8557

Sociology 102-Section 1

“The Children of Affluence” - Robert Coles

12 February, 2014

1. Is the notion that those born into wealth are inherently entitled to more material goods than

their lower class peers an invalid one?

2. Who should bear the guilt for the culture of entitlement brewing within the youth of the upper

class, and can anything be done to remedy it?

1

Children are often thought to be a mirror for society; what is demonstrated to them, they

will imitate. The child’s immediate family, particularly the parents, serves as the primary source

of socialization to the child, projecting their own lives and culture onto the child, who in turn

reflects it back. The children of wealthy families, Robert Coles’ alleged “Children of

Affluence,” have been found to show a particular penchant for mimicking their parents’

understanding and respect for money through a lens of inherent entitlement. Here Coles presents

a question of symbolic interaction: do these children inherit, in addition to a great deal of money,

a particular meaning or significance to the many luxuries to which they are privy?

Coles describes a child who “think[s] of one part of his life that means everything:” a

single object, simple or extravagant, that to him represents all of the opulence to which he has

grown accustomed. “A pair of pheasants who come every morning to the lawn” is the reliability

of comfort and security, while “a visit to an amusement park” is the constant opportunity to

experience the simple joys that a large disposable income can provide. A major hallmark of

these things is their constancy; to these children there is no foreseeable day when these luxuries

will no longer be available. “I’d like to keep this pillow for my own house, when I’m grown

up,” says one of the wealthy heiresses with whom Coles spoke. The pillow itself, nor the notion

that it may be passed on through multiple generations, is not a unique one, as it is tradition in

households both poor and rich to keep mementos of the past. But to the girl, the pillow, in all its

simplicity, is symbolic of her entire opulent lifestyle, and just as she feels entitled to the pillow

so too does she feel entitled to all of the wealth and freedom of that lifestyle.

The meaning that these children project onto such ordinary objects as a pillow becomes a

major factor in their development as they eventually inherit their parents’ wealth and begin to

play a role in society as functioning adults. As these children are socialized to feel entitled to all

2

that the world can offer, the significance they place onto that which they feel entitled determines

the manner in which they affect the culture of their surroundings, a duty provided by necessity of

their financial power. A child fond of a particular toy to which he ascribes the understanding

that the toy, and indeed all toys, belongs to him - not by chance but by birthright - will grow into

a man of the mindset that the entire world is his birthright. This may not be a conscious thought

of these grown children of affluence; Coles does not describe the children he interviewed as

narcissists or braggarts, but as simply pragmatic, “at ease describing consistent comforts.” But

despite whatever innocence these humble heirs to the upper class might possess, an innate sense

of entitlement and ownership of their world and all those below them is socialized into them

from the very first time their parents introduce to them the incredible freedom and power that

money provides.

As the primary means of socialization for their children, parents have an enormous

responsibility in shaping the lens through which their children see themselves as well as the

world around them. The lessons and teachings a parent imparts can become an essential piece of

the child’s psyche, but it is the manner in which the parent speaks and acts that truly defines the

norms, values, and beliefs by which the child lives. Coles notes that the parents of upper class

families in particular must be cautious and deliberate in the example they set for their children so

as to avoid the development of the “smug, self-satisfied child” one hears about so often in the

news or on reality television. In an attempt to avoid socializing a child to be plagued with this

narcissistic entitlement, these parents often attempt to employ a strategy of withholding: items

and opportunities they ordinarily wouldn’t hesitate to provide to their child are denied in an

effort to prevent the development of an assumption by the child that he might have whatever he

wants whenever he wants it.

3

These efforts are immediately negated, however, by the parents’ own sense of entitlement

on behalf of their children. As members of the upper class, the parents expect their children to

be automatically afforded the same respect that they, the parents, may or may not have earned.

Coles explains a father’s assumption that his daughter would be invited to participate in a

particular parade traditionally attended by the upper class, solely on the merit of his own status

within the parade committee. These parents, seeking to prevent the narcissistically entitled child,

feel themselves entitled to a family in which all members demand a particular degree of respect

as a result of their financial position in society. However, this results in a conflict of perception

by consequence of symbolic interaction. The father views his daughter’s presumed invitation to

the parade as a symbol of his own success, while the daughter sees the same invitation as a

symbol of her own merit. This position in the parade physically above the girl’s peers is

translated in her mind as a position socially above them. Consequentially the girl defines her

position above her peers as a product of her own affluence, and at a subconscious level she

recognizes that the wealth to which she feels entitled yields a measure of perceived superiority.

In this way her socialization through her parents directly affects the symbolic interaction by

which she gains her sense of entitlement.

One thing Coles fails to discuss in his article is the consequences of that socialization

denoting superiority to those of a lower class. He neglects to argue a strong statement regarding

the ramifications of entitlement, explicitly stating that “wealth does not corrupt nor does it

ennoble.” I would argue that wealth does, in fact, corrupt, though to varying degrees. Coles

qualifies such a view with the notion that all persons are different and that many of these

children of affluence are able to grow up perfectly well-adjusted, but it is evident that the ever-

present knowledge that through their financial prowess they could potentially bend the world

4

around them to their will still dictates their manner of thinking and acting. Even though they

may choose not to act on such thoughts, these grown-up “honorable” children of affluence

continuously operate with the understanding that they are entitled to anything and everything,

should they choose to claim that birthright. Their actions may appear free of the influence of

their socialization, but their thoughts are continually plagued by an innate sense of entitlement.

All children, both rich and poor are socialized from an early age to recognize the

influence of wealth on their own lives as well as on those around them. While children from all

classes discover within tangible goods intangible meaning, those of the upper class in particular

identify through objects an entitlement to the material world. It is from this entitlement that the

children of affluence grow to become adults corrupted by a subconscious perception of their own

apparent superiority over the lower class.

5