Back to Class and Status: Or Why a Sociological View of Social Inequality Should Be Reasserted
Back to Class and Status: Or Why a Sociological View of Social Inequality Should Be Reasserted
Key takeaways
Bibliography: Goldthorpe, J.H., 2012. Back to Class and Status: Or Why a Sociological View of Social Inequality Should Be Reasserted. Reis. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.137.201
Authors:: John H. Goldthorpe
Collections:: Social Class
First-page: 202
Of late, issues of social inequality have assumed a new political centrality in many western societies. However, in much discussion of these issues, sociological approaches to the analysis of social inequality have been disregarded, especially in the work of economists and epidemiologists. The main features of the sociological approach are the emphasis given to inequality in a relational rather than a merely attributional sense, and to the distinction between social class and social status as two qualitatively different forms of social stratification. Two cases serve to illustrate the limitations and dangers that result from neglecting the conceptual and empirical work undertaken by sociologists: the study of intergenerational social mobility by economists and the study of the consequences of social inequality for health and related social problems by epidemiologists.
content: "@goldthorpeBackClassStatus2012" -file:@goldthorpeBackClassStatus2012
Reading notes
Imported on 2024-06-10 13:08
⭐ Important
- & It was envisaged that older, more rigid, forms of social stratification were giving way to a rather amorphous ‘socio-economic’ hierarchy, within which individuals’ positions were determined far less by ‘ascription’ than by their own educational and occupational ‘achievement’ (e.g. Parsons, 1967, 1971; Treiman, 1970). (p. 202)
- & Correlations between parents’ and children’s incomes, which were once thought to be as low as 0.2, are now generally estimated at 0.4 or even higher (Bowles, Gintis and Osborne Groves, eds., 2005; Björklund and Jäntti, 2009). (p. 202)
- & class is taken to be defined by social relations within labour markets and productive units (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992, ch. 2; Goldthorpe, 2007, vol. 2, ch. 5; McGovern et al., 2007, ch. 3). (p. 204)
- & the concept of class, understood in the way indicated, does in fact lead to a more comprehensive view of economic inequality than does a focus on income, and especially on current income, alone. (p. 204)
- & The status order - or hierarchy - is one formed by social relations of superiority, equality and inferiority that reflect prevailing evaluations of social honour or worth. In earlier societies, status typically attached to ascribed characteristics - in particular, to ‘birth’ or ‘descent’. In present-day societies status more often attaches to social positions - in particular, occupations - although still also to ascribed characteristics such as race and ethnicity (Laumann, 1966). The most immediate way in which the status order is expressed is in patterns of intimate association, such as close friendship and marriage (or cohabitation). Status equals are those who eat together and sleep together. But differences in status are also expressed in lifestyles of differing ‘distinction’ that are seen as appropriate to different status levels. (p. 205)
- & ust as there are now good instruments available for the measurement of class, so too there are good instruments available for the measurement of status as understood as above, and especially as based on occupation (see e.g. Chan, 2010). (p. 205)
- & Class and status ‘inconsistencies’ clearly arise. In other words, class and status have to be regarded as two qualitatively different forms of social stratification. (p. 205)