Tressie McMillan Cottom: The Logic of Stupid Poor People
2013 Oct 28
See all posts
Tressie McMillan Cottom: The Logic of Stupid Poor People @ Satoshi Nakamoto
- Author
-
Tressie McMillan Cottom
- Email
-
satoshinakamotonetwork@proton.me
- Site
-
https://satoshinakamoto.network
We hates us some poor people. First, they insist on being poor when
it is so easy to not be poor. They do things like buy expensive designer
belts and $2500 luxury handbags.
To be fair, this isn't about Eroll Louis. His is a belief held by
many people, including lots
of black people, poor people, formerly poor people, etc.
It is, I suspect, an honest expression of incredulity. If you are poor,
why do you spend money on useless status symbols like handbags and belts
and clothes and shoes and televisions and cars?
One thing I've learned is that one person's illogical belief is
another person's survival skill. And nothing is more logical than trying
to survive.
My family is a classic black American migration family. We have rural
Southern roots, moved north and almost all have returned. I grew up
watching my great-grandmother, and later my grandmother and mother, use
our minimal resources to help other people make ends meet. We were those
good poors, the kind who live mostly within our means. We had a little
luck when a male relative got extra military pay when they came home a
paraplegic or used the VA to buy a Jim Walter house (pdf).
If you were really blessed when a relative died with a paid up insurance
policy you might be gifted a lump sum to buy the land that Jim Walters
used as collateral to secure your home lease. That's how generational
wealth happens where I'm from: lose a leg, a part of your spine, die
right and maybe you can lease-to-own a modular home.
We had a little of that kind of rural black wealth so we were often
in a position to help folks less fortunate. But perhaps the greatest
resource we had was a bit more education. We were big readers and we
encouraged the girl children, especially, to go to some kind of college.
Consequently, my grandmother and mother had a particular set of social
resources that helped us navigate mostly white bureaucracies to our
benefit. We could, as my grandfather would say, talk like white folks.
We loaned that privilege out to folks a lot.
I remember my mother taking a next door neighbor down to the social
service agency. The elderly woman had been denied benefits to care for
the granddaughter she was raising. The woman had been denied in the genteel
bureaucratic way — lots of waiting, forms, and deadlines she could
not quite navigate. I watched my mother put on her best Diana Ross "Mahogany"
outfit: a camel colored cape with matching slacks and knee high boots. I
was miffed, as only an only child could be, about sharing my mother's
time with the neighbor girl. I must have said something about why we had
to do this. Vivian fixed me with a stare as she was slipping on her
pearl earrings and told me that people who can do, must do. It took half
a day but something about my mother's performance of respectable black
person — her Queen's English, her Mahogany outfit, her straight bob and
pearl earrings — got done what the elderly lady next door had not been
able to get done in over a year. I learned, watching my mother, that
there was a price we had to pay to signal to gatekeepers that we were
worthy of engaging. It meant dressing well and speaking well. It might
not work. It likely wouldn't
work but on the off chance that it would, you had to try. It was unfair
but, as Vivian also always said, "life isn't fair little girl."
I internalized that lesson and I think it has worked out for me, if
unevenly. A woman at Belk's once refused to show me the Dooney and Burke
purse I was interested in buying. Vivian once made a salesgirl cry after
she ignored us in an empty store. I have walked away from many of hotly
desired purchases, like the impractical off-white winter coat I
desperately wanted, after some bigot at the counter insulted me and my
mother. But, I have half a PhD and I support myself aping the white male
privileged life of the mind. It's a mixed bag. Of course, the trick is
you can never know the counterfactual of your life. There is no evidence
of access denied. Who knows what I was not granted for not enacting the
right status behaviors or symbols at the right time for an agreeable
authority? Respectability rewards are a crap-shoot but we do what we can
within the limits of the constraints imposed by a complex set of
structural and social interactions designed to limit access to status,
wealth, and power.
I do not know how much my mother spent on her camel colored cape or
knee-high boots but I know that whatever she paid it returned in
hard-to-measure dividends. How do you put a price on the double-take of
a clerk at the welfare office who decides you might not be like those
other trifling women in the waiting room and provides an extra bit of
information about completing a form that you would not have known to ask
about? What is the retail value of a school principal who defers a bit
more to your child because your mother's presentation of self signals
that she might unleash the bureaucratic savvy of middle class parents to
advocate for her child? I don't know the price of these critical
engagements with organizations and gatekeepers relative to our poverty
when I was growing up. But, I am living proof of its investment
yield.
