Extended debates are boring,
eventually even for those that have a taste for them. They grow stale and take on the
character of a pantomime routine: 'Oh yes you did’ ‘Oh no I didn’t’. Journals,
quite rightly, tend to have a thrust, parry, counter rule with the original
authors being allowed the last word.
In a world of blogs and
post-publication commentary there is no such constraint, and only the exercise
of self-control, or exhaustion can limit
the back and forth. But even I like to move on. I currently have a piece with referees at Sociological Review which comments on the latest shenanigans of the GBCS boys and girls as they rapidly attempt to shift ground from the quicksands of class to what they think is the firm rock of 'elites'. I don't think they'll find it very comfortable reading, but I'm not going to reveal my hand here.
This is going to be my last extended
blog post on Savage et al.’s 2013 GBCS paper and it’s occasioned by the
OnlineFirst publication of their reply to their critics -On Social Class, Anno 2014 (OSCA2014). If you are already
tired of this topic then don’t read any further. I understand and sympathize.
So, having given fair warning,
I hope what I have to say will be nuanced enough to satisfy both my readers and
the rarefied tastes of Savage and his colleagues. I can’t promise to lessen the
intensity of my hostility, but to be clear, it is not aimed at them personally.
I don’t dislike any of them; I don’t even know half of them; what I dislike is
what they write and choose to disseminate. And I dislike it because I
think, for reasons I will give, that large amounts of it are demonstrably
nonsense. And what are academics for but to point out nonsense when they see
it? We’re not supposed to be a mutual support club dedicated to propping up
fragile egos or indeed fragile disciplines.
In the interests of brevity I've sacrificed style to content. I simply don't have the energy or interest to write another piece of joined up prose about the GBCS. Instead I've gone for a simpler format. I quote directly from OSCA2014 (all quotations in italics) and then follow up with my reply.
So here we go then.
1)
What they say:
Whether these seven classes are analytically
useful forms the focus of Bradley’s reflections, whilst Mills expresses doubts
about the point of developing this classification in the first place (since the
NS-SEC is a well-tested and validated measure of class already).
1)
What I say:
I certainly have doubts about
the point of developing the GBCS’s 7 class classification, for reasons that
I’ve given elsewhere, but the mere existence of the NS-SEC is not one of them.
This should really be obvious and it’s a big stretch beyond the facts to say
otherwise. People are free to while away the hours inventing as many class
schema as they like. The only sensible question to ask is: what are they good
for? I’ve asked that question of the GBCS scheme and received no coherent
answer. There’s really nothing more to say.
2) What they say:
…it is striking that none of the response
articles makes any reference to the value of the ‘capitals, assets resources’
approach which informed our work. In particular, many of Mills’ questions about
how we see the nature and scope of class analysis have been amply outlined in
this literature, which he does not address (even though much of it is cited in
our reference list).
2) What I say:
This is, to say the least, disingenuous in the extreme. Savage et al.
know full well that in my original blog, in the longer critique I submitted to Sociology (which was desk rejected with
the editorial comment: “…we do not want article length responses to Savage et
al.”) and elsewhere I do take up the issue of the ‘capitals, assets, resources’
approach. Stripped of all the pretentious Bourdieusian verbiage there isn’t
much to say, especially when, as now seems to be the case, the point has been
conceded that ‘capitals’ is, in practice, just another word for resources. By the way Geoffrey Hodgson has just published an article in CJE which makes many points about the vacuous use of the word 'capital' in sociology and economics much more clearly than I can.
3) What they say:
What is now at stake is the monopoly of the
NS-SEC, institutionalised through the Office of National Statistics, to be the
only public measure of class. We take this to be one of the reasons for the
aggressive tone which Mills adopts in his response, which does not appear to be
explicable as a reaction to the tone of our article which is respectful to
different parties, including the proponents of NS-SEC, throughout.
