Understanding Class in Contemporary Societies

Paper presented at the ESA 8th Conference, 3rd-6th September, 2007 Glasgow Caledonian & Strathclyde University Understanding Class in Contemporary Societies Abstract: In this paper, I argue that claims about the death of class and the coming of the classless society are premature Such claims are seldom genuinely empirical, and the theoretical argument often refers to a simple and therefore easily dismissible concept of class By rejecting the concept of class altogether, sociological theory runs the risk of loosing the capacity for analysing stratification and vertical differentiation of power and freedom, which in late modernity seem to be a of continuing importance Hence, I argue that although class analysis faces a number of serious challenges, it is possible to reinvent class analysis The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu in many ways introduces an appropriate paradigm, and the paper therefore critically discusses Bourdieu’s concept of class Since the “Bourdieuan” class concept is primarily epistemological, i.e a research strategy more than a theory, empirical examples from a recent study of class and politics in Denmark will be provided Here emphasis will be placed upon the ways in which the Bourdieuan class concept can help overcome some of the problems of previous class concepts By Gitte Sommer Harrits, Ph D, Post.doc Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark e-mail: gitte@ps.au.dk NB: Please note change of affiliation compared to conference programme Understanding class and the effects of class As noted by Erik Olin Wright, the field of class analysis can be seen as an “independent variable specialty” (Wright, 1997: 1) This means that class analysis typically focuses on the effects of a single independent variable, much like the field of e.g endocrinology, where the various effects of the hormone system are explored Doing class analysis, we are interested in finding out, whether or not class has an effect on different areas of life We not intend to fully explain these social phenomena, and we not claim that class can be seen as the only variable of importance Perhaps we include other variables or mechanisms interacting with class, but the main purpose is to discover – or to rule out – the effects of class However, class analysis is also interested in uncovering (aspects of) the social order Put simply, the traditional Marxist as well as Weberian concepts of class are deeply intertwined with the sociological understanding of society, or at least with the structural levels of society For Marx, classes were constituted by the social division of labour and the social relations of ownership and control in a society, whereas for Weber classes were an aspect of the distribution of resources of value on a market as well as an aspect of the distribution of power in a society Thus, the traditional conceptions of class had a descriptive as well as an explanatory component Further, class analysis has typically puzzled with the relations between structure and agency, or with the relations between the objective and subjective forms of class Hence, the question of how to understand structural effects or constraints on individual action, and how to understand the relations between structures of class and processes of class formation has been discussed within the different approaches to class analysis So, although Wright is right in suggesting that class analysis is an “independent variable specialty”, one should not ignore the aspects of class analysis that are deeply rooted in some of the most basic questions of sociology, namely the question of what society looks like, and the question of how society and individual action are related Today, class analysis seems to be gasping for breath On the one hand, defenders of class analysis seem to be reluctant to take up discussions of social order and action, focusing in stead on the modelling of empirical effects In light of decades of abstract and often fruitless theoretical debates within some traditions of class analysis, this refuge of empirical data analysis and “muddling through with somewhat less certain concepts” (Wright, 1997: xxix) may be understandable However, it is also unfortunate, since the lack of understanding of the concept (and phenomenon) of class hinders the understanding of its effects Put differently, it may be interesting to measure the effects of class on different aspects of political behaviour, but if we not understand, what we have measured, perhaps the results are of somewhat less use On the other hand, a consensus seems to be forming, that class analysis is outdated, and therefore not worth exploring, neither theoretically nor empirically Thus, different sociologists have claimed the death of class, pointing out that in late modernity either class structures are gone, or they no longer have any effects However, by rejecting the concept of class altogether, sociological theory runs the risk of loosing the capacity for analysing stratification, distributions of power and conflict, which even in late modernity seems to be important dimensions In the following, I take up the theoretical discussion of how we can understand class in our contemporary societies, i.e how we can insist on understanding class in its sociological context of social order and individual action as well as group formation First, I briefly discuss (some of) the claims of the coming of a classless society and some of the problems of traditional class concepts Second I discuss the main lines of the Bourdieuian class concept, along with an empirical example of class analysis Finally I conclude by discussing the merits and continuing problems of a Bourdieuian class analysis The death of class? Under this intentionally provocative heading, Jan Pakulski and Malcolm Waters (1996a) have argued that the whole tradition of class analysis is “passé” Their argument touches upon several aspects; however the main argument is that today the concept of class no longer captures the important dimensions of conflict, stratification and inequality Here, I discuss their argument in somewhat detail, since it presents (and summarizes) the arguments presented by many critics of class analysis (e.g Laclau & Mouffe, 2001, Beck 1992, Pahl 1989) The point of departure for Pakulski and Waters is a class concept fairly close to the Marxist tradition Thus class is defined as referring to “a specific social location and causality, a specific pattern of groupness, and a specific form of identification”, and it is underlined that class is “primarily about economic-productive location and determination” (Pakulski & Waters, 1996a: 2) From this point of departure, it is argued that class theory and the broader and more multidimensional tradition of class analysis faces a number of theoretical problems These are 1) the problem of economism, i.e the claim that the economic structures of society are fundamental to the structure of society and the structuring of actions; 2) the problem of groupness, i.e the claim that classes are distinct from each other and hence constitute real groups and not just theoretical categories; 3) the problem of identity (and causality), claiming that classes have effects beyond the area of economics, determining cultural and individual identities; and 4) the problem of collective action and transformative capacities, i.e the claim that classes can be seen as instigating social change (Pakulski & Waters, 1996a: 8-15) With the outline of these four theoretical problems, the main structure of Pakulski and Waters’ empirical argument is also presented Thus, in the remaining parts of the book, different kinds of empirical evidence are put forward, showing how class analysis is not only theoretically problematic but also empirically wrong Thus, for instance, it is argued that economic structures are not empirically fundamental to patterns of inequality or formations of