Ain't No Makin It

In Chapters 9-11, MacLeod details the effects of socioeconomic changes on individual life paths, revisiting the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers eight years after the initial study. These chapters challenge the notion of economic determinism by illustrating how the supposedly fluid nature of social mobility is often a facade masking a “remarkably stable class structure,” as highlighted by MacLeod’s observation that “The United States has a remarkably stable class structure, albeit one that is obscured by the rhetoric of classlessness” (242). This insight sets the stage for a nuanced discussion on the complex interplay between community dynamics, personal choices, and evolving societal contexts, questioning the static assumptions traditionally held about the socioeconomic impact on individual outcomes. By revisiting the diverse trajectories of these two groups, MacLeod underscores the limitations of viewing social class as the sole determinant of personal and professional achievements, thereby enriching the ongoing discourse on social reproduction and mobility.

MacLeod’s narrative technique, particularly his use of personal stories, humanizes the sociological data, making systemic issues more relatable and impactful. For example, MacLeod describes several encounters where the residents of Clarendon Heights face direct societal prejudice that dismisses them based on superficial judgments. The chapter illustrates this approach when a motorist, upon passing by the neighborhood, dismisses the local youths as “ignorant, lazy losers” (241). This encounter serves as a reminder of how societal prejudices and misconceptions about poverty are formed and perpetuated. The use of these narratives emphasizes the disconnect between public perception and the complex, layered realities of those struggling within rigid socioeconomic systems, making the sociological impact of MacLeod’s findings more relatable and impactful to the reader. This method also enriches The Critique of Meritocracy in American Society by showing how societal perceptions can impact the lives of those in lower socioeconomic classes, providing a concrete context to discussions of social mobility and systemic inequality.

MacLeod’s engagement with key sociological theories through his longitudinal data offers a critical reflection on The Role of Education in Social Mobility. In particular, the use of Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus enriches the discussion, showing how deeply embedded social and cultural conditions can either constrain or enable individual agency. Bourdieu’s theory helps explain the disparities observed between the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers, who, despite originating from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, diverge significantly in their life outcomes. This theoretical application is articulated when MacLeod notes, “Bourdieu’s concept of habitus dissolves the distinction between structure and agency and points the way forward” (139), suggesting a nuanced approach that considers both personal actions and the societal forces at play. This perspective is vital in understanding how individuals internalize their social conditions and how these conditions shape their perceptions, decisions, and ultimately, their social trajectories.

Further, MacLeod’s critique of deterministic views of social reproduction emphasizes the variability and complexity of individual life courses within the same socioeconomic strata. By challenging earlier theories that rigidly link educational and social outcomes to socioeconomic status, MacLeod introduces a more dynamic understanding of social reproduction. He questions the sufficiency of economic determinism in explaining the different paths of the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers, prompting a reevaluation of how social structures influence individual lives beyond mere economic conditions. This critique is supported by the observation that “[d]enied conventional careers, the Hallway Hangers have turned to the underground economy” (178). This refers to their engagement in illegal activities such as drug dealing and other forms of black-market employment, which often present the only viable economic opportunities in their deprived socioeconomic context. This statement underscores the severe limitations and obstacles faced by individuals driven not just by economic conditions but also by a lack of legitimate opportunities, thereby highlighting the importance of considering a broader array of factors, including The Role of Race and Ethnicity in Shaping Opportunities, which may influence social outcomes in complex and interwoven ways.

Lastly, the culmination of MacLeod’s study in these chapters brings into focus the enduring influence of The Limitations of Social Class. Despite varying degrees of optimism and effort, both groups—the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers—face significant barriers that often thwart their aspirations for upward mobility, illustrating the harsh reality of the structural constraints they encounter. The chapter underscores this point with the observation that “[o]ur society is structured to create poverty and extreme economic inequality” (241), highlighting that the lack of substantial change in the lives of the participants is not due to individual failings but to systemic limitations. Through this, MacLeod challenges the viewer to reconsider the narrative of individual responsibility and to recognize the broader social and economic forces at play. The study’s longitudinal aspect adds depth to these insights, showing not just static snapshots but the progression and sometimes the stagnation of lives over time, thereby enriching the discourse on social mobility and the factors that impede it. This comprehensive exploration not only reinforces the foundational themes of MacLeod’s work but also invites ongoing discussion about the mechanisms of social reproduction and the potential for societal change.