3) What I say
Wow, that first sentence is portentous…and inaccurate. ONS has no such
monopoly. Users of data – even ONS data - are free to code it up to any class
schema they desire. Nobody is preventing them from doing so. As the national
statistics provider ONS will obviously choose to use certain standard tools –
like the NS-SEC - that are the product
of a carefully considered process of development and validation. A process, by
the way, that involved extensive consultation with end users some of whom were
even sociologists. This is what a national statistics provider does –develop measures
of things where the details of how the measure was constructed are in the
public domain. Sure, lots of people use the NS-SECs, why shouldn’t they? But
they are not compelled to do so and the invocation of the word ‘monopoly’ is
just a shabby rhetorical device employed in the service of what appears to be
little more than self-aggrandisement.
There is literally nothing at stake here and can’t be until such times
as Savage et al. place in the public domain sufficient details about how to
code data to their schema. That means, in case they are wondering, revealing
the parameter estimates from their preferred latent profile model, something
they so far seem remarkably reluctant to do. Potential users will also be
interested in seeing the standard errors for these estimates (now I’ve got my
tongue in my cheek for I know full well that there is no coherent way of
producing them) so they can make a sensible evaluation of the reliability of
the resulting classification. Oh, and of course, users will also have to have a
data-set containing all of the variable, measured in exactly the same way, that
go into Savage et al.’s statistical model.
Let’s face it chums, this isn’t going to happen. Quixote has tilted at
his windmill and the NS-SECs are safe.
4) What they say:
Firstly, and amply marked in Mills’ article,
is the emphasis on (1) class as a ‘discrete’ variable, which
needs to be delineated and differentiated from any other property with which it
might be contingently affiliated. This endeavour to define class as a unitary
variable can then lead to a broader project of empirically assessing its
significance for other outcomes through using various kinds of multivariate
model. It follows that, for this perspective, class needs to be differentiated
from anything else with which it might be associated (status, gender, age,
ethnicity, residential location, or whatever) so that it is stripped bare as a
unitary phenomenon and its net significance registered. Much of Mills’
hostility to our article appears to be – no doubt deeply and genuinely held –
bafflement that class could be anything other than a discrete, validated
variable of this kind.
However, as we thought we made clear, our
preferred definition of class is different to this. We are seeking a measure of
class as (2) class formation. Here,
the crystallisation of different properties renders a class as having a social
existence over and above the different factors which make it up. It is in this
sense that historians have been interested in classes, not as ‘pure’ variables
stripped of contaminants, but as distinctive social formations.
4) What I say:
The important words here are ‘contingently affiliated’. Let’s back up a little bit and make things
concrete by talking about some examples.
When a class schema was being created for the Oxford Social Mobility
Survey – way back in the middle of the 1970s – an important strategic choice
confronted the investigators. How should apprentices be treated? To understand
this you have to appreciate that the class categories were constructed by
combining (cross-classifying) occupational titles (actually OPCS occupational
groups) and employment status. But what was the employment status of an
apprentice? Were they simply an employee, like other employees? And, what for
that matter was their occupation? Was an apprentice fitter the same occupation
as a fitter?
These are questions which have no obviously correct answer. They require
a judgment that involves considering the purposes to which the schema would be
put. In this case the study of social class mobility. Once the purpose is
established it becomes a little easier to think about these issues. What would
happen if we created a class schema in which an apprentice fitter automatically
changed social class on completion of his apprenticeship? Well, given the
number of people who at that time had served apprenticeships, one consequence
would be that one would appear to observe large amounts of social class
mobility. Clearly something does change when people completed their
apprenticeship – for one thing they got a higher wage – but did they change
social class? It is not immediately obvious that they did so. The OMS
investigators decided that apprentices should be coded to the
occupation/employment status combination of the job they were training for.
Another example. In the 1980s there was a lot of discussion about
whether the proper unit for ‘class analysis’ was the household or the
individual. Furthermore, if it was the household, should equal weight be given
to both partners of a conjugal pair? One
proposal was to say yes in answer to this question and propose that a
household’s class position changed when the work status or the class position
of either a husband or a wife changed. Again there is no correct answer to the
question, there are simply logical consequences of doing things one way rather
than another. The joint household definition never really took off because of
one of these consequences. In a world where women’s connection to the labour
market is discontinuous households would change social classes as the hours of
female labour market participation rose and fell generating an enormous amount
of apparent social class mobility. Now, nobody would deny that levels of
household welfare might rise and fall to mirror this, but is this the same as
saying that people change their social classes?
