DAVID B. GRUSKY

The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality

In advanced industrial societies, much rhe- migrating workers, yet the positions them- toric and social policy have been directed selves and the reward packages attached to against economic and social inequality, yet de- them typically change only gradually. As spite such efforts the brute facts of poverty Schumpeter (1953, 171) puts it, the occupa- and massive inequality are still everywhere tional structure can be seen as "a hotel . . . with us. The human condition has so far been which is always occupied, but always by dif- a fundamentally unequal one; indeed, all ferent persons." known societies have been characterized by The contents of these reward packages inequalities of some kind, with the most privi- may well differ across modern societies, but leged individuals or families enjoying a dis- the range of variability appears not to be proportionate share of power, prestige, and great. We have listed in Table 1 the various other valued resources. The task of contem- goods and assets that have been socially val- porary stratification research is to describe the ued in past or present societies (for related contours and distribution of inequality and to listings, see Kerbo 2000, 43-44; Rothman explain its persistence despite modern egali- 1999, 2-4; Gilbert 1998, 11-14; Duncan tarian or anti-stratification values. 1968, 686-90; Runciman 1968; Svalastoga The term stratification system refers to the 1965,70).2 In constructing this table, we have complex of social institutions that generate followed the usual objective of including all observed inequalities of this sort. The key those goods that are valuable in their own components of such systems are (1)the insti- right (i.e., consumption goods) while exclud- tutional processes that define certain types of ing any "second-order goods" (i.e., invest- goods as valuable and desirable, (2)the rules ments) that are deemed valuable only insofar of allocation that distribute these goods as they provide access to other intrinsically across various positions or occupations in the desirable goods. The resulting list nonetheless division of labor (e.g., doctor, farmer, "house- includes resources and assets that serve some wife"), and (3) the mobility mechanisms that investment functions. For example, most link individuals to occupations and thereby economists regard schooling as an investment generate unequal control over valued re- that generates future streams of income (see sources. It follows that inequality is produced Becker 1975), and some sociologists likewise by two types of matching processes: The so- regard cultural resources (e.g., Bourdieu cial roles in society are first matched to "re- 1977) or social networks (e.g., Coleman ward packages" of unequal value, and indi- 1990) as forms of capital that can be parlayed vidual members of society are then allocated into educational credentials and other goods.3 to the positions so defined and rewarded.' In Although most of the assets listed in Table 1 all societies, there is a constant flux of occu- are clearly convertible in this fashion, they are pational incumbents as newcomers enter the not necessarily regarded as investments by the labor force and replace dying, retiring, or out- individuals involved. In fact, many valuable TABLE 1 Types of Assets, Resources, and Valued Goods Underlying Stratification Systems

Asset Group Selected Examples Relevant Scholars

1. Economic Ownership of land, farms, factories, professional practices, Karl Marx; Erik Wright businesses, liquid assets, humans (i.e., slaves), labor power (e.g., serfs)

2. Political Household authority (e.g., head of household); workplace Max Weber; Ralf Dahrendorf authority (e.g., manager); party and societal authority (e.g., legislator); charismatic leader

3. Cultural High-status consumption practices; "good manners"; privileged Pierre Bourdieu; Paul DiMaggio lifestyle

4. Social Access to high-status social networks, social ties, associations W. Lloyd Warner; James Coleman and clubs, union memberships

5. Honorific Prestige; "good reputationn; fame; deference and derogation; Edward Shils; Donald Treiman ethnic and religious purity

6. Civil Rights of property, contract, franchise, and membership in T. H. Marshall; Rogers Brubaker elective assemblies; freedom of association and speech

7. Human Skills; expertise; on-the-job training; experience; formal Kaare Svalastoga; Gary Becker education; knowledge

assets can be secured at birth or through scholars therefore refer to the "effects" of childhood socialization (e.g., the "good man- class location on the assets that their incum- ners" of the aristocracy), and they are there- bents control (see the following section for fore acquired without the beneficiaries explic- details). itly weighing the costs of acquisition against The goal of stratification research has thus the benefits of future returns.4 been reduced to describing the structure of The implicit claim underlying Table 1 is these social classes and specifying the pro- that the listed assets exhaust all possible con- cesses by which they are generated and main- sumption goods and, as such, constitute the tained. The following types of questions are raw materials of stratification systems. Given central to the field: the complexity of modern reward systems, one might expect stratification scholars to Forms and sources of stratification: adopt a multidimensional approach, with the What are the major forms of inequality objective being to describe and explain the in human history? Can the ubiquity of multivariate distribution of goods. Although inequality be attributed to individual some scholars have indeed advocated a multi- differences in talent or ability? Is some dimensional approach of this sort (e.g., Hal- form of inequality an inevitable feature aby and Weakliem 1993; Landecker 198l), of human life? most have instead opted to characterize strati- The structure of contemporary stratifi- fication systems in terms of discrete classes or cation: What are the principal "fault strata whose members are endowed with sim- lines" or social cleavages that define the ilar levels or types of assets. In the most ex- contemporary class structure? Have treme versions of this approach, the resulting these cleavages strengthened or weak- classes are assumed to be real entities that ened with the transition to modernity pre-exist the distribution of assets, and many and postmodernity? Generating stratification: How fre- rights) but also economic assets in the form of quently do individuals move into new land, property, and the means of production. classes, occupations, or income groups? In its most radical form, this economic egali- Is there a permanent "underclass?" To tarianism led to Marxist interpretations of what extent are occupational outcomes human history, and it ultimately provided the determined by such forces as intelli- intellectual underpinnings for socialist stratifi- gence, effort, schooling, aspirations, so- cation systems. Although much of stratifica- cial contacts, and individual luck? tion theory has been formulated in reaction The consequences of stratification: How and opposition to these early forms of Marx- are the lifestyles, attitudes, and behav- ist scholarship,s the field nonetheless shares iors of individuals shaped by their class with Marxism a distinctively modern (i.e., locations? Are there identifiable "class Enlightenment) orientation based on the cultures" in past and present societies? premise that individuals are "ultimately Ascriptive processes: What types of so- morally equal" (see Meyer 2001; see also cial processes and state policies serve to Tawney 1931). This premise implies that is- maintain or alter racial, ethnic, and sex sues of inequality are critical in evaluating the discrimination in labor markets? Have legitimacy of stratification systems. these forms of discrimination weakened The purpose of the present volume is to ac- or strengthened with the transition to quaint readers with some of these modern modernity and postmodernity? theories and analyses. As has frequently been The future of stratification: Will stratifi- noted (e.g., Grusky and Takata 1992), the cation systems take on completely new field of stratification covers an exceedingly di- and distinctive forms in the future? verse terrain, and we shall therefore delimit How unequal will these systems be? Is our review by first defining some core stratifi- the concept of social class still useful in cation concepts and then focusing on the six describing postmodern forms of stratifi- classes of empirical questions previously iden- cation? Are stratification systems gradu- tified. The readings presented after this intro- ally shedding their distinctive features ductory essay are likewise organized around and converging toward some common the same set of empirical questions.

