Ain't No Makin' It

1. Poverty is Caused by Structural Inequality

Ain’t No Makin’ It argues that families remain in poverty from one generation to the next in American society because of structural inequality.

Poverty isn't personal failure. Jay MacLeod's core argument challenges the common belief that poverty results from individual laziness, lack of willpower, or moral shortcomings. Instead, he posits that the fundamental structure of American society, particularly its economic system, creates and perpetuates inequality across generations. This structural inequality limits opportunities for those born into low-income backgrounds.

Social structures matter. MacLeod supports this through sociological theory and extensive interviews with young men in a public housing development. He examines how social structures like schools, the economy, and social networks interact with individual choices, racism, and available opportunities. The study reveals that these systemic factors are the primary drivers keeping people in poverty, regardless of their personal efforts or aspirations.

Systemic barriers exist. The book highlights how institutions and systems are designed in ways that disadvantage the poor. For example, schools may not adequately serve low-income students, and the job market offers limited stable, well-paying opportunities. These structural barriers mean that even hardworking individuals face significantly greater hurdles to achieving economic success than those from more privileged backgrounds.

2. Aspirations Are Limited by Social Reality

aspirations are not the product of rational analysis; rather, they are acquired in the habitus of the individual.

Hopes shaped by environment. MacLeod, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus, argues that individual aspirations are not purely personal desires but are deeply influenced by the social and cultural environment one grows up in. The habitus, a shared system of internalized views common to a group or class, shapes what individuals perceive as realistically achievable.

Compromise with circumstances. Aspirations become a compromise between personal wishes and an understanding, often subconscious, of the limitations imposed by socioeconomic circumstances. A child from a wealthy family might aspire to be a doctor or lawyer, while a child from a working-class family might aim for a factory job, reflecting the norms and opportunities they see around them.

Internalizing limitations. This process means that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds may lower their aspirations not because they lack ambition, but because their social context teaches them the limited possibilities available. This internalization of structural limits plays a crucial role in the reproduction of class inequality, as people aim for roles consistent with their perceived place in the social hierarchy.

3. The American Dream is Often a Myth

For many of those in the lowest reaches of the social structure, the American Dream is a hallucination.

Challenging a core belief. MacLeod directly confronts the ideology of the American Dream – the belief that anyone can achieve economic success through hard work and determination. His study provides compelling evidence that this widely held idea does not align with the reality of socioeconomic inequality in the United States.

Effort doesn't guarantee success. By following the lives of young men from a low-income neighborhood, MacLeod shows that even those who embrace hard work, avoid crime, and stay in school often fail to achieve the middle-class lifestyle they aspire to. Their efforts are frequently thwarted by structural barriers beyond their control.

Hiding inequality's reality. The American Dream ideology, while motivating for some, also serves to mask the existence of significant social inequality. It encourages individuals to blame themselves for lack of success rather than recognizing the systemic disadvantages they face, thereby reinforcing the status quo and discouraging collective action for structural change.

4. Class, Not Just Race, Limits Opportunity

By bringing the white poor into view, our story dissolves the mistaken connection between African Americans and behavior associated with poverty—crime, family disruption, substance abuse, and so on.

Beyond racial stereotypes. MacLeod's study, by focusing on two groups—one predominantly white (Hallway Hangers) and one predominantly black (Brothers)—challenges the simplistic notion that urban poverty and associated behaviors are primarily racial problems. He demonstrates that class is a fundamental factor influencing life outcomes, often intersecting with race in complex ways.

Different groups, similar constraints. Despite significant differences in their attitudes and behaviors (Hallway Hangers being rebellious and involved in crime, Brothers being conformist and aspiring), both groups face similar structural limitations due to their low socioeconomic class. This highlights that the barriers to "making it" are deeply rooted in class structure, affecting individuals regardless of race.

Racism adds another layer. While class is central, MacLeod acknowledges that racism is a distinct and powerful force, particularly impacting the Brothers. However, his comparison reveals that the fundamental lack of opportunity stems from class position, and that negative behaviors often attributed solely to race are, in fact, consequences of the limited options available to the urban poor across racial lines.

