SOC 611 - Purdue University



SOC 611

Spring 2011

Thinking About Stratification: Week Three

I. Last week we dealt with Grusky and the structural, distributional theory of social inequality

- we talked about inequality as unequal access to education (Shavonne), including informational and technolgical access (Uttaran), the questions of what constitute "goodies", elite access and marginalization (Abigail)

- we talked about the basis for inequality, including the case system (Rati) and the ascribed/achieved distinction (Uttaran)

- we also considered a more relational approach to inequality, including different treatment and discretion (Joy) and the ways in which similar candidates are treated differently (Chris)

- we also discussed how unequal access to opportunities yield cumulative disadvantage and how some "goodies" were more important than others (Zhenyu)

- we also discussed how the opportunity to define value—what are goodies? is a base of power (Nick)

II. From there were moved to discussion of the distributional (Grusky and Kerbo) versus relational (Wolf and Hogan) perspectives on the history of inequality

- this led us to a consideration of the importance of surplus production in generating inequality

- I suggested an S curve of increasing inequality and a structural equation model that incorporated what were suggested (or what I offered) as critical effects:

Inequality = f(surplus, values, human diversity, knowledge, technology, forms of social, economic, and political organization)

We never really developed a model predicting inequality but we seemed to be leaning toward the idea that inequality was, if inevitable, at least variable. In fact, we seemed to agree that where there was no surplus there was no inequality—even if there was difference. This is an interesting idea that we might want to revisit when we think about gender inequality in particular.

One issue that we didn't really develop is the question of why a family or kin-based subsistence economy (with little inequality) would want to move toward increased production (and thereby inequality). Wolf (and Hogan) have an answer, but we did not really consider the problem in much detail.

Most memorable in this discussion was Abigail's idea that inequality might increase with famine as well as surplus. This led to the idea that we could describe the relationship between subsistence/surplus production and inequality as a double S curve. There is little inequality near subsistence, but inequality increases as societies move toward mass starvation or gluttony—with inequality tapering off at either extreme in mass suicide. I won't stain my drawing skills to reproduce the figure that I sketched on the board, but it was pretty cool.

This weeks' readings were all very familiar to me. I used to assign longer excerpts of all of these readings in Classical and Contemporary Theory courses (SOC 600 and SOC 602). My outline of the issues from last time seem to capture the essential arguments—beginning with Marx and then dealing with the problem of where Marx went wrong. Perhaps I should share a few thoughts on that.

The readings from Marx are from his early (philosohpical) and middle (political) writings. In his late (economic) writings Marx explained (vol. 1 chapter 26 of Capital) how capitalism would created crises of overproduction that would increase the size and misery of the proletariat (and the unemployable lumpen proletariat) and the increasingly wealthy but numerically shrinking capitalist class. He predicted that these periodic crises would culminate in a global crisis that would inspire proletarian revolution and usher in a communist future. In this regard, he was half right. The crisis was much as he predicted in 1929, but the proletarian revolution was less apparent.

There are many explanations of many ways in which Marx went wrong—beginning with Weber, who focuses on multi-dimensional nature of inequality—class, status, and party, and the problematic relationship between shared interests and collective action. This might be considered the first liberal critique of Marx, including the attempt to replace class with power—taken to the extreme by Dahrendorf in his version of conflict theory, rooted in relations of authority and subordination. I wonder why Darhendorf is in the "Marxist" section, but that is only one of my quibbles. Grusky and I agree that Wright is the foremost Marxist scholar dealing with the problem of class categories (Wright is now dealing with the problem of utopia, and he has a longstanding interest in class-based political interests and inter-class governing coalitions—both issues near and dear to my heart). If you really want to know what I think, read "Was Wright Wrong?"

Wallerstein is included as a Neo-Leninist path toward a critical realignment of Marxist theory. Here, the problem of proletarian revoltion and class conflict are explained, along with the complexity of modern class relations in leading capitalist nations, as a result of the export of capital through a global system in which nations undermine "free markets" and foster the dominance of "core" capitalist nations in a global division of labor where even labor tends to do better in the core. The extent to which proletarianization and revolution are explorted to the periphery (what was once called the "Third World") varies from Lenin to Wallerstein to Gunder Frank. There are, in fact, other theorists (Gultang, for example) and analysts (Maurice Zeitlin's wok on Chile) who should also be added to this bibliography. Within sociology, the Political Economy of World Systems (PEWS) section would be the place to start looking for more recent developments.

The Weberian readings are pretty standard in the effort to focus on both the multidimensional nature of inequality—a big issue for Grusky, and the importance of exclusion or monopoly/closure as opposed to exploitation. This particular way of thinking about the difference between Marx and Weber is not uncommon and seems to be mainstream. Grusky and Wright seem to share this orientation in focusing on what divides Marx and Weber, rather than how they might be combined in more interesting and useful ways—which seems to be where Tilly, Perrucci, Hogan, and a number of others might be located.

Anyway, if we stick to the readings and think about the problems we might consider the following questions as a base for discussion:

What are classes?

How should they be defined, operationalized, analyzed?

How many classes are there?

Are classes the source or the consequence of inequality?

What is the source of inequality?

Do we all need to agree on a single theory of inequality?

Do some theories seem better in attacking some questions, while others seem better suited for others?

What pieces of these papers seem most useful to you in addressing issues of concern to you?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download