(i.e., "postmodern") regime? <

The foregoing questions all adopt a critical Basic Concepts and orientation to human stratification systems Simpiifyino Strate~ies that is distinctively modern in its underpin- nings. For the greater part of human history, The stratification literature has developed its the existing stratification order was regarded own vocabulary to describe the distribution as an immutable feature of society, and the of assets, goods, and resources listed in Table implicit objective of commentators was to ex- 1. The key concepts of this literature can be plain or justify this order in terms of religious defined as follows: or quasi-religious doctrines (see Bottomore 1965; Tawney 1931). It was only with the En- 1. The degree of inequality in a given re- lightenment that a critical "rhetoric of equal- ward or asset depends, of course, on its ity" emerged in opposition to the civil and le- dispersion or concentration across the gal advantages of the aristocracy and other individuals in the population. Although privileged status groupings. After these ad- many scholars seek to characterize the vantages were largely eliminated in the eight- overall level of societal inequality with a eenth and nineteenth centuries, the same egal- single parameter, such attempts will ob- itarian ideal was extended and recast to viously be compromised insofar as some encompass not merely civil assets (e.g., voting types of rewards are distributed more equally than others. This complexity class") will consistently appear at the clearly arises in the case of modern bottom of the stratification system. By stratification systems; for example, the contrast, various types of status incon- recent emergence of "citizenship rights" sistencies (e.g., a poorly educated mil- implies that civil goods are now widely lionaire) will emerge in stratification dispersed across all citizens, whereas systems with weakly correlated hierar- economic and political goods continue chies, and it is correspondingly difficult to be disproportionately controlled by a in such systems to define a unitary set of relatively small elite (see, e.g., Marshall classes that have predictive power with 1981). respect to all resources. 2. The rigidity of a stratification system is indexed by the continuity (over time) in The foregoing discussion suggests, then, the social standing of its members. The that stratification systems are complex and stratification system is said to be highly multidimensional. However, many scholars rigid, for example, if the current wealth, are quick to argue that this complexity is power, or prestige of individuals can be mere "surface appearance," with the implica- accurately predicted on the basis of tion being that stratification systems can in their prior statuses or those of their par- fact be adequately understood with a smaller ents. It should again be emphasized that and simpler set of principles. We shall proceed the amount of rigidity (or "social clo- by reviewing three simplifying assumptions sure") in any given society will typically that have proved to be especially popular. vary across the different types of re- sources and assets listed in Table 1. 3. The stratification system rests on ascrip- tive processes to the extent that traits The prevailing approach is to claim that only present at birth (e.g., sex, race, ethnic- one of the "asset groups" in Table 1 is truly ity, parental wealth, nationality) influ- fundamental in understanding the structure, ence the subsequent social standing of sources, or evolution of societal stratification.' individuals. If ascriptive processes of There are nearly as many claims of this sort as this sort are in operation, it is possible there are dimensions in Table 1. To be sure, (but by no means guaranteed) that the Marx is most commonly criticized (with some underlying traits themselves will be- justification) for placing "almost exclusive come bases for group formation and emphasis on economic factors as determi- collective action (e.g., race riots, femi- nants of social class" (Lipset 1968, 300), but nist movements). In modern societies, in fact much of what passes for stratification ascription of all kinds is usually seen as theorizing amounts to reductionism of one undesirable or discriminatory, and form or another. Among non-Marxist schol- much governmental policy is therefore ars, inequalities in honor or power are fre- directed toward fashioning a stratifica- quently regarded as the most fundamental tion system in which individuals acquire sources of class formation, whereas the distri- resources solely by virtue of their bution of economic assets is seen as purely achievements.6 secondary (or "epiphenomenal" ). For exam- 4. The degree of status crystallization is in- ple, Dahrendorf (1959, 172) argues that "dif- dexed by the correlations among the as- ferential authority in associations is the ulti- sets in Table 1. If these correlations are mate 'cause' of the formation of conflict strong, the same individuals (i.e., the groups" (see also Lenski 1966), and Shils "upper class") will consistently appear (1968, 130) suggests that "without the inter- at the top of all status hierarchies, while vention of considerations of deference posi- other individuals (i.e., the "lower tion the . . . inequalities in the distribution of any particular facility or reward would not bers to locate their peers in a hierarchy of so- be grouped into a relatively small number cial classes (e.g., Warner 1949). Under the lat- of vaguely bounded strata." These extreme ter approach, a synthetic classification is no forms of reductionism have been less popular longer secured by ranking and sorting occu- of late; indeed, even neo-Marxian scholars pations in terms of the bundles of rewards at- now typically recognize several stratification tached to them, but rather by passing the raw dimensions, with the social classes of interest data of inequality through the fulcrum of in- then being defined as particular combinations dividual judgment.8 of scores on the selected variables (e.g., Wright 1997; see also Bourdieu 1984). The Classification Exercises contributions in Part I11 of this volume were selected, in part, to acquaint readers with Regardless of whether a reductionist or syn- these various claims and the arguments on thesizing approach is taken, most scholars which they are based. adopt the final simplifying step of defining a relatively small number of discrete classes.9 Syntheshina Approaches For example, Parkin (1971,25) argues for six occupational classes with the principal There is an equally long tradition of research "cleavage falling between the manual and based on synthetic measures that simultane- non-manual categories," whereas Dahrendorf ously tap a wide range of assets and re- (1959, 170) argues for a two-class solution sources. As noted above, many of the rewards with a "clear line drawn between those who in Table 1 (e.g., income) are principally allo- participate in the exercise [of authority] . . . cated through the jobs or social roles that in- and those who are subject to the authoritative dividuals occupy, and one can therefore mea- commands of others."lO Although close vari- sure the standing of individuals by classifying ants of the Parkin scheme continue to be used, them in terms of their social positions. In this the emerging convention among quantitative context, Parkin (1971, 18) has referred to the stratification scholars is to apply either the occupational structure as the "backbone of 12-category neo-Marxian scheme fashioned the entire reward system of modern Western by Wright (1997; 1989; 1985) or the 11- society," and Hauser and Featherman (1977, category neo-Weberian scheme devised by 4) argue that studies "framed in terms of oc- Erikson and Goldthorpe (2001; 1992). At the cupational mobility . . . yield information si- same time, new classification schemes con- multaneously (albeit, indirectly) on status tinue to be regularly proposed, with the impe- power, economic power, and political power" tus for such efforts typically being the contin- (see also Duncan 1968, 689-90; Parsons uing expansion of the service sector (e.g., 1954, 326-29). The most recent representa- Esping-Apdersen 1999; 1993) or the associ- tives of this position, Grusky and Ssrensen ated growth of contingent work relations (1998), have argued that detailed occupations (e.g., Perrucci and Wysong 1999). The ques- are not only the main conduits through which tion that necessarily arises for all contempo- valued goods are disbursed but are also rary schemes is whether the constituent cate- deeply institutionalized categories that are gories are purely nominal entities or are truly salient to workers, constitute meaningful so- meaningful to the individuals involved. If the cial communities and reference groups, and categories are intended to be meaningful, one provide enduring bases of collective action would expect class members not only to be (see also Grusky and Ssrensen 2001). Al- aware of their membership (i.e., "class aware- though occupations continue, then, to be the ness") but also to identify with their class preferred measure within this tradition, other (i.e., "class identification") and occasionally scholars have pursued the same synthesizing act on its behalf (i.e., "class actionW).llThere objective by simply asking community mem- is no shortage of debate about the condi- tions under which classes of this (real) sort class membership and each of the assets listed are generated. in Table 1 (see column 6).12 The final column The simplifying devices listed here are dis- in Table 2 rests on the further assumption that cussed in greater detail in our review of stratification systems have (reasonably) coher- contemporary models of class and status ent ideologies that legitimate the rules and cri- groupings (see "The Structure of Modern teria by which individuals are allocated to po- Stratification"). However, rather than turning sitions in the class structure (see column 7). In directly to the analysis of contemporary sys- most cases, ideologies of this kind are largely tems, we first set the stage by outlining a conservative in their effects, but they can highly stylized and compressed history of the sometimes serve as forces for change as well stratification forms that appear in premodern, as stability. For example, if the facts of labor modern, and postmodern periods. market processes are inconsistent with the prevailing ideology (e.g., racial discrimination in advanced industrial societies), then various Farms of Stratification sorts of ameliorative action might be antici- pated (e.g., affirmative action programs). The stratification forms represented in The starting point for any comparative analy- Table 2 should thus be seen as ideal types sis of social inequality is the purely descriptive rather than as viable descriptions of real sys- task of classifying various types of stratifica- tems existing in the past or present. In con- tion systems. The staple of modern classifica- structing these categories, our intention is not tion efforts has been the tripartite distinction to make empirical claims about how existing among class, caste, and estate (e.g., Tumin systems operate in practice, but rather to cap- 1985; Svalastoga 1965), but there is also a ture (and distill) the accumulated wisdom long and illustrious tradition of Marxian ty- about how these systems might operate in pological work that introduces the additional their purest form. These ideal-typical models categories of primitive communism, slave so- can nonetheless assist us in understanding em- ciety, and socialism (see Wright 1985; Marx pirical systems. Indeed, insofar as societies [I9391 1971). As shown in Table 2, these con- evolve through the gradual "overlaying" of ventional approaches are largely (but not en- new stratification forms on older (and partly tirely) complementary, and it is therefore pos- superseded) ones, it becomes possible to inter- sible to fashion a hybrid classification that pret contemporary systems as a complex mix- incorporates most of the standard distinctions ture of several of the ideal types presented in (for related work, see Kerbo 2000; Rossides Table 2 (see Schumpeter 1951). 1996; Runciman 1974). The first panel in this table pertains to the The typology presented here relies heavily "primitiveyy,tribal systems that dominated hu- on some of the simplifying devices discussed man society from the very beginning of earlier. For each of the stratification forms human evolution until the Neolithic revolu- listed in Table 2, we have assumed not only tion of some 10,000 years ago. The character- that certain types of assets tend to emerge as izations of columns 2-7 necessarily conceal the dominant stratifying forces (see column much variability; as Anderson (1974, 549) 2), but also that the asset groups so identified puts it, "merely in the night of our ignorance constitute the major axis around which social [do] all alien shapes take on the same hue." classes or status groupings are organized (see These variable features of tribal societies are column 3). If the latter assumptions hold, the clearly of interest, but for our purposes the rigidity of stratification systems can be in- important similarities are that (1) the total dexed by the amount of class persistence (see size of the distributable surplus was in all column 5), and the degree of crystallization cases quite limited, and (2) this cap on the can be indexed by the correlation between surplus placed corresponding limits on the TABLE 2 Basic Parameters of Stratification for Eight Ideal-Typical Systems Major Strata Crystalliza- Justifying System Principal Assets or Classes Inequality Rigidity tion Ideology (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) A. Hunting and gathering society 1. Tribalism Human (hunting Chiefs, shamans, Low Low High Meritocratic and magic skills) and other tribe selection members B. Horticultural and agrarian society 2. Asiatic Political (i.e., Office-holders and High Medium High Tradition and mode incumbency of peasants religious doctrine state office) 3. Feudalism Economic (land . Nobility, clergy, High Medium- High Tradition and and labor power) and commoners High Roman Catholic doctrine 4. Slavery Economic (human Slave owners, High Medium- High Doctrine of natural P~OFW) slaves, Vree menn High and social inferior- ity (of slaves) 5. Caste Honorific and Castes and High High High Tradition and society cultural (ethnic subcastes Hindu religious purity and "pure" doctrine lifestyles) C. Industrial society 6. Class Economic (means Capitalists and Medium- Medium High Classical liberalism system of production) workers High 7. State Political (party Managers and Low- Low- High Marxism and socialism and workplace managed Medium Medium Leninism authority) 8. 'Adanced" Human (i.e., Skill-based Medium Low- Medium Classical liberalism industrialism education, occupational Medium expertise) groupings