Why do poor people make stupid, illogical decisions to buy status
symbols? For the same reason all but only the most wealthy buy status
symbols, I suppose. We want to belong. And, not just for the psychic
rewards, but belonging to one group at the right time can mean the
difference between unemployment and employment, a good job as opposed to
a bad job, housing or a shelter, and so on. Someone mentioned on twitter
that poor people can be presentable with affordable options from Kmart.
But the issue is not about being presentable. Presentable is the bare
minimum of social civility. It means being clean, not smelling, wearing
shirts and shoes for service and the like. Presentable as a sufficient
condition for gainful, dignified work or successful social interactions
is a privilege. It's the aging white hippie who can cut the ponytail of
his youthful rebellion and walk into senior management while aging black
panthers can never completely outrun the effects of stigmatization
against which they were courting a revolution. Presentable is relative
and, like life, it ain't fair.
In contrast, "acceptable" is about gaining access to a limited set of
rewards granted upon group membership. I cannot know exactly how often
my presentation of acceptable has helped me but I have enough feedback
to know it is not inconsequential. One manager at the apartment complex
where I worked while in college told me, repeatedly, that she knew I was
"Okay" because my little Nissan was clean. That I had worn a Jones of
New York suit to the interview really sealed the deal. She could call
the suit by name because she asked me about the label in the interview.
Another hiring manager at my first professional job looked me up and
down in the waiting room, cataloging my outfit, and later told me that
she had decided I was too classy to be on the call center floor. I was
hired as a trainer instead. The difference meant no shift work, greater
prestige, better pay and a baseline salary for all my future
employment.
I have about a half dozen other stories like this. What is remarkable
is not that this happened. There is empirical evidence that women and
people of color are judged by appearances differently and more harshly
than are white men. What is remarkable is that these
gatekeepers told me the story. They wanted me to know how I had
properly signaled that I was not a typical black or a typical woman, two
identities that in combination are almost always conflated with being
poor.
I sat in on an interview for a new administrative assistant once. My
regional vice president was doing the hiring. A long line of mostly
black and brown women applied because we were a cosmetology school.
Trade schools at the margins of skilled labor in a gendered field are
necessarily classed and raced. I found one candidate particularly
charming. She was trying to get out of a salon because 10 hours on her
feet cutting hair would average out to an hourly rate below minimum
wage. A desk job with 40 set hours and medical benefits represented
mobility for her. When she left my VP turned to me and said, "did you
see that tank top she had on under her blouse?! OMG, you wear a
silk shell, not a tank top!" Both of the women were black.
The VP had constructed her job as senior management. She drove a
brand new BMW because she, "should treat herself" and liked to tell us
that ours was an image business. A girl wearing a cotton tank top as a
shell was incompatible with BMW-driving VPs in the image business.
Gatekeeping is a complex job of managing boundaries that do not just
define others but that also define ourselves. Status symbols — silk
shells, designer shoes, luxury handbags — become keys to unlock these
gates. If I need a job that will save my lower back and move my baby
from medicaid to an HMO, how much should I spend signaling to people
like my former VP that I will not compromise her status by opening the
door to me? That candidate maybe could not afford a proper shell. I will
never know. But I do know that had she gone hungry for two days to pay
for it or missed wages for a trip to the store to buy it, she may have
been rewarded a job that could have lifted her above minimum wage.
Shells aren't designer handbags, perhaps. But a cosmetology school in a
strip mall isn't a job at Bank of America, either.
At the heart of these incredulous statements about the poor decisions
poor people make is a belief that we would never be like them. We would
know better. We would know to save our money, eschew status symbols, cut
coupons, practice puritanical sacrifice to amass a million dollars.
There is a regular news story of a lunch lady who, unbeknownst to all
who knew her, died rich and leaves it all to a cat or a charity or some
such. Books about the modest lives of the rich like to tell us how they
drive Buicks instead of BMWs. What we forget, if we ever know, is that
what we know now about status and wealth creation and sacrifice are
predicated on who we are, i.e. not poor. If you change the conditions of
your not-poor status, you change everything you know as a result of
being a not-poor. You have no idea what you would do if you were poor
until you are poor. And not intermittently poor or formerly not-poor,
but born poor, expected to be poor and treated by bureaucracies,
gatekeepers and well-meaning respectability authorities as inherently
poor. Then, and only then, will you understand the relative value of a
ridiculous status symbol to someone who intuits that they cannot afford
to not have it.