groups and identity Further, it is argued that economic structures have changed dramatically (due to e.g state intervention and new forms of production and organization), with the result that the basic Marxist conception of the distribution of ownership and control is simply not in line with reality Also, Pakulski and Waters discusses the empirical bearings of the claim of groupness and identity, drawing on the great amount of research that shows how class can be seen as only one element (and typically an element of declining importance) in these processes I not wish to argue with this Pakulski and Waters point toward important theoretical problems within the traditional Marxist conception of class, and these problems may even be present in other traditions as well The problem is, though, that taking this point of departure, they limit their critique towards a class concept that is on the one hand very simple, i.e only including production structures, and on the other hand very demanding, i.e claiming a causal model including both group formation, identity and transformative capacities And in light of this concept, the empirical evidence is fairly straightforward As an alternative to class analysis, Pakulski and Waters present a “status-conventional theory”, arguing also empirically that societies are changing from a phase of class societies towards a “culturalist or status-conventionalist phase” (Pakulski & Waters, 1996a: 152-158) This change (theoretically as well as empirically) involves several claims: First it is argued, that stratification is primarily cultural, i.e organized around differences of lifestyles, aesthetics, consumption etc Second, it is argued that differences of “statuses” are fragmented, presenting a complex and overlapping web of shifting positions and identities, which furthermore must be seen as fluid and constantly negotiated and changing Finally it is argued that statuses are increasingly created within autonomous areas of society, meaning that the formation of identities and conflicts increasingly follows distinct and different logics within e.g religion, culture and politics These argument are consistent with developments within sociology, pointing towards functional differentiation (e.g Luhman, 1997), as well as reflexivity and fluidity as basic aspects of late modernity (e.g.Giddens, 1991) However, suggesting this status-oriented approach to the study of inequality and conflict clearly departs from the basic intentions of class analysis, i.e the problem of the social order, and instead introduces the concept of identity formation as the key aspect Of course the analysis of formations of identity and statuses in late modernity is interesting and important However, it misses the basic aspects of structurally founded distributions and conflicts of power and resources Further, the change of approach and focus is not supported by the critique of the class concept, and it is not supported by the empirical evidence put forward by Pakulski and Waters Thus, it may be that traditional class concepts not have much success in explaining the formation of groups and identity But this does not necessarily mean that there are no structural patterns to be found within these cultural processes, or that structural inequalities have withered away The only argument presented for not trying to reformulate class analysis is that this would amount to stretching the theoretical concept too far Pakulski and Waters (1996a: 150-151) argue ironically, that the reaction to critique from traditional class analysis is one of three: Either, researchers just keep on claiming that classes exist, despite evidence to the contrary Or researcher keep moving the target, arguing that classes exist, although they may not be exactly classes, or may not be exactly founded within economic structures, or may not be that important etc Or, researcher lower their level of explanatory ambition, defining class almost solely as occupational categories, thereby loosing the theoretical value of doing class analysis However, even though this is an amusing argument, it is not sound On the contrary, it points to the basis of the whole argumentation, namely the theoretical choice (or assumption) that classes are “primarily about economic-productive location and determination” This rules out the possibility of conceptualizing class as having to with different structurally founded resources, and it constructs an artificial theoretical choice between either economic and structural class analysis or multidimensional and symbolic or cultural analysis of status and identity But, as I will argue in the remaining parts of this paper, this is a false choice, and it is indeed possible to present a multidimensional but structurally founded concept of class Defending class analysis Before we turn to the discussion of the Bourdieuian class concept, some of the other defenders of class analysis will be briefly discussed, focusing on the above mentioned problems suggested by Pakulski and Waters These defenders are Erik Olin Wright (a neo-Marxist approach), John Goldthorpe (a neo-Weberian approach, although he does not himself use this category) and David Grusky (a neo-Durkheimian approach) (See also Wright, 2005, for the further discussion of different approaches) The most comprehensive discussion and attempt to renew the neo-Marxist tradition is presented by Wright (e.g Wright 1985; Wright, Becker, Brenner et al 1989; Wright 1997, Wright, 2005) For Wright, the main problem has been to formulate an adequate conception of the middle class, and hence a class schema relevant for the analysis of modern class relations Wright argues for the continuing foundation of class analysis upon the Marxian concept of modes of production (Wright, 1985, 1997), but also that in concrete societies, different social relations may exist, making the social relations of class more complex Further, Wright insists on the concept of exploitation as central to the understanding of class relations (Wright, 1997: 10) This means that social relations of economic ownership, control and conflict are the basic element of class On the basis of this understanding, different class locations or categories can be discerned, allowing for empirical analysis In the concrete analyses, Wright has presented a rather complex scheme of class locations, taking into consideration social relations of education and organization as well as of production and ownership (see e.g Wright, 1997) Finally, Wright also insists on the analysis of individual and collective behaviour connected to class, assuming that the link between structure and agency (or between macro and micro-levels of analysis) is facilitated by the constitution of material interest (Wright, 1997, 2005) No doubt, Wright’s suggestions for class analysis are consistent, but in light of the above criticism it still contains some basic problems First, Wright insists on defining class exclusively in relation to economic structures Thus, although he includes educational and organizational assets, these are seen as relevant only in so far as they are important on the labour market Further, the sociological understanding of the social order (or late modernity), and hence the theoretical argument for including precisely educational and organizational assets, is rather weak, and there seems to be no concrete attempt to consider other structurally founded assets as relevant for class relations Further, Wright maintains a concept of material interest, linked to concepts such as class formation and class agency, resulting in the empirical focus of the effects of class being a specific political consciousness (socialism) for specific groups (workers) In light of the empirical developments of the political agendas and political cleavages in the western societies this seems unfounded Indeed, Wright also presents interesting empirical analyses of class effects However – as also suggested by Pakulski (2005) and