The materialistic underpinnings of upward mobility and class migration

Every time you make a major decision in your life—whether changing your job, moving across the state for school, or getting married—your choice results in some sacrifices, or trade-offs. When my mother decided to immigrate to the United States, she recognized that doing so would sever her from home, where her entire family resided and where she spoke the same language as everyone else. The economic opportunities in America were, perhaps, worth the sacrifice at the time. At least that is the calculus she made.

The impact of such trade-offs is especially salient for first generation college students in America. In a recent episode of The Hidden Brain podcast, Philosophy Professor Jennifer Morton discusses the difficulties first gen students face when deciding whether to make such trade-offs to seek upward mobility. In fact, Professor Morton sympathizes with those who, unlike herself, decided that the potential for upward mobility was not worth the non-economic sacrifices required to attain such prosperity:

And so, I think there’s a lot to be said for being deeply rooted and connected to a place. And so, I think in the case of students and young people who are growing up in concentrated poverty in the United States, there’s a similar rhetoric that opportunities are elsewhere and that they would be lucky to leave. And then puzzlement as those who might’ve been able to leave and don’t leave, as if they’re making some sort of mistake. But I don’t think in many cases they are making a mistake. They are prioritizing other valuable things in their lives over economic advancement and opportunity.

I would go one step further to argue that such decision to stay despite clear opportunities to migrate to an elevated economic class should be celebrated and even encouraged rather than merely viewed as “not being a mistake.” This is because there is more to be cherished in the world and in human beings than material “success”.

The stereotypical notion of a “rags to riches” success story is often depicted in light of material rags to material riches. Arguably, the American dream itself, is a “rags to riches” dream. Dr. Tara Westover’s bestselling memoir Educated is another, more nuanced, example. Yes, her story is largely about becoming “educated,” but how is education to be assessed? Is it materialistic? I would argue that in our times, yes, because the purpose of becoming “educated” is largely to make money. 

This is a uniquely modern phenomenon. Traditionally, (as early as Plato) the primary purpose of education has been to inculcate virtues into the soul—to live a virtuous life. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was especially cognizant of this. Here are his words from an article he published at Morehouse College in 1947, titled “The Purpose of Education:”

But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals. …
Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.

Thus, when we talk about upward mobility and class migration, we must ask whether we consider non-materialistic aspects of the trade-off analysis? Is it possible to achieve “upward mobility” in life without an increase in economic earnings?

The reason this is vital to our discourse is because neglecting the real benefits of selecting non-economic interests over material ones breeds societal distaste and contempt for non-elite jobs and those who work them. Consider how our society views garbage collection or janitorial work in comparison to any type of engineering. We even use different terms to describe the work—one is a job, the other a career.

When I lived in Egypt, I met countless folks who thrived—not just survived—upon income levels that were appallingly low in comparison to the American poverty standard. The opportunity to move for the sake of more money was unthinkable because they already had everything that they needed, as basic as it might seem to a modern American mind.

My teachers have echoed this with stories of their own from their time studying with Bedouin scholars living in tents in Mauritania.

I will never forget the quote one teacher shared: "Everything you desire exists with God—so if you have God, you have everything you desire.”

My purpose for sharing this is to highlight that there are people living in our times (and not just overseas) who ascribe to and operate within a completely different worldview than that of the zeitgeist of modern materialism. And discussing upward mobility in order to address the ostensible plight of such people misses the mark and results in greater harm than good. This is not to say that there isn’t a baseline threshold of material resources that one needs to survive, and potentially thrive. However, by touting “success” as that which conforms to the materialistic framework of class migration, we risk perpetuating part of the problem of class structures in the first place. That is, we devalue the honor and dignity of work, whether it be engineering or janitorial, and we breed contempt for those who choose not to migrate economic classes despite their migration of spiritual “classes”.