Abstract SHERWOOD, JESSICA HOLDEN. Talk About Country Clubs: Ideology and the Reproduction of Privilege. (Under the direction of Barbara J. Risman.) This dissertation reports on interviews with members of five exclusive country clubs in the Northeastern United States. At these clubs, membership is extended only by selective invitation after a subjective screening process. The clubs have long histories of racial-ethnic homogeneity, but they now display some demographic diversity while preserving the economic and cultural homogeneity with which members are comfortable, and which they consider an important appeal of the private club. I focus on club members’ explanations around three topics: their clubs’ exclusivity, their racial-ethnic composition, and the status of women members. Subjects minimize the significance of the exclusion they perform by rhetorically pointing to forces beyond their control, and by promoting the American Dream of colorblind, meritocratic equal opportunity. While they use the dominant racial ideology of colorblindness, subjects also show a departure from colorblindness in their active development of and rhetorical emphasis on racial-ethnic diversity in their ranks. Concerning women’s status, club members mostly accept the subordination of women in clubs. To justify it, they rhetorically rely on both the dominant gender ideology and the inequalities in men’s and women’s wealth and domestic responsibilities which originate elsewhere. Club members are called to account for their exclusivity by the American value of egalitarian equal access. But at the same time, other cultural values provide them with the tools needed to successfully explain themselves, even as their talk and actions contribute to the reproduction of class, race, and gender inequalities. This research describes the perspective of wealthy white people, and critiques it as inadequate to a full understanding of the consequences of their actions. It shows how country club members talk and act in ways that help preserve their privileges, and the reasons why they do so. TALK ABOUT COUNTRY CLUBS: IDEOLOGY AND THE REPRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGE by JESSICA HOLDEN SHERWOOD A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SOCIOLOGY Raleigh 2004 APPROVED BY: _____________________________ ___________________________ Chair _____________________________ ___________________________ _____________________________ ___________________________ Dedication For Jesse, and the family we’ve made together ii Biography Jessica Holden Sherwood attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, and Wesleyan University in Connecticut. She received her Masters’ of Science degree from North Carolina State University in 1999. After five years’ residence in the South, she has returned to her homeland of New England with husband Jesse. Jessica enjoys gardening and playing tennis, although that career is presently on hold in favor of the biathlon of caring for a toddler and a baby about to be born. iii Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the participation of the interviewees. I thank them all for inviting me into their homes and offices, giving willingly of their time and their thoughts. I appreciate those who opened their address books to refer me to other club members, and especially the important early contacts whose endorsement of my research smoothed the way to securing more interviews. I’m grateful. Being far from my home department as I worked on this dissertation, I cast about eagerly for fellow social scientists to connect with. Several have been kind enough to email and talk with me, and I’m grateful for each dose of inspiration or encouragement, from: Emily Stier Adler, Roger Clark, Lynn Davidman, Bill Domhoff (I was touched by how kind the “big name” was to me, the “no-name”), Carla Hansen, Heather Beth Johnson, Aaron Katz, Leslie Killgore, Susi Krehbiel, Kristen Myers, and Joey Sprague. Perhaps the best contact I made was with Susan Ostrander, who welcomed me from the first time I invited myself to her office. It’s been a privilege to have her serve on my committee, and the dissertation is the better for it. Thanks also to the rest of the committee members, including Amy Halberstadt and Tony LaVopa for their service. And I’m grateful to Rick Della Fave, Michael Schwalbe, and Don Tomaskovic-Devey: for all that they have taught me during graduate school, and for providing the right mixture of critique and encouragement to keep the dissertation rolling along. Barbara Risman has mentored me ever since I was searching for a masters’ thesis topic. She has influenced my graduate career so much, I can’t imagine what it would look like without her. And I’m glad I don’t have to: Barbara is a main reason that I