Crompton (1998) – the stringent theoretical conceptualization fades somewhat into the background here, resulting in the class concept being very similar to a concept of occupational groups Exactly this centrality of occupational groups is common for both Goldthorpe and Grusky’s analysis of class, although in different ways Goldthorpe (e.g 1996, 2000 & 2002) continues the Weberian tradition by focusing on market capacities and the effects on life chances, although he supplements this with elements of Rational Action Theory, especially the concept of asymmetry of information between employers (principal) and employees (agents) (e.g Goldthorpe, 2000: 209210) In this way, Goldthorpe presents a class structure founded upon market relations, specifying class locations of specific “economic security, stability and prospects” (Goldthorpe, 2000: 13) Thus, compared to Wright, Goldthorpe explicitly rejects the Marxist concepts of e.g exploitation and class formation, but maintains the explicit focus upon economic structures Further, his class schemes are not that different from Wright’s Seen in relation to the criticism by Pakulski and Waters, Goldthorpe may escape the most serious problems However, the problem of not including the possibility of multidimensional structural resources or aspects of culture prevails Further, the sociological ambition of explaining the social order is rather weak, and the strongest element of the approach is thus exactly the occupational categories For Grusky, this is the central point of departure Hence, Grusky (see e.g Grusky & Sørensen, 1998, Grusky & Weeden, 2001, 2002, Grusky and Galescu, 2005) criticises other class concepts for being nominal and therefore not suited to understand the formation of identities and conflicts in contemporary societies Instead Grusky suggest the foundation of class analyses upon concrete and disaggregated categories of occupation, exploring the building of group identity, interest and relations (of conflict or cooperation) with other groups Although I agree with the point of disaggregation, moving class analysis in the direction suggested by Grusky also means loosing the constituting elements of class analysis, namely the understanding of the social order and the relationship between social structures and individual action Thus I now turn to the discussion of whether there exists a viable theoretical alternative to the drift from class analysis to the analysis of occupational categories, as is seen at both Wright, Goldthorpe and Grusky, although with different emphasis An alternative conception of class Discussing the concept of class suggested by Bourdieu, it first must be underlined, that Bourdieu is not really positioning himself in the area of class analysis Or more precisely, although the concept of class is central to Bourdieu, it is not the single purpose of his approach As was seen with the traditional class concepts of Marx and Weber, the concept of class is suggested in connection to a range of sociological concepts and along with an explicit understanding of the social order in late modernity as well as of the relationship between structure and agency So, one can see Bourdieu as presenting a new approach to class analysis alongside the approaches of the Neo-Marxists, NeoWeberians and Neo-Durkheimians (see also Wright, 2005) Discussing the Bourdieuian concept of class, then, means discussing this entire approach or research strategy, including several important concepts such as social space, capital and habitus Further, since the Bourdieuian approach is exactly this, an approach or research strategy, and not really a theory, I include in the discussion an empirical example implementing this research strategy (see appendix below for a discussion of data and methods) Social Space and the generalisation of the concept of capital Although the Bourdieuian approach contains an explicit understanding of the social order, the concept of society seldomly occurs in Bourdieu’s writings In stead he writes about the social space as a relational configuration of objective positions constituted by the most important forms of capital (Bourdieu 1984: 99-168) Capital is – broadly speaking – a concept of power, and hence it denotes the basic structures of social relations More precisely capital is “accumulated labour”, but it comes in different forms (material, embodied, symbolic) and types (cultural, economic, social etc.) (Bourdieu 1986: 241-242) The defining element is, that capital can be accumulated and stored, and Bourdieu demonstrates how this is the case in many different areas of life (i.e in many fields) Thus, one of the basic claims of the Bourdieuan approach is that we need to understand the concept of capital and the mechanisms connected hereto as a general social mechanism and not as something specific to the economic field or the relations of production In the western democracies of late modernity, the most important forms of capital are money and knowledge, i.e economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1998: 6) To be precise, the most important and most autonomously differentiated social fields are the economic field, the cultural field and the scientific field What is not often pointed out, though, when discussing the writings of Bourdieu is, that this is an empirical claim As such, it reveals the specific sociological understanding of the development of modern society Bourdieu opposes Marxist theory, underlining how it is not only the economic field that – qua the division of labour – takes on an objective character vis-à-vis the individual This can be said about a lot of different fields, especially the cultural fields of art and science Here written language, the printing press and the standardisation and certification of competence and credentials – just to mention a few characteristics – secures the storing and circulation of cultural capital in a manner similar to the economic capital Consequently, cultural capital becomes an alternative form of structurally based power, competing for a dominating position in social space However, Bourdieu also opposes theories of functional differentiation, arguing that not all fields have the same powerful position as the economic and cultural field More important than the number fields, though, is the argument that functional differentiation is counterbalanced by the foundation of individual action in the body and the individual habitus created in the life of the individual and the (shifting) social surroundings of the position(s) in social space Hence, the different fields and different forms of capital are not autonomously isolated from the social history of the individual Also, it is important to note that the theory of Bourdieu is a theory of practice, and not a theory of communication (Bourdieu 1987a) Individuals carry with them a history, consequently resulting in the production of homologous – and not autonomous – fields And the fields most powerful in the creation of individual and class habitus, and most effectively influencing the functioning and structure of other fields are – today – the fields of economy and culture Returning to the concept of social space, the main point is that this is a strong analytical tool focusing on the relational configuration of objective class positions Constructing social space, then means analytically identifying the most important forms of capital and the social positions created by these fundamental social relations Hence, as Bourdieu suggests, the principle of classification thus put into play is genuinely explanatory It is not content with describing the set of classified realities, but rather, like the good taxonomies of natural sciences, it fixes on determinant properties which, unlike the apparent differences of bad classifications, allow for the prediction of the other properties and which distinguish and bring together agents who are as similar to each 10 other as possible and as different as