"Uneasy Street"

A.k.a. an author analyses assorted
anxieties of an affluent elite

"Uneasy Street" was my first book group read in several years. Rachel Sherman, a sociologist, conducted a series of interviews with affluent New Yorkers to understand how they think about their wealth and relate to the rest of society.

The book advances several interesting theories, but I do have some issues with the methodology and ultimately found it to be more more psychology than sociology, as it looks at how (very!) specific individuals respond to their circumstances rather than the circumstances themselves.

More below, but fair warning: I have a lot to say about this one!

Let's begin by getting my main reservation out of the way: the book is marketed as a look at how "rich people" generally think about life, but the author identified her interview subjects in a way guaranteed not to yield much diversity. Specifically, she looked for families in their 30s and 40s with household incomes of at least $250,000¹, with one or more children, and who owned homes in NYC that they were specifically in the process of remodeling.

Those weren't all the similarities:

All were college-educated, nearly exclusively in elite institutions. Two-thirds had earned advanced degrees, most often MBAs but also JDs, MAs in various fields, and PhDs. They worked or had worked in finance, corporate law, real estate, advertising, academia, nonprofits, the arts, and fashion. Eighteen had left their full-time jobs to take care of children.

These well-educated New Yorkers tended to share three characteristics. First, they had high levels of cultural capital. They were worldly and culturally curious. They enjoyed the arts and liked to travel; most said they valued experience more than material goods. Second, like most New Yorkers, they were politically liberal relative to their class. ... Finally, most were not especially religious. (15)

Needless to say, one isn't going to find many Millionaire Next Door types² among these participants. Better yet, a few pages later, I detected a hint of surprise in the author's observation:

Where they lived was connected to a whole host of larger questions, including where they worked, where their children would go to school, and where they spent time on the weekends. ... But despite these differences, most of the people I talked with described relatively similar lifestyles and consumption patterns (16)

Yeah, I'm not surprised. Actually, maybe I am a bit surprised by the author's apparent surprise at this incredibly expected turn of events.

Sherman's most interesting construct, and practically worth the read on its own, is the concept of downward versus upward orientation. People with a downward orientation primarily compare themselves to others with a lower material standard of living. They typically see themselves as incredibly fortunate, feel an obligation to give back to their community, and seek out cross-class social relationships. People with an upward orientation primarily compare themselves to those with a higher material standard of living. They typically feel that they aren't really that well off, describe themselves as middle class, and fear losing what they have acquired.³

Interestingly, no matter their orientation and level of income or wealth, everyone in the sample seemed to want to have (or be seen as having?) the "habits and desires" of the middle class:

Their discourses tie the "worth" of the spending to the moral "worth" of the person. In framing their consumption in these ways, my interviewees symbolically situate themselves as part of the morally upstanding American middle class. Here they "aspire to the middle" not in the distributional sense ... but rather in the affective sense of having the habits and desires of the middle class. (94)

But many people would nonetheless find the examples they give laughable:

My respondents also emphasized the minimalist or frugal elements of their consumption. ... Several women mentioned buying clothing at inexpensive stores such as Target, Kohl's, and Costco or at discount outlets. Other respondents gleefully recounted bargains they had picked up. Wendy, a corporate lawyer, had snagged a used $1,000 stroller for $100, which she "felt good" about; Beatrice, a nonprofit executive, had gotten a $20,000 dining table for $6,000. (97)

I don't know that people who shop at consignment stores consider Target, Kohl's, and Costco particularly inexpensive, and of course purchasing a $6,000 dining table is not exactly a model of frugality.

To me, the oddest part of the book was chapter 4, "Giving Back" – particularly Sherman's apparent distaste for the Golden Rule. Take this passage discussing people's belief that awareness of their privilege is important:

In interaction with others, being "aware" means not making other people feel bad about having less or treating them differently. This imperative is a variation on the Golden Rule, to treat others as you want to be treated, which is a prominent cultural norm in the United States (and elsewhere). But this reciprocity usually means treating everyone the same. Thus the transmutation from private awareness to public egalitarianism silences difference rather than acknowledging it. Although the social norm of equal, reciprocal treatment serves to avoid shaming those who have less by not drawing attention to their status, its function of obscuring difference also serves to mitigate discomfort in those with more. (125)

Or how about this:

My interviewees emphasized the importance of treating other people well, meaning with kindness, respect, and gratitude. ... The Golden Rule—"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"—mandates this norm of reciprocity. The norm applies regardless of the class position of the other person. Like not talking about money, "being nice" obscures class difference by treating everyone the same. It presumes equivalence, and therefore equality. (131)

Huh?! What's the alternative? I like the platinum rule, to treat people how they want to be treated, as much as the next person, but how is this possible with people you don't know? What does the author suggest – surely not treating people based on stereotypes about how you assume they want to be treated?

The chapter concludes with this:

Regardless of how they give back, the people I interviewed do not "give up" anything of material significance; their giving, even in large amounts, does not diminish their own comforts. ... And "giving back," in whatever form it takes, ultimately does not lead to broad structural transformation. (154)

This makes it sound like anything that doesn't cause personal discomfort or broad structural transformation is not worthwhile, which I disagree with. It seems to me that sustainability is a prerequisite for lasting change.

The main theme I took away from "Uneasy Street" is that everyone wants to feel like they're a good person. The affluent "feel guilty" and "appreciate" and "are grateful" for what they have, but aren't always sure what to do with those emotions.

Some try to give back how they can, while others use those feelings of gratitude as a sign of moral worthiness and an excuse not to give back. And still others are anxious about their status, feel that they can't discuss this with anyone because other people just wouldn't understand⁴, and feel acutely isolated as a result.

They want to attribute their success to hard work and good fortune. They want to provide for their children and struggle to set limits that could affect the child's social life and perceived opportunities. In short, the affluent are people. There's a saying that money changes a person, but it doesn't change the fact of that person's humanity.

Verdict: "Uneasy Street" is a thorough (and sometimes sympathetic) look at the lives of 1%er New Yorkers, illustrating that they have basically the same concerns as everyone else, just on a different scale. The book advances several interesting ideas but is somewhat let down by promising more than it could deliver.


1 Making the exceedingly common mistake of conflating income with wealth. Someone who makes a million dollars and uses it to buy things is just an affluent consumer. Millionaires make a million dollars and then don't spend it. If they did, they wouldn't be a millionaire anymore! (back)

2 Stanley and Danko found that most millionaires are first-generation small business owners and entrepreneurs and do not live affluent lifestyles. (back)

3 I really like this distinction between upward/downward orientation. Reading snippets from the interviews reinforced some of my previous thoughts on what it means to have a healthy relationship with money. Namely, it should be used for spending (for a better today), saving (for a better tomorrow), and giving (for a better world), with plenty of gratitude for all three. (back)

4 They're probably right. (back)