Presenting to the class helped me decide to hone in on the question of selling out and its relationship to authenticity, a theme that arose in each of my interviews. The respondent used the idea of selling out to evaluate and judge both their choices and those of others’ regarding work and career.
Respondents shared that when people sacrificed their values for money, they understood that behavior as selling out. Not all values are created equal. Money as an inherent value was “bad” and worthy of judgement. The one respondent who verbalized money as a value shamed herself: “I hate to be that person…”
Selling out can be understood as accepting the cost of doing work you don’t believe in or find joy in for the benefit of money. Respondents did not identify those who “sell out” as irrational, but rather inauthentic. That authenticity, however, is judged on a sliding scale. Those who sell out because they need to support their families are more authentic those those who simply grew up lacking socioeconomic privilege and want more money than they had, and those people are far more authentic than folks who simply want three houses and vacation. (Interestingly, vacation time as a value was not identified as an aspect of selling out, but rather coded as healthy work-life balance).
This perception of a sliding scale of authenticity exists because of respondents understanding of identity and the ways in which structures of oppression act differently upon different people. Selling out requires privilege including physical capital and cultural capital, and helps to have social capital. But opting not to sell out also requires privilege including economic and social capital.
Jobs that were coded as selling out included consulting and finance jobs. They two key attributes of these positions are that they are high-paying and not only do not make the world a better place, but contribute to existing structures of oppression. The capital required to enter these positions includes physical capital, having the “right” body and ability to fit into the space. Social capital can help folks land those kinds of positions and a particular cultural capital is a prerequisite for being hired and holding those jobs. Those types of capital also garner respect in the workplace. Having the highest degree of each of these forms of capital in our society in which intersecting marginalized identities stack up oppression means many of these folks had the privilege never to confront racism, sexism, ableism, or other forms of oppression. This can be true ideologically and experientially. Consulting and finance jobs are understood as existing primarily for the cis-white man. Their cost-benefit analysis may ignore what the respondents identify as structures of oppression because they do not know about them or need to care.
Folks who come from low-SES backgrounds and take the sell-out jobs to support parents are understood to be accepting the moral (contributing to oppressive systems) and personal costs (dealing with white hegemonic masculinity) of doing this work in order to help their family are understood as making a rational and authentic choice is which supporting family is an understandable and altruistic reason to make the choice to “sell out.”
Effectively, opting not to sell out also requires privilege including economic and social capital. High-SES respondents described their family financial safety net (social and economic capital) as contributing to their ability to pick jobs about which they are passionate and will help the world. Student loans were identified as a reason a respondent took a consulting job, though she very clearly articulated/ defended that the job aligns with her value and passion around environmental justice.