possible from members of other classes, whether adjacent or remote (Bourdieu 1998: 10) (Se også Bourdieu 1984: 114) According to Bourdieu, social space will typically be structured along three dimensions i) the volume of capital, ii) the composition of capital and iii) the historical development of these two dimensions Here, I shall focus on the two first dimensions only Again, the claim that social space is differentiated in this way is empirical and based on a number of sociological analyses of modern France However, the claim has been empirically confirmed in analysis of other countries (e.g Norway, Rosenlund 2000), and as can be seen in figure below, it is also empirically supported by the Danish case Figure about here Returning now to the concept of class, this is inherent within the concept of social space and the analytical strategy for constructing social space Hence, constructing the social space also means constructing – “on paper” (Bourdieu 1987b), i.e in theory – the social classes and class fractions The concept of class in its simple definition means exactly positions close to each other in social space The main point in the concept of class is, then, that similar objective social conditions create a class habitus, producing similar positionings, i.e similar practices in different fields (Bourdieu 1984: 167-225) Although Bourdieu may be seen as following most closely in the footsteps of the Weberian tradition of class analysis, it should be noticed how the concept of social space and class is founded upon the concept of capital, denoting – much like the Marxist concept of capital – a social relation of ownership and control over resources, although these resources, as mentioned, can be of many forms and types Hence, seen in relation to the critique by Pakulski and Waters, Bourdieu maintains a structural level of capital (and power) but reformulates it into a multidimensional and empirically sensitive concept As we shall see below, on two other important areas of critique, Bourdieu also presents a theoretical advancement These areas are the claim of functional differentiation and autonomy of different areas of social life, and the problem of the relationship between structure and agency (i.e the theory of action) 11 Homology or autonomy? Taking functional differentiation serious Alongside the concept of social space, Bourdieu’s concept of the social field presents an analytical tool focusing on the relational constitution of society A field is a relational configuration of specific resources (capital) and practices united in the struggle for accumulation and definition the specific form of capital Hence, the field is a social universe, where “external determinants can have an effect only through transformations in the structure of the field itself” (Johnson, 1993: 14; also Bourdieu, 2005) Thus, there are many different fields, e.g the religious field, the cultural field, the field of sports, the economic field and the field of education Integrating the different positions and agents of the field is the game of power in relation to the specific forms of capital in the field, as well as the (silent) presuppositions of the field and rules of the game (doxa), and the illusio, i.e subjective feel for the game (Bourdieu 1990: 66) As can be seen, the concept of fields is much similar to the idea of functional differentiation and the existence of different autonomous systems However, as was also suggested above, Bourdieu is not supporting the thesis of functional differentiation In stead, functional differentiation and stratification are seen as simultaneous and complementary structuring principles in modern societies Hence, the question of autonomy or heteronomy, i.e the question of whether the structures of class have effects on the structures and actions (the relations of power, the conduct of practices, the formation of identity, group formations etc.) within a specific field, is an empirical question Some fields will tend to be heteronomous, showing a structure homological to the class structure of social space, and some fields will be structured autonomously by their own principles But often it will be a matter of degree Thus, analysing concrete fields, one needs to take into consideration the effects on practice of class differentiation as well as the more or less autonomous principles of the field in question Speaking of the different fields as functionally differentiated and autonomous configurations of positions more precisely is speaking of the different production fields (Broady, 1991: 270) But these production fields contain a very limited configuration of positions and agents Supplementing the concept of production fields, then, the concept of spaces of consumption captures the configurations of positions and practices not explicitly involved in the struggle for accumulation and definition of capital, but positioning themselves with regard hereto Otherwise, the same principles apply, i.e that one needs to take into consideration the possible effects of the class structure (homology) as well as the possible effect of the principles of the field (autonomy) 12 This distinction between production fields and spaces of consumption was central in the empirical example discussed here In my research project on class and politics, the main research question concerned the possible effects of class position (i.e different combinations of cultural and economic capital) on political participation Clearly, the analysis could not concentrate on the agents in the “political field”, that is agents involved in the struggle for accumulation and definition of political capital, the production of political programmes and solutions, or the battle of control over the state In stead, focus was put on the understandings of and relations to this production field as it was present among the citizens and the “political audience” of a society, i.e in the political space of consumption Whereas it must be expected that the political production field has a high degree of autonomy, i.e that the relational configurations of the game and the history of the field means more for politicians than does the class habitus, this is not the case for the space of consumption As the game of politics and the political illusio is not very strong here, class position must be expected to co-determine political participation (i.e political habitus and practices) However, citizens are orientated towards the political production field, and hence the principles of the production field (e.g the definitions of political capital or the political illusio) remain an active force in the production of practice To sum up, it was expected that political practice is a result of the social history of individuals as well as the social history of the political field The study in general confirmed this expectation In figure and the configuration of political consumption capital (i.e the ability to follow and understand politics and act politically) and political practices are displayed As can be seen, political consumption space (i.e the two independent but strongly homologous configurations of capital and practices) clearly has two dimensions With regard to the space of political capital, the first two dimensions summarises 67% of total variance (λ1=0,32 and λ2=0,19), and with regard to the space of political practices, the first two dimensions summarises 92% of total variance (λ1=0,27 and λ2=0,14) The first dimension differentiates between on the one hand – in the left-hand side of the chart – a group feeling competent and “empowered” vis-à-vis the political production field, and showing a high amount of political engagement and activity; and on the other hand – in the righthand side of the chart – a group that is distanced, dis-empowered and passive Consequently, one can say that the most important dimension of the political space of consumption is total amount of political capital (i.e the ability to understand