Tressie McMillan Cottom: The Logic of Stupid Poor People
2013 Oct 28 See all postsTressie McMillan Cottom
satoshinakamotonetwork@proton.me
https://satoshinakamoto.network
We hates us some poor people. First, they insist on being poor when it is so easy to not be poor. They do things like buy expensive designer belts and $2500 luxury handbags.
To be fair, this isn't about Eroll Louis. His is a belief held by many people, including lots of black people, poor people, formerly poor people, etc. It is, I suspect, an honest expression of incredulity. If you are poor, why do you spend money on useless status symbols like handbags and belts and clothes and shoes and televisions and cars?
One thing I've learned is that one person's illogical belief is another person's survival skill. And nothing is more logical than trying to survive.
My family is a classic black American migration family. We have rural Southern roots, moved north and almost all have returned. I grew up watching my great-grandmother, and later my grandmother and mother, use our minimal resources to help other people make ends meet. We were those good poors, the kind who live mostly within our means. We had a little luck when a male relative got extra military pay when they came home a paraplegic or used the VA to buy a Jim Walter house (pdf). If you were really blessed when a relative died with a paid up insurance policy you might be gifted a lump sum to buy the land that Jim Walters used as collateral to secure your home lease. That's how generational wealth happens where I'm from: lose a leg, a part of your spine, die right and maybe you can lease-to-own a modular home.
We had a little of that kind of rural black wealth so we were often in a position to help folks less fortunate. But perhaps the greatest resource we had was a bit more education. We were big readers and we encouraged the girl children, especially, to go to some kind of college. Consequently, my grandmother and mother had a particular set of social resources that helped us navigate mostly white bureaucracies to our benefit. We could, as my grandfather would say, talk like white folks. We loaned that privilege out to folks a lot.
I remember my mother taking a next door neighbor down to the social service agency. The elderly woman had been denied benefits to care for the granddaughter she was raising. The woman had been denied in the genteel bureaucratic way — lots of waiting, forms, and deadlines she could not quite navigate. I watched my mother put on her best Diana Ross "Mahogany" outfit: a camel colored cape with matching slacks and knee high boots. I was miffed, as only an only child could be, about sharing my mother's time with the neighbor girl. I must have said something about why we had to do this. Vivian fixed me with a stare as she was slipping on her pearl earrings and told me that people who can do, must do. It took half a day but something about my mother's performance of respectable black person — her Queen's English, her Mahogany outfit, her straight bob and pearl earrings — got done what the elderly lady next door had not been able to get done in over a year. I learned, watching my mother, that there was a price we had to pay to signal to gatekeepers that we were worthy of engaging. It meant dressing well and speaking well. It might not work. It likely wouldn't work but on the off chance that it would, you had to try. It was unfair but, as Vivian also always said, "life isn't fair little girl."
I internalized that lesson and I think it has worked out for me, if unevenly. A woman at Belk's once refused to show me the Dooney and Burke purse I was interested in buying. Vivian once made a salesgirl cry after she ignored us in an empty store. I have walked away from many of hotly desired purchases, like the impractical off-white winter coat I desperately wanted, after some bigot at the counter insulted me and my mother. But, I have half a PhD and I support myself aping the white male privileged life of the mind. It's a mixed bag. Of course, the trick is you can never know the counterfactual of your life. There is no evidence of access denied. Who knows what I was not granted for not enacting the right status behaviors or symbols at the right time for an agreeable authority? Respectability rewards are a crap-shoot but we do what we can within the limits of the constraints imposed by a complex set of structural and social interactions designed to limit access to status, wealth, and power.
I do not know how much my mother spent on her camel colored cape or knee-high boots but I know that whatever she paid it returned in hard-to-measure dividends. How do you put a price on the double-take of a clerk at the welfare office who decides you might not be like those other trifling women in the waiting room and provides an extra bit of information about completing a form that you would not have known to ask about? What is the retail value of a school principal who defers a bit more to your child because your mother's presentation of self signals that she might unleash the bureaucratic savvy of middle class parents to advocate for her child? I don't know the price of these critical engagements with organizations and gatekeepers relative to our poverty when I was growing up. But, I am living proof of its investment yield.
