Cultural Capital Emerged As a Powerful Way to Study Inequality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Race, Gender, and Class at Work: Examining Cultural Capital and Inequality in a Corporate Workplace A Dissertation Submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the Department of Sociology of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences 2007 by David A. Purcell B.A., Thomas More College, 1988 M.A., University of Cincinnati, 2004 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Jennifer R. Malat (Co-chair) Dr. Rhys H. Williams (Co-chair) Dr. David J. Maume Dr. Annulla Linders (Reader) ABSTRACT Cultural capital refers to the role certain cultural practices, knowledge, attitudes, and abilities play in the reproduction of social class. This concept has emerged as a powerful framework for the study of inequality and the intersection of structure and agency. Previous research has focused primarily on the effects of cultural capital on the educational outcomes of adolescents, and has paid much less attention to cultural capital’s importance in social contexts involving adults. Further, research in this area has been concerned mainly with the role of social class, while neglecting issues of race and gender. This study uses data gathered from extensive personal interviews and participant observation at Aimco, a multinational corporation headquartered in the Midwest, to examine three main research questions involving cultural capital, race, gender, and class. First, I document the specific forms of cultural capital that are valued at Aimco, and discuss the advantages gained by employees who possess and activate their cultural capital. In doing so, I explain why cultural capital is an appropriate theoretical framework for the study of race and gender inequality in the workplace, despite having rarely been applied in this manner. Second, I argue that cultural capital theory is appropriate for the study of racial inequality, and examine how race affects Aimco employees’ possession and activation of cultural capital at work. I find a significant intersection of race and class, as Aimco’s white-dominated culture privileges white middle-class employees and disadvantages black middle-class employees. Third, I discuss how Aimco’s dominant informal culture is gendered and affects the career prospects of men and women differently. In particular, I focus on how gender differences in cultural capital contribute to the maintenance of the glass ceiling that limits the upward mobility of women in the corporate sector. iii I conclude with a discussion of future research possibilities, and a call for more research into the effects of race, gender, and class on cultural capital-related processes within organizations and other social contexts involving adults. iv Copyright, 2007 David A. Purcell v In memory of Edward V. “Mickey” Purcell (1921-1990). You set the standard for love, generosity, and hard work. I hope I have made you proud. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the fun part: the defense is over and the revisions are complete. I am now in Akron, where in a few short weeks, I will begin a new chapter as an Assistant Professor at Kent State University. I first dreamed of being a professor in 1998, during my senior year at Thomas More College. I entered the sociology program at the University of Cincinnati in Fall 1993 and departed for Loyola University-Chicago after defending my MA thesis in 1995. I left Loyola after less than a year of doctoral study, recognizing that a variety of circumstances would keep me from concentrating fully on being a graduate student. I reentered UC’s program in Fall 2003. It has been a long trip and I am ecstatic to finally be here, writing these notes, reflecting, and giving thanks. First and foremost, I want to thank my wife, Amy. No one has given more generously or believed in me more strongly than Amy. She deferred her own dreams of novel writing to support mine, worked long hours as the primary breadwinner, and never balked at the sacrifices of money and time that doctoral study demanded of us. In addition, she read and commented on every paper draft, and tolerated my frequent interruptions of otherwise pleasant times with ideas I had to write or think-out-loud about immediately. I would absolutely not be here without her support. Thanks, love. My dissertation committee members – Jennifer Malat (co-chair), Rhys Williams (co-chair), and Dave Maume – have been outstanding in their support, advice, and guidance. They challenged me as a sociologist, supported me as a job candidate, and prepared me well for my career. Along the way, they helped make me a better person. I consider myself fortunate to have them on my side and to count them as friends, and these brief words can hardly do justice to the depth of my gratitude. Four years after I shyly introduced myself to Jennifer and asked for independent study hours, I leave with a mentor, advisor, colleague, co-author, and role model (all deals should work out so well!). It is hard to imagine where I would be without her sociological wisdom, guidance, and generous support. I look especially forward to our planned research collaborations. I have gone from being intimidated by Rhys to counting him as a mentor. He has never hesitated to challenge me, and his senior-level advice on a range of issues – particularly in terms of culture, theory, qualitative research, and the ways of academia – has been invaluable. I look forward to many years of his wisdom. I go back the longest with Dave, who served as my MA thesis chair in the mid-90s, and often served as a personal reference during my career in the corporate sector. Dave is the very model of a motivated, rigorous scholar, and I especially thankful for his quantitative research advice and support on the job market. I am indebted to other professors in the department as well: to Anna Linders, Dave Lundgren, and Sarah Beth Estes for their early encouragement and support; to Paula Dubeck, Neal Ritchey, and Steve Carlton-Ford for the warm welcome they gave the prodigal son; and to Jeff Timberlake and Kelly Moore for their friendship and advice. In addition, thanks to Cheryl Lindsey and Linda Kocher for their assistance and kindness. My grad student mates provided much-needed support and friendship. A special thank you goes out to Joe Michael, my kindred spirit and traveling companion – I’ll look forward to your vii defense, bro. Thanks also to Aaron Howell, Ryan Cragun (especially for going through the dissertation/job market grind at the same time), Lisa Fisher, and Jaita Talukdar. I owe a number of people a note of gratitude for various reasons: our families, especially my Mother, sister (Mary), and brother-in-law (Rock); Alice & Macy; Annette Lareau; Tom VanderVen; David VanZytveld; Sean Rhiney; our beautiful circle of friends; John Coltrane; Mike Scott & The Waterboys; the Wednesday night hoops gang; Pam Wilcox; Babo; and last, but certainly not least, all of the kind Aimco employees who gave generously of their time and insight. Last, I would like to thank the Taft Research Center and the Kunz Center for the Study of Work and Family for their financial support. "The things that matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 A note on the format ............................................................................................................... 1 Personal background to the study ........................................................................................... 1 Evolution of the project .......................................................................................................... 3 Research questions.................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter Two: “You Have To Play”: Examining Cultural Capital and Inequality at Work............ 7 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 7 Background................................................................................................................................. 9 Ascriptive inequality in the workplace ................................................................................... 9 Race, gender, and sociocultural interactions at work ........................................................... 11 Cultural capital theory........................................................................................................... 17 Cultural capital theory and workplace inequality ................................................................. 20 Methods..................................................................................................................................... 26 Defining the research