and act in relation to the political system) and total amount of participation Further, as can be seen from the positions of class fractions, there is a 13 homology between the political space of consumption and social space Hence, the first dimension of total amount of political capital parallels the first dimension of social space, i.e total amount of capital Although the second dimension is weaker in terms of explained variance, it evidently differentiates between two specific types of political capital and practices In the upper part of the right side of the chart, the feeling of confidence with regard to being heard and the ease with which one feels able to contact a politician dominate This stands in opposition to (in the lower part of the right side of the chart) a high degree of knowledge about politics and ease in following political topics Equivalently, political practice characterised by action (typically in traditional political activities) stands in opposition to a political practice dominated by political interest and participation in political discussions In the left side of the chart – i.e in the dominated, disempowered and passive positions of the political space of consumption – a generally alienated group (in the upper part) opposes a group (in the lower part) critical of their possibilities of being heard and recognized by the political system This second dimension is also homologous to the second dimension of social space, i.e to capital composition Thus, economic class fractions are positioned in the upper part of the chart, whereas cultural class fractions are positioned in the lower part of the chart Figure and about here However, one should also notice the reconfiguration or refraction of positions in the political space of consumption, compared to social space First, the positions of the class fractions are not as dispersed as the positions of political capital or political practice This indicates that although the political space of consumption is homologous to social space it also shows a relative autonomy Further, especially in the configuration of political practices, a group of very active positions (in the upper right hand corner of the chart) seems not to be described very well in terms of social class positions And finally, the cultural fraction of the middle class is placed in a “high” position on the first dimension close to the cultural upper class, whereas the economic fraction of the middle class is placed close to the passive and dominated positions of the lower classes This indicates a reconfiguring effect of the political field and points to the fact that cultural capital has a higher “value” in the political consumption space than economic capital 14 In relation to more traditional studies of political participation, this analyses shows how the question of social structure and political behaviour should not be posed as a dualism It is not so that the politics in late modern societies is constituted as totally autonomous from the social differentiations of power and classes, nor is it so that politics only mirrors the class structure Consequently the analysis of late modernity must take into consideration the functional differentiation as well as prevailing class differences Seen in relation to Pakulski and Waters, this suggests that the claim of autonomous areas of identity and group formation replacing the claim of class dominating all areas of life, again poses a false dilemma Here, the Bourdieuan approach presents an analytical strategy for evaluating this question empirically, as well as beginning to theorize which fields should be expected to be autonomous and which fields should be expected to be heteronomous Habitus and the theory of action The final element of the Bourdieuan class approach to be discussed here is the question of how to understand the structural effects of class on individual action, identity, group formation etc Here, the concept of habitus is central, since this concept condensates the theory of action implicit in the writings of Bourdieu (see Weininger 2002 for an excellent discussion) Habitus refers to different schemes, e.g cognitive schemes, aesthetic and normative schemes, orientating perception and preferences as well as actions of the individual, and produced by the structured social surroundings of the individual (e.g Bourdieu 1990: 53) Hence, the practices of different fields and spaces of consumption are homologues to the structures of social space because of the different forms of (class) habitus produced by different social positions Bourdieu summarizes this mechanism by the heuristic formula “[(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice” (Bourdieu, 1984: 101) But habitus is not a static mechanism In the concrete practices of everyday life, habitus guides the actions of the individual also by orientating itself towards the spaces of possible positionings presented to it In other words, the production of practices is never carried out in a vacuum, but is always a choice between already existing practices in a field or a space of consumption (Bourdieu, 1984: 208-225) Therefore, the effects of class habitus is not a determination of specific actions (and even less so of a specific consciousness), but rather a “colouring” and constraining of practices, much like a handwriting, as Bourdieu points out As pointed out by Weininger (2002: 73) there is something “intrinsically verstehend” about the explanatory project of the concept of habitus Habitus is not the additive accumulation of social 15 experiences but rather the creation of an integrative principle (the handwriting) that structures the production of practices and representations Empirically, Bourdieu poses the hypothesis that the upper class (in the western societies, i.e the societies dominated by cultural and economic capital) will be characterized by a habitus of ease, abstraction and reflection, being able to pursue activities (e.g art) for the sake of the activity itself In contrast, the popular classes will tend to be dominated by a “taste of necessity”, looking for a purpose of any activity (the food must taste well and be nutritious, the picture must be nice and the theatre must present plays with a good story or morale) Third, the middle classes will tend to be striving for acceptance and positions higher in the social space, although their origin and taste will always disclose their lack of real “good taste” (see esp Bourdieu, 1984) Because of the character of habitus, the empirical analysis of the effects of class upon practice must try to capture the semantic unity of practices across different fields, identifying (class) habitus as an integrative principle This can be done by analyzing the structures of practices and positionings, and the possible homology towards the structure of the social space However, a qualitative analysis exploring the principles and reasons of actions, along with for example identity and perceptions of the world, is also well suited for exploring the more detailed workings of different forms of habitus In the empirical example given here, of the research project on class and politics, I conducted eighteen semi-structured interviews, touching upon exactly these issues of perceptions, reasons and identity Furthermore, in designing the interview-guide I was guided by the rather vague Bourdieuian hypotheses mentioned above (see appendix for details on design and method) The interviews showed how differences in political habitus and practice are indeed connected to class positions in social space It is not possible here to go into details regarding the results of the qualitative study; however a brief summary will also for the present purpose The interviewees belonging to the upper class all possessed the ability to distance themselves from and reflectively observe politics as a “game of power” with specific aims and rules They also typically had a very abstract conception of