Search

The present work demonstrates that, contrary to popular political narratives, working-class White Americans are far from monolithic in their class identities, social attitudes, and political preferences. Latent profile analysis is used to distinguish three types of identity in a nationally representative sample of working-class Whites: Working Class Patriots, who valorize responsibility, embrace national identity, and disparage the poor; Class Conflict Aware, who regard social class as a structural phenomenon and ascribe elitist attitudes to higher classes; and Working Class Connected, who embrace working-class identity, sympathize with the poor, and feel disrespected because of the work they do. This identity typology appears unique to working-class Whites and is associated with distinct patterns of attitudes regarding immigration, race, and politics, such that Class Conflict Aware and Working Class Connected Whites are considerably more progressive than are Working Class Patriots. Implications for electoral politics and race relations are discussed.

Death certificates are a means of assessing the racial classification of foreign-born Americans that is based neither on a set of formal racial identification criteria nor self-identification. Instead, local informants typically report the race of decedents. According to a sample of 1,884 records filed between 1859 and 1960, individuals born in China were progressively less likely to be identified by racial terms (e.g., white or yellow) and more likely to be identified by their country of origin (e.g., Chinese). The opposite is true for those born in Mexico or Puerto Rico, who are less likely over time to be identified as Mexican or Puerto Rican and more likely to be identified with a racial term—typically white. Most of the records analyzed are from southern states (n = 1,335), although an additional 548 records, primarily from Illinois and Ohio, are compared to the southern records. In some cases, white identity can serve as a mark of racial confusion, acting as a default or neutral identity rather than a mark of privilege. Conversely, it can represent a status that is actively striven for to provide freedom from discriminatory treatment. It serves primarily as the former for those born in China and the latter for those born in Mexico and Puerto Rico.

Many signs point to the contemporary period as a color-blind era, one in which Whites purport to be unaware of race in social or political life. At the same time, White ethnic and racial identity continues to be measured in official government statistics such as the decennial U.S. Census and the annual American Community Survey (ACS). To adjudicate between the two, the ACS ancestry question response can be used not just as a means to measure the actual size of national origin populations but can also be a way to understand what it means to be “White” in an era of color blindness and optional ethnicity. White identities can provide the mechanisms by which color-blind ideologies are understood and expressed. Whites whose primary identity is “American” will understand race in a different way than a White respondent who identifies with a European ethnicity—yet each identity can lead to the same color-blind beliefs. To assess the appeal of different varieties of White identity, the responses of 16,632 non-Hispanic Whites to the ancestry question on the 2011 ACS are used. Based on these data, one can discern four primary types of White identity prevalent in the United States today: “White” (6%), “American” (10%), “ethnic” (62%), and “none” (12%). Each identity is most appealing to a different segment of the population—for example, older, urban Whites are most likely to claim an ethnic identity, while younger Whites living in rural areas with larger Hispanic populations are most likely to claim simply that their ethnic ancestry is “White.” Each identity also suggests a different pathway to color blindness.

This review examines research on white racial and ethnic identity, paying special attention to developments in whiteness studies during the past decade. Although sociologists have long focused on white ethnic identity, considerations of white racial identity are more recent. White racial identity is commonly portrayed as a default racial category, an invisible yet privileged identity formed by centuries of oppression of nonwhite groups. Whiteness has become synonymous with privilege in much scholarly writing, although recent empirical work strives to consider white racial identity as a complex, situated identity rather than a monolithic one. The study of white racial identity can greatly benefit from moving away from simply naming whiteness as an overlooked, privileged identity and by paying closer attention to empirical studies of racial and ethnic identity by those studying social movements, ethnic identity, and social psychology.

During the last several decades, the ethnic and racial composition of the American elite has changed to include some ethnic minorities and women. This study examines changes in the composition of one segment of the American elite: those who have obtained eminence in their occupations. Lieberson and Carter's study of the ethnic composition of eminent Americans, using Who's Who in America, is replicated with data from the 1990s (Lieberson and Carter, 1979, American Sociological Review 44:347–366). In addition, comparisons between blacks listed in Who's Who in America and blacks listed only in Who's Who among Black Americans are made. During the 20 years since Lieberson and Carter's study, Jews have made remarkable gains in eminent membership, while the rate of black representation has increased only moderately. Women are a small percentage of the eminent regardless of ethnicity, although black women are better represented than their counterparts in white ethnic groups.

Analyses of class cleavages among Black Americans have taken on a new importance since the growth of a sizeable black middle class during the post-Civil Rights era. Less often analyzed are the cleavages within the black middle class itself; small employers, well-educated professionals and others in supervisory positions often have differing interests and beliefs. Wright's (1985) 12-celled class typology provides a means of obtaining a more nuanced view of the position and beliefs of the black middle class by defi ning class on the basis of access to exploitative assets. Using data from the National Survey of Black Americans, 1979—1980 , a good approximation of Wright's class structure developed for a largely white sample is applied to a sample of over 1100 Black Americans. This indicates that the black middle class is more concentrated in positions with less access to exploitative assets than their white counterparts. An analysis of beliefs about black separatism utilizing this class schema finds that separatist beliefs are concentrated among the proletariat, while expert managers and the petty bourgeoisie are the least supportive of separatism.