Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Hidden rules define social classes, cause confusion

Published: Tuesday, January 14, 2003

Updated: Thursday, September 4, 2008 14:09

The story goes that F. Scott Fitzgerald once commented to Ernest Hemingway, "The rich are very different from you and I." Ever the cynic, Hemingway replied, "Yes, they have more money."

Yes, the rich have more money, but that's not all they have. According to researcher Ruby Payne of Texas, the rich, the middle class and those living in poverty each have a unique set of hidden rules.

These rules guide everyday behavior, form the basis for decisions and determine membership in one of the three economic classes.

Payne, a professional educator and author of the book A Framework for Understanding Poverty, has spent several years sharing her insights about the cultures of poverty, middle-class and wealth.

Briefly, she suggests that each culture teaches a unique set of hidden rules to its members and, while the rules are unspoken, they form a handbook for behavior within the group.

As an example, the business and educational communities follow middle-class rules. And, because of that, people living with generational poverty (defined as living in poverty for two generations or more) do not have the tools to function adequately in school or at work, where middle-class rules apply.

Hidden rules have to do with attitudes about money, relationships, education, possessions and more. Basically, the driving forces for those living in poverty are survival, relationships and entertainment.

That's why a person living in poverty is more likely to spend a financial windfall on concert tickets or a big- screen television than on saving for a rainy day.

Middle-class people are driven by achievement and work. Because they feel they must manage their money, a financial windfall might go into a child's college fund.

Those living in wealth are driven by political, social and financial connections and might be likely to re-invest any additional money.

What this means for people living in poverty is that, to rephrase Hemingway, poverty is more than a lack of money. It's also a lack of knowledge of the middle-class rules that lead to success in a world driven by those rules.

It may be troubling to think of America as a society of classes, but recognition of the class differences can provide valuable insight into the reasons why some people face internal barriers to basic financial security.

Just as in sports, if you want to play and succeed at the game, you must know the rules. It's as simple as that. The rules are arbitrary and confusing, but they exist. You can't succeed unless you know the rules and follow them.

It's important to remember that knowledge of the hidden rules of each class forms a basis for understanding people. If we approach people arrogantly believing that middle-class rules are the "right" rules, we are using this knowledge inappropriately.

If we are going to help people, especially children, to succeed, we must know not only the rules of people living in poverty, but we must also articulate middle-class rules and teach them to others.

For children in school, this means learning the rules that will help them succeed in school and at work.

Many of the greatest frustrations teachers and administrators have with students from poverty are related to knowledge of the hidden rules.

Students living in generational poverty don't know middle-class hidden rules. Educators don't know the hidden rules of generational poverty. What results is an incapacitating spiral of increasing frustration, fueled by ignorance and resolved only through education and insight.

Susan Hazelton is a student at Boise State University.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

8 comments

Juan
Tue Oct 20 2009 20:27
Interesting... I thought that all along that class was genetic, now I find out that there are hidden rules. If only everyone knew these rules then we would all be filthy rich. There is then hope for everyone to own a McMansion, with a Hummer, and a Jet. Never mind that it might take 6 Earths for everyone in the world to live like Americans do, I think we can create the resources of 20 Earths to fulfill this Utopia....

There are reasons that people want us to believe that there are hidden rules. They want to justify that they should hoard the resources that they have, instead of trying to work with people to make sure that we are not abusing power and polluting the earth. Plus they become the envy of those around them. Isn't that the idea, to be the envy of everyone, and to tell them, "you need to learn the rules, so that you can be just like me."

So let's not focus on building better communities that work for everyone, that would be bad. People having their basic needs met, why should we do that?