Why do poor people make stupid, illogical decisions to buy status symbols? For the same reason all but only the most wealthy buy status symbols, I suppose. We want to belong. And, not just for the psychic rewards, but belonging to one group at the right time can mean the difference between unemployment and employment, a good job as opposed to a bad job, housing or a shelter, and so on. Someone mentioned on twitter that poor people can be presentable with affordable options from Kmart. But the issue is not about being presentable. Presentable is the bare minimum of social civility. It means being clean, not smelling, wearing shirts and shoes for service and the like. Presentable as a sufficient condition for gainful, dignified work or successful social interactions is a privilege. It's the aging white hippie who can cut the ponytail of his youthful rebellion and walk into senior management while aging black panthers can never completely outrun the effects of stigmatization against which they were courting a revolution. Presentable is relative and, like life, it ain't fair.
In contrast, "acceptable" is about gaining access to a limited set of rewards granted upon group membership. I cannot know exactly how often my presentation of acceptable has helped me but I have enough feedback to know it is not inconsequential. One manager at the apartment complex where I worked while in college told me, repeatedly, that she knew I was "Okay" because my little Nissan was clean. That I had worn a Jones of New York suit to the interview really sealed the deal. She could call the suit by name because she asked me about the label in the interview. Another hiring manager at my first professional job looked me up and down in the waiting room, cataloging my outfit, and later told me that she had decided I was too classy to be on the call center floor. I was hired as a trainer instead. The difference meant no shift work, greater prestige, better pay and a baseline salary for all my future employment.
I have about a half dozen other stories like this. What is remarkable is not that this happened. There is empirical evidence that women and people of color are judged by appearances differently and more harshly than are white men. What is remarkable is that these gatekeepers told me the story. They wanted me to know how I had properly signaled that I was not a typical black or a typical woman, two identities that in combination are almost always conflated with being poor.
I sat in on an interview for a new administrative assistant once. My regional vice president was doing the hiring. A long line of mostly black and brown women applied because we were a cosmetology school. Trade schools at the margins of skilled labor in a gendered field are necessarily classed and raced. I found one candidate particularly charming. She was trying to get out of a salon because 10 hours on her feet cutting hair would average out to an hourly rate below minimum wage. A desk job with 40 set hours and medical benefits represented mobility for her. When she left my VP turned to me and said, "did you see that tank top she had on under her blouse?! OMG, you wear a silk shell, not a tank top!" Both of the women were black.
The VP had constructed her job as senior management. She drove a brand new BMW because she, "should treat herself" and liked to tell us that ours was an image business. A girl wearing a cotton tank top as a shell was incompatible with BMW-driving VPs in the image business. Gatekeeping is a complex job of managing boundaries that do not just define others but that also define ourselves. Status symbols — silk shells, designer shoes, luxury handbags — become keys to unlock these gates. If I need a job that will save my lower back and move my baby from medicaid to an HMO, how much should I spend signaling to people like my former VP that I will not compromise her status by opening the door to me? That candidate maybe could not afford a proper shell. I will never know. But I do know that had she gone hungry for two days to pay for it or missed wages for a trip to the store to buy it, she may have been rewarded a job that could have lifted her above minimum wage. Shells aren't designer handbags, perhaps. But a cosmetology school in a strip mall isn't a job at Bank of America, either.
At the heart of these incredulous statements about the poor decisions poor people make is a belief that we would never be like them. We would know better. We would know to save our money, eschew status symbols, cut coupons, practice puritanical sacrifice to amass a million dollars. There is a regular news story of a lunch lady who, unbeknownst to all who knew her, died rich and leaves it all to a cat or a charity or some such. Books about the modest lives of the rich like to tell us how they drive Buicks instead of BMWs. What we forget, if we ever know, is that what we know now about status and wealth creation and sacrifice are predicated on who we are, i.e. not poor. If you change the conditions of your not-poor status, you change everything you know as a result of being a not-poor. You have no idea what you would do if you were poor until you are poor. And not intermittently poor or formerly not-poor, but born poor, expected to be poor and treated by bureaucracies, gatekeepers and well-meaning respectability authorities as inherently poor. Then, and only then, will you understand the relative value of a ridiculous status symbol to someone who intuits that they cannot afford to not have it.