overall level of economic inequality (but not and the tribal chief could exert considerable necessarily on other forms of inequality). It influence on the political decisions of the should also be noted that customs such as day. However, these residual forms of power gift exchange, food sharing, and the like and privilege were never directly inherited, were commonly practiced in tribal societies nor were they typically allocated in accord and had obvious redistributive effects. In with well-defined ascriptive traits (e.g., racial fact, some observers (e.g., Marx [I9391 traits).l3 It was only by demonstrating supe- 1971) treated these societies as examples of rior skills in hunting, magic, or leadership "primitive communism," because the means that tribal members could secure political of- of production (e.g., tools, land) were owned fice or acquire status and prestige (see Kerbo collectively and other types of property typi- 2000; Nolan and Lenski 1998; Lenski 1966). cally were distributed evenly among tribal Although meritocratic forms of allocation members. This is not to suggest that a perfect are often seen as prototypically modern, in equality prevailed; after all, the more power- fact they were present in incipient form at ful medicine men (i.e., shamans) often se- the very earliest stages of societal develop- cured a disproportionate share of resources, ment. With the emergence of agrarian forms of that Marx downplayed the Asian case for fear production, the economic surplus became of exposing it as a "parable for socialism" large enough to support more complex sys- (see Gouldner 1980, 324-52; see also Wittfo- tems of stratification. Among Marxist theo- gel 1981). rists (e.g., Godelier 1978; Chesneaux l964), Whereas the institution of private property the "Asiatic mode" is often treated as an in- was underdeveloped in the East, the ruling termediate formation in the transition to ad- class under Western feudalism was, by con- vanced agrarian society (e.g., feudalism), and trast, very much a propertied one.16 The dis- we have therefore led off our typology with tinctive feature of feudalism was that the no- the Asiatic case (see line B2).14 In doing so, we bility not only owned large estates or manors should emphasize that the explicit evolution- but also held legal title to the labor power of ary theories of Godelier (1978) and others its serfs (see line B3).17 If a serf fled to the city, have not been well received, yet many schol- this was considered a form of theft: The serf ars still take the fallback position that Asiati- was stealing that portion of his or her labor cism is an important "analytical, though not power owned by the lord (Wright 1985, 78). chronological, stage" in the development of Under this interpretation, the statuses of serf class society (Hobsbawm 1965, 37; see also and slave differ only in degree, and slavery Anderson 1974,486; Mandel1971,116-39). thereby constitutes the "limiting case" in The main features of this formation are (1)a which workers lose all control over their own large peasant class residing in agricultural vil- labor power (see line B4). At the same time, it lages that are "almost autarkic" (OyLeary would obviously be a mistake to reify this dis- 1989, 17); (2) the absence of strong legal in- tinction, given that the history of agrarian stitutions recognizing private property rights; Europe reveals "almost infinite gradations of (3) a state elite that extracts surplus agricul- subordination" (Bloch 1961, 256) that con- tural production through rents or taxes and fuse and blur the conventional dividing lines expends it on "defense, opulent living, and between slavery, serfdom, and freedom (see the construction of public works" (Shaw Finley 1960 on the complex gradations of 1978, 127);lS and (4) a constant flux in elite Greek slavery; see also Patterson 1982, personnel due to "wars of dynastic succession 21-27). The slavery of Roman society pro- and wars of conquest by nomadic warrior vides the best example of complete subordina- tribes" (OyLeary1989,18; for more extensive tion (Sio 1965), whereas some of the slaves of reviews, see Brook 1989; Krader 1975). the early feudal period were bestowed with Beyond this skeletal outline, all else is open rights of real consequence (e.g., the right to to dispute. There are long-standing debates, sell surplus product), and some of the (nomi- for example, about how widespread the Asi- nally) free men were i~ fact obliged to provide atic mode was (see Mandel 1971, 124-28) rents or services to the manorial lord (Bloch and about the appropriateness of reducing all 1961, 255-74).18 The social classes that forms of Asian development to a "uniform emerged under European agrarianism were residual category" (Anderson 1974, 548-49). thus structured in quite diverse ways. In all These issues are clearly worth pursuing, but cases, we nonetheless find that property own- for our purposes it suffices to note that the ership was firmly established and that the life Asiatic mode provides a conventional exam- chances of individuals were defined, in large ple of how a "dictatorship of officialdom" part, by their control over property in its dif- can flourish in the absence of private property fering forms. Unlike the ideal-typical Asiatic and a well-developed proprietary class case, the nation-state was largely peripheral (Gouldner 1980, 327-28). By this reading of to the feudal stratification system, because the Asiaticism, the parallel with modern socialism means of production (i.e., -land,-labor) were loom; large (at least in some quarters), so controlled by a proprietary class that emerged much so that various scholars have suggested quite independently of the state.19 The historical record makes it clear that ery might be seen as having "caste-like fea- agrarian stratification systems were not al- tures" (see Berreman 1981), but Hindu India ways based on strictly hereditary forms of so- clearly provides the defining case of caste or- cial closure (see panel B, column 5). The case ganization.21 The Indian caste system is based of European feudalism is especially instructive on (1)a hierarchy of status groupings (i.e., in this regard, because it suggests that stratifi- castes) that are ranked by ethnic purity, cation systems often become more rigid as the wealth, and access to goods or services, (2) a underlying institutional forms mature and corresponding set of "closure rules" that re- take shape (see Kelley 1981; Hechter and strict all forms of inter-caste marriage or mo- Brustein 1980; Mosca 1939). Although it is bility and thereby make caste membership well-known that the era of classical feudalism both hereditary and permanent; (3)a high de- (i.e., post-twelfth century) was characterized gree of physical and occupational segregation by a "rigid stratification of social classes" enforced by elaborate rules and rituals gov- (Bloch 1961, 325),20 there was greater per- erning intercaste contact; and (4) a justifying meability during the period prior to the insti- ideology (i.e., Hinduism) that induces the tutionalization of the manorial system and the population to regard such extreme forms of associated transformation of the nobility into inequality as legitimate and appropriate a legal class. In this transitional period, access (Smaje 2000; Bayly 1999; Sharma 1999; to the nobility was not yet legally restricted to Sharma 1997; Jalali 1992; Brass 1985; 1983; the offspring of nobility, nor was marriage Berreman 1981; Dumont 1970; Srinivas across classes or estates formally prohibited 1962; Leach 1960). What makes this system (see Bloch 1961, 320-31, for further details). so distinctive, then, is not merely its well- The case of ancient Greece provides a comple- developed closure rules but also the funda- mentary example of a (relatively) open agrar- mentally honorific (and noneconomic) char- ian society. As Finley (1960) and others have acter of the underlying social hierarchy. As noted, the condition of slavery was indeed indicated in Table 2, the castes of India are heritable under Greek law, yet manumission ranked on a continuum of ethnic and ritual (i.e., the freeing of slaves) was so common purity, with the highest positions in the sys- that the slave class had to be constantly re- tem reserved for castes that prohibit behav- plenished with new captives secured through iors that are seen as dishonorable or "pollut- war or piracy. The possibility of servitude was ing." Under some circumstances, castes that thus something that "no man, woman, or acquired political and economic power even- child, regardless of status or wealth, could be tually advanced in the status hierarchy, yet sure to escape" (Finley 1960, 161). At the they typically did so only after mimicking the same time, hereditary forms of closure were behaviors and lifestyles of higher castes (Srini- more fully developed in some slave systems, vas 1962): most notably the American one. As Sio (1965, The defining feature of the industrial era 303) notes, slavery in the antebullum South (see panel C) has been the emergence of egali- was "hereditary, endogamous, and perma- tarian ideologies and the consequent "delegit- nent," with the annual manumission rate ap- imation" of the extreme forms of stratifica- parently as low as 0.04 percent by 1850 (see tion found in caste, feudal, and slave systems. Patterson 1982, 273). The slave societies of This can be seen, for example, in the Euro- Jamaica, South Africa, and rural Iraq were pean revolutions of the eighteenth and nine- likewise based on largely permanent slave teenth centuries that pitted the egalitarian populations (see Rodriguez and Patterson ideals of the Enlightenment against the privi- 1999; Patterson 1982). leges of rank and the political power of the The most extreme examples of hereditary nobility. In the end, these struggles eliminated closure are of course found in caste societies the last residue of feudal privilege, but they (see line B5). In some respects, American slav- also made new types of inequality and stratifi- cation possible. Under the class system that ized, and various fiscal and economic reforms ultimately emerged (see line C6), the estates of were instituted for the express purpose of re- the feudal era were replaced by purely eco- ducing income inequality and wage differen- nomic groups (i.e., "classes"), and closure tials among manual and nonmanual workers rules based on heredity were likewise sup- (Parkin 1971, 137-59; Giddens 1973, 226- planted by (formally) meritocratic processes. 30). Although these egalitarian policies were The resulting classes were neither legal enti- subsequently weakened through the reform ties nor closed status groupings, and the asso- efforts of Stalin and others, inequality on the ciated class-based inequalities could therefore scale of prerevolutionary society was never be represented and justified as the natural reestablished among rank-and-file workers outcome of competition among individuals (cf. Lenski 2001). There nonetheless remained with differing abilities, motivation, or moral substantial inequalities in power and author- character (i.e., "classical liberalism"). As indi- ity; most notably, the socialization of produc- cated in line C6 of Table 2, the class structure tive forces did not have the intended effect of of early industrialism had a clear "economic empowering workers, as the capitalist class base" (Kerbo 1991, 23), so much so that was replaced by a "new class" of party offi- Marx ([I8941 1972) defined classes in terms cials and managers who continued to control of their relationship to the means of economic the means of production and to allocate the production. The precise contours of the in- resulting social surplus (see Eyal, Szel6nyi, dustrial class structure are nonetheless a mat- and Townsley 2001). This class has been vari- ter of continuing debate (see "The Structure ously identified with intellectuals or intelli- of Contemporary Stratification"); for exam- gentsia (e.g., Gouldner 1979), bureaucrats or ple, a simple Marxian model focuses on the managers (e.g., Rizzi 1985), and party offi- cleavage between capitalists and workers, cials or appointees (e.g., Djilas 1965). Re- whereas more elaborate Marxian and neo- gardless of the formulation adopted, the pre- Marxian models identify additional interven- sumption is that the working class ultimately ing or "contradictory" classes (e.g., Wright lost out in contemporary socialist revolu- 1997; 1985), and yet other (non-Marxian) tions, just as it did in the so-called bourgeois approaches represent the class structure as a revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth continuous gradation of "monetary wealth centuries. and income" (Mayer and Buckley 1970, Whereas the means of production were so- 15).22 cialized in the revolutions of Eastern Europe Whatever the relative merits of these mod- and the former Soviet Union, the capitalist els might be, the ideology underlying the class remained largely intact throughout the socialist revolutions of the nineteenth and process of industrialization in the West. How- twentieth centuries was of course explicitly ever, the propertied class may ultimately be Marxist. The intellectual heritage of these rev- weakened by ongoing structural changes, olutions and their legitimating ideologies can with the most important of these being (1)the again be traced to the Enlightenment, but the rise of a service economy and the growing rhetoric of equality that emerged in this pe- power of the "service class" (Esping-Andersen riod was now directed against the economic 1999; 1993; Goldthorpe 1982; Ehrenreich power of the capitalist class rather than the and Ehrenreich 1979), (2) the increasing cen- status and honorific privileges of the nobility. trality of theoretical knowledge in the transi- The evidence from Eastern Europe and else- tion to a new "information age" (Castells where suggests that these egalitarian ideals 1999; Bell 1973), and (3) the consequent were only partially realized (e.g., Lenski emergence of technical expertise, educational 2000; Szelinyi 1998; Connor 1991). In the degrees, and training certificates as "new immediate postrevolutionary period, factories forms of property" (Berg 1973, 183; Gould- and farms were indeed collectivized or social- ner 1979). The foregoing developments all suggest that human and cultural capital are order" (Davis 1982, 585). In the parlance of replacing economic capital as the principal Table 2, the core claim is that postmodern stratifying forces in advanced industrial soci- stratification involves a radical decline in sta- ety (see line C8). By this formulation, a domi- tus crystallization, as participation in particu- nant class of cultural elites may be emerging lar life-styles or communities is no longer in the West, much as the transition to state so- class-determined and increasingly becomes a cialism (allegedly) generated a new class of in- "function of individual taste, choice, and tellectuals in the East. commitment" (Crook, Pakulski, and Waters This is not to suggest that all theorists of 1992, 222).25 advanced industrialism posit a grand divide This line of argument has not yet been sub- between the cultural elite and an undifferenti- jected to convincing empirical test and may ated working mass. In fact, some commenta- well prove to be premature (for critiques, see tors (e.g., Dahrendorf 1959, 48-57) have Marshall 1997; Hout, Brooks, and Manza argued that skill-based cleavages are crystal- 1993). However, even if lifestyles and life lizing throughout the occupational structure, chances are truly "decoupling" from eco- with the result being a finely differentiated nomic class, this ought not be misunderstood class system made up of discrete occupations as a more general decline in stratification per (Grusky and Sarrensen 1998) or a continuous se. The brute facts of inequality will of course gradation of socioeconomic status (e.g., Par- still be with us even if social classes of the sons 1970; see also Grusky and Van Rompaey conventional form are weakening. As is well- 1992). In nearly all models of advanced in- known, some forms of inequality have in- dustrial society, it is further assumed that edu- creased in recent years (see Levy 1998; cation is the principal