@billsShapeSocialInequality2005

(2005) -

Journal:
Link::
DOI::
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SocialClass #Ethnicity
Cite Key:: [@billsShapeSocialInequality2005]

Abstract

Notes

“argued in a prior paper that class analysis is vulnerable to this claim because conventional big-class and gradational models are statistical constructions that ignore the deeply institutionalized occupational boundaries at the site of production” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 3)

“much variability in life chances, attitudes, and behaviors could be captured by disaggregating big classes into detailed occupations (i.e. “micro-classes”) that better correspond to institutionalized boundaries.” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 3)

“We find that a partial big-class scheme, plausible though it may be, is empirically unattractive because occupationalizing forces are at work throughout the class structure.” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 3)

“Many critics of class analysis maintain that class-based social divisions cannot adequately account for large-scale social and political change, contemporary forms of collective action, or individual identities and lifestyles (e.g. Beck, 2000; Clark & Lipset, 2001, 1991; Hechter, 2004; Inglehart, 1997; Kingston, 2000; Pahl, 1989; Pakulski & Waters, 1996).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 4)

“The main rationale for this third road is that occupations are more likely than big classes to show evidence of social closure, collective action, class awareness, and other group-level properties that class analysts typically regard as defining features of classes (see Grusky & Sørensen, 1998, 2001; Grusky & Weeden, 2001, 2002; Grusky, Weeden & Sørensen, 2000; Weeden, 2002; Weeden & Grusky, 2004, forthcoming).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 4)

“(a) two of the more prominent big-clas” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 4)

“Are There Any Big Classes at All? 5 schemes (i.e. Erikson & Goldthorpe, 1992; Featherman & Hauser, 1978) account for only a modest proportion of the total bivariate association between detailed occupations and a host of individual-level outcomes (e.g. life chances, political behaviors, and social attitudes); (b) there is nearly as much heterogeneity within big classes as between them; and (c) the alternative micro-class approach remains explanatorily powerful even in the context of multivariate models that control for a great many correlates of class (Weeden & Grusky, forthcoming).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 5)

“Indeed, Goldthorpe (2002, p. 214) characterizes our approach as a “remedy ...worse than the disorder diagnosed,” while Portes (2000, p. 250) notes that “supporters of Marxist theories may justifiably respond that, with friends like these, who needs enemies?”” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 5)

“As plausible as it is, this account has not been pitted against any number of alternatives, including the null hypothesis that academics are simply more sensitive to occupational distinctions in the big classes (e.g. professionals) with which they are most familiar (see Bourdieu, 1987, p. 10).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 5)

“consider whether at least some of the conventionally posited big classes have become “social realities ...manifest in the formation of common patterns of behavior and attitude” (Giddens, 1973, p. 111).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 5)

“We will assess the external distinctiveness and internal homogeneity of conventional big classes in terms of three types of criterion variables that have historically been of interest to class analysts: (a) life chances (e.g. income, education, working conditions); (b) lifestyles (e.g. consumption practices, institutional participation); and (c) sentiments and dispositions” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 7)

“class analysts have not typically sought to maximize the demographic homogeneity of the posited classes (cf. Bourdieu, 1984), but intra-class fragmentation by race and ethnicity has nonetheless long been of special concern to scholars interested in class formation (e.g. Bonacich, 1972; Bradley, 1996).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 7)

“allocation, refers to processes that affect the types of individuals who are selected into particular locations in the site of production (see Table 1). On the supply side, workers tend to opt for occupations that are consistent with their self-conceptions, presumably preferring positions that best express their pre-existing tastes for certain types of work and job conditions.” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 9)

“This reputation thus operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy that draws in workers attracted to that reputation (Caplow, 1954).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 9)

“On the demand side, employers and other gatekeepers filter applicants on the basis of individual-level attributes, typically by matching the traits of new recruits with those of current employees. That is, employers and other gatekeepers are well aware of the dispositional, demographic, and related reputations of occupations, and they are often motivated to recruit in accord with those reputations because of discriminatory practices (pure or statistical) or because workplace harmony and productivity is assumed to be best secured by maintaining homogeneity.” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 9)

“If the allocative mechanism evokes the imagery of social classes as vessels for like-minded workers, the “social conditioning” mechanism (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 101) refers to the causal and transformative effects of the conditions of work. These conditions shape the development of classwide and local political interests (Dahrendorf, 1959; Krause, 1996; Marx, [1869] 1963), alter the attributes that workers value both on and off the job (Kohn, [1980] 2001, pp. 539, 540; Kohn & Schooler, 1983), affect lifestyles and patterns of family interactions (Zablocki & Kanter, 1976, p. 276; see also Menaghan, 1991), and motivate workers to learn particular skills (Becker, 1993).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 10)

“The first two sub-mechanisms, training and interactional closure, draw on the classical sociological forces of socialization and normative control. The training sub-mechanism becomes relevant, for example, whenever employees complete lengthy occupation-specific training (e.g. apprenticeships, police and military academies, graduate and professional schools) that solidifies preexisting attitudes, instills explicit codes of behavior, and otherwise generates homogeneity among new recruits (e.g. Caplow, 1954).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 10)

“The remaining two sub-mechanisms, interest formation and learning generalization, become relevant insofar as occupational categories are homogeneous with respect to working conditions, opportunities, and the resulting “logic” of the occupational situation. As Bourdieu puts it, “homogenous conditions of existence impose homogenous conditionings and produce homogenous systems of dispositions capable of generating similar practices” (1984, p. 104; see also Becker & Carper, 1956).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 11)

“The final mechanism listed in Table 1 (“institutionalization of conditions”) refers explicitly to the organizational processes by which work is typically structured and rewarded. We have included this mechanism because some of the outcomes in our life chances domain (see Appendix A, Table A.1) refer to on-the-job conditions, such as working hours and income, that are established through union bargaining, intra-organizational institutions (e.g. internal labor markets), and federal legislation (e.g. minimum wage laws).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 12)

“his middlerange solution proves to be unattractive. By conventional significance tests, the hybrid model is preferred for only 10 of the 55 outcomes analyzed here and the big-class model for only two, leaving 43 outcomes for which our micro-class model is preferred.” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 30)

“here is some cross-class variability in the extent of occupationalization, and our results are partly, but not entirely, consistent with conventional expectations about such variability” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 30)

“That is, the potential for craft differentiation may not have been fully realized because of the shared middle-class “logic” of the craft situation (e.g. middle-class income, relatively high security), much as rational action theorists suggest (e.g. Goldthorpe, 2000).” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 30)

“The vast majority of present-day workers can instead be found in classes where occupational distinctions are alive and well. The main problem, then, with our proposed hybrid solution was that it gave over far more terrain to the big-class formulation than was merited.” (“The shape of social inequality: stratification and ethnicity in comparative perspective”, 2005, p. 31)