William Graham Sumner Literature Analysis

“A Question of Class” focuses on Dorothy Allison’s struggle of identifying herself as a poverty stricken individual, and breaking free from her predetermined destiny while simultaneously accepting her past. Allison understands the prejudice that comes with being poor with the statement, “I have learned with great difficulty that the vast majority of people pretend that poverty is a voluntary condition, that the poor are…less than fully human…” The quote fundamentally means that society does not view the poor as their equivalents to the world, and one chooses to live in such conditions. Although the remark was made in the 1950’s, it still rings true in the societal ideology of present time. Changes have not been

Since the beginning of civilization, unfortunately, there has always been some type of ranking when it came to social status. Usually, there was a small group of wealthy elites who ran everything, and then there was the large group of people who were not rich. One would think that the rich would take care of the poor, but often times the rich kept to themselves and let the poor suffer. This can be seen all over history from the time of the Egyptians to the feudal system of the middle ages, to even more current times.This holds true when diving into the 1800 and 1900’s. One would see that like there were very few social elites and a plethora of people who were not wealthy by a stretch. There were times when the rich would participate in activities that would make it seem like they were helping the poor when in actuality they were not doing the slightest. An example of this can be seen in Andrew Carnegie's “The Gospel of Wealth.” In “The Gospel of Wealth” Carnegie explains what one should do to help society and the poor, but what it is is a way for the wealthy to feel better about themselves.

     Although the gap between rich and poor during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was unquestionably large, the nation was also prospering through large economic gains. Although it may have seemed like a nation in which the rich were detached from the poor, the US was actually harvesting a new breed of self-accomplishing individuals. With the end of free labor, the US had sought a new ideology, and found it in Adam

“Nature is rich; but everywhere man, the heir of nature, is poor.” Lloyd begins his work by complaining about how the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor; however, as the essay progresses, one can see the accuracy of his views. He references the creation of Adam and Eve, stating that, “Never since time began have all the sons and daughters of men been all warm, and filled, and all shod and roofed.” It’s been true throughout history that because of monopolies that a very small percentage of men control a majority of land and resources. Lloyd states that individuals holding a majority of resources and land believe that that there is a scarcity; that there is not enough. And in order to survive, in order to be happy, in order to be prosperous, they must contain and constrain. Men must hold on to any and everything they can get their hands on. The minority has an opposing viewpoint. It feels that there is an abundance of resources, but because of unequal distribution, there is never enough to go around: “There is too much iron, too much lumber, too much flour―for this or that syndicate. The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this minority have too much of everything to sell.” Lloyd concludes by expressing that we have become a “mutual deglutition.” He states that we have advanced too quickly and implicates that we are beginning to reverse

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) is a prime example of the phrase, from rags to riches. During his early and teenage years, Carnegie went through poverty. After coming up with crafty investments and going through various jobs, he rose to great prosperity. Because he has experienced poverty and knows that it is a well-known problem, “Carnegie sought to use philanthropy to provide opportunities for individuals to help themselves.” Unlike Carnegie, William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), an influential professor at Yale University, believed that those who were rich deserve to be rich and those who were poor deserved to be poor. He was in favor of economic inequality and believed that helping those who are less fortunate would bring down the society. This paper examines the differences between Andrew Carnegie and William Graham Sumner’s point of view on the issue of rich and poor and whether the two classes should coexist or remain unequal.

There is much debate in America about how its society has fallen under the cowl of social stratification resulting in the unforgiving rise of class inequality. It is becoming more and more clear these days that these beliefs have seemed to turn into truth in the last couple decades. New York Times columnist and Nobel prize winning economic professor Paul Krugman discusses why and how upward mobility has become increasingly difficult in the past decades in his article “The Death of Horatio Alger,” which was first published on December 18th 2003 in New York City. His thorough explanation makes it easy to understand just how close the United States is to being a true caste society and the imposing danger of such an event. Harvard professor

Andrew Carnegie’s rhetoric in the “Gospel of Wealth,” challenged the economic disparities in the United States during the late 1800s by proposing a radical shift in the distribution of wealth as a solution to social improvement without understanding that poverty was not a personality deficit rather the result of oppression. Carnegie exemplified his philosophy and achieved the American Dream, yet he neglected that he was the exception to the rule, not the rule in itself. The “Gospel of Wealth” had too many assumptions, both with merit and not, when proposing how the distribution of wealth could alleviate economic hardships to the impoverished population without understanding the complexities of the working class.