politics, and they emphasized the procedural aspects of the political process when judging politics and political agents For example, they accepted political opponents as legitimate members of a political discussion Further, the interviewees of the upper class were characterized by the presence of a genuinely political logic in their political arguments and reasons put forward for their choice of party And they presented a high degree of knowledge about politics (at the local, national and international level), even though 16 some of them described themselves as not particularly active in politics Thus the fundamental relationship to politics present among the interviewees from the upper class was extremely powerful precisely because it was implicit The upper class simply saw themselves as natural and legitimate political agents, and they followed politics and positioned themselves with ease in the political space of consumption Further, this fundamental relationship – this taste for politics –was presented as driven by political interest and engagement, i.e as driven by choice, and accordingly, political passivity was presented as a choice that could easily be reversed Hence, presented as a choice, political taste was constituted as neutral with regard to the social position of the upper class, and it was portrayed as a possibility for every citizen “Many people could it It is definitely not some elite-thing”, as one of the interviewees said Besides these common characteristics, the upper class was also clearly divided in class fractions In addition to the conception of politics as a game of power, the cultural upper class put forward a concept of politics as the struggle for ‘a better world’ Also, they presented very high demands to the political process, focusing on politics as a rational and reasonable exchange of arguments informed by the facts of the matter This came out in hard and sarcastic judgements of politicians, who in the perception of the cultural upper class had no clue as to what they were doing Opposed to this view, the economic fraction of the upper class presented a conception of politics as the technical solution to problems, and the political process was ideally seen as characterized by effectiveness and the production of results Implicitly, the private sector was put forward as the appropriate model for politics, and consequently, there was little tolerance with regard to processes resulting in “endless discussions” and no decisions Also, political leadership was defined as the key to ‘good politics’ Among the middle class interviewees, there also was a clear distinction between the cultural fraction and the economic fraction However, the cultural fraction of the middle class actually was rather difficult to discern from the cultural fraction of the upper class, whereas the economic fraction looked much more like the fractions of the lower class Notice how this pattern replicates the structural pattern found in the correspondence analysis of political practices Thus, the cultural middle class also presented a conception of politics as based on knowledge and reasonable arguments Further, their political practice was dominated by ‘alternative’ activities focused, for example, on the concrete improvement of the conditions for homosexuals or the betterment of lives of children from lower class families Also, I found here a 17 very clear conception of the legitimacy of the state and the effort to widen the scope for political decisions (e.g state intervention in family life) This strongly opposes the view found in the economic upper class, where politics was considered to be legitimate only with regard to a specific and limited number of areas Most importantly, though, the cultural middle class also considered themselves legitimate political agents, and they implicitly orientated and positioned themselves with ease in the political space of consumption The political taste of interviewees coming from the economic middle class and the middle class with a balanced capital composition was very different Here, politics was sees as something more or less difficult to understand, and more or less superfluous: “They just sit there and talk and talk, and they don’t say anything”, as one woman put it Also, the concept of politics was much more concrete and not at all focused on the procedural level Asked about when politics is functioning in a satisfying manner, the typical answers put forward were examples of concrete legislation, institutions of the welfare state or even the building of a bridge Consequently, the acceptance of political opponents as legitimate agents, or the understanding of political principles or arguments was rather vague here Very clearly, these interviewees saw themselves as outsiders vis-à-vis politics, and they did not put forward the same naturalness and ‘feeling at home’ as was seen in the upper classes as well as the cultural middle class They did not follow politics in very many details, and typically, they could not point to many political questions as important Simply, they lacked the political illusio typical of the upper classes The position as outsiders, or as a passive and rather inattentive audience of politics, also implied that genuinely political arguments were almost absent In stead, the presence of moral arguments about general values, humanitarian ideals, and arguments considering the style of politicians dominated the judgement of political agents For example, one woman justified her political preferences with the argument: “I think she’s really good at presenting her views” This quote presents a logic different from the political logic in the upper classes Actually, in the interviews with upper class people, often this type of arguments drawing on personal, moral and emotional elements was seen as ‘polluting’ the pure logic of politics As a result of their political taste, the economic middle classes rarely engaged in any political activities Some even did not discuss politics However, even though the interviewees were politically passive, the potential for political action was – at some level – intact, and the political resources were not as low as they might seem based on “first impressions” Thus, almost every interviewee from the middle class did engage in social activities (e.g being a football trainer or 18 making social arrangements in the neighbourhood), and the self image put forward underlined, that if it “really mattered”, i.e if something really important came up, they would engage themselves in political action “I think, if something was really wrong or unjust, then I think I would begin to get involved.” Notice how this self-image parallels the conception in the upper classes of political action being a choice In the lower class, the lack of political taste combined with a very weak political illusio was even more evident However, differences were present also in this group, although they were not connected to class fractions but rather to differences in other types of resources The most apparent difference in the lower class (in the qualitative interviews of this study) was between, on the one hand, a group totally excluded from the political space of consumption and, on the other hand, a group who presented a specific, yet practical, conception of politics and a high amount of political action This last group of interviewees in the lower classes was characterized by a long lasting membership in a workers union, and their political practice and understanding of politics was clearly connected to the concrete organization of the union Hence, the political institutions of the union (e.g the steering committee and general meeting) and the practical involvement in union politics had created a political illusio that – over time –had been converted into political capital However, although they showed a high degree of activity, the political habitus of this group is not comparable to the political habitus of the