Overview

We don’t just live in a stratified society; we communicate inequality into existence. Whether it’s a job interview, a classroom discussion, or a political debate on television, communication is shaped by and reinforces the hierarchies that define our social world. Power isn’t only held by institutions, it’s expressed, negotiated, and contested through everyday interactions. (MLO 1)

In this chapter, we examine how communication both reflects and sustains the norms of unequal social structures. You’ll explore how race, class, gender, and sexuality influence what is considered “appropriate” communication, who is heard and respected, and how institutions set the rules of engagement. These norms aren’t neutral; they’re embedded in systems of privilege and exclusion. (MLO 2)

We’ll also investigate how communication within institutions shapes identity. From how students are tracked in schools to how people are represented, or erased, in media, communication tells us who we are and what roles we are expected to play. These messages influence how we see ourselves and others, reinforcing social categories that carry real consequences. (MLO 3)

Communication and Social Stratification

Social Stratification and Inequality

Communication is not just a personal skill or social tool; it is deeply shaped by and embedded in the structure of society. One of the most powerful ways this plays out is through social stratification, the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in society based on factors such as income, education, occupation, race, gender, and other markers of status.

Most people and institutions in the United States indicate that they value equality, a belief that everyone has an equal chance at success. In other words, hard work and talent, not inherited wealth, prejudicial treatment, institutional racism, or societal values, determine social mobility. This emphasis on choice, motivation, and self-effort perpetuates the American belief that people control their own social standing.

However, sociologists recognize social stratification as a society-wide system that makes inequalities apparent. While inequalities exist between individuals, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Sociologists look to see if individuals with similar backgrounds, group memberships, identities, and location in the country share the same social stratification. No individual, rich or poor, can be blamed for social inequalities, but instead, all participate in a system where some rise and others fall. Most Americans believe the rising and falling is based on individual choices. But sociologists see how the structure of society affects a person’s social standing and, therefore, is created and supported by society.

Understanding Status Consistency

Sociologists use the term status consistency to describe the consistency, or lack thereof, of an individual’s rank across the factors that determine social stratification within a lifetime. Caste systems correlate with high status consistency, due to the inability to move out of a class, whereas the more flexible class system demonstrates lower status consistency.

To illustrate, let’s consider Serena. Serena earned her high school diploma but did not go to college. Completing high school but not college is a trait more common to the lower-middle class. After high school, she began landscaping, which, as manual labor, aligns with the lower-middle class or even lower class. However, over time, Serena started her own company. She hired employees. She won larger contracts. Serena became a business owner and earned more money. Those traits represent the upper-middle class. Inconsistencies between Serena’s educational level, her occupation, and income show Serena’s flexibility in her social status, giving her low status consistency. In a class system, hard work, new opportunities, coupled with a lower education status, still allow a person to move into the middle or upper class, whereas in a caste system, that would not be possible. In a class system, low status consistency correlates with having more choices and opportunities.

A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

Symbolic interactionism uses everyday interactions of individuals to explain society as a whole. Symbolic interactionism examines stratification from a micro-level perspective. This analysis strives to explain how people’s social standing affects their everyday interactions.

In most communities, people interact primarily with others who share the same social standing. It is precisely because of social stratification that people tend to live, work, and associate with others like themselves, people who share their same income level, educational background, class traits, and even tastes in food, music, and clothing. The built-in system of social stratification groups people together. This is one of the reasons why it was rare for a royal prince like England’s Prince William to marry a commoner.

Symbolic interactionists also note that people’s appearance reflects their perceived social standing. As discussed above, class traits seen through housing, clothing, and transportation indicate social status, as do hairstyles, taste in accessories, and personal style. Symbolic interactionists also analyze how individuals think of themselves or others’ interpretation of themselves based on these class traits.

To symbolically communicate social standing, people often engage in conspicuous consumption, which is the purchase and use of certain products to make a social statement about status. Carrying pricey but eco-friendly water bottles could indicate a person’s social standing, or what they would like others to believe their social standing is. Some people buy expensive, trendy sneakers even though they will never wear them to jog or play sports. A $17,000 car provides transportation as easily as a $100,000 vehicle, but the luxury car makes a social statement that the less expensive car can’t live up to. All these symbols of stratification are worthy of examination by an interactionist.

Communication and Inequality

Sociologists study how these stratified layers of society influence our opportunities, access to resources, and everyday interactions. From a communication perspective, this means recognizing that not all people have equal access to the platforms, styles, or authority to speak and be heard. Language, accents, dialects, and even nonverbal communication are often interpreted differently depending on the perceived social status of the speaker.

For instance, consider how professional or “standard” language is valued more highly in workplaces, schools, and media, while regional dialects or working-class speech patterns are often stigmatized. This dynamic reflects what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1991) called linguistic capital—the idea that certain ways of speaking are more socially valuable than others, giving individuals who possess them an advantage in accessing power and opportunities.

Stratification also influences who controls communication channels. Those in higher socioeconomic strata are more likely to own, produce, or manage media and institutional narratives, while those in marginalized groups often find their voices misrepresented, ignored, or silenced. This imbalance not only reflects existing inequalities but actively reinforces them.

Communication, in this sense, is not just shaped by power; it is a mechanism through which power operates. Rules about what counts as “appropriate,” “professional,” or “respectable” communication are often written by those in dominant social positions. These standards, though framed as neutral, tend to privilege dominant cultural norms while devaluing or punishing ways of speaking and knowing that arise from marginalized communities.