5. Schools Perpetuate Social Class

Schools train the wealthy to take up places at the top of the economy while conditioning the poor to accept their lowly status in the class structure.

Education reinforces hierarchy. MacLeod, drawing on theories of social reproduction, argues that the educational system in capitalist societies plays a significant role in maintaining existing class structures. Schools, despite promoting achievement ideology, often function to prepare students from different class backgrounds for different roles in the labor system.

Lowering aspirations. The study suggests that schools in low-income areas may inadvertently lower the aspirations of poor urban youth. By failing to adequately address the structural conditions students face and sometimes treating them in ways that reflect low expectations, the system can reinforce the idea that upward mobility is not a realistic possibility for them.

Tailoring for the labor market. This perspective views schools as mechanisms that tailor students' self-concepts, aspirations, and skills to fit the requirements of the social division of labor. Students from privileged backgrounds are prepared for higher-status roles, while those from working-class backgrounds are conditioned to accept lower-status positions, perpetuating the cycle of social reproduction.

6. Long-Term Study Shows Enduring Barriers

During the next two decades after the publication of Ain’t No Makin’ It he followed the same groups of men to show how a youth spent in poverty impacts a man throughout his entire adult life.

Tracking lives over time. A unique strength of MacLeod's work is its longitudinal nature. By returning to interview the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers years and decades after his initial study, he provides invaluable insight into how the experiences and aspirations formed in youth continue to shape their lives into adulthood and middle age.

Persistent challenges. The follow-up interviews reveal that despite different youthful attitudes and paths taken, most men in both groups continued to face significant challenges related to employment, stability, and achieving economic security. This long-term perspective powerfully illustrates the enduring impact of structural inequality.

Confirming early predictions. The adult lives of the men largely bore out the predictions of a social reproduction approach. While a few individuals achieved some measure of middle-class stability, the majority remained mired in the lower economic strata, demonstrating that starting with limited resources significantly lowers the odds of upward mobility over a lifetime.

7. Different Attitudes, Similar Outcomes

By showing that the members of both groups find it equally hard to achieve their dreams – that there really ‘Ain’t no makin’ it,’ as his title proposes – Macleod issues a direct challenge to the ideology of the American Dream...

Contrasting groups. MacLeod's study design, comparing the rebellious, low-aspiring Hallway Hangers with the conformist, high-aspiring Brothers, is central to his argument. The Hallway Hangers rejected mainstream achievement ideology, while the Brothers embraced it, believing hard work would lead to success despite facing racism.

Structural limits prevail. Despite these stark differences in attitude and behavior, the long-term outcomes for both groups were remarkably similar. Both faced immense difficulty achieving economic stability and upward mobility. This finding is crucial because it suggests that structural barriers are more powerful determinants of success than individual attitudes or beliefs in the American Dream.

"Ain't no makin' it" for most. The title reflects the harsh reality faced by the majority of the young men in the study. Regardless of whether they rebelled against the system or tried to work within it, the opportunities available to them were severely limited, demonstrating that the system itself, not just individual choices, prevents "making it" for many.

8. Challenging Individual Blame for Poverty

MacLeod’s insightful analysis shows how the structure of American society creates the conditions for failure by limiting the opportunities for individuals born into a low-class structure to achieve.

Countering popular narratives. The book directly challenges the prevalent narrative, particularly strong during the Reagan era when it was first published, that blamed the poor for their own circumstances. This narrative often cited personal failings like laziness, drug use, or lack of moral fiber as the root causes of poverty and homelessness.

Focus on systemic causes. MacLeod shifts the focus from individual pathology to systemic issues. He argues that behaviors often associated with poverty, such as drug use or involvement in the underground economy, are often consequences of limited opportunities, not their cause. Selling drugs, for instance, might be a rational economic choice when stable, legal jobs are scarce.