mechanism by which Danziger and Gottschalk 1993; 1995), and individuals are sorted into such classes, and others clearly show no signs of disappearing educational institutions thus serve in this con- or withering away. text to "license" human capital and convert it to cultural currency.23 The rise of mass educa- tion is sometimes represented as a rigidifying Sources of Stratification force (e.g., Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), but the prevailing view is that the transition to The preceding sketch makes it clear that a advanced industrialism has equalized life wide range of stratification systems emerged chances and produced a more open society over the course of human history. The ques- (see line C8, column 9.24 tion that arises, then, is whether some form of As postmodernism gains adherents, it has stratification or inequality is an inevitable fea- become fashionable to argue that such con- ture of human society. In taking on this ques- ventional representations of advanced indus- tion, onet turns naturally to the functionalist trialism, both in their Marxian and non- theory of Davis and Moore (1945, 242), as it Marxian form, have become less useful in addresses explicitly "the universal necessity understanding contemporary stratification which calls forth stratification in any system" and its developmental tendencies (e.g., Pakul- (see also Davis 1953; Moore 1963a; 1963b). ski and Waters 1996; Bradley 1996; Crook, The starting point for any functionalist ap- Pakulski, and Waters 1992; Beck 1992; Bau- proach is the premise that all societies must man 1992). Although the postmodern litera- devise some means to motivate the best work- ture is notoriously fragmented, the variants of ers to fill the most important and difficult postmodernism that are relevant for our pur- occupations. This "motivational problem" poses invariably proceed from the assumption might be addressed in a variety of ways, but that class identities, ideologies, and organiza- perhaps the simplest solution is to construct a tion are attenuating and that "new theories, hierarchy of rewards (e.g., prestige, property, perhaps more cultural than structural, [are] in power) that privileges the incumbents of func- tionally significant positions. As noted by power not only to insist on payment of ex- Davis and Moore (1945, 243), this amounts pected rewards but to demand even larger to setting up a system of institutionalized in- ones" (Wrong 1959,774; see also Dahrendorf equality (i.e., a "stratification system"), with 1968). The stratification system thus becomes the occupational structure serving as a con- "self-reproducing" (see Collins 1975) insofar duit through which unequal rewards and as incumbents of important positions use perquisites are allocated. The stratification their power to preserve or extend their privi- system may be seen, therefore, as an "uncon- leges. By this argument, the distribution of re- sciously evolved device by which societies in- wards reflects not only the latent needs of the sure that the important positions are consci- larger society but also the balance of power entiously filled by the most qualified persons" among competing groups and their members. (Davis and Moore 1945,243). The emerging neo-Marxian literature on ex- The Davis-Moore hypothesis has of course ploitative "rents" is directly relevant to such come under criticism from several quarters anti-functionalist formulations, because it (see Huaco 1966 for an early review). The identifies the conditions under which workers prevailing view, at least among postwar com- enjoy economic returns that are greater than mentators, is that the original hypothesis can- training costs (e.g., schooling, wages fore- not adequately account for inequalities in gone) and hence in excess of the functionally "stabilized societies where statuses are as- necessary wage. The standard rent-generating cribed" (Wesolowski 1962, 31; Tumin 1953). tactic among modern workers is to create arti- Indeed, whenever the vacancies in the occupa- ficial labor shortages; that is, excess returns tional structure are allocated on purely hered- can be secured by restricting opportunities for itary grounds, one cannot reasonably argue training or credentialing, as doing so prevents that the reward system is serving its putative additional rent-seeking workers from entering function of matching qualified workers to im- the field and driving wages down to the level portant positions. What must be recognized, found elsewhere (Snrrensen 2001; 1996; Roe- however, is that a purely hereditary system is mer 1988; Wright 1985). These excess returns rarely achieved in practice; in fact, even in therefore arise because occupational incum- caste societies of the most rigid sort, one typi- bents can use their positional power to limit cally finds that talented and qualified individ- the supply of competing labor. uals have some opportunities for upward mo- It bears emphasizing that the foregoing po- bility. With the Davis-Moore formulation sition operates outside a functionalist account (1945), this slow trickle of mobility is re- but is not necessarily inconsistent with it. Un- garded as essential to the functioning of the der a Davis-Moore formulation, the latent social system, so much so that elaborate sys- function of inequality .is to guarantee that la- tems of inequality have evidently been devised bor is allocated efficiently, but Davis and to ensure that the trickle continues (see Davis Moore (1945) acknowledge that excess in- 1948, 369-70, for additional and related equality may also arise for other reasons and comments). Although the Davis-Moore hy- through other processes. The extreme forms pothesis can therefore be used to explain of stratification found in existing societies stratification in societies with some mobility, may thus exceed the "minimum . . . necessary the original hypothesis is clearly untenable in- to maintain a complex division of labor" sofar as there is complete closure. (Wrong 1959, 774). There are of course sub- The functionalist approach has been fur- stantial cross-national differences in the ex- ther criticized for neglecting the "power ele- tent and patterning of inequality that are best ment" in stratification systems (Wrong 1959, explained in historical and institutional terms 774). It has long been argued that Davis and (Fischer et al. 1996). Most notably, there is ~oorefailed "to observe that incumbents [of much institutional variability in the condi- functionally important positions] have the tions under which rent-generating closure is allowed, especially those forms of closure in- might appear to be nothing more than aca- volving manual labor (i.e., unionization). As demic infighting, but the participants treat argued by Esping-Andersen (1999; 1WO), them with high seriousness as a "necessary countries also "choose" different ways of al- prelude to the conduct of political strategy" locating production between the market and (Parkin 1979, 16). For example, considerable the state, with market-based regimes typically energy has been devoted to identifying the involving higher levels of inequality. The correct dividing line between the working American system, for example, is highly un- class and the bourgeoisie, because the task of equal not merely because union-based closure locating the oppressed class is seen as a pre- has historically been suppressed, but also be- requisite to devising a political strategy that cause state-sponsored redistributive programs might appeal to it. It goes without saying that are poorly developed and market forces are political and intellectual goals are often con- relied on to allocate services that in other flated in such mapmaking efforts, and the as- countries are provided universally (e.g., sorted debates in this subfield are thus infused healthcare). with more than the usual amount of scholarly Obversely, the egalitarian policies of state contention. These debates are complex and socialism demonstrate that substantial reduc- wide-ranging, but it suffices for our purposes tions in inequality are achievable through to distinguish the following five schools of state-mandated reform, especially during the thought (see Wright 1997 for a more detailed early periods of radical institutional restruc- review). turing (see Kelley 1981). It is nonetheless pos- sible that such reform was pressed too far and that "many of the internal, systemic problems of Marxist societies were the result of inade- The debates within the Marxist and neo- quate motivational arrangements" (Lenski Marxist camps have been especially con- 2001). As Lenski (2001) notes, the socialist tentious, not only because of the foregoing commitment to wage leveling made it difficult political motivations, but also because the dis- to recruit and motivate highly skilled work- cussion of class within Capital (Marx [I8941 ers, and the "visible hand" of the socialist 1972) is too fragmentary and unsystematic to economy could never be calibrated to mimic adjudicate between various competing inter- adequately the natural incentive of capitalist pretations. At the end of the third volume of profit-taking. These results lead Lenski (2001) Capital, the now-famous fragment on "the to the neo-functionalist conclusion that "suc- classes" (Marx [I8941 1972, 862-63) breaks cessful incentive systems involve . . . motivat- off just when Marx appeared ready to ad- ing the best qualified people to seek the most vance a formal definition of the term, thus important positions." It remains to be seen providing precisely the ambiguity needed to whether this negative reading of the socialist sustain decades of debate. It is clear, nonethe- "experiments in destratification" (Lenski less, that his abstract model of capitalism was 1978) will generate a new round of function- resolutely dichotomous, with the conflict be- alist theorizing and debate. tween capitalists and workers constituting the driving force behind further social develop- ment. This simple two-class model should be The Structure viewed as an ideal type designed to capture ol Contemporary Stratilication the developmental tendencies of capitalism; indeed, whenever Marx carried out concrete The history of stratification theory is in large analyses of existing capitalist systems, he ac- part a history of debates about the contours knowledged that the class structure was com- of class, status, and prestige hierarchies in ad- plicated by the persistence of transitional vanced industrial societies. These debates classes (e.g., landowners), quasi-class group- ings (e.g., peasants), and class fragments (e.g., are not exploited in the classical Marxian the lumpen proletariat). It was only with the sense (i.e., surplus value is not extracted). The progressive maturation of capitalism that latter approach may have the merit of keeping Marx expected these complications to disap- the working class conceptually pure, but it pear as the "centrifugal forces of class strug- also reduces the size of this class to "pygmy gle and crisis flung all dritte Personen [third proportions" (see Parkin 1979, 19) and persons] to one camp or the other" (Parkin dashes the hopes of those who would see 1979,16). workers as a viable political force. This result The recent history of modern capitalism re- has motivated contemporary scholars to de- veals that the class structure has not evolved velop class models that fall somewhere be- in such a precise and tidy fashion. As Dahren- tween the extremes advocated by Braverman dorf (1959) points out, the old middle class of (1974) and Poulantzas (1974). For example, artisans and shopkeepers has indeed declined the neo-Marxist model proposed by Wright in relative size, yet a new middle class of man- (1978) generates an American working class agers, professionals, and nonmanual workers that is acceptably large (i.e., approximately has expanded to occupy the newly vacated 46 percent of the labor force), yet the class space (see also Wright 1997; Steinmetz and mappings in this model still pay tribute to the Wright 1989). The last SO years of neo-Marx- various cleavages and divisions among work- ist theorizing can be seen as the intellectual ers who sell their labor power. That is, profes- fallout from this development, with some sionals are placed in a distinct "semi- commentators seeking to minimize its impli- autonomous class" by virtue of their control cations, and others putting forward a revised over the work process, and upper-level super- mapping of the class structure that accommo- visors are located in a "managerial class" by dates the new middle class in explicit terms. virtue of their authority over workers (Wright Within the former camp, the principal ten- 1978; see also Wright 1985). The dividing dency is to claim that the lower sectors of the lines proposed in this model rest, then, on new middle class are in the process of being concepts (e.g., autonomy, authority relations) proletarianized, because "capital subjects that were once purely the province of Weber- [nonmanual labor] . . . to the forms of ration- ian or neo-Weberian sociology, leading Parkin alization characteristic of the capitalist mode (1979, 25) to claim that "inside every neo- of production" (Braverman 1974, 408; see Marxist there seems to be a Weberian strug- Spenner 1995 for a review of the "deskilling" gling to get out."26 literature). This line of reasoning suggests that These early class models, which were once the working class may gradually expand in quite popular, have now been superseded by relative size and therefore regain its earlier various second-generation models that rely power. In an updated version of this argu- more explicitly on the concept of exploita- ment, Aronowitz and DiFazio (1994,16) also tion. As noted previously, Roemer (198 8) and describe the "proletarianization of work at others (especially Sarrensen 2000; 1996; every level below the [very] top," but they Wright 1997) have redefined exploitation as further suggest that such proletarianization the extraction of "rent," where this refers to proceeds by eliminating labor as well as the excess earnings that are secured by limit- deskilling it. The labor-saving forces of tech- ing access to positions and thus artificially re- nological change thus produce a vast reserve stricting the supply of qualified labor. If an army of unemployed, underemployed, and in- approach of this sort is adopted, one can then termittently employed workers. test for skill-based exploitation by calculating At the other end of the continuum, whether the cumulated lifetime earnings of Poulantzas (1974) has argued that most mem- skilled labor exceeds that of unskilled labor bers of the new intermediate stratum fall out- by an amount larger than the implied training side the working class proper, because they costs (e.g., school tuition, forgone earnings). In a perfectly competitive market, labor will some circumstances, the boundaries of a sta- perforce flow to the most rewarding occupa- tus grouping are determined by purely eco- tions, thereby equalizing the lifetime earnings nomic criteria, yet Weber ([I9221 1968, 932) of workers and eliminating exploitative re- notes that "status honor normally stands in turns. However, when opportunities are lim- sharp opposition to the pretensions of sheer ited by imposing restrictions on entry (e-g., property. " qualifying exams), the equilibrating flow of This formulation has been especially popu- labor is disrupted and the potential for ex- lar in the United States. During the postwar ploitation within the labor market emerges. decades, American sociologists typically dis- This approach was devised, then, to recognize missed the Marxist model of class as overly various dividing lines within the working simplistic and one-dimensional, whereas they class and to understand them as the outcome celebrated the Weberian model as properly of exploitative processes. There is of course distinguishing between the numerous vari- no guarantee that these internal fractures can ables that Marx had conflated in his defini- be overcome; that is, a rent-based model ap- tion of class (see, e.g., Barber 1968). In the preciates that workers have potentially differ- most extreme versions of this approach, the