Social Brokers: Reinforcing

the Family to Increase Social

Mobility

Social and economic wellbeing are not simply determined by the choices one makes. Social
class and povertydisplay consistent patterns across groups and generations making social
mobility and economic success difficult in individual lives. But there are some who seem to defy
the limitations of social class and become successful despite humble or difficult beginnings. In
particular, social brokers like governmental organizations, charities and philanthropists have
become common in trying to decrease the negative effects of social stratification and provide
resources for future success stories in society. Considering that brokers can have a positive
impact on society, evidence from a series of interviews suggests that there could be great benefit
to establishing links between brokerage organizations and natural brokers, like families.

The Roots of Class

For the purposes of this paper, the term social brokers will refer to any organization or individual
that acts to provide social capital, knowledge and opportunities traditionally reserved to members
of higher social classes to members of a low social class. But for social brokers to have a role in
society there must be an actual division of individuals into social classes, and understanding the
process through which these divisions are created is vital to seeing a broker’s role and influence.

Over time, a society develops a list of characteristics or skills it deems important or valuable.
Whether these are ascribed or achieved measures, individuals are rewarded differently based on
these criteria. These differences in rewarding foster inequality between members of society and
begin grouping those individuals over time (Iceland, 2013; Lareau, 2011). It has also been
observed that while these preferences exist, it is difficult to nail down exactly which measurable
factors are preferred by society (Lareau, 2008). In many ways it reflects a “folk concept of class”
(Conley, 2008), where individuals in society, and eventually society as a whole determines class
based on the overall socially constructed perceptions of influential demographics. Those
preferences often begin to spread and are eventually established as social norms by the most
influential groups or individuals in society. People are viewed differently and are allotted
stereotypes simply based on how society’s preferences rank them in terms of overall value.

Socially Constructed Disadvantage

As these differences become more engrained and consistent, the idea of social class develops
further, and structural frameworks begin to form. Fair competition for jobs becomes a test to see
who can convert their usable human, social, and cultural capital in the most meaningful ways.
This reinforced meritocracy reflects society’s unofficial systems of operation that qualify certain
individuals for success, while those without the necessary qualifications are left out of the
exchange of valuable resources (Brooks, 2011). These systems stratify individuals in different
directions in a way that can affect economic, educational and social opportunities (Massey,
2007). Marxian ideology further emphasizes this separation by describing the fundamentally
different bourgeois and proletariat, those who have access to the means of production and those
who do not (Marx, 2008; Wright, 2011). In the same way, there exist differences in access to
opportunity: those who have the class knowledge and social capital to fit society’s complex social
frameworks and those who do not.

The effect of these differences in social and economic capability often lead to poverty, creating a
world of limited opportunity and chronic disadvantage for certain sub-groups in society.
Intergenerational poverty remains around fifty percent, making it more difficult for children whose
parents experienced poverty in their lifetimes to become socially or economically mobile (Iceland,
2013). Women, racial minorities, mixed families and children are disproportionally represented
among the poor and poverty seems to find geographic niches, even outside crowded urban
centers, further limiting certain groups more than others (Iceland, 2013). General economic shifts
can induce bouts of poverty in certain demographics while others are not affected in the same
ways (Iceland, 2013). Changes in economic processes alter the job markets for large groups of
workers, particularly low skilled wage earners who have begun losing jobs as the US economy
has shifted to a more service and technology centered infrastructure.

The Central Role of Brokers

Resources and opportunities are consistently distributed unevenly across generations, large
scale societal consequences are felt by specific groups that are unable to adjust, and an isolated,
underprivileged class of Americans remains clumped together without hope of upward mobility.
Despite these difficulties, the only real separating factor between classes is a knowledge of
social norms and the skills to navigate the structures those norms create in society. Brokers can
bridge such gaps in understanding and experience while providing opportunities to
underprivileged demographics enabling them to escape the negative socio-economic trends that
would normally limit their social mobility.