Humanizing the poor. By presenting detailed interviews and showing the complex lives and decisions of the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers, MacLeod humanizes the urban poor. He demonstrates that they are actively trying to navigate difficult circumstances and create meaning in their lives, countering the dehumanizing stereotypes that attribute their situation solely to personal defects.

9. Structural Reform is Needed for Justice

So the only way to solve these problems is to alter the social conditions that produce inequality in the first place.

Beyond individual solutions. MacLeod's analysis leads to a clear conclusion: addressing poverty and social inequality requires fundamental changes to the structures of society, not just efforts to change individual behavior or attitudes. Focusing solely on personal responsibility ignores the systemic barriers that limit opportunity.

Targeting root causes. True solutions must target the root causes of inequality embedded in the economic system, educational institutions, and social networks. This means advocating for policies that create more equitable access to resources, education, healthcare, and living-wage jobs.

A call for collective action. While acknowledging that large-scale structural transformation is politically challenging and likely slow, MacLeod suggests that change requires collective action. He points to the need for grassroots organizations, community organizing, and coalitions working on issues like housing, schooling, and employment to push for progressive social change.

10. A Classic Study with Lasting Influence

Today, Ain’t No Makin’ It is viewed as a classic text in American sociology* and is widely assigned in sociology and anthropology* courses.

Enduring relevance. Despite being first published decades ago, MacLeod's study remains highly relevant and influential today. It is considered a foundational text in the sociology of poverty, class, and education, and continues to be used in university classrooms to introduce students to these critical issues.

Shifting the academic lens. The book's impact lies in its powerful ethnographic approach combined with sociological theory, effectively illustrating how structural forces shape individual lives. It helped solidify a focus within academia on examining systemic causes of inequality rather than solely individual or cultural deficits.

Inspiring further research. While critics have pointed out limitations, the study's strengths—its longitudinal nature, comparative design, and clear articulation of the structural argument—have inspired subsequent generations of scholars to continue investigating social inequality using similar or evolved methodologies, such as critical youth studies.

11. The Study's Blind Spot: Gender

Discussing why he did not focus more closely on gender relations, MacLeod explains that he 'managed to stomach the racial prejudice of the Hallway Hangers and in striving to understand their racism came to see its cultural, political, and theoretical significance. Put off by their sexism, I missed an opportunity to understand it.'

A acknowledged limitation. MacLeod himself notes a significant limitation of his study: its almost exclusive focus on the experiences of young men. The book provides a uniformly masculine perspective on life in the low-income neighborhood, neglecting the distinct challenges and experiences faced by girls and young women.

Missing half the story. This omission means the study does not explore how gender intersects with class and race to shape aspirations, opportunities, and outcomes for females in similar circumstances. The specific limits placed on working-class and poor girls and women due to gender relations are not examined.

Opportunity for future work. MacLeod's candid admission about being "put off by their sexism" highlights a missed opportunity to understand the cultural and structural significance of gender dynamics within the community. This leaves a crucial area open for future research to provide a more complete picture of how inequality operates across different social categories.

12. Building on MacLeod: Critical Youth Studies

Today, the field of critical youth studies continues the work of evaluating the relationship between individual agency and the social structures that maintain socioeconomic inequality.

Evolving the approach. While MacLeod's work was groundbreaking in highlighting structural constraints, subsequent scholarship, particularly critical youth studies, has built upon his foundation by placing a greater emphasis on youth agency and resilience. This newer approach focuses not just on how structures limit youth, but how youth understand, critique, and actively resist oppression.

Empowering youth voices. Critical youth studies often involve young people more actively in the research process, seeing them as creative agents and co-producers of knowledge. This contrasts with MacLeod's approach, where the youth were primarily subjects of study, aiming to empower youth to take active roles in addressing inequality in their own communities.

Focusing on strengths and solutions. This contemporary field also seeks to identify and build upon the existing cultural and social capital within marginalized communities, rather than solely focusing on deficits or problematic behaviors. By highlighting community strengths and tailoring educational approaches, scholars continue the pursuit of social and economic justice, informed by MacLeod's foundational insights into structural inequality.

Last updated: June 10, 2025