Uneasy Street: The anxieties of affluence, by Rachel Sherman (2017) Princeton University Press.
本書探索財富金字塔頂端的紐約市民，如何自覺與回應自身的地位優勢。
作者為紐約New School的社會學家，自述也來自優勢家庭。研究材料來自訪談，總共訪談了55位人士，另外也訪談30位服務頂層人士的中間人（如設計師、建築師、財務顧問、運動教練、廚師等等）。紐約市是美國貧富差距最大的地區之一，在此研究進行的期間，紐約經歷佔領華爾街運動。由於主題敏感，研究過程並不順利，拒訪率頗高，因此受訪對象可能具偏差性。
本書主要的結論是，檢視不平等，重點應放在製造社會不平等的社會結構與社會過程，而不應放在個人的人格態度或行為。不論對於那個社會階層人們的處境，都應該要避免個人化的歸因與道德評價，否則反將成為複製不平等的機制。
本書最後一節描述研究方法，包括研究過程與研究限制。書末並列出10個討論題目，也適合作為研究設計與推論的參考。台大圖書館有電子書，617研究室有實體書。以下簡要摘要本書內容。
Research objectives:
ü Initially, the author wanted to know how the top 5% wealthy New Yorkers made decisions about consumption, given their full economic freedom, and how they experienced their own social advantages (p4).
ü But after noticing their “anxieties”, she shifted the research focus to explore their inner conflicts and moral justification about money and identify (p5). She wanted to know how the beneficiaries of rising inequality felt about and manage their privilege (p11).
ü The author pointed out that many common-held notions about wealthy people were not correct (for example, tend to seek distinction/like to show off/being complacent about their privilege). The author pointed out that inequalities persist because many wealthy people are considered good people. Their privileges are often legitimized by themselves as well as the society with their good manners and good characters. There are indeed many wealthy and good people, but by focusing on individual factors, she argued, we may easily overlook unjust social processes that foster structural inequalities.
ü Background of this study: Economic inequalities are severe in New York City. This study was conducted during the time of “Occupy Wall Street” movement that started in late 2011 and went on for some time. President Obama ran for the second term in 2012. The fact that Obama openly supported protesters and claimed to work for the 99% annoyed people at the top (but this is unavoidable). Her study participants apparently felt the heat and social resentment. The author herself was raised with privilege background and lived in NYC.
Study participants:
ü She targeted people living in NYC, with high income and/or wealth (top 5% according to statistic), in the 30s and 40s, and had children. The author thought these people were likely to make important lifestyle decisions such as buying house, doing renovation, choosing school etc (p14).
ü Snowballing sample was used, but non-responding rate was high. It turned out that finding people who had recently done major renovation on house or apartment was an effective way to find these people (p17, p243), because home renovation is very common in NYC and people enjoy talking about it.
ü A total of 55 parents were interviewed. Their income ranged from 250,000 to 10,000,000 (most of them above 500,000, or年收入>1,500萬台幣) and assets ranged from 80,000 to 50,000,000 (most above 3,000,000, or資產>9千萬台幣). Among them, 80% were white, 20% were gays, all were college-educated (nearly exclusively in elite institutes) and 66% had advanced degrees.
ü They shared 3 characteristics: had high levels of cultural capital, were politically liberal, and 50% were raised Christian, 33% were raised Jewish, but most were not religious (p15).
ü Besides, the author also interviewed 30 “intermediaries”, such as financial advisor, coach, designer, architect, personal chef, etc.
Questions asked in interviews:
ü Money and lifestyle issues – how do they spend? Do they compete for status or distinction?
ü Inner conflicts and moral concerns – how do they perceive their ‘privilege’? Whom do they compare with (upward or downward)? Do they think they are worthy of this privilege, i.e., the legitimacy and moral worth issues.
Main findings: Rich people tended to obscure their privilege status, avoid talking about money or showing off, and make efforts to convince themselves that they deserve this privilege in a moral sense (my note: these findings should be understood in a very specific context, i.e., NYC should be quite different from other places). Three characteristics are delineated by them as being a good rich: being a hard-working and productive worker, being a prudent and family-oriented consumer, and giving back.
ü Chapter 1: Orientation to others. Research questions were: how did they locate themselves on a distributive continuum? How did such self-location affect their perceived privilege and political stands?
n People who looking upward from the “middle”: they were mostly in finance, business, real estate or corporate law fields; more conservative; against tax increase; tended to socialize with people with similar wealth; compare upwards (p32); more economic insecure; having anxieties around privilege, so reluctant to talk about it; hate to talk about “inequality”; annoyed by Obama because he talked about economic inequalities and criticized the “Wall Street people”, treating them like evils (p 43).
n People facing downward: many were in ‘creative jobs’ or intellectual jobs; having more diverse social networks; more liberal; more open about their privilege; see and concern of people with less; having class-related discomfort/conflicts; many expressed affinity with “Occupy Wall Street”; these people tend to think that all groups were connected with each other by economic relations and moral obligations; many of them believed that structural change is possible (p52)
n People with flexible orientations – it is difficult to clearly classify people into the above-mentioned two groups, because people are complicated, not fixed, and often have inner conflicts (this is understandable).
ü Chapter 2: Working hard or hardly working?
n Having a strong working ethic; it is “hard work” that make them feel morally worthy; strong opposition to ‘dependency on the state’
n Many admitted that they were lucky
n hate to talk about “structure”
n sense of economic insecurity is high – fear of job loss, disease and health care cost, financial turmoil, etc.
ü Chapter 3: A very expensive ordinary life
n In short, her interviewees emphasized the “ordinariness of their expenses”.
ü Chapter 4: Giving back (time and money)
n Traditional public philanthropy and volunteerism, were taken for granted as a part of their identity as good people, i.e., philanthropic identity.
n Paying tax was considered as giving back, but some interviewees were reluctant to accept tax rise; regardless their orientation and political stands, most people took advantage of rule holes to reduce taxes.
n Giving back, but not giving up, i.e., not challenging structural inequalities.
ü Chapter 5: Labor, spending, and entitlement in couples
n This chapter is about gender issues at home within wealthy couples.
ü Chapter 6: Parenting privilege – constraint, exposure, and entitlement
n This chapter is about how they raise and discipline (or try to discipline) their children.
ü Conclusion
n The author argued, we should stop distinguishing good and bad rich, should avoid personal judgment, and should engage questions about a more egalitarian distribution of material and experiential resources (p236).
n She pointed out, the Occupy Movement, the Fight for Fifteen (to raise minimum wage to 15 USD/hr), Sanders 2016 presidential campaign, and Obama’s remarks on high-wage tax cuts, all involved personal attacks. In her view, these are quite counter-productive. She reminded that we should criticize the society and systems that produces unequal distributions of wealth, and not on individuals. More efforts should be made to promote “egalitarian thinking” (p236), to raise questions about “distributional justice”, and to challenge the commonly-held notion that people deserve resources merely based on individual moral status (p237).