In particular, this study will focus on one example of a social broker to gauge its effects and see
how influential its resources have been and are in the lives of individuals from different
backgrounds. The broker in question is a church congregation, a cross-class community
common to many Americans regardless of class. This church in particular focuses on
intentionally making its congregations socially and economically diverse by dividing up its
congregations according to geographic area, not by random choice or the preferences of its
members. The result is often a diverse group of individuals that come together and create
connections with others outside their normal social circles. Less wealthy neighborhoods are often
paired with middle and upper class areas, providing interaction that would be less common in
normal day-to-day activity. In addition to these networking benefits, this particular church also
provides employment services, life-skills workshops and activities, subsidized highereducation at
church sponsored schools and even some personalized welfare assistance in times of need. It
will be observed whether this individual broker was the sole key to the success and mobility of
these individuals, or if the broker really had any independent effect when other factors are
considered.

Methods
Five individuals were interviewed in a one-on-one setting (those interviewed will remain
anonymous, but each will be given a pseudonym for the purposes of this study). Interviewees for
this small investigation were selected from friends and family members of the researcher and
represented different early-life experiences when class was considered. Some grew up in homes
where both parents only graduated high school while others were not the first members of their
families to attend college or graduate school. This method of selection ensured that participant’s
experiences were relevant to the research question and that a variety of socio-economic
backgrounds were represented. The sample was small and not randomly selected, but this
particular investigation is not meant to make generalizations about a population wider than those
who have felt the influence of a particular broker in their lives: a comprehensive church
community.

Results
In their responses, participants provided evidence that in their lives their success and social
mobility was connected to two separate brokers: their families and their church congregations.
Details of family background and its influences on the interviewee’s lives presented evidence that
a family unit can act as a cross-generational broker, where skills and experience are given
vicariously from parent to child. Despite that role as a type of broker, it also became clear that
often a family’s collective experience and social capital is not enough to ensure social mobility in
the lowest socio-economic classes. Responses suggest that the infusion of opportunity and
additional skill that led to their current social mobility came from participant’s connection to their
church community. This broker supplemented the human capital provided by parents in addition
to expanding social networks and providing additional benefits and opportunities that contributed
to class mobility.

The Role of Money and Experience

An obvious disadvantage that surfaced in the experiences of some participants was the
monetary resources and societal experience parents had at their disposal. Robert described how
his parents were in a socio-economic position where they were never able to support him
financially in seeking further opportunities. Luckily, he said, his mother in particular stressed the
importance of getting good grades and earning scholarships in order to insure that a good
education was possible and that he would work to escape his parent’s social limitations.
Intuitively, these situations may be the exception: that it is more likely for individuals from
underprivileged backgrounds to remain in the same class or socio-economic state as their
parents (Iceland, 2013). In contrast to this norm of limited mobility, both Nancy and Linda had
similar stories to Robert. Both women came from homes where neither of their parents graduated
college and had no experience in the norms and traditions of higher education. Without that vital
experience and monetary support, it is often more difficult for students to enter and finish college.

In contrast to these interviewees, Jane and Thomas cited the benefits they enjoyed having grown
up in families where both parents had reached at least a bachelor’s degree. Thomas in particular
noted that considering his background with his father’s position as a doctor, he enjoyed
significant support from his parents as role models, but also in the form of monetary support,
meaning that he would not have to work his way through school. This difference in both monetary
and experiential support gave Jane and Thomas advantages that could have determined
whether they attended college. But when compared to the other interviewees of this study, there
was no real, long term benefit that set these two apart from the other three: all finished, or are on
track to finish at least a bachelor’s degree, and both Robert and Nancy went on to finish graduate
degrees, again without the support or experience of family members. This begs the question: are
these advantages within an individual’s family (experience and financial support) really
determining factors when a broker is in place to offer the same kind of support to all?

Some churches and other brokers can offer scholarships, subsidized tuition for attendance to
sponsored schools, workshops and career services to those within their networks. In addition,
such brokers can provide access to individuals and mentors who have attended college or
graduate school, adding their experiences to the list of tools available to members of the
community regardless of their social class or financial position. With those resources, the playing
field among our five interviewees was perhaps more even than in a competitive world without a
moderating broker.
Ranking Determining Factors
Near the end of the interview, participants were asked to rank several societal, individual and
biological factors in their importance on future economic success. The highest ranked option was
that opportunities, whether educational or economic, played the most significant role in
determining one’s future success. Linda put it best as she described that “whether or not you
work hard, if you don’t have the chance to work, or to grow, that effort doesn’t mean anything.” It
was clear that all participants recognized the need for opportunities despite a commonly held
belief that one can simply work hard and be successful. Sometimes those opportunities can
come from within one’s own family, but for those of lower social classes, those connections can
be rare.

