Suchergebnisse

A popular thesis in social stratification argues that the middle class is declining. Our chapter argues that this thesis is flawed both conceptually and empirically. Conceptually, it mixes up the middle and working class and, empirically, misrepresents the trends that shape the class structure. Our chapter discusses the main concepts of class and proposes a model that grasps the class structure of contemporary Western societies. Based on clearer concepts, labour force surveys clearly show that the early 21st century did not see the demise, but the expansion of the (salaried) middle class. Never in history had so many people been working in managerial, professional and technical jobs. By contrast, over the last four decades, the working class experienced a massive employment decline – and this decline had far-reaching consequences. It has vastly reduced its political clout as shown in decreasing trade union density and strike activity as well as in rising income inequality. Moreover, it has led to a fundamental realignment of class voting and contributed to growing family instability. Rather than eroding the middle class, the last decades have put an end to the working-class century.

Hardt & Negri's Empire (2000) may be appropriately situated in the tradition of expansion & revision of Marxism in response to changes in global capitalism. The book is insightful & innovative, although its scope frequently seems to trump concretizing detail. However, its main shortcoming lies in its pointed neglect of Marx's theory of surplus labor, which is here extended to Hardt & Negri's arguments. Marx's surplus theory promotes the kind of complex, dynamic class analysis touched upon by Empire but requiring further exploration. 4 References. K. Coddon

Recent critiques of the usefulness of the concept of class (Pahl 1989; Clark and Lipset 1991) have developed into more specific criticisms of the lack of theory underlying `class analysis' as practised by Goldthorpe and his associates (Pahl 1993; Rose 1993). In this paper we argue that an adequate theory of class needs to show why classes, defined in the particular way they are, have some claim to be a basis of social power of sufficient importance to justify the emphasis placed on them by class analysis. To answer this question requires that two things be demonstrated: first, that there is an association between class and a range of outcomes; and, second, that the mechanisms giving rise to such associations be specified. Class analysis has little difficulty in answering the first requirement but very great difficulties in satisfactorily addressing the second. In discussing these problems we seek to suggest fruitful future directions for the project of class analysis.

Contrary to Pahl's criticism, Goldthorpe and Marshall's class analysis programme is a theoretical one. A re-formulation of their position shows how it sets key elements in structured relationships with each other. However this also shows several limitations in their model, which fails fully to account for changes in class positions, or social mobility. Their model says very little about education, cultural values, or events (like the Second World War) that are not entirely class-determined, but impact on life chances. An exploration of previous uses of the Goldthorpe and Marshall approach in defining classes and in measuring class mobility, reveals several inconsistencies of practice, which may suggest, as Pahl argues, too much emphasis on empiricism. Caution is advised before investment in the Goldthorpe and Marshall class analysis programme.