George believes that land prices should be so high, that people would not be able to own land but would rather rent the land. His theory explains that progress is only good to those who can achieve it due to inequality. Those who don’t have a chance will remain in poverty and poverty will continue to become worse. This contrasts Sumner’s idea of survival of the fittest. By giving to those who will not seek the opportunity to improve themselves, society will not

Prior to 1939, the rules and regulations for becoming a member of the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology was extremely difficult. But in 1895 a young man born by the name of Francis Cecil Sumner, was about to have a huge impact in the field of psychology. A young man who was schooled at home was getting ready to embark on a rollercoaster of trials and tribulations. Before 1939 some of the circumstances for being a member of the Southern School for Philosophy and Psychology (SSPP) were. For Non-American Psychological (APA) members even with endorsements and payments of dues, had to be voted in by the membership. Sumner, a young black man who was the first African American to have earned a PhD in psychology was held back and delayed numerous times. Could this be due to the color of his skin? He was about to see for himself.

If we look at these ever-present needs and realize the U.S. is an affluent enough society to meet them, we realize Carnegie may not have been as fit a person at distributing wealth as his public persona would indicate. Carnegie’s essay is now probably included in collegiate literature because he was a wealthy man; Galbraith’s essay is now probably included in collegiate literature because it stands on strong, morally-compassionate ideas. Galbraith would likely have chosen to redistribute wealth in a compassionate way that attempted to remove the environmental factor that causes certain “islands” of the population to remain poor and unproductive, paying special attention to the opportunities of the children in that area. Even further, he [Galbraith] ( 2010) proposed solutions for those who have no means to contribute to the productivity of society: the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill (p. 413).

Class, gender, and race are just a few of the classifications that have directly impacted one’s financial, legal, and personal freedoms throughout history. There are several examples in Charles Waddell Chesnutt’s The Marrow of Tradition and Edith Wharton’s House of Mirth that will shed light to the many situations in which the characters find themselves that display the sort of inequality that was quite common in the 20th century.

Communal living has been a fixture of society since the days of hunter-gathering. It wasn’t until social classes began to emerge and forms of capitol were created that societies moved away from communism. The modern theory of communism comes from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’, The Communist Manifesto. Published in 1848, this dissemination of communist ideals, which called for the elimination of class

As far back as man has been on earth, he has been driven towards building a community among his peers. Whether that is a community of hunters and gatherers who share whatever the day has brought to them within their tribe, or a larger community which within its structure lie the inner dwellings of division of labor and societal classes. Adam Smith (18th Century), John Stuart Mill (19th Century), and Karl Marx (19th Century) are of the same cloth, but in modern terms their community is referenced as a government, and they each have their own distinct opinions on the 'drive' instilled within human nature that shape their personal economic theories. I will be dissecting the views of each of these economists, in regards to the role of

This paper will be discussing “Some Principles of Stratification” by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, “Classes in Capitalism and Pre- Capitalism” by Karl Marx, and “Who Rules America?” by G. William Domhoff. Davis and Moore examine stratification, social class, and positional rank and their effects on individuals and society. Marx examines inequality in society, the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed or the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and methods of production and their effects on society. Domhoff examines the roles of corporate communities and the upper class and how they impact America.

In the early nineteenth century, America was undergoing profound changes in the political, economic, and social realms. The rise of international commerce and the development of industrialization displaced previous Republican ideologies that valued the community (Matthews 5). Instead, the market became the principal societal system. Significantly, the major agent driving this system was the individual. Thus, a new philosophy of liberal individualism was born that honored the rights and independence of the individual man. It maintained that the individual’s “drive for success” would naturally contribute to the overall good of the community (5). Indeed, “setting free the