While opportunities were ranked as the most important determining factor, family background
was seen as also very important, even by those who did not have promising family backgrounds.
The order of these rankings is indicative of an important concept in considering class mobility: a
family can act as a broker of information and skills, but often lacks the social capital to create real
opportunity for those who need it, as was the case with Robert, Nancy and Linda. In other words,
families can create good workers and good learners by teaching worthwhile principles in the
home like character and hard work, but there is no guarantee that these skills would transfer to a
job unless the correct connections were made.

While families can act as a type of broker between generations, an additional question in the
interview was introduced to analyze the effect of another broker, the multi-class church
community the participants were all active parts of, on their economic success. The question
asked them to put the church on the scale from one to five, as the original five factors were
organized, and put it equal to one of the factors in importance. Overall, the respondents equated
the value of being a member of their church with the value of their family background, not of
opportunity as the function of a broker might suggest. These responses were surprising, but led
to worthwhile results upon further examination.

The Role of a Church

In some responses, the church community was viewed as a connector of persons, or a linkage
bringing together both successful and unsuccessful people. This supports the idea that a church
could fulfill the basic function of a brokering organization which Robert described in detail in the
interview. He said, in effect, that one of the benefits of being a member of the church was that he
“came in contact with a lot of diverse people from different backgrounds,” which can often
present opportunities for jobs or increased social capital. Robert cited his education and
successful marriage as attributed to connections made through membership in the church, and
as all those interviewed attended a church sponsored university for a significant portion of their
higher education, they also enjoyed monetary subsidies to tuition provided by other church
members. Their connection to this cross-class broker provided social opportunities in marriage to
others from different family backgrounds, educational opportunities, and the chance to overcome
some financial burdens that often keep others from entering or finishing college.

But in support of respondents ranking of their church and their family as equally important in
determining their future success, it became common for respondents to describe how brokers
and families were similar in their roles. Jane and Thomas both described how their church’s
teaching of provident living help educate members on how to use money wisely or “be frugal” as
Jane put it, and Nancy claimed that, in her life, she saw the church’s teachings as a motivating
factor. She described how without the church, she probably would not have pursued monetary
gain because she was raised to not care about money. She described the church’s teaching that
one should seek to have enough material wealth to “do good and serve others” and that it was a
life altering infusion of perspective. This motivated her to further her education, pursue a career
and work for improved socio-economic status when she claimed she would not have had she not
been exposed to these teachings. This function did not create any additional opportunity in and
of itself, but because Nancy came in contact with others with different perspectives on economic
success her own views changed beyond the reach of her family background.

Brokers, in this sense, should not be meant to replace a family unit as a broker of information
and skills, but to work with families to provide opportunity. While brokers can help fill in gaps of
knowledge and skills, it seems that, in the experiences of the respondents, the broker did not
fully replace the influence of their parents and family traditions in terms of preparing them for
successful futures. Respondents all reflected primarily on the influence of their parents, not their
church in their success. In that light, brokers need to act as a supporting structure to a family unit
or a means to connect that family to the rest of the world in way that bridges gaps between social
and economic classes.

Conclusions
Brokerage institutions, like church congregations that include multiple social classes, appear to
make a large difference in individual lives as they contribute needed skills (giving an artificial
boost to capital transferred from family background) while also introducing increased opportunity
into the lives of members of its community. But churches, government programs, non-profit
organizations, and individuals themselves should not be the only methods employed to fix
poverty.

The key lies in the connection of natural brokers, like families and networks of friends so that all
aspects of life can be addressed. In this way, individuals will not only remain connected to others
within their socio-economic sphere, but it seems that the overall benefit will be more
comprehensive and more consistently successful. Some families have more obstacles in life than
others, but that does not mean that they should be dissolved or abandoned. Perhaps if
brokerage institutions can work with families and build on their individual strengths and values,
as these church communities seem to be able to do, then maybe success stories will be about
entire families that made their way out of poverty instead of individuals that got lucky.