ABSTRACT
In Chapter 9, we saw how there has been a neglect of the study of dominant or oppressor groups. The dynamic surrounding the training of people to play roles as agents of oppression has not been closely examined in much of the literature. One area where this is particularly marked is in relation to class oppression. In fact, class is significant because of the neglect of this issue as a whole – both the experience of the oppressed and of the oppressors. While issues such as racism and sexism have received increasingly more attention, class remains as a noticeably neglected area of study in psychology. Langston (2000) maintains there is a reluctance to recognize class differences and that this denial functions to reinforce the control and domination of the ruling class. Commenting on the neglect of class by psychology, Heppner and Scott (2004) remark that although oppressions such as racism and sexism are no longer acceptable in society, classism is still socially acceptable in many situations. Lott (2002) comments that the “near invisibility of the poor in psychology as well as psychologists' lack of attention to social class in general continues even when there is a direct focus on multiculturalism and diversity” (p. 101). For Lott, the reason for this is that psychologists are preoccupied with people who are like themselves, i.e. middle class. They focus on what they know. She makes the point that although those who are middle class can experience the effects of racism or sexism, ageism or heterosexism, or the oppression associated with disability, they do not experience the oppression associated with being poor. And, while a sizable minority within the discipline of psychology may come from a raised-poor or working-class background, it is clearly not a salient feature of their current lives. Thus middle-class people respond to issues of poverty mainly with ignorance because they are largely cut off from, and do not know, people who are poor or they are cut off from, or unaware of, their own early experiences with class. As we shall see below, however, the reasons are actually more complex than this. Lee and Dean (2004) discuss the myth that the US, for example, is a largely middle-class society with a majority of people subjectively identifying as middle class. Given the ignorance around, and stereotyping of, people who are poor and 175 working class, this is not so surprising. In a society that looks down on people who are poor or working class, people will prefer to identify as middle class. We saw in Chapter 9 how this escaping from the identity, or denial of the identity, is one of the characteristics of internalized oppression. Liu et al. (2004), Liu and Rasheed Ali (2005) and Borgen (2005) also believe that class has been neglected, holding that it is one of the most elusive and least understood constructs in psychology.