ing interests, with more privileged workers dimensions identified by Weber were disag- presumably oriented toward preserving and gregated into a multiplicity of stratification extending the institutional mechanisms (e.g., variables (e.g., income, education, ethnicity), credentialing) that allow them to reap ex- and the correlations between these variables ploitative returns (cf. Wright 1997). were then shown to be weak enough to gener- ate various forms of "status inconsistency" (e.g., a poorly educated millionaire). The re- Weberians and Post-Weberlans sulting picture suggested a "pluralistic model" The rise of the "new middle class" has proven of stratification; that is, the class system was less problematic for scholars working within represented as intrinsically multidimensional, a Weberian framework. Indeed, the class with a host of cross-cutting affiliations pro- model advanced by Weber suggests a multi- ducing a complex patchwork of internal class plicity of class cleavages, given that it equates cleavages. The multidimensionalists were of- the economic class of workers with their ten accused of providing a "sociological por- "market situation" in the competition for trait of America as drawn by Norman Rock- jobs and valued goods (Weber [I9221 1968, well" (Parkin 1979, 604), but it should be 926-40). Under this formulation, the class of kept in mind that some of these theorists also skilled workers is privileged because its in- emphasized the seamy side of pluralism. In cumbents are in high demand on the labor fact, Lenski (1954) and others (e.g., Lipset market, and because its economic power can 1959) have argued that modern stratification be parlayed into high wages and an advan- systems might be seen as breeding grounds for taged position in commodity markets (Weber personal stress and political radicalism, given [I9221 1968, 927-28). At the same time, the that individuals with contradictory statuses stratification system is further complicated by may feel relatively deprived and thus support the existence of "status groupings," which "movements designed to alter the political Weber saw as forms of social affiliation that status quo" (Lenski 1966, 88). This line of can compete, coexist, or overlap with class- research ultimately died out in the early- based groupings. Although an economic class 1970s under the force of negative and incon- is merely an aggregate of individuals in a sim- clusive findings (e.g., Jackson and Curtis ilar market situation, a status grouping is de- 1972). fined as a community of individuals who Although postmodernists have not explic- share a style of life and interact as status itly drawn on classical multidimensionalist equals (e.g., the nobility, an ethnic caste). In accounts, there is nonetheless much similarity, apparently inadvertent, between these two subsequent commentators have pointed out lines of theorizing. Indeed, contemporary that social classes and status groupings are postmodernists argue that class-based identi- generated by simple exclusionary processes ties are far from fundamental or "essential," operating at the macrostructural level (e.g., that individuals instead have "multiple and Manza 1992; Murphy 1988; Goldthorpe cross-cutting identities" (Crook, Pakulski, 1987; Parkin 1979; Giddens 1973).27 Under and Waters 1992, 222), and that the various modern industrialism, there are no formal contradictions and inconsistencies among sanctions preventing labor from crossing class these identities can lead to a "decentered self" boundaries, yet various institutional forces and consequent stress and disaffection (see (e.g., private property, union shops) are Bauman 2000; Bradley 1996; Pakulski and nonetheless quite effective in limiting the Waters 1996; Beck 1992; 1987). There are of amount of class mobility over the life course course important points of departure as well; and between generations. These exclusionary most notably, postmodernists do not regard mechanisms not only "maximize claims to re- status affiliations as fixed or exogeneous, in- wards and opportunities" among the incum- stead referring to the active construction of bents of closed classes (Parkin 1979,44), they "reflexive biographies that depend on the de- also provide the demographic continuity cisions of the actor" (Beck 1992, 91-101). needed to generate distinctive class cultures The resulting "individualization of inequal- and to "reproduce common life experience ity" (Beck 1992) implies that lifestyles and over the generations" (Giddens 1973, 107). consumption practices could become decou- As noted by Giddens (1973,107-12), barriers pled from work identities as well as other sta- of this sort are not the only source of "class tus group memberships. Despite these differ- structuration," yet they clearly play a con- ences, postmodern commentators might well tributing role in the formation of identifiable gain from reexamining this older neo-Weber- classes under modern industrialism.28 This re- ian literature, if only because it addressed the visionist interpretation of Weber has reori- empirical implications of multidimensional ented the discipline toward examining the theorizing more directly and convincingly. sources and causes of class formation rather It would be a mistake to regard the fore- than the (potentially) fragmenting effects of going multidimens~onalistsas the only intel- cross-cutting affiliations and cleavages.29 lectual descendants of Weber. In recent years, the standard multidimensionalist interpreta- tion of "Class, Status, and Party" (Weber 1946, 180-95) has fallen into disfavor, and Although Marx and Weber are more fre- an alternative version of neo-Weberian strati- quently invoked by contemporary scholars of fication theory has gradually taken shape. inequality,, the work of Durkheim ([I8931 This revised reading of Weber draws on the 1933) is also directly relevant to issues of concept of social closure as defined and dis- class. In his preface to The Division of Labor, cussed in the essay "Open and Closed Rela- Durkheim ([I8931 1933, 28) predicted that tionships" (Weber [I9221 1968, 43-46, interdependent corporate occupations would 341-48; see also Weber 1947, 424-29). By gradually become "intercalated between the social closure, Weber was referring to the state and the individual," thereby solving the processes by which groups devise and enforce problem of order by regulating industrial con- rules of membership, with the purpose of flict and creating local forms of "mechanical such rules typically being to "improve the po- solidarity" (i.e., solidarity based on shared sition [of the group] by monopolistic tactics" norms and values). As the occupational struc- (Weber [I9221 1968, 43). Although Weber ture differentiates, Durkheim argued that did hot directly link this discussion with his shared values at the societal level would be- other contributions to stratification theory, come more abstract and less constraining, while compensating forms of local solidarism Grusky and Snrrensen 2001; 1998; Serensen would simultaneously emerge at the level of 2001; 1996). In some neo-Marxian schemes, detailed occupations. For Durkheim ([I8931 aggregate "class" categories are formed by 1933, 27), the modern order is thus charac- grouping together all workers who profit terized by "moral polymorphism," where from similar types of exploitation (e.g., this refers to the rise of multiple, occupation- Wright 1997), with the apparent claim be- specific "centers of moral life" that provide a ing that incumbents of these categories will counterbalance to the threat of class forma- ultimately come to appreciate and act on tion on one hand and that of state tyranny on behalf of their shared interests. If a neo- the other (see Grusky 2000). Durkheimian approach is adopted, such ag- This line of argumentation may well have gregation becomes problematic because it contemporary relevance. Indeed, even if class- conceals the more detailed level at which so- based organization is an increasingly "spent cial closure and skill-based exploitation oc- force" in the postmodern period (e.g., Pakul- curs. The key point in this context is that the ski and Waters 1996), it is well to bear in working institutions of closure (i.e., profes- mind that occupation-level structuration of sional associations, craft unions) restrict the the sort emphasized by Durkheim is seem- supply of labor to occupations rather than ag- ingly alive and well (Grusky and Snrrensen gregate classes. As a result, the fundamental 2001; 1998; Barley 1996; Barley and Tolbert units of exploitation would appear to be oc- 1991; see also Bourdieu 1984). The conver- cupations themselves, whereas neo-Marxian sion of work-based distinctions into meaning- "classes" are merely heterogeneous aggrega- ful social groupings occurs at the disaggregate tions of occupations that have similar capaci- level because (1)the forces of self-selection ties for exploitation. operate to bring like-minded workers into the The main empirical question that arises in same occupation; (2)the resulting social inter- this context is whether the contemporary action with coworkers tends to reinforce and world is becoming "Durkheimianizedn as lo- elaborate these shared values; (3)the homoge- cal structuration strengthens at the expense of nizing effects of informal interaction may be aggregate forms of class organization. The supplemented with explicit training and so- prevailing "postoccupational view" is that cialization in the form of apprenticeships, cer- contemporary firms are relying increasingly tification programs, and professional school- on teamwork, cross-training, and multiactiv- ing; and (4) the incumbents of occupations ity jobs that break down conventional skill- have common interests that may be pursued, based distinctions (e.g., Casey 1995; Baron in part, by aligning themselves with their oc- 1994; Drucker 1993). At the same time, this cupation and pursuing collective ends (e.g., account is not without its critics, some of closure, certification). The foregoing pro- whom (espekially Barley 1996) suggest that cesses all suggest that social closure coincides pressures for an occupational logic of orga- with occupational boundaries and generates nizing may be rising because (1) occupation- gemeinschaftlich communities at a more dis- ally organized sectors of the labor force (e.g., aggregate level than neo-Marxian or neo- professions) are expanding in size, (2) occupa- Weberian class analysts have appreciated tionalization is extending into new sectors (Weeden 1998; Ssrensen and Grusky 1996; (e.g., management) that had previously been Van Maanen and Barley 1984). In effect, a resistant to such pressures, and (3) the spread neo-Durkheimian mapping allows for a unifi- of outsourcing replaces firm-based ties and as- cation of class and Stand that, according to sociation with occupation-based organization Weber ([I9221 1968), occurs only rarely in (see also Barley and Bechky 1994; Freidson the context of conventional aggregate classes. 1994, 1034). In this regard, the archetypal The' neo-Marxian concept of rent can like- organizational form of the future may well be wise be recast in Durkheimian terms (see the construction industry, relying as it does on the collaboration of independent experts who of modern elites (cf. Lachmann 1990). The guard their occupationally defined bodies of research agenda of contemporary elite theo- knowledge jealously. rists is dominated by the following types of questions: The Rullng Class and Elites 1. Who wields power and influence in con- With elite studies, the focus shifts of course to temporary society? Is there an "inner the top of the class structure, with the typical circle" of powerful corporate leaders point of departure again being the economic (Useem 1984), a "governing class" of analysis of Marx and various neo-Marxians. hereditary political elites (Shils 1982; The classical elite theorists (Mills 1956; Mosca 1939), or a more encompassing Mosca 1939; Pareto 1935) sought to replace "power elite* that cuts across political, the Marxian model of economic classes with economic, and military domains a purely political analysis resting on the dis- (Domhoff 1998; Mills 1956)? tinction between the rulers and the ruled. As 2. How cohesive are the elite groupings so Mills (1956,277) put it, Marx formulated the defined? Do they form a unitary "upper "short-cut theory that the economic class class" (Domhoff 1998,2), or are they rules politically," whereas elite theorists con- divided by conflicting interests and un- tend that the composition of the ruling class able to achieve unity (Lerner, Nagai, reflects the outcome of political struggles that and Rothman 1996; Keller 1991)? may not necessarily favor economic capital. 3. Are certain sectors of the elite especially In their corollary to this thesis, Pareto and cohesive or conflictual? Is the business Mosca further claim that the movement of elite, for example, fractured by competi- history can be understood as a cyclical succes- tion and accordingly weakened in press- sion of elites, with the relative size of the gov- ing its interests? Or have interlocking erning minority tending to diminish as the po- directorates and other forms of corvo- litical community grows (Mosca 1939, 53). rate networking and association unified The common end point of all revolutions is the business elite (Mizruchi 1996; therefore the "dominion of an organized mi- 1982)?How has the separation of own- nority" (Mosca 1939, 53); indeed, Mosca ership and control affected elite unity points out that all historical class struggles (e.g., Fligstein and Brantley 1992)? have culminated with a new elite taking 4. How much elite mobility is there? Are power, while the lowliest class invariably re- elites continuously circulating (Shils mains as such (see also Gouldner 1979, 93). 