The point is this: conceptualisation implies choices and choices have consequences. Whether these consequences are acceptable or unacceptable depends upon the purpose of the conceptualisation. Not everything can be in focus at the same time. But if you don't spell out what the purpose of your conceptualisation is then you can't really be taken seriously because you are essentially just allowing yourself to say and see whatever you want or whatever suits the needs of the current argument. We all cut ourselves some slack from time to time, but this approach is right off the lead!
Now what about 'class formation'? Without further elaboration it is difficult to know exactly what Savage et al. have in mind. But let me make a guess that the spirit is captured in Edward Thompson's words:
" I do not see class as a 'structure', nor even as a 'category', but as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships."
I also don't see it as a 'structure' , but I do see it as a category - or at least a concept - for the simple reason that this is what it is. It's a tool that we use to organise our understanding of things that have happened to real people in real human relationships. Their experiences are real as are their relationships and they may or may not have characteristics which we choose to label class experiences or class relationships. Whether the individuals themselves do so or not is in one sense irrelevant - if workers die young of industrial diseases it matters not a jot to the sociologist of health whether the dying recognize themselves and their fellows as workers - and in another sense highly relevant - ie if they recognize themselves as a class or use a vocabulary of class this may have consequences in the real world for how they organize themselves to pursue their interests. This however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether of not some abstract category is 'stripped of contaminants' and the introduction of this argument by Savage et al is nothing but a red herring.
5) What they say
The alternative path was pursued by
Goldthorpe who sought to pull the concept of class clearly apart from any
reference to exploitation at all (e.g. Goldthorpe, 2000b; Goldthorpe and Marshall, 1992).
Increasingly indebted to economists’ analysis of the nature of labour and
employment contracts as a means of monitoring their workers, he specifically
insists that there are no ‘zero-sum’ conflicts between classes.
5) What I say
Go back and read the relevant passages. For example here is Goldthorpe & Marshall (1992):
“Secondly, class analysis as we understand it implies no theory of class
exploitation, according to which all class relations must be necessarily and
exclusively antagonistic, and from which the objective basis for a critical
economics and sociology can be directly obtained. Although exponents of class
analysis in our sense would certainly see conflict as being inherent within
class relations, this does not require them to adhere to a labour theory of
value, or indeed any other doctrine entailing exploitation as understood in Marxist
discourse. Nor must they suppose, as is suggested by Sørensen (1991:73) that
what is to the advantage of one class must always
and entirely be to the disadvantage
of another. In fact much interest has of late centred on theoretical discussion
of the conditions under which class relations may be better understood as a
positive-sum (or negative-sum) rather than as a simple zero-sum game. And this
interest has then been reflected in substantive studies in a concern with the
part that may be played by class compromises in for example, labour relations
or the development of national political economies and welfare states (cf. the papers collected in Goldthorpe
(ed.) 1984).”
And
here is Goldthorpe (2000b)
“I am puzzled by
Sørensen’s use of the concept of exploitation—a word that I would myself gladly
see disappear from the sociological lexicon—since it is not clear that it plays
any vital role in his arguments. Its function in Marxist thought was to allow a
fusion of normative and positive claims in a way that I would find
unacceptable, as also, I believe, would Sørensen. For example, it is evident
that he would regard the elimination of rents, and thus of exploitation, from
labor markets as tending often to have highly negative human consequences. If
invoking exploitation is no more than a way of flagging the presence of
structurally opposed class interests that lead to zero-sum conflicts, then its
use is innocuous but scarcely necessary.”
Professor
Savage really must do his homework more carefully. Goldthorpe does not insist
that “…there are no ‘zero sum’ conflicts between classes”. How he (Savage) could have
come to persuade himself otherwise must remain a matter for speculation, but
there is really no substitute for reading carefully what other people write, making
a serious effort to understand it and most importantly representing it
correctly. Clearly these are not fashionable practices or ones that will bring
glittering prizes but I would have thought that it was required of any academic
with a modicum of self-respect.