upper classes The conception of politics was very concrete, and there was no reflective distance or clear conception of procedures of political processes And even though this group clearly saw themselves as legitimate political agents, this conception was connected to the collective organization, and it seemed to quickly fade away when then interviewees were no longer associated with the union Opposed to this group of political active lower class interviewees, the other interviewees in the lower classes seemed excluded from the political space of consumption Typically, these interviewees did not have any language with which they could understand or talk about politics, and thus the questions on politics during the interview were answered in very general terms As was seen in the economic fraction of the middle class, a moral and emotional logic dominated those political arguments that were given, and typically efforts to make specific political argument were presented with too much effort or with mistakes, revealing the not feeling at home in politics: Further, the feeling of powerlessness vis-à-vis the political system was evident in this group, however, the interviewees themselves did not perceive it as powerlessness The question of political 19 action did simply not come to their minds, and hence, the lack of political resources and an effective political language often remained hidden Also, interviewees when confronted with the possibility of political action defended themselves by stating, that politics was too boring or “not for somebody like me” Consequently, also in this group the general picture of political action being a matter of choice was implicitly supported In sum, the qualitative interviews revealed interesting differences in political habitus, which were clearly connected to the class positions as well as the specific combination of resources (i.e the combination of economic and cultural capital) Further, the qualitative interviews supported the conception of habitus as an integrative principle, connected to cognitive as well as normative, aesthetic and practical aspects However, the qualitative interviews also showed some interesting results diverging from the theoretical expectations First it was shown how the political habitus of the cultural middle class was almost identical to the habitus of the cultural upper class, and secondly it was shown that practical political resources facilitated by the membership of a union can have effects on the practices within the political consumption space Both these results support the conception presented above of autonomy and homology being a matter of degree and empirical variation Concluding discussion: Merits and continuing problems of the Bourdieuian class approach The purpose of this paper has been to show how the critique of the traditional class concepts put forward by e.g Pakulski and Waters does not necessitate the abolishment of a structurally founded class concept Although Pakulski and Waters may be right in several of their theoretical points, there is no need to draw the conclusion that structures of inequality and conflict must be analysed using a concept of cultural and symbolic statuses The class concept suggested by Bourdieu, and indeed the Bourdieuan approach, has the advantage of preserving the analysis of structures of power (i.e of capital) At the same time, the Bourdieuan approach acknowledges that power may have several forms and be of several types, and that it must be seen as an empirical question which of these forms of power is dominant within a concrete society at a specific point in time Further, the Bourdieuan approach takes into account that the effects of class may not be dominant within all areas of life, since the autonomous internal structuring and functioning of specific fields may be stronger than class effects Also, this question of autonomy or homology must be seen as empirical Finally it has been shown, how the theory of action can avoid deterministic fallacies, and instead conceptualise the effects of class structures as 20 constraining or “colouring”, or as presenting an integrative principle of habitus which at the same time always orientates itself towards the concrete context of action One further theoretical point should be made, though Until now, I have presented the concept of capital as rather static structures of power However, one of the most important point within Bourdieu’s studies regarding the concept of capital is that it is dynamic Hence, as Bourdieu puts it, the structures of power which becomes evident in an analytical perspective are the “balancesheet”, or a snapshot of the ongoing and ever changing struggles of power Thus, capital, although it is a concept pointing towards the structural dimensions of a society, is created in the struggles for accumulation and recognition of capital Since capital is a social relation, i.e accumulated power which can be used for later purposes, it is of vital importance that capital is recognized as valuable, otherwise it losses it value This is not as odd as it sounds Economic capital also works in this way, since for example the value of gold, of a house of a house or of some commodity is relative to demand Thus, symbolic struggles of identity and recognition (i.e statuses in the vocabulary of Pakulski and Waters) can have the effects of lowering the value of specific forms of capital, or of introducing new forms of capital However, this does not mean that we should abolish a structural conception of capital or power, only that we in our analyses must be empirically sensitive to the dynamic aspects of capital This being said, of course there are several remaining problems and aspects of the Bourdieuan approach to class that needs to be further developed First of all, it needs to be recognized that we are indeed dealing with an approach or an analytical perspective, and not really a theory Hence, theoretical propositions must be suggested and made empirically researchable This includes the question of the forms and types of capital dominant in society as well as the questions of autonomy and homology with regard to different fields Also the workings of the habitus, both the precise psychological mechanisms as well as the question of how the habitus of different classes can be characterized, should be explored Further, questions of group formation, i.e the effects of classes as being more than effects of habitus on individual behaviour and identity, have seldom been addressed from a Bourdieuian perspective And as pointed out by several authors the need for a theoretical as well as empirical understanding of gender and ethnicity and the interaction (or intersection) with class, is clearly evident 21 Despite of these problems, though, the Bourdieuan approach can be seen as a promising research strategy, if one wishes to avoid the crude alternative of traditional class concepts or the leaving behind of a class concept altogether References Beck, Ulrik (1992) Risk Society Towards a New Modernity, London: SAGE Bourdieu, Pierre (1984a) Distinction A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) "The Forms of Capital" i John G Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press Bourdieu, Pierre (1987a) "The Force of Law: Towards a Sociology of the Juridical Field", Hastings Law Journal, 38, pp 814-853 Bourdieu, Pierre (1987b) "What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups", Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, pp 1-17 Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) Practical Reason On the Theory of Action, Stanford: Stanford University Press Bourdieu, Pierre (2005) (2000/1972) Udkast til en praksisteori, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag Broady, Donald (1991) Sociologi og Epistemologi Om Pierre Bourdieus författerskap och den historiske epistemologin, Stockholm: HLS Förlag Crompton, Rosemary (1998) Class and Stratification An Introduction to Current