3 Elite and Upper-Class Families n her memoir Personal History, Katharine Meyer Graham (1997) traces I her family’s rise into the upper class to her grandfather, a member of a distinguished family with French Jewish roots dating back many genera- tions. He immigrated to the United States in 1859, as the nation was rapidly industrializing and modernizing. Although his family origins were more than humble, his life story exemplified the American Dream: He worked as a store clerk while learning English, eventually became the owner of that store, and went on to become a wealthy banker. As a result, Katharine’s father, Eugene Isaac Meyer, grew up in a privileged family: He graduated from Yale University at the age of 20 and, restless with his progress at a major law firm, began to invest money in real estate and the stock market at a crucial period of economic expansion, eventually buying a seat on the stock exchange. Meyer had already made millions of dollars by the time he met his wife-to-be, Agnes Ernst, a recent graduate of Barnard. Katharine describes her mother as a strikingly beautiful, intelligent young woman who was immersed in the world of art and supporting herself as a freelance writer. Her marriage to Meyer typified that of upper-class couples: She brought to the union beauty, education, and sophistication, while he was a business tycoon who had made a fortune of $40–$60 million by 1915 and was to go on to purchase the Washington Post. Meyer’s fortune enabled Ernst to continue to pursue her artistic and intellectual interests while mak- ing a home for her husband and children. 53 54——Families: A Social Class Perspective For Katharine, growing up in a wealthy family meant having nannies and 10–12 domestic servants at her disposal—for example, she writes of having two bells in her room that she could ring for assistance. As a child, she took private dance, music, and French lessons and traveled extensively; in addi- tion, she was taught class-related behaviors, such as a strong respect for tradition and support for cultural organizations. But part of her class social- ization was learning that talking about money and wealth in her house was taboo—in fact, thrift was emphasized—and any thought of living a life of idleness or leisure was eschewed. Her parents emphasized to the children that “you couldn’t just be a rich kid, that you had to do something, to be engaged in useful, productive work; you shouldn’t and couldn’t do nothing” (K. Graham 1997:52). Indeed, instilling in their children a sense of noblesse oblige, the notion that people born of high rank have the responsibility to be kind to or help others, is common among parents in the upper class. For many upper-class families, this is expressed through charitable giving: In a recent book, Frank (2007:162) notes that philanthropy remains popular and sometimes even a source of competition among members of the upper class. Families with incomes of a million dollars or more donated more than $30 billion to charities in 2003, up from $9 billion in 1995. Such giving adds to the status of the elite and their reputation for generosity in helping others. Defining the Upper Class Katharine Graham’s experience typifies much of what comes to mind when we think about being wealthy—servants, multiple homes, extensive travel, an elite education, and a lifestyle based on tradition, manners, and social graces. In 1958, E. Digby Baltzell, a sociologist and member of the upper class, offered the following definition of the “upper class concept”: a group of families, whose members are descendants of successful individuals (elite members) of one, two, three or more generations ago. These families are at the top of the social class hierarchy; they are brought up together, are friends, and are intermarried one with another; and finally, they maintain a distinctive style of life and a kind of primary group solidarity which sets them apart from the rest of the population. (Baltzell 1958:7) Referring to its members as being “successful” and “at the top of the social class hierarchy” evades the issue of exactly how much wealth is owned by the upper class, a topic of much interest and debate among social scientists today. Elaine Leeder (2004:168) points out, for example, that at CHAPTER 3 Elite and Upper-Class Families——55 the very top of the wealth hierarchy are the 420,000 American households that constitute the superrich; they have an average of $8.9 million in wealth. Wealth inequality has always exceeded income inequality, but between 1983 and 1989, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy spiraled in the United States (Leeder 2004; Perrucci and Wysong 2008; Kerbo 2009). For example, 1 percent of Americans own about 40 percent of all privately held corporate stock (Kerbo 2009:163), while the richest 10 percent of the population owns nearly 80 percent of all real estate and 60 percent of all money in bank accounts (Leeder 2004:167). This concentration of wealth has important implications, such as its impact on democracy and political power. Many scholars point out that people with significant wealth control major aspects of the economy and have the power to influence political ide- ologies and patterns of voting; they also occupy the highest ranks in the political system and have a major impact on political decision making. For example, the majority of people who are corporate directors of banks and industries are from the upper class, as are most of those in Cabinet positions with the government (Dye 1995; Domhoff 2006). Thus, following Max Weber’s lead, many include power and control over the economy in their definition of the upper class (see, e.g., Rossides 1997). Another notable aspect of Baltzell’s definition that has been commented upon by other scholars is the cohesiveness of the upper class; that is, those in the upper class tend to be friends who intermarry and experience a kind of group solidarity. He argued that the upper class resembled a caste system, with family life revolving around a complete set of activities and associa- tions. According to Baltzell: Even the most socially secure families . place a high value on belonging to the correct clubs and associations and making an appearance at the fashion- able balls, dancing assemblies, weddings and funerals; and where their children are concerned, the right summer resorts, dancing classes, schools and colleges, and finally, their daughter’s debut, are each and severally of vital importance. (cited in Marger 2008:85) This suggests that the upper class constitutes a closed society of people who rarely venture beyond their own class in forming friendships and asso- ciations. That exclusivity extends to living in select cities and neighborhoods where they are isolated (and protected) from their social class inferiors. Perrucci and Wysong (2008:66–67) contend that while the upper class has always distanced itself from the public and public institutions by establishing exclusive schools, neighborhoods, and clubs, this has now nearly taken the form of class secession. For example, there has been a notable increase in the 56——Families: A Social Class Perspective number of gated communities and elite housing areas that are literally walled off from the surrounding areas. Frank (2007) argues that the newly rich have virtually formed their own country, “Richistan,” that has a culture that differs from the old established elite. In another work devoted to under- standing the new upper class, David Brooks (2000) describes the emergence of what he calls “Latte Towns”—liberal communities situated in magnificent settings that feature “upscale retailers, gourmet bread stores, handmade furniture outlets, [and] organic grocery stores.” Thus, this physical class secession is mirrored by the participation of upper-class families in specific activities, elite clubs, and a distinct culture. Notable in early definitions of the upper class, such as those proffered by Baltzell (1958), is that they include those who are the descendants of eco- nomic elites or successful people. This captures the traditional distinction made by sociologists between the upper upper class and lower upper class, or basically those with “old” money and those with “new” money. The highest status is accorded to those with old money, especially the upper upper class that has had wealth for generations, often dating back to the eighteenth century. For them, wealth is inherited and associated with good breeding, social graces, and Ivy League educations—and a strong prohibi- tion against the “ostentatious display and conspicuous consumption” that was once common during the Gilded Age (Mayer and Buckley 1970). Those in the lower upper class have “new money,” and while they may be wealth- ier than those in the upper upper class, most have earned their money in their own lifetime. They typically do not have the well-known family names of the older upper class (e.g., DuPont, Rockefeller) and may lack their cul- tural habitus and social graces. Thus, despite their wealth, they are set apart from those in the older upper class; for example, as one upper-class woman explained when describing members of the old upper class: “[The old fami- lies] will always look at me as an outsider. They’ve already gone with the same people, and they talk about people I don’t know. Their lives are ingrown” (Ostrander 1984:24). How one earns money and the lifestyle one cultivates are important fac- tors in membership in the upper class. For new money to become a part of the upper class is a process; for example, although John D.