6) What they say
According to Mills, and to other critics such as Goldthorpe (2013), our
findings are simply a ‘data dredging exercise’. Now, as we emphasised in our
article, it is definitely the case that our analysis is as good as the
construction of the variables, and hence ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ definitely
applies. Because our latent profile analysis has established seven classes out
of the mix of measures which were used to construct them, it does not follow
that we have defined seven ‘formed’ classes. For this to be the case, we need
to reflect on whether they appear to make sociological sense, and whether they
might be identifying a group which potentially has some coherence. Mills is of
the view that the classes are partly an artefact of our variable construction.
In our defence, let us firstly explain why we think our measures of capital are
sociologically robust, and then go on to consider the plausibility of the kind
of class groupings that the latent profile analysis produces.
6) What I say
I'm certainly critical of the way in which Savage et al. translate their concepts into measurements and it must be the case that what comes out of an inductive exercise is a function of what goes in - including the amount of information (N is arbitrary). My feeling is that any sociologist that couldn't construct a plausible sounding account of whatever comes out of a sausage machine is probably in the wrong profession. We all know how easy it is to come up with just so stories. If you had specified before hand what you expected to find and then demonstrated that you found it, I'd have taken you more seriously. But that's not what you did. Please can you tell me what the fine sounding phrase 'sociologically robust' means? Robust to what?
7) What they say
Similarly, our thinking about cultural
capital is informed by extensive previous research,
notably that reported in Culture, Class, Distinction (Bennett et al., 2009) and
we are surprised that few of our critics, notably Mills, seem to have sought
out this book to inspect more fully the underpinning of our thinking. We
briefly repeat some especially salient points.
7) What I say
Vanity oh vanity! It is obviously inconceivable to Savage et al. that
anyone could have read Bennett et al. (which I have, I even inflicted it on some
of my students last year, though I’m not entirely sure they all enjoyed the
experience) without finding much in it that illuminated anything terribly
pertinent. I certainly didn’t find their
discussion of ‘capitals’ very persuasive or in fact coherent. How they can
claim to know what I have or haven’t sought out is a bit of a mystery to me.
8) What they say
Mills’ argument is that the questions on
cultural practices (for instance, a taste for certain kinds of music) conflate
age and class, but he seems to assert an almost ‘naturalist’ view that being
young or old necessarily imparts a pre-disposition to certain cultural
practices.
8) What I say
Of course I say no such thing and this whole sentence is just a sly smear.
I don’t know what a ‘naturalist’ account of cultural tastes would look like (do
they mean to imply I think that cultural tastes are genetically programmed?)
but the use of the term is obviously selected to produce a knee-jerk reaction
of the boo-hiss type.
It is a fact that tastes for certain types of music are strongly
correlated with age. Bennett et al’s and Savage et al’s data clearly show this
and it is no way surprising. So are tastes (or the capacity) for certain types
of pastime – for example going to the gym, participating in sports, etc. So, to
a lesser degree, are eating out choices and watching Disney movies(when you
have young kids you don’t eat out as much as you used to and when you do you tend to go to places that will
make the kids happy, McDonald's, Pizza Express or the branch of Giraffe at the
local Tesco).
In my view the association with
age is most straightforwardly described in terms of cohort, period or age
differences. I simply can’t see what is to be gained from saying that someone
who stops playing Sunday League football at age 40 because they’ve become too slow, or that someone who takes advantage of
the kids growing up to go out for a curry and a pint on Friday night, has
changed social class. This is what my understanding of the logic of Savage et
al’s approach implies. They can define the word ‘class’ in any way they want.
But if they wish to be taken seriously they must then acknowledge the
consequences of their definitional decisions wherever these may lead. If they
lead to the original conception collapsing under the weight of absurdities then
that should tell them that their conception wasn’t fit for purpose in the first
place.
