted” their wealth while also fearing denigration from FGLI students, who could criticize respondents as lacking awareness of their privilege. Although encounters with the wealthy led respondents to frame themselves as occupying a morally superior “normal” position, encounters with the lower class led respondents to view themselves as lucky and privileged. Respondents both expected deference from the rich and expected themselves to perform deference toward FGLI students. Through attention to status dynamics in cross-class interactions amid a highly stratified context, I contribute to burgeoning research focused on the legitimation of wealth amid growing concentration at the top (Farrell 2020; Sherman 2018). Specifically, I show how exhortations to “acknowledge one’s privilege” center the discomfort of the class-advantaged while endorsing the status quo, to the ambivalent benefit of the upper-middle class. These individuals are redirected from allying with the lower classes by their self-placement in a shared category with the wealthy. This conflation frames class position as fundamentally defined by proximity to or distance from necessity, rather than as a relation to production (Bourdieu 1984; Seim and McCarthy 2023). I thus refocus our attention to the status struggles among the privileged by demonstrating how upper-middle-class students neutralize identity threats in ways that legitimate privilege as an unfortunate reality that demands careful navigation, rather than the product of malleable political-economic structures.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the following individuals for their suggestions, feedback, and support throughout the writing of this manuscript: Annette Lareau, Jason Schnittker, Emily Hannum, Melissa Wilde, Wendy Roth, Jerry Jacobs, David Grazian, Ben Shestakofsky, Elena van Stee, Olivia Hu, Kai Feng, Zohra Ansari-Thomas, Laurin Bixby, Joyce Kim, and Andres Villatoro. Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2022 meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society and the British Sociological Association.