Ok, I'll stop with the sarcasm. No one will ever be equal to another, you will never be me, with my life experiences and accumulated garbage (and trust me I have too much garbage and I use too much electricity, but I'm working on being more efficient and beneficial to my community). But perhaps we might make the same amount of money according to the IRS. That's one variable. We should have higher salaries for certain folks: Supreme Court Justices (don't want them to be swayed), CEO's of Corporations (They do have to manage a lot of things, but I don't think they should make their golden parachutes when the company goes bankrupt (people need to start holding their CEOs accountable)), Janitors (This should be a job that is highly paid, because people don't want to clean up for themselves doesn't mean we should pay someone poorly to clean up after them, on the contrary they should make quite a bit more than a livable wage). Anyway, there are structural reasons why people are poor, rich or middle class. It's a crap shoot in many ways dependent on social networks of people, but we should understand better how it works, and how to make better communities, where we are not raping the earth at the same time. There are hidden rules, or might I say hidden discrimination, that regulates how much of the share of the pie people get. We need to have rules that are known to everyone, so that those who work hard do get bonuses, and those that do not are only afforded basics. However it is not in our best interest to disenfranchise people just because they seem lazy because they will express their discontent and anger in awful ways, both to others through violence and to themselves in an attempt to escape. This helps no one. I believe that people have a drive to work to be a beneficial part of their group, but some people are either discouraged or traumatized by the system. So we need to research why they were disenfranchised, and not just lock people away for life or let them fight it out homeless on the streets. We need to help people in our communities to show them that there is still hope, and that they can regain their dignity. Sorry for the rant, and if you made it this far, thanks for reading!

Muslim Ali
Tue Oct 20 2009 20:02
Are you serious? "The rules are arbitrary and confusing, but they exist. You can't succeed unless you know the rules and follow them." I think my four year old nephew can figure out that that doesn't make much sense. The only times that I can think of when rules are arbitrary and confusing is in cases of abuse, prejudice, injustice, or manipulation of some sort.

I think perhaps a much larger issue to variation in human outcomes in general may also be how people respond to situations and this is much more of a psychological issue. Some people have referred to is as "psychological hardiness or resilliency".

In addition, we live in a very multicultural society where people have roots that come from very diverse parts of the world and cultures that see and value things very differently. It's a bit naive to say that people only think or operate in one of three ways. The spectrum of human behaviour has great variety in their responses which could vary according to cultural, psychological, situational, contextual, moral, or in other ways. Anyway, who is to say that what people value most or should value is based on wealth or financial considerations. Did Jesus value things that way? Or Buddha? Or Gandhi? Or MLK jr? or a number of great leaders and humans who achieved great accomplishments recognized with widespread appeal.

julian
Tue Oct 20 2009 13:48
Everything you wrote in here is so true. I observe these "hidden values" of different "classes" many time in the day to day life. Good read. Please write more often.. the Oracle needs to carry such socially relevant articles.
Christian
Tue Oct 20 2009 13:03
To suggest that people living in poverty don't "have the tools to function adequately in school or at work" is to sincerely misunderstand culture, human behavior, worldviews, values, beliefs, and many other aspects of humanity and society. The argument suggests that people living in poverty have no agency or potential for change without "help" from those with access to resources. The book and author's argument are junk. It takes just one Anthropology class at USF to know this. Think critically!
Wendy
Tue Oct 20 2009 09:58
If this philosophy had any merit, why then have so many "middle class" and "upper class" families currently found themselves nearly homeless and without savings?Payne's work and this article are ignorant at best. Rubbish.
Concerned Citizen
Tue Oct 20 2009 09:23
The intention of the author and the researcher she sites is to discuss the differences in behavior between people with varying levels of wealth. The problem in the way the article is framed or presented is that it suggests that by merely changing one's behavior than one's wealth will also change. Poverty and its causes must be understood comprehensively, including access to affordable health care, cost efficient and reliable public transportation, quality and affordable education and housing, a living wage, and prison sentencing laws and hiring practices for former felons, among other factors that influence poverty or the lack there of. The "culture of poverty" argument often discounts these other structural factors and instead focuses on the individual or the "pathology of the poor." Personal responsibility should not be removed from the scope of analyzing poverty, however, it alone is neither the sole cause nor solution to poverty.
Susan Greenbaum
Tue Oct 20 2009 08:59
Ruby Payne is not a "researcher." She is an entrepreneur who sells stereotypes and misinformation and makes an extremely good living doing it. She also creates untold problems for kids who come from poor families and for teachers who mistake her prattle for wisdom. The so-called "culture of poverty" has been put forth as the chief explanation for inequality in our society for decades, but the fluctuations in the poverty rate clearly point to other causes. Right now we have spiking poverty due to unemployment and the well documented abuses and crimes of the financial industry. The people who caused millions to lose homes, and to sink our economy are the ones with the bad culture. Their rules are a disaster for all of us.
Tony
Wed Sep 2 2009 17:35
Great knowledge for every one to know.




log out