have learned iv all I have, and gotten satisfaction from the process. I have always appreciated her insightful advice, and I admire the example Barbara sets of living by her principles. She never once made me feel like my demands on her time were problematic or low priority, even in the context of a career which includes leadership of national organizations. Every graduate student should be so lucky to find in a mentor Barbara’s combination of caring and savvy. And every graduate student should be lucky enough to have a close friend by her side through all the ups and downs. I have been fortunate to have Molly Monahan as a friend since the beginning of school eight years ago. Professionally, I have appreciated her genuine enthusiasm for the work of sociology, and have wanted to absorb some of the energy she exudes. Personally, I have come through graduate school in better mental health for having her there with me every step of the way. I remember discussing with Molly the fear of joining the ranks of the terminal doctoral candidates; we decided that our chances of completion were good as long as we avoided moving out of state, getting a full-time job, or starting a family. I’m amused that each of us ended up committing two out of three of these acts while ABD, and proud that we both have managed to earn our degrees nonetheless. I thank Judy and Lee Weiner for their assistance as I gathered data. Thanks also to Georgia Shaw, the much-needed third grownup of our household. I wish her all the best as she begins her own graduate work. I also owe thanks to my mother, for both professional and personal reasons. Both my mother and father have always encouraged my curiosity and learning, not just in classrooms but everywhere. My mother was my original native informant of the Heights (which is why she remains nameless here). Her knowledge of the locals helped me get the snowball rolling in the first place. And then, once I became a mother myself, she cared for baby Abigail v every day so I was free to work -- and is now encouraging Abigail’s own curiosity. She has performed an immeasurable service of generosity, and I am indebted. I thank all of the members of my complicated, extended family for providing encouragement for this work. For example, I’m grateful to my in-laws who were always understanding when I used time during visits together to get away to work (or sometimes to rest). And I am most grateful to my children: Abigail, who kicked inside my belly as I analyzed data; and her younger sibling, who kicks in my belly even now as I write. They serve as healthy and welcome reminders that earning a Ph.D. is not the most important thing in my life. And of course, my partner in parenthood -- and so much more -- is my husband Jesse, to whom this work is dedicated. Dissertations strike me as a marital trial as well as an academic trial. Jesse has held up so well, even when I prioritized the dissertation over domestic responsibility, and even as he watched one semester after another in which “I hope to defend” fall by the wayside. I am grateful to him for giving me the time and space I needed to achieve this longstanding goal. More generally, I appreciate and love Jesse for who he is, and for who he encourages me to be. I have a very good life, and he is the main reason why. In the way he lives, and in his encouragement to me, Jesse helps me remember to “Watch the doughnut, not the hole.” vi Table of Contents Page LIST OF TABLES ix 1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1 Origin of The Project 1 Sociological Significance of Exclusive Country Clubs 4 Class, Race, Gender And Sexuality 11 Class as Gender- and Race- Specific 12 Gender as Class- and Race- Specific 14 Race as Class- and Gender- Specific 15 Structure and Culture 17 Preview of Chapters 21 2. METHOD AND CONTEXT 24 Method 24 The Country Clubs 29 Oldfamily 29 Rosary 30 Suburban 31 Waterside 32 Northern 33 The Sample 34 Becoming A Member 36 Does Business Have A Place? 42 Summary 45 3. ACCOUNTING FOR EXCLUSIVE CLUBS 47 Introduction 47 Accounts Denying Exclusion 53 Accounts Justifying Exclusion 59 Sports 60 Family 62 “Fit” of New Members 73 Socializing 81 Stasis and Tradition 83 Governance and Responsibility 86 Rights 89 Summary 92 vii 4. RACIAL-ETHNIC ACCOUNTS 98 Introduction 98 Justifying Homogeneity 106 Othering 106 Other Clubs And Minorities 114 Natural Separatism 117 The Role Of Money 120 Emphasizing Heterogeneity 123 The Frame of Diversity 123 Indicating Minority Presence 127 Accounting for Change 129 Summary 137 5. GENDER ACCOUNTS 142 The Gender Order 142 Gender Regimes at the Clubs 144 Accounting for Gender Regimes 150 Marriage and Money 150 Feminine Civility 155 Individualism 159 Genteel Masculine Dominance 165 Gender Evolution and Stasis 169 Summary 173 6.