Social development is the catchphrase of the American dream. It is the warrant to all punctilious society members in a nation that, despite its social-economic background, chances open up for all citizens to climb the social ladder.
The only way an individual has a guarantee to climb up the social ladder is having appropriate education. Education is a social institution that grooms young members of the society to be the kind of people they wish to be when they grow up.
Nonetheless, if an individual discards his or her designated chance to get educated and instead undergoes that of a distinguished social stratum, the system has been conquered. For example, children from families with a poor socio-economic background are more likely to attend low-level educational institutions and perhaps not join college for higher education (Cullen 14).
Conversely, if a child from a rich family defies this typecast by attending poor school and refusing to join college, he or she is discarding his or her parents’ lifestyle and choosing a completely different life to lead. This phenomenon is best explicated in Lubrano’s article, “The shock of education” where he talks about how colleges can corrupt individuals.
Uplifting oneself into a better social life in a higher social stratum is correspondent to the act of undyingly changing citizenship. The conspirator is now a citizen of another nation, and he has completely complicated time interacting and connecting to the previous system. When he goes back home he is purely visiting, only to realize that he has nothing to exchange with his or her friends or folks.
Those who do this often have a feeling that they are ditching their friends and relatives who are permanently stuck in the original social class. To add on these hardships and constraints from below, there are hardships and constraints from above trying to push these pursuers of the American dream downwards. This way, trying to attain the American dream becomes a nightmare.
In the paper “The Shock of Education” author Lubrano adds his personal anecdote, simply a bricklayer’s child, who typically gets and accepts a scholarship chance to the University of Columbia by studying industriously in his home in Brooklyn. The author elucidates the changeover as “yanking” and thinks he is “operating between two globes” (Maasik and Jack 12).
These two literary articles in examination, a short narrative and a script, extensively explicates contradicting culture play on contradicting teams in the play of social mobility. However, both articles represent members of sensible classes in the society. In both pieces, sets of characters have used the learning institution to define and describe social class. One article has tried to maintain the position while the other has striven to alter it.
The main puzzle regards the task played by parents and guardians when it comes to their children’s decision to partake in the gift or stifle the gift of social development in terms of mobility. The audience is also interested to know whether the education system is the only place where decision making can be practiced.
The solution is that despite, social class, children have a choice to either accept or reject the parents’ life. However, it is undeniable that there are many hardships and constraints faced while one tries to maneuver with options. Therefore, a child has the potential to either change or maintain his or her parent’s socio-economic status and social class.
Works Cited
Cullen, Jim. The American Dream: a short history of an idea that shaped a nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.
Maasik, Sonia and Jack, Solomon. The Shock of Education: How College Corrupts. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. Print.