1982; Pareto 1935), or have hereditary Although Marx would have agreed with forms of closure remained largely intact this oligarchical interpretation of presocialist even toddy (see Baltzell 1991; 1964; revolutions, he nonetheless insisted that the 1958)? socialist revolution would break the pattern 5. What are the prerequisites for elite and culminate in a dictatorship of the prole- membership? Are elites invariably tariat and ultimately a classless state.30 The drawn from prestigious schools (Lerner, elite theorists were, by contrast, unconvinced Nagai, and Rothman 1996; Useem and that the "iron law of oligarchyn (Michels Karabel 1986)?Are women and minori- 1949) could be so conveniently suspended for ties increasingly represented in the eco- this final revolution. nomic, political, or cultural elite of ad- As elite theory evolved, this original inter- vanced industrial societies (Zweigenhaft est in the long-term dynamics of class systems and Domhoff 1998)? was largely abandoned, and emphasis shifted 6. How do elites adapt and react to revo- to describing the structure and composition lutionary change? Were socialist elites successful, for example, in converting vide the basis for collective action" (Wright their discredited political capital into 1979, 7), gradational models are usually rep- economic or cultural power (see Nee resented as taxonomic or statistical classifica- 2001; Eyal, SzelCnyi, and Townsley tions of purely heuristic interest.31 1998; Rona-Tas 1997; 1994; SzelCnyi There is no shortage of gradational meas- and SzelCnyi 1995)? ures that might be used to characterize the so- cial welfare or reputational ranking of indi- There are nearly as many elite theories as viduals. Although there is some sociological there are possible permutations of responses precedent for treating income as an indicator to questions of this sort. If there is any unify- of class (e.g., Mayer and Buckley 1970, 15), ing theme to contemporary theorizing, it is most sociologists seem content with a disci- merely that subordinate classes lack any plinary division of labor that leaves matters of meaningful control over the major economic income to economists. It does not follow that and political decisions of the day (Domhoff distinctions of income are sociologically unin- 1998). Although it was once fashionable to teresting; after all, if one is truly intent on as- argue that "ordinary citizens can acquire as sessing the "market situation" of workers much power . . . as their free time, ability, and (Weber [I9221 1968), there is much to recom- inclination permit" (Rose 1967, 247), such mend a direct measurement of their income extreme versions of pluralism have of course and wealth. The preferred approach has now fallen into disrepute. nonetheless been to define classes as "groups of persons who are members of effective kin- ship units which, as units, are approximately Gradational Measurements equally valued" (Parsons 1954, 77). This for- rf Soclal Standlng mulation was first operationalized in the post- war community studies (e.g., Warner 1949) The foregoing theorists have all proceeded by by constructing broadly defined categories of mapping individuals or families into mutually reputational equals (e.g., "upper-upper class," exclusive and exhaustive categories (e.g., " upper-middle class" ) .32 However, when the "classes" ) . As the preceding review indicates, disciplinary focus shifted to the national strat- there continues to be much debate about the ification system, the measure of choice soon location of the boundaries separating these became either (1)prestige scales based on categories, yet the shared assumption is that popular evaluations of occupational standing boundaries of some kind are present, if only (e.g., Treiman 1977; 1976), or (2) socioeco- in latent or incipient form. By contrast, the nomic scales constructed as weighted averages implicit claim underlying gradational ap- of occupational income and education (e.g., proaches is that such "dividing lines" are Blau and Duncan 1967). The latter scales largely the construction of overzealous sociol- have served as standard measures of class ogists, and that the underlying structure of background for nearly 40 years (for reviews, modern stratification can, in fact, be more see Wegener 1992; Grusky and Van Rompaey closely approximated with gradational mea- 1992). sures of income, status, or prestige (Nisbet The staying power of prestige and socioeco- 1959; see also Clark and Lipset 1991; cf. nomic scales is thus impressive in light of the Hout, Brooks, and Manza 1993). The stan- faddishness of most sociological research. dard concepts of class action and conscious- This long run may nonetheless be coming to ness are likewise typically discarded; that is, an end; indeed, while a widely supported al- whereas most categorical models are based on ternative to socioeconomic scales has yet to the (realist) assumption that the constituent appear, the socioeconomic tradition has been categbries are "structures of interest that pro- subjected to increasing criticism on various fronts. The following four lines of questioning 1997,251). If this objective is aban- have attracted special attention: doned, one can of course construct any number of scales that separately index Are conventional scales well-suited for such job-level attributes as authority, the purpose of studying social mobility autonomy, and substantive complexity and socioeconomic attainment? There is (Halaby and Weakliem 1993; Kohn and much research suggesting that conven- Schooler 1983; see also Bourdieu 1984). tional prestige and socioeconomic scales This multidimensionalism has appeal overstate the fluidity and openness of because the attributes of interest (e.g., the stratification system (Hauser and earnings, authority, autonomy) are im- Warren 1997; Rytina 1992; Hauser perfectly correlated and do not perform and Featherman 1977). This finding has identically when modeling different motivated various efforts to better rep- class outcomes. resent the "mobility chances" embed- Should occupations necessarily be con- ded in occupations; for example, Rytina verted to variables? The latter approach (2000; 1992) has scaled occupations by nonetheless retains the conventional as- the mobility trajectories of their incum- sumption that occupations (or jobs) bents, and Hauser and Warren (1997) should be converted to variables and have suggested that attainment pro- thereby reduced to a vector of quantita- cesses are best captured by indexing oc- tive scores. This assumption may well cupations in terms of education alone be costly in terms of explanatory power (rather than the usual weighted combi- foregone; that is, insofar as distinctive nation of education and earnings).33 cultures and styles of life emerge within Is the underlying desirability of jobs ad- occupations, such reductionist ap- equately indexed by conventional proaches amount to stripping away pre- scales? In a related line of research, cisely that symbolic content that pre- some scholars have questioned whether sumably generates much variability in the desirability of jobs can be ade- attitude$ lifestyles, and consumption quately measured with any occupation- practices (Grusky and Ssrensen 1998; based scale, given that much of the vari- Aschaffenburg 1995). ability in earnings, autonomy, and other relevant job attributes is located within These particular lines of criticism may of detailed occupational categories rather course never take hold and crystallize into than between them (see Jencks, Perman, competing traditions. Although socioeco- and Rainwater 1988).34 This criticism nomic scales are hardly optimal for all pur- implies that new composite indices poses, the advantages of alternative scales and should be constructed by combining purpose-specific measurement strategies may job-level data on all variables relevant not be substantial enough to overcome the to judgments of desirability (e.g., earn- forces of inertia and conservatism, especially ings, fringe benefits, promotion oppor- given the long history and deep legitimacy of tunities). conventional approaches. Can a unidimensional scale capture all job attributes of interest? The two pre- ceding approaches share with conven- Generating Stratification tional socioeconomic scaling the long- standing objective of "gluing together" The language of stratification theory makes a various dimensions (e.g., education, in- sharp distinction between the distribution of come) into a single composite scale of social rewards (e.g., the income distribution) social standing (cf. Hauser and Warren and the distribution of opportunities for se- curing these rewards. As sociologists have fre- range of social interests than commentators quently noted (e.g., Kluegel and Smith 1986), and critics have often allowed (see Goldthorpe it is the latter distribution that governs popu- 1987,l-36, for a relevant review). lar judgments about the legitimacy of stratifi- The study of social mobility continues, cation: The typical American, for example, is then, to be undergirded by diverse interests quite willing to tolerate substantial inequali- and research questions. This diversity compli- ties in power, wealth, or prestige provided cates the task of reviewing work in the field, that the opportunities for securing these social but of course broad classes of inquiry can still goods are distributed equally across all indi- be distinguished, as indicated below. viduals (Hochschild 1995; 1981). Whatever the wisdom of this popular logic might be, Mobility Analysis stratification researchers have long sought to explore its factual underpinnings by monitor- The conventional starting point for mobility ing and describing the structure of mobility scholars has been to analyze bivariate "mobil- chances. ity tables" formed by cross-classifying the In most of these analyses, the liberal ideal class origins and destinations of individuals. of an open and class-neutral system is treated The tables so constructed can be used to esti- as an explicit benchmark, and the usual ob- mate densities of inheritance, to map the jective is to expose any inconsistencies be- social distances between classes and their con- tween this ideal and the empirical distribution stituent occupations, and to examine differ- of life chances. This is not to suggest, how- ences across sub-populations in the amount ever, that all mobility scholars necessarily take and patterning of fluidity and opportunity a positive interest in mobility or regard liberal (e.g., Ssrensen and Grusky 1996; Biblarz and democracy as "the good society itself in oper- Raftery 1993; Hout 1988; Featherman and ation" (Lipset 1959, 439). In fact, Lipset and Hauser 1978). Moreover, when comparable Bendix (1959, 286) emphasize that open mobility tables are assembled from several stratification systems can lead to high levels of countries, it becomes possible to address clas- "social and psychic distress," and not merely sical debates about the underlying contours of because the heightened aspirations that such cross-national variation in stratification sys- systems engender are so frequently frustrated tems (e.g., Ishida, Miiller, and Ridge 1995; (Young 1958). The further difficulty that Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992; Western and arises is that open stratification systems will Wright 1994; Grusky and Hauser 1984; typically generate various types of status in- Lipset and Bendix 1959). This long-standing consistency, as upward mobility projects in line of analysis, although still underway, has plural societies are often "partial and incom- nonetheless declined of late, perhaps because plete" (Lipset and Bendix 1959, 286) and past research (especially Erikson and Gold- therefore trap individuals between collectivi- thorpe 1992) has been so definitive as to un- ties with conflicting expectations. The nou- dercut further efforts (cf. Hout and Hauser veaux riches, for example, are typically un- 1992; Sarrensen 1992). In recent years, the fo- able to parlay their economic mobility into cus has thus shifted to studies of income mo- social esteem and acceptance from their new bility, with the twofold impetus for this de- peers, with the result sometimes being per- velopment being (1)concerns that poverty sonal resentment and consequent "combative- may be increasingly difficult to escape and ness, frustration, and rootlessness* (Lipset that a permanent underclass may be forming and Bendix 1959,285). Although the empiri- (e.g., Corcoran and Adams 1997), and (2)the cal evidence for such inconsistency effects is at obverse hypothesis that growing income in- best weak (e.g., Davis 1982), the continuing equality may be counterbalanced by increases effo~touncover them makes it clear that mo- in the rate of mobility between income bility researchers are motivated by a wider groups (e.g., Gottschalk 1997). The bulk of this work has been completed by econo- dresses such topics as the effects of family dis- mists (e.g., Birdsall and Graham 2000), but ruption on mobility (e.g., Biblarz and Raftery the issues at stake are eminently sociological 1999), the consequences of childhood pover- and have generated much sociological re- ty for early achievement (e.g., Hauser and search as well (e.g., DiPrete and McManus Sweeney 1997), and the role of mothers in 1996). shaping educational aspirations and outcomes (e.g., Kalmijn 1994). The Process of Stratification Structural Analysis It is by now a sociological truism that Blau and Duncan (1967) and their colleagues (e.g., The foregoing "attainment models" are fre- Sewell, Haller, and Portes 1969) revolution- quently criticized for failing to attend to the ized the field with their formal "path models" social structural constraints that operate on of stratification. These models were intended the stratification process independently of to represent, if only partially, the process by individual-level traits (e.g., Ssrensen and which background advantages could be con- Kalreberg 1981). The structuralist accounts verted into socioeconomic status through the that ultimately emerged from these critiques mediating variables of schooling, aspirations, initially amounted, in most cases, to refur- and parental encouragement. Under formula- bished versions of dual economy and market tions of this kind, the main sociological objec- segmentation models that were introduced tive was to show that socioeconomic out- and popularized many decades ago by insti- comes were structured not only by ability and tutional economists (e.g., Piore 1975; Doer- family origins but also by various intervening inger and Piore 1971; Averitt 1968; see also variables (e.g., schooling) that were them- Smith 1990). When these models were rede- selves only partly determined by origins and ployed by sociologists in the early 1980s, the other ascriptive forces. The picture of modern usual objective was to demonstrate that stratification that emerged suggested that women and minorities were disadvantaged market outcomes depend in large part on un- not merely by virtue of deficient human capi- measured career contingencies (i.e., "individ- tal investments (e.g., inadequate schooling ual luck") rather than influences of a more and experience) but also by their consign- structural sort (Jencks et al. 1972; Blau and ment to secondary labor markets that, on Duncan 1967, 174; cf. Hauser, Tsai, and average, paid out lower wages and offered Sewell 1983; Jencks et al. 1979). This line of fewer opportunities for promotion or research, which fell out of favor by the mid- advancement. In recent years, more deeply 1980s, has been recently reinvigorated as sociological forms of, structuralism have ap- stratification scholars react to the controver- peared, both in the form of (1)meso-level ac- sial claim (i.e., Herrnstein and Murray 1994) counts of the effects of social networks and that inherited intelligence is increasingly de- "social capital" on attainment (e.g., Lin terminative of stratification outcomes (e.g., 1999; Burt 1997; Podolny and Baron 1997), Hauser and Huang 1997; Fischer et al. 1996). and (2)macro-level accounts of the effects of In a related development, contemporary institutional context (e.g., welfare regimes) scholars have also turned their attention to on mobility processes and outcomes (DiPrete ongoing changes in family structure, given et al. 1997; Fligstein and Byrkjeflot 1996; that new non-traditional family arrangements Kerckhoff 1996; Brinton, Lee, and Parish (e.g., female-headed households) may in some 1995). Although there is of course a long tra- cases reduce the influence of biological par- dition of comparative mobility research, ents and otherwise complicate the reproduc- these new macro-level analyses are distinc- tion of class. This new research literature ad- tive in attempting to theorize more rigor- ously the institutional sources of cross-na- (e.g., thesis of industrialism, transition tional variation. theory). The subfield is thus highly theory driven in the middle range. To be sure, there is no grand theory here that unifies seemingly The history of these research traditions is disparate models and analyses, but this is arguably marked more by statistical and hardly unusual within the discipline, nor nec- methodological signposts than by substantive essarily undesirable. The main contenders, at ones. Indeed, when reviews of the field are at- present, for grand theory status are various tempted, the tendency is to identify method- forms of rational action analysis that allow ological watersheds, such as the emergence middle-range theories to be recast in terms of of structural equation, log-linear, and event- individual-level incentives and purposive be- history models (e.g., Ganzeboom, Treiman, havior. Indeed, just as the assumption of util- and Ultee 1991). The more recent rise of se- ity maximization underlies labor economics, quence analysis, which allows researchers to so too a theory of purposive behavior might identify the normative ordering of events, ultimately organize much, albeit not all, of so- may also redefine and reinvigorate the study ciological theory on social mobility and at- of careers and attainment (e.g., Han and tainment. The two "rational action" selec- Moen 1999; Blair-Loy 1999; Stovel, Savage, tions reprinted in this volume (i.e., Breen and and Bearman 1996). At the same time, it is of- Goldthorpe 1997; Logan 1996) reveal the ten argued that "theory formulation in the promise (and pitfalls) of this formulation. field has become excessively narrow" (Ganze- boom, Treiman, and Ultee 1991, 278), and that "little, if any, refinement of major theo- The Consequences of Stratification