Debates, Cambridge: Polity Press Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press Goldthorpe, John H (1996) "Class Analysis and the Reorientation of Class Theory: The case of persisting Differentials in Educational Attainment", British Journal of Sociology, 47, 3, pp 481-505 Goldthorpe, John H (2000) On Sociology Narratives, Numbers, and the Integration of Research and Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press Goldthorpe, John H (2002) "Occupational Sociology, Yes: Class Analysis, No: Comment on Grusky and Weeden's Research Agenda", Acta Sociologica, 45, 3, pp 211-216 Grusky, David & Gabriela Galescu (2005) "Foundations of a neo-Durkheimian Class Analysis" i Erik Olin Wright, Approaches to Class Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 22 Grusky, David B & Jesper B Sørensen (1998) "Can Class Analysis be Salvaged?", American Journal of Sociology, 103, 5, pp 1187-1234 Grusky, David B & Kim A Weeden (2001) "Decomposition Without Death: A Research Agenda for a New Class Analysis", Acta Sociologica, 44, 3, pp 203-218 Grusky, David B & Kim A Weeden (2002) "Class Analysis and the Heavy Weight of Convention", Acta Sociologica, 45, 3, pp 229-236 Johnson, Randal (1993) "Editor's Introduction: Pierre Bourdieu on Art, Literature and Culture", in Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, 1-25, Columbia: Columbia University Press Laclau, Ernesto & Chantal Mouffe (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, ed., London: Verso Luhmann, Niklas (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Pahl, Ray E (1989) "Is the Emperor Naked? Some Questions on the Adequacy of Sociological Theory in Urban and Regional Research", International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13, 4, pp 709-20 Pakulski, Jan (2005) "Foundations of a Post-class Analysis" i Erik Olin Wright (ed), Approaches to Class Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pakulski, Jan & Malcolm Waters (1996a) The Death of Class, London: SAGE Pakulski, Jan & Malcolm Waters (1996b) "Misreading Status as Class: A Reply to Our Critics", Theory and Society, 25, 5, pp 731-736 Pakulski, Jan & Malcolm Waters (1996c) "The Reshaping and Dissolution of Social Class in Advanced Societies", Theory and Society, 25, 5, pp 667-691 Rosenlund, Lennart (2000) Social Structures and Change: Applying Pierre Bourdieu's Approach and Analytical Framework, Stavanger: Stavanger University Press Wright, Erik Olin (1985) Classes, London: Verso Wright, Erik Olin, Uwe Becker, Johanna Brenner, Michael Burrawoy, Val Burris, Guglielmo Carchedi, Gordon Marshall, Peter F Meiskins, David Rose, Arthur Stinchcombe & Philippe Van Parijs (1989) The Deabte on Classes, London: Verso Weininger, Elliot B (2002) "Class and Causation in Bourdieu", Current Perspectives in Social Theory: Bringing Capitalism Back for Critique by Social Theory, 21, pp 49-114 Wright, Erik Olin (1997) Class Counts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wright, Erik Olin (ed.) (2005), Approaches to Class Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 23 Wright, Erik Olin (2005), “A Neo-Marxist class analysis”, in Erik Olin Wright (ed.) (2005), Approaches to Class Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Appendix: Data and method for the empirical example The empirical example given in this paper is the brief summary of a research project on class and politics in Denmark, conducted by the author in 2001-2005 (see Harrits, 2005, or contact the author for further details) The quantitative analysis of correspondence analysis was conducted on the basis of secondary survey data, collected in connection to the research project “Democracy from Below” by Jørgen Goul Andersen and others (N=2032) (see www.socsci.aau.dk/demos/below.pdf for questionnaire in Danish) The survey is a combination of a representative sample (N=1385) and an oversampling of respondents from three different areas (N=197, 202 and 248) The interviews were face-to-face interviews, conducted in 1998, and the response rate is 65% This might seem somewhat low; however judged on a number of variables the sample is fairly representative for the Danish population Thus, there is no systematic bias in the people rejecting to participate The survey contains a range of items on political participation, political interest, political efficacy and democratic values along with different social background variables and items measuring political attitudes For the purpose of the correspondence analysis, a total of items indicating economic and cultural capital were selected Further, 23 items indicating political capital (internal and external political efficacy and general political estrangement) were selected, together with 21 items indicating different political practices (political participation, political interest and political discussion) The method of correspondence analysis (see also Blasius 2001; Greenacre, 1993) is a data reduction technique much similar to principal components analysis, but at the same time providing the analyst with graphical charts showing the structure of data, at the level of main dimensions, as well as the distribution of the variables and categories of variables (modalities) Hence, looking at the graphical charts, similarities and differences between modalities will be visible as geometric distances in the chart Modalities that are similar, i.e typically present among the same individuals, will be shown close together in the same part of the chart, whereas modalities that are different (or, one could say, negatively correlated) will be shown with a large distance Thus, the chart presents a nuanced graphical description of the relational configuration and main dimensions of a dataset 24 Further, supplementing the visual analysis, a numerical output provides the opportunity of closer inspection (and confirmation) of the strength of the relationships in the data The number of substantive dimensions present in the data is determined in the empirical analysis, and is a matter of analytical judgement based on different indicators In the present study, dimensions were statistically present, however in all of the three analyses (of the social space, the space of political capital and the space of political practices), one dimensions was an artificial, i.e non-substantive, dimension created as a result of the form of the items Therefore, only two dimensions are taken into consideration in the analysis The qualitative data was gathered by the author in direct connection to the project As mentioned, the interviews were semi-structured, with themes such as the conception of politics, the practical experiences of politics and the social background and lifestyles of the interviewees 18 people were selected on the basis of results of the quantitative analysis, meaning that they were selected theoretically as representing a “typical person” in one of the nine class fractions Also some variation in gender and age was aimed for The interviews were transcribed, indicating pauses and other aspect of spoken language, and were then analysed using QCA The interviews were coded, first using a rather open form of coding, and secondly coding more systematically for the patterns showing in the interviews as well as for some of the theoretical expectations Also matrix displays were used to summarize and compare the results 25 ... consciousness), but rather a “colouring” and constraining of practices, much like a handwriting, as Bourdieu points out As pointed out by Weininger (2002: 73) there is something “intrinsically verstehend”... discussion of how we can understand class in our contemporary societies, i.e how we can insist on understanding class in its sociological context of social order and individual action as well as group... for class relations Further, Wright maintains a concept of material interest, linked to concepts such as class formation and class agency, resulting in the empirical focus of the effects of class