Class and status: reply to comments

Key takeaways

content: "@flemmenClassStatusReply2019" -file:@flemmenClassStatusReply2019

Reading notes

Imported on 2024-06-10 13:11

⭐ Important

• & It seems that Chan does not share this sentiment: he does not comment on the content of our approach, opting instead to dismiss our presentation of it as a ‘torturous argument’ and ‘too much exegesis’ for his taste. He does, however, raise some questions that we are happy to answer. Q1: How do we evaluate this neo-Bourdieusian framework? A1: In much the same way as one evaluates any other perspective: by scrutinizing the theoretical logic and seeing whether central expectations can be met empirically. Q2: What would count as evidence against it? A2: There are perhaps too many things to provide a full list here but we would highlight two core points: if it cannot be demonstrated that ‘culture’ is valorized in ways that are productive of advantages, it would seem inappropriate to speak of cultural capital. As for the homology thesis: if the structures of the social space and the space of lifestyles do not correspond, or do so only very weakly, this would count as evidence against it. Q3: If homology is baked into the definition and measurement of class and status, how do we test the competing arguments fairly? A3: It is not ‘baked into’ the measurement of class and status. Homology is the hypothesis under investigation (see A2). Q4: Is the homology argument even falsifiable in this framework? A4: Yes (see A2). Q5: So after all the mental gymnastics, we seem to have come back to the view [...] that, from the Bourdieusian standpoint, there is a very close correspondence between class and status or, as Weininger puts it, class and status are ‘yoked together’. If that is the case, why the torturous argument? A5: We are not advancing such a view, as Hazir also notes. Our article highlights three things: (i) a conceptual apparatus that distinguishes class-like from status-like processes; (ii) a methodological approach that allows for an empirical assessment of the claimed homology between the social space and the space of lifestyles; (iii) results showing a clear homology but also some deviations from it – there is no perfect fit. (p. 925)