retical positions has recently occurred" (Featherman 1981, 364; see also Burton and We have so far taken it for granted that the Grusky 1992, 628). The conventional claim sociological study of classes and status group- in this regard is that mobility researchers have ings is more than a purely academic exercise. become entranced by quantitative methods For Marxist scholars, there is of course a and have accordingly allowed the "method- strong macrostructural rationale for class ological tail to [wag] the substantive dog7' analysis: The defining assumption of Marx- (Coser 1975, 652). However, the latter argu- ism is that human history unfolds through the ment can no longer be taken exclusively in the conflict between classes and the "revolution- (intended) pejorative sense, because new ary reconstruction of society" (Marx 1948,9) models and methods have often opened up that such conflict ultimately brings about. In important substantive questions that had pre- recent years, macrostructural claims of this viously been overlooked (Burton and Grusky sort have typically been deemphasized, with 1992). many scholars looking outside the locus of It also bears emphasizing that mobility and production to understand and interpret ongo- attainment research has long relied on middle- ing social chahge. Although some macrostruc- range theorizing about the forces making tural analyses can still be found (e.g., Portes for discrimination (e.g., queuing, statistical forthcoming), the motivation for class analy- discrimination); the processes by which ed- sis increasingly rests on the simple empirical ucational returns are generated (e.g., cre- observation that class background affects a dentialing, human capital, signaling); the wide range of individual outcomes (e.g., con- mechanisms through which class-based ad- sumption practices, lifestyles, religious affilia- vantage is reproduced (e.g., social capital, net- tion, voting behavior, mental health and de- works); and the effects of industrialism, capi- viance, fertility and mortality, values and talism, and socialism on mobility processes attitudes). This analytical approach makes for a topically diverse subfield; in fact, one would production approaches, and structuration be hard pressed to identify any aspect of hu- theory (for detailed reviews, see Crompton man experience that has not been linked to 1996; Chaney 1996; Gartman 1991). class-based variables in some way, thus prompting DiMaggio (2001) to refer to mea- Market Research sures of social class as modern-day "crack troops in the war on unexplained variance." The natural starting point for our review is The resulting analyses of "class effects" standard forms of market research (e.g., continue to account for a substantial propor- Michman 1991; Weiss 1988; Mitchell 1983) tion of contemporary stratification research that operationalize the Weberian concept of (see Burton and Grusky 1992). There has status by constructing detailed typologies of long been interest in studying the effects of modern lifestyles and consumption practices. class origins on schooling, occupation, and It should be kept in mind that Weber joined earnings (see prior section); by contrast, other two analytically separable elements in his def- topics of study within the field tend to fluctu- inition of status; namely, members of a given ate more in popularity, as developments in status group were not only assumed to be and out of academia influence the types of honorific equals in the symbolic (or "subjec- class effects that sociologists find salient or tive") sphere, but were also seen as sharing a important. It is currently fashionable to study certain style of life and having similar tastes such topics as (1)the structure of socioeco- or preferences in the sphere of consumption nomic disparities in health outcomes and the (see Giddens 1973, 80, 109). The former fea- sources, causes, and consequences of the ture of status groups can be partly captured widening of some disparities (Williams and by conventional prestige scales, whereas the Collins 1995; Pappas et al. 1993); (2) the ex- latter can only be indexed by classifying the tent to which social class is a subjectively actual consumption practices of individuals as salient identity and structures perceptions of revealed by their "cultural possessions, mater- inter-class conflict (Wright 1997; Kelley and ial possessions, and participation in the group Evans 1995; Marshall et al. 1988); (3) the ef- activities of the community" (Chapin 1935, fects of social class on tastes for popular or 374). This approach has been operationalized high culture and the role of these tastes in es- either by (1)analyzing market data to define tablishing or reinforcing inter-class bound- status groups that are distinguished by differ- aries (Bryson 1996; Halle 1996; Peterson and ent lifestyle "profiles" (e.g., "ascetics, " "ma- Kern 1996; Lamont 1992; DiMaggio 1992; terialists"), or (2)examining the consumption Bourdieu 1984); (4) the relationship between practices of existing status groups that are de- class and political behavior and the possible fined on dimensions ather than consumption weakening of class-based politics as "postma- (e.g., teenagers, fundamentalists). The status terialist values" spread and take hold (Evans groups of interest are in either case analyti- 1999; Manza and Brooks 1999; Abramson cally distinct from Weberian classes; that is, and Inglehart 1995); and (5) the influence of the standard Weberian formula is to define working conditions on self-esteem, intellec- classes within the domain of production, tual flexibility, and other facets of individual whereas status groups are determined by the psychological functioning (Kohn et al. 1997; "consumption of goods as represented by spe- Kohn and Slomczynski 1990). cial styles of life" (Weber [I9221 1968, 937; The relationship between class and these italics in original). various class outcomes has been framed and conceptualized in diverse ways. We have Postmodern Analysis sought to organize this literature below by distinguishing between such diverse traditions The postmodern literature on lifestyles and as market research, postmodern analysis, re- consumption practices provides some of the conceptual underpinnings for market research stance that class-based conditioning "struc- of the above sort. This is evident, for exam- tures the whole experience of subjects" (1979, ple, in the characteristic postmodern argu- 2) and thus creates a near-perfect correspond- ment that consumption practices are increas- ence between the objective conditions of exis- ingly individuated and that the Weberian tence and internalized dispositions or tastes.35 distinction between class and status thus takes This correspondence is further strengthened on special significance in the contemporary because Bourdieu defines class so fluidly; context (e.g., Pakulski and Waters 1996; Beck namely, class is represented as the realization 1992; Featherstone 1991; Saunders 1987). of exclusionary processes that create bound- The relationship between group membership aries around workers with homogeneous dis- and consumption cannot for postmodernists positions, thus implying that classes will nec- be read off in some deterministic' fashion; essarily overlap with consumption-based indeed, because individuals are presumed to status groupings. The key question, then, is associate with a complex mosaic of status whether such boundaries tend to emerge groups (e.g., religious groups, internet chat around objective categories (e.g., occupation) groups, social movements), it is difficult to that are typically associated with class. For know how these combine and are selectively Bourdieu, occupational categories define activated to produce (and reflect) individual some of the conditions of existence upon tastes and practices. The stratification system which classes are typically formed, yet other may be seen, then, as a "status bizarre" conditions of existence (e.g., race) are also im- (Pakulski and Waters 1996, 157) in which plicated and may generate class formations identities are reflexively constructed as indi- that are not entirely coterminous with occu- viduals select and are shaped by their multiple pation. It follows that class boundaries are statuses. Although postmodernists thus share not objectively fixed but instead are like a with market researchers a deep skepticism of "flame whose edges are in constant move- class-based analyses, the simple consumption- ment" (Bourdieu 1987,13). based typologies favored by some market re- searchers (e.g., Michman 1991) also fall short by failing to represent the fragmentation, Structuration Theory volatility, and reflexiveness of postmodern The foregoing approach is increasingly popu- consumption. lar, but there is also continuing support for a middle-ground position that neither treats status groupings in isolation from class (e.g., R~productlonTheory Pakulski and Waters 1996) nor simply con- The work of Bourdieu (e.g., 1984; 1977) can flates them with class*(e-g., Bourdieu 1984). be read as an explicit effort to rethink the The starting point for this position is the conventional distinction between class and proposition that status and class are related in status groupings (for related approaches, see historically specific and contingent ways. For Biernacki 1995; Calhoun, LiPuma, and Pos- example, Giddens (1973, 109) adopts the tone 1993; Lamont 1992). If one assumes, as usual assumption that classes are founded in does Bourdieu, that classes are highly efficient the sphere of production, yet he further main- agents of selection and socialization, then tains that the "struauration" of such classes their members will necessarily evince the depends on the degree to which incumbents shared dispositions, tastes, and styles of life are unified by shared patterns of consumption that demarcate and define status groupings and behavior (also see Weber [I9221 1968, (see Gartman 1991; Brubaker 1985). Al- 932-3 8). The twofold conclusion reached by though it is hardly controversial to treat Giddens is that (1)classes become distinguish- classes' as socializing forces (see, e.g., Hyman able formations only insofar as they overlap 1966), Bourdieu takes the more extreme with status groupings, and (2) the degree of overlap should be regarded as an empirical dens 1973), whereas others have suggested matter rather than something resolvable by that the "thin veneer of mass culture" conceptual fiat (cf. Bourdieu 1984). This type (Adorno 1976) only obscures and conceals of formula appears to inform much of the the more fundamental inequalities upon current research on the consequences of class which classes are based (see also Horkheimer (e.g., Kingston forthcoming; Wright 1997; see and Adorno 1972). also Goldthorpe and Marshall 1992). If con- temporary commentators are so often exer- cised about the strength of "class effects," this Ascriptive Processes is largely because these effects (purportedly) speak to the degree of class structuration and The forces of race, ethnicity, and gender have the consequent viability of class analysis in historically been relegated to the sociological modern society. sidelines by class theorists of both Marxist and non-Marxist persuasion.36 In early ver- sions of class analytic theory, status groups The empirical results coming out of these were treated as secondary forms of affiliation, various research programs have been inter- whereas class-based ties were seen as more preted in conflicting ways. Although some re- fundamental and decisive determinants of so- searchers have emphasized the strength and cial and political action. This is not to suggest pervasiveness of class effects (e.g., Marshall that race and ethnicity were ignored alto- 1997; Bourdieu 1984; Fussell 1983; Kohn gether in such treatments; however, when 1980), others have argued that consumption competing forms of communal solidarity were practices are becoming uncoupled from class incorporated into conventional class models, and that new theories are required to account they were typically represented as vestiges of for the attitudes and -lifestyles that individuals traditional loyalties that would wither away adopt (e.g., Kingston forthcoming; Pakulski under the rationalizing influence of socialism and Waters 1996). The evidence adduced for (e.g., Kautsky 1903), industrialism (e.g., Levy the latter view has sometimes been impres- 1966), or modernization (e.g., Parsons 1975). sionistic in nature. For example, Nisbet Likewise, the forces of gender and patriarchy (1959) concluded from his analysis of popular were of course frequently studied, yet the literature that early industrial workers could main objective in doing so was to understand be readily distinguished by class-specific their relationship to class formation and re- markers (e.g., distinctive dress, speech), production (see, e.g., Barrett 1980). whereas their postwar counterparts were in- The first step in the intellectual breakdown creasingly participating in a "mass culture " of such approaches was the fashioning of a that offered the same commodities to all multidimensional model of stratification. classes and produced correspondingly stand- Whereas many class theorists gave theoretical ardized tastes, attitudes, and behaviors (see or conceptual priority to the economic dimen- also Hall 1992; Clark and Lipset 1991, 405; sion of stratification, the early multidimen- Parkin 1979, 69; Goldthorpe et al. 1969, sionalists emphasized that social behavior 1-29). The critical issue, of course, is not could only be understood by taking into ac- merely whether a mass culture of this sort is count all status group memberships (e.g., indeed emerging, but also whether the result- racial, gender) and the complex ways in ing standardization of lifestyles constitutes which these interacted with one another and convincing evidence of a decline in class- with class outcomes. The class analytic ap- based forms of social organization. As we proach was further undermined by the appar- have noted earlier, some commentators would ent reemergence of racial, ethnic, and nation- regard the rise of mass culture as an impor- alist conflicts in the late postwar period. Far tant force for class destructuration (e.g., Gid- from withering away under the force of in- dustrialism, the bonds of race and ethnicity an identity appropriate to the situational con- seemed to be alive and well: The modern text; a modern-day worker might behave as world was witnessing a "sudden increase in "an industrial laborer in the morning, a black tendencies by people in many countries and in the afternoon, and an American in the many circumstances to insist on the signifi- evening" (Parkin 1979, 34). Among recent cance of their group distinctiveness" (Glazer postmodernists, the "essentialism" of conven- and Moynihan 1975, 3). This resurgence of tional theorizing is rejected even more force- status politics continues apace today. Indeed, fully, so much so that even ethnicity and gen- not only have ethnic and regional solidarities der are no longer simply assumed to be intensified with the decline of conventional privileged replacement statuses for class. This class politics in Eastern Europe and elsewhere leads to an unusually long list of competing (see Jowitt 1992), but gender-based affilia- statuses that can become salient in situation- tions and loyalties have likewise strengthened ally specific ways. As the British sociologist as feminist movements diffuse throughout Saunders (1989, 4-5) puts it, "On holiday in much of the modern world. Spain we feel British, waiting for a child out- The latter turn of events has led some com- side the school gates we are parents, shopping mentators to proclaim that ascribed solidari- in Marks and Spencer we are consumers, and ties of race, ethnicity, and gender are replac- answering questions, framed by sociologists ing the class affiliations of the past and with class on the brain, we are working class" becoming the driving force behind future (see also Calhoun 1994). The results of Em- stratificational change. Although this line of mison and Western (1990) on contemporary argumentation was initially advanced by early identity formation likewise suggest that mani-