Let’s look at a real-world example of how these dynamics play out in an institutional setting.

As the example of Marcus illustrates, communication is often policed through institutional norms like “civility” or “objectivity”—concepts that appear inclusive but frequently serve to exclude. When certain voices are consistently silenced or redirected, the message becomes clear: not all perspectives are welcome, and not all experiences are valued.

To truly understand how inequality is embedded in communication, we must examine not only what is said, but who gets to speak, how they are expected to speak, and what happens when they challenge those unspoken rules. This sets the stage for exploring how race, class, gender, and sexuality intersect with communication practices and representations in the sections that follow.

The Impact of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality on Communication

Communication is never neutral. Who speaks, who is heard, and how messages are interpreted are shaped by deeply rooted social categories such as race, class, gender, and sexuality. These identities influence not only how people express themselves but also how they are perceived in interpersonal interactions, institutional settings, and public discourse.

For example, research shows that people often adjust their language or tone depending on the perceived status or identity of their audience, a process known as code-switching. Someone from a marginalized racial or ethnic group might shift their speech patterns in professional or educational settings to conform to dominant cultural expectations. While this can be a strategic way to navigate power structures, it also reveals how unequal systems place the burden of adaptation on those with less power.

Class differences also shape communication styles. Working-class and middle-class individuals may differ in how they use language to question authority, negotiate conflict, or advocate for themselves, differences that are often misunderstood or unfairly judged in schools, workplaces, or legal systems. These dynamics can perpetuate inequalities when dominant communication styles are rewarded, and others are dismissed as inappropriate or unprofessional.

Gender and sexuality further complicate communicative expectations. Social norms often dictate that women should speak in ways that are polite, deferential, or emotionally expressive, while men may be encouraged to assert dominance or avoid vulnerability. People who identify as LGBTQ+ may navigate added layers of complexity, including decisions about disclosure, safety, and visibility in their communication.

Understanding how communication is shaped by these intersecting identities helps us see why inclusion is not just about who is present, but whose voices are validated and respected. By critically examining the role of race, class, gender, and sexuality in everyday exchanges, we can begin to challenge the assumptions and structures that reinforce inequality.

Representation in Media and Public Discourse

Representation matters. The images, voices, and narratives that circulate in media and public discourse play a crucial role in shaping how we understand different social groups—and how those groups are treated in society. Communication is not just about transmission; it is also about meaning-making. Who gets to speak, whose stories are told, and how those stories are framed are all deeply connected to structures of power and inequality.

Mainstream media often reflect dominant cultural norms and values, which can lead to the marginalization or misrepresentation of less powerful groups. For instance, people of color are frequently portrayed in stereotypical or criminalized roles, while LGBTQ+ individuals may be underrepresented or depicted through narrow lenses. Similarly, working-class and poor people are often shown as either dangerous or deserving of pity, rather than as complex individuals with agency and insight.

Public discourse—including news coverage, political rhetoric, advertising, and social media—helps define what is considered “normal,” “professional,” “patriotic,” or “respectable.” These labels are not neutral; they carry social weight and are often reserved for those whose identities align with whiteness, masculinity, heteronormativity, and economic privilege.

At the same time, marginalized communities have used communication strategically to push back against dominant narratives. Hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #TransRightsAreHumanRights have created spaces for alternative storytelling and activism, challenging institutional power and demanding more accurate, inclusive representation.

When we study representation in media and public discourse, we uncover not just what is said, but what is left unsaid—whose voices are centered, and whose are silenced. This lens invites us to be more critical media consumers and more conscious communicators.

Communication is not simply a neutral exchange of information; it is a mirror of society’s power dynamics and a tool through which inequality is maintained or contested. As we’ve seen throughout this chapter, communication reflects the deeply embedded hierarchies of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Yet it also offers a space for resistance, redefinition, and transformation. By becoming more aware of how communication operates within social institutions and public discourse, we can begin to challenge exclusionary norms and create space for more inclusive, equitable interactions. Whether it’s by examining media portrayals, questioning who gets to speak in institutional settings, or reflecting on our own language practices, each of us plays a role in shaping communication that reflects justice, not just tradition.

Discussion

Now that you’ve explored how communication both reflects and reinforces systems of power tied to race, class, gender, and sexuality, take a moment to consider how these dynamics play out in everyday interactions. Have you ever had to change how you speak or present yourself depending on the setting or people around you? Have you seen someone be misjudged or overlooked because their way of communicating didn’t match dominant expectations?

In the discussion forum, reflect on how communication can reproduce social inequalities or challenge them. Consider how language, tone, style, or even silence are shaped by larger systems of privilege and exclusion. How do these patterns impact whose voices are heard, whose perspectives are centered, and whose identities are affirmed or erased?

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Communication both reflects and reproduces inequality. It shapes how race, class, gender, and sexuality are expressed, understood, and challenged. By analyzing how power operates through everyday interactions, we can begin to see communication not just as a reflection of society but as a tool for social change.

Check Your Understanding

References

Arthur, C. (2017, August 22). The cost of code-switching [Video]. TEDxOrlando.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3hRq2RnNI

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.) (J. B. Thompson, Ed.). Harvard University Press.