A Long Fall: Social Mobility and Culture Shock, Part II
Compared to the number of characters who make gigantic leaps up the socioeconomic ladder, there are relatively few characters headed the other direction. And unless the character is a villain, and the fall from wealth is punishment, the situation is usually temporary.
Villains aside, characters who are thrust into poverty fall under one of a few tropes:
The 'broke for a day' plotline, which generally appears in comedy;The 'sympathetic poor character' whose main conflict is getting out of poverty;The 'I learned something today' plot, wherein being poor for a short while constitutes an educational experience for the character.
Unlike characters who experience rapid upward mobility, characters who move down in socioeconomic status are shown as experiencing culture shock. Besides the loss of luxuries, they are often shown as having difficulty relating to people they once regarded as inferior, or simply did not acknowledge. There is also the change in their relationships with people who were formerly their equals.
These plots tend to wear thin in a few places, however. First, there is a tendency for the poor character-- that is, characters who start that way and stay in that state over the course of the narrative-- to primarily accessories to the main character's development. They give out survival tips and homespun wisdom, or serve as scary antagonists who block the character's climb back up the social food chain. When the story is done, these characters are discarded while the protagonist cheerfully returns to their former status.
Second, there is no examination of why the main character can clamber back to the top while the other characters are stuck in the poverty spin cycle. There are two possible implications, neither of them good. The first is that there are no greater social forces keeping the secondary characters poor, suggesting the characters stay that way because they are happy with it (given the amount of folksy feel-good advice they dispense in Fictionland, maybe so). The second is that the characters are immutably 'of' their socioeconomic class-- the main character can bounce back from being poor by dint of their moneyed bloodline, but the poor folks are out of luck, no matter their personal virtues. Now, the second one can be true to some degree, in the sense that upward social mobility is much more difficult in real life than in Fictionland. But if there are no broader economic and social mechanisms shown keeping the status quo, the message turns to 'some people are inherently better than others because their family has money'.
If your characters lose their social and economic status in your story, consider letting the change be permanent. Alternately, focus the story on the intricacies of the situation, and pick apart how class works in your setting.
Villains aside, characters who are thrust into poverty fall under one of a few tropes:
The 'broke for a day' plotline, which generally appears in comedy;The 'sympathetic poor character' whose main conflict is getting out of poverty;The 'I learned something today' plot, wherein being poor for a short while constitutes an educational experience for the character.
Unlike characters who experience rapid upward mobility, characters who move down in socioeconomic status are shown as experiencing culture shock. Besides the loss of luxuries, they are often shown as having difficulty relating to people they once regarded as inferior, or simply did not acknowledge. There is also the change in their relationships with people who were formerly their equals.
These plots tend to wear thin in a few places, however. First, there is a tendency for the poor character-- that is, characters who start that way and stay in that state over the course of the narrative-- to primarily accessories to the main character's development. They give out survival tips and homespun wisdom, or serve as scary antagonists who block the character's climb back up the social food chain. When the story is done, these characters are discarded while the protagonist cheerfully returns to their former status.
Second, there is no examination of why the main character can clamber back to the top while the other characters are stuck in the poverty spin cycle. There are two possible implications, neither of them good. The first is that there are no greater social forces keeping the secondary characters poor, suggesting the characters stay that way because they are happy with it (given the amount of folksy feel-good advice they dispense in Fictionland, maybe so). The second is that the characters are immutably 'of' their socioeconomic class-- the main character can bounce back from being poor by dint of their moneyed bloodline, but the poor folks are out of luck, no matter their personal virtues. Now, the second one can be true to some degree, in the sense that upward social mobility is much more difficult in real life than in Fictionland. But if there are no broader economic and social mechanisms shown keeping the status quo, the message turns to 'some people are inherently better than others because their family has money'.
If your characters lose their social and economic status in your story, consider letting the change be permanent. Alternately, focus the story on the intricacies of the situation, and pick apart how class works in your setting.
No comments have been added yet.