, theorists of gender and ethnicity (e.g., Fire- fold statuses are held in reserve and activated stone 1972; Glazer and Moynihan 1975), the in situation-specific terms. recent diffusion of postmodernism has in- Although this situational model has not fused it with new life (especially Beck 1992, been widely adopted in contemporary re- 91-101). These accounts typically rest on search, there is renewed interest in under- some form of zero-sum imagery; for example, standing the diverse affiliations of individuals Bell (1975) suggests quite explicitly that a and the "multiple oppressions" (see Wright trade-off exists between class-based and eth- forthcoming) that these affiliations engender. nic forms of solidarity, with the latter It is now fashionable, for example, to assume strengthening whenever the former weakens that the major status groupings in contempo- (see Hannan 1994, 506; Weber 1946, 193- rary stratification systems are defined by the 94). As the conflict between labor and capital intersection of ethnic, gender, or class affilia- - is institutionalized, Bell (1975) argues that tions (e.g., black working-class women, white class-based affiliations typically lose their af- middle-class men). The theoretical framework fective content and that workers must turn to motivating this approach is not well-specified, ' racial, ethnic, or religious ties to provide them but the implicit claim seems to be that these with a renewed sense of identification and subgroupings shape the experiences, life- commitment. It could well be argued that styles, and life chances of individuals and thus gender politics often fill the same "moral define the social settings in which interests vacuum" that the decline in class politics has and subcultures typically emerge (Cotter, allegedly generated (Parkin 1979,34). Hermsen, and Vanneman 1999; Hill Collins It may be misleading, of course, to treat the 1990; see also Gordon 1978; Baltzell 1964). competition between ascriptive and class- The obvious effect of this approach is to in- based forces as a sociological horse race in vert the traditional post-Weberian perspective which one, and only one, of these two princi- on status groupings; that is, whereas ortho- ples can-ultimately win out. In a pluralist soci- dox multidimensionalists described the stress ety of the American kind, workers can choose experienced by individuals in inconsistent sta- tuses (e.g., poorly educated doctors), these reproduce capitalist relations of produc- new multidimensionalists emphasize the tion by socializing children into submis- shared interests and cultures gen&ated within sive roles and providing male workers commonly encountered status sets (e.g., black with a "haven in a heartless world" working-class women). (e.g., Lasch 1977; see Baxter and West- The sociological study of gender, race, and ern forthcoming; Szelknyi 2001)? Are ethnicity has thus burgeoned of late. In orga- capitalists or male majority workers the nizing this literature, one might usefully dis- main beneficiaries of ethnic antagonism tinguish between (1)macro-level research ad- and patriarchy (e.g., Tilly 1998; Wright dressing the structure of ascriptive solidarities 1997; Hartmann 1981; Reich 1977; and their relationship to class formation, and Bonacich 1972)? (2) attainment research exploring the effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on individual These macro-level issues, although still of in- life chances. At the macro-level, scholars terest, have not taken off in popularity to the have typically examined such issues as the so- extent that attainment issues have. The litera- cial processes by which ascriptive categories ture on attainment is unusually rich and (e.g., "white," "black") are constructed; the diverse; at the same time, there is much fad- sources