Two readings (one by Sernau, and one by Grusky) are to provide you with some introductory statements on our particular thematic interest in this course, social stratification and inequality.

Post requirement: you are asked to post your initial observations/questions/insights on our readings, spend some time perusing what others had to say about the same readings. You should write something engage other classmate to response your post.

250-300 words. You can mention material in the reading with sign " ". postings must be substantive and demonstrate that you have read and engaged with the material at hand. There will be no credit for merely posting random thoughts, word salad, or even your own "common sense" takes on the subject at hand. Postings must be directly and clearly informed by the reading material.

Here's a quick reading guide for the Sernau and Grusky readings:

Sernau: This reading is pretty straightforward. The author discusses the multidimensionality of inequality, applies a sociological imagination to his own biography, and then provides a simple historical overview of the development of inequality.

When he discusses his and his ancestors' life paths, note how these lives were contingent upon a *number* of factors (including the "Gordian knot"). Although these factors are multiple, we in the West instead tend to tell ourselves a particular story about what accounts for success: that it is simply the product of diligence and hard work. How might this singular emphasis on "hard work" when we talk about social stratification neglect (and even conceal!) other factors?

Grusky: This one is a bit more complex than Sernau, but it is just as important and can be a good resource for you in the next few weeks of the course. There are four main aspects of this reading that I want you to be able to take along with you.

First, note the variety of "assets, resources, and goods" that serve as "reward packages." When we as "regular folk" (non-academics) talk about "climbing the ladder" we tend to emphasize only one of these in particular, no? Try and get a sense of the importance of non-economic assets for social inequality .

Second, from the tone of the chapter you might (accurately) get the sense that he is critical of the current state of stratification research. He suggests that stratification research should an examination of how each kind of "reward package" is differentially distributed. Instead, he argues, stratification research has "devolved" into a simpler approach. Grapple with the ways that scholars have "simplified" stratification research via "reductionism," "synthesizing approaches," and "classification exercises."

Third, in the section titled "Forms of Stratification" (p 7-12), you can ignore the first page and a half about Table 2 and begin reading at the top of page 9. Like Sernau, Grusky provides a history of social stratification (although much more detailed). Read it, see how it maps on top of Sernau's telling.

Fourth, pp 12-17 goes over debates in the field that we will visit throughout the quarter. Familiarize yourself with the ways that various scholars have conceived of the bases for social stratification. The stuff on Marx, Weber, and Ruling Class/Elites will come in handy beginning next week.

Resources:

1. The Gordian Knot of Race, Class, and Gender

2. The Contours of Social Stratification by DAVID B. GRUSKY