by Paris Wilson
The big question remains: how should we fix the stigmatization of wealth? Similar to most social issues, this question is almost impossible to solve since ultimately, reversing the social norm to avoid topics of wealth is not the task of individuals, but greater society. However, upon asking this massive question, students responded with remedies and optimism.
Overall, responses from interviewees were congruent, in that everyone agreed that continuing discussions about socioeconomic class and the privilege that accompanies is essential to begin the process of destigmatizing wealth. One student stated that talking about the issue openly was the most important factor:
“When you don’t talk about things is when people hold all these emotions within them, and bad things happen. But if you can just get yourself to talk about things and be honest with each other, about your feelings, then it would be better, and you could help destigmatize wealth on campus.”
In addition to honest conversations, most students felt that with repetition, these talks would become less awkward over time, as everyone would “realize that we’re not against each other.” Respondents also generally agreed that discussing wealth with people of varying socioeconomic statuses would be constructive as long as everyone is aware of their privilege and keeps an open mind. Many also thought that smaller discussion groups, such as within friend groups, are the most constructive way to address stigmatized wealth since it becomes easier to maintain an “open and vulnerable” space when you can make more personal connections with fewer people.
However, interviewees had different ideas on how to keep the conversation going. Some thought these conversations should be student-initiated, while others thought that the responsibility rests on the college’s shoulders. On the one hand, student discussions would be voluntary. One student claims that “forced” conversations, like those set up by the College, are never very conducive and therefore not the best solution:
“I don’t think people get that much out of forced conversations because you can’t really force people to talk about something [and expect them to be] fully involved in it. If we are going to make an attempt to destigmatize [wealth], it has to come from the students ourselves. And it has to be voluntary; everybody has to be on the same page. Because if the school gets involved and we have mentoring talks and discussions – I just don’t think it’s that beneficial.”
Conversely, another respondent proposed the exact opposite, saying that it should not be students’ job to teach others about their economic backgrounds and correlating experiences; discussions should be professionally led:
“It shouldn’t be up to low income students to teach high-income students what to do. I think it’s more on the college to bring in people who are able to facilitate discussion, not just student-led because I feel like a professional would be better at teaching everybody about being kind during discussions and making sure everybody actually has equity and not equality.”
Both arguments, either the conversations facilitated and / or led by students versus the College, have validity and deserve to be considered when trying to decide on a method. Interestingly enough, both students categorized themselves as part of the upper class, so their opposite suggestions perhaps show that the way people think about “fixing” the stigma around wealth does not necessarily correlate with one’s socioeconomic class.
Beyond these two suggestions for a solution to destigmatize wealth were two more completely different outlooks. One student agreed that conversations about wealth need to continue, but that the stigmatization could not be solved by one sole party, as this was a larger societal issue:
“I think it’s not any one group’s responsibility to fix. I don’t think you can, quote-unquote, fix the stigma around wealth, and I don’t think it’s just the [responsibility of] students or the administration because I think so much of this stigmatized wealth is so far beyond Bowdoin. This is a larger infrastructural thing that is kind of a basis for society. And so, I’m not saying that it will never change. But I do think the way to improve it is to keep having these conversations and helping people become more aware of the other people around them.”
The student says that the stigma could be dissolved, but the societal problem is not going to be resolved by one group. By contrast, another student also “blamed” society but stated that stigmatization might be unrealistic:
“I don’t know if wealth really can be destigmatized. We’re all coming from our different paths, and we all have different views of what wealth is and what equates to wealth. It would be really hard to resocialize everyone and say, ‘don’t worry about wealth,’ or ‘this is what the [new] norm is.’ So, let’s just move forward.”
Both interviewees agreed that the burden of resolving the stigmatization around wealth does not lie upon a particular group, but their opinions diverge when considering if this issue can be rectified. These perspectives present the compelling question of not who should fix it, but if it can be fixed at all.
All the students we interviewed agreed that wealth and socioeconomic status pose a frustrating problem of stigmatization that easily forms rifts between people. Ironically, the most important question of how to fix this remains contested and seemingly unsolvable. As long as this social issue perpetuates with an unknown and impossible remedy, the most we can do is be honest, stay aware, and keep an open mind while continuing to discuss wealth.