Page 234 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology

9781412934633-Chap-14 1/10/09 8:49 AM Page 205

LIFECOURSE OF THE SOCIAL MOBILITY PARADIGM 205

so are the neo-Weberian social classes pro- of gradation in the sociology of stratification
posed by Giddens (1973) and Goldthorpe see social positions differing in degree rather
(1980). 7 than kind, contemporary class schemas
The choice between these two ways of emphasize qualitative differences and rela-
describing social structure appears related to tional dependence.
the influence of particular ideological per- One of the main contributions to the analy-
spectives at different periods of time. We sis using class schemas is due to Erikson and
have already discussed the reasons for the Goldthorpe (1992), with the CASMIN proj-
emergence of a schema of gradation. By con- ect. The purpose of their class schema is to
trast, many other occupational classifications, differentiate occupational positions ‘in terms
such as the French one, were influenced by of the employment relations that they entail’.
historical class struggles and by political After presenting the classical three-fold
movements representing the working class division between employers, employees and
(Desrosières, 2002). self-employed workers, they make another
The tradition of analyzing social structure distinction, among employees, between two
in terms of a status order has been very pow- kinds of employment relations: the ‘labour
erful in American sociology. In the twentieth contract’ that ‘entails a relatively short-term
century, the popularity of vertical classifica- and specific exchange of money for effort’
tions by strata was supported by a powerful and the ‘service relationship’, which ‘involves
cultural representation of American society a longer term and generally more diffuse
as an open society, which provides equality exchange’. Service relationships are thus
of opportunities for social achievement found mostly within bureaucratic organiza-
(Cuin, 1993). This literature on social strati- tions ‘where it is required of employees that
fication has developed two main method- they exercise delegated authority or special-
ological tools: the classification by strata and ized knowledge and expertise’ (Erikson and
the index of socio-economic status. Goldthorpe, 1992: 43). This conceptualiza-
Conducting exhaustive interviews and sur- tion of class structure takes partial inspiration
veys in Newburyport in the thirties, Warner from Marxism, the main difference being
and his team of researchers, for instance, that Goldthorpe does not refer to issues of
found that the social division of the town exploitation and domination (as was done, in
should be analyzed as a schema of gradation particular, by Wright (1989, 1997)). And the
and tried to build an index of social prestige reference is quite explicit to Weber, since the
(Warner, 1963; Warner and Lunt, 1942). service class works in large public or private
These methodologies have been extensively bureaucracies.
used in American sociology to reduce the The class and stratification perspectives on
multidimensional aspects of status to a social structure are quite distinct, and they
unique, continuous, and simple scale. Two of profoundly influence the way the social
the main methodological contributors to the structure is characterized, and the way social
descriptive analysis of stratification, Duncan mobility is analyzed. In conceptualizing ver-
(1961) and Treiman (1977), both devised tical mobility in particular, a schema of gra-
procedures for hierarchically scaling occupa- dation is needed if one is to qualify mobility
tions. as either ascending or descending. On the
Many other scholars have rejected this contrary, lines of class demarcation cannot
implied unidimensionality of stratification. translate into differences on a single vertical
We find explicit critical perspectives in many scale, because they are conceptualized in
important contributions, such as Dumont’s relational terms. Many authors following a
work on the caste system (1966) or class perspective thus focus on permeability
Bourdieu’s focus on the structure of various of class boundaries (Goldthorpe, 1987;
forms of capital (1984) [1979]. While schemas Wright, 1997). This being said, hierarchical