Ambition and Social Class: A Respecification

This paper proposes a theoretical framework for reconciling several contradictory findings on the relationship between social and ambition. It is suggested that any given success has both an absolute and a value, the first reflecting its cultural desirability, the second, its social-class accessibility. relative distance of a social from a given thus determines the saliency of that for its members, and this saliency in turn constitutes an intervening variable between individual ambition and social achievement. We can thus anticipate differences in the frequencies of certain educational or occupational aspirations in. various social classes without postulating differences in of individual ambitiousness among their members. concept of a class hierarchy of success goal will help reinterpret empirical evidence about actual levels of aspiration by social class. T he relatiolnship between in(diviclual ambition and social opportunity has been a controversial topic in American sociology, particularly with reference to the influence of social on the achievement of worldly Among two prominent recent views, one accounts for the lesser achievemiients of lower individuals (as comparecd to the middle class) in terms of limited opportunities, the other, in terms of limited desires. latter view may be ga.iniing ground if its independlenlt espousal by three influential social scientists may be so interpreted.1 Although their evidence varies, they agr-ee in their conclusions: lower individuals, in giving relatively low priority to a college education anid to professional, or at least wlhite collar work, are less ambitious thani middle indivicduals. This inferenice derives not from psychological in* Sections of this paper were read at the anlnual meeting of American Association for Public Opinion Research, May, 1962. 1 an influential paper written some years ago, Hyman proposed that Certain beliefs and values held by lower people helped to account for their 'lack of upward mobility.' components of this value system ilnvolve less emphasis upon the traditional success goals, increased awareness of the lack of opportunity to achieve success, and less achievement of goals which in turn would be instrumental for success. After reviewing a series of research findings on educational and occupational preferences among national samples from the different social classes, he concluded that the data presented clearly shows that there is reduced striving for success among the lower classes. Herbert Hyman, The Value Systems of Different Classes: Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification, in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Class, Statuts an-d Pozer (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1953), p. 427. a recent book, Lipset and Bendix, evaluating a vast amount of comparative evidence oln social mobility, stated: . that the cumulation of disadvalntages at the bottom of the social scale is in large part the result of a lack of interest in educational and occupational achievement. a country which is second to none in its concern with mobility and personal attainment it is clearly insufficient to attribute this lack of interest solely to the environment. Seynmour Lipset and Reilnhard Bendix, Mobility in) Ind'itstrial Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959), p. 286-287. Parsons, in a significanit theoretical paper published at the same time as Hyman's, concluded: In the lower reaches of the social structure there are tendencies to deviation from the 'middle pattern.'. Essentially we might say that this consists in a shift from the predominance of the 'success' to that of the 'security' goal. More concretely it is a loss of interest in achievement, whether for its own sake aind for the opportunity to do more important thinigs, or for advancement of family status through more income and enhanced reputation. Talcott Parsons, A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Stratification, in Bendix and Lipset, op. cit., p. 125. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.104 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:03:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms AMBITION AND SOCIAL CLASS 59 formation about the intensity of individual strivings but from sociological information about levels aspired to, a procedlure posinlg logical as well as methodological problems. Nevertheless, this approach lhas the merit of challeniging an earlier assumiiption, notably by MVierton in his well-known paper on Social Structure and Anomlie,2 that the motivation to succeed is shared by all classes. However, as we shall try to slhow, the later correction miiay err in the opposite direction. From the contention that the loweer not only has less but also wants less of wlhat there is to be had, it is a small, tlhough precarious, step to suggest that the lower lhas less because it wants less. main line of the argumient may be summaarized as follows: his original paper, MIerton argued that the strain toward anomie in the lower was a consequence of the desire for lofty goals combined with limited access to legitimate means. This is questioned by Hyman wlho founcl that the lower does not set its siglhts quite so higlh as Merton had assumed and presumably then, its more limited means are quite consistent witlh its more modest amiibitions. Although Hymnan does not do so explicitly, one result of his reinterpretation would be to reject the lhypotlhesis of a strain toward anomie, possibly to be replaced by a hypothesis more in line with the facts as he sees them, that is, of a strain towards security. a later article, Merton substantially accepts Hyman's reformulation and incorporates it into his suggestions for further researclh, calling folr dlata on the extent to which Americalns in differeilt social strata have in fact assimilated the sa me culturally induced values. Specifically, inforlmatio;n is neecled on socially patterned differentials in: (1) expositre to the cultural and norms regulating belhavior oriented to that goal; (2) acceptanice of the and norms as moral manclates and internalized values.3 observing that lower indlividluals do not typically entertain high hopes by pursuing lofty goals, Hymanl has successfully challelnged Merton's original conclusioni. He did not, hiowever, clhallenge the logic of his argument, principally, it-would seem, because he was in implicit agreemen-it with it. Bolth HymanandI Merton agree on one capital poilnt: that the degree of personal ambitioln can be inferred from the cultural significance of the aspiredl to. If this ranks higlh, inclividual almlbition must be great; if it ranks low, individual ambition must be small.4 By equating these two dimeensions, Merton discovers structurally engendered frustrationls; Hyman, structurally engendered submission, in the lower class. Their opposite conclusions rest on essentially the same premise. But to treat ambition aind the rank of the success as interchanigeable insteacl of interdependent may obscure the relationship between ambition and social class-a situation wlhich this paper hiopes