9) What they say
Secondly, Mills claims that the cultural
tastes and practices revealed in our Figures 1 and 2 (Savage et al., 2013) are
actually the product of the NS-SEC class divisions which we are supposed to
‘disdain’. We would never deny – and indeed have ourselves argued that – NS-SEC
classes are associated with these patterns (as are income, educational
qualifications, and other indicators of social hierarchy, see Bennett et al., 2009).
However, it does not follow that occupational class is the best predictor of
such cultural patterns, and indeed there is extensive research which we cited
in our article (such as by Chan, Goldthorpe, as well as by ourselves) which
argues otherwise. Our own comment, which he cites, was a discussion of these
other sources.
9) What I say
Firstly I challenge Savage et al to show where exactly I say that cultural
tastes and practices “…are actually the product of the NS-SEC class divisions”.
They won’t be able to do that because the statement is a figment of their
imagination. I hope they have the common courtesy to retract a claim that is
blatantly false. Secondly they say( pp 222 of the original article):
“..the schema[referring to the
Goldthorpe class schema and derivatives thereof] has been shown to be of less
use in explicating the wider cultural and social activities and identities (see
generally Devine, 1998; Savage, 2000), which
do not appear to be closely linked to people’s class position, as defined by
the Goldthorpe class schema [my emphasis], and alternative schemas have
been proposed to explain patterns of cultural consumption (Le Roux et al.,
2008)”
Rather self-evidently they are not referring to discussion in the work
of others as they only cite themselves. QED their new claim directly contradict
their own words - compare: “We would
never deny …that – NS-SEC classes are associated with these patterns”
versus “…which do not appear to be
closely linked to people’s class position”. It’s difficult to know how to have
a rational conversation with people that insist on maintaining two
contradictory positions and then appeal to one or the other as they find convenient.
10) What they say
But it is quite erroneous to see our classes
as simply the product of age divisions, as in Mills’ claim that ‘(L)ife cycle
plays a role in distinguishing what Savage et al. term the “elite” and the
“established middle class”’. Because the elite are 11 years older than the
established middle classes, he thinks this will explain the superior economic
capital which the older ‘naturally’ accrue. But in fact, at least as far as
household income is concerned, Goldthorpe and McKnight (2004)
show that 57-year-olds in class 1 and 2 are actually likely to have marginally
lower income than 46-year-olds.
10) What I say
Again Professor Savage needs to make a better job of his homework.
Goldthorpe and McKnight (2004) say nothing at all about household income. What
they examine is individual earnings from full-time employment. Household income
and individual earnings from employment are not the same thing (obviously). So
the citation is completely irrelevant. Honestly, I expect higher standards from
my MSc students.
11) What they say
It is a striking point that none of the four
responses, with the partial exception of Bradley, reflects on whether or not
the seven classes we delineated might be sociologically resonant.
11) What I say
I’ve no idea what ‘sociological resonance’ is: it doesn’t ring a bell.
Perhaps it’s a close relation of that mainstay of rogues and charlatans – the appeal
to the ‘sociological imagination’
12) What they say
Mills implies at various points that it is easy to change cultural practices (for instance, in his comment about how changing Facebook friends might entail a change of class) and therefore that these are not sociologically salient. Given the extent of sociological research which emphasises the powerful social structuring of cultural practices, it would be helpful for Mills to have produced sociological evidence for his alternative view.
12) What I say
This is a remarkably silly comment. For starters I don't know what sociological saliency means in this context and secondly the validity of my argument doesn't depend on the citation of examples. It shouldn't take a genius to see that if you define a movement between social classes as being a movement between jobs that have different contractual employment conditions attached to them then a precondition for social class mobility is that somebody gives you a job. This is not something that is just a matter of will. No matter how much I might want to be an investment banker if I can't persuade a bank to hire me then wishing won't make it so. On the other hand if going to Abigail's Party means that I have to affect a liking for Demis Roussos I can easily go to Amazon & download a few MP3s so that I know what I'm letting myself in for. Becoming an investment banker involves surmounting a solid obstacle. Saying you like Demis Roussos or even learning to like him does not (though admittedly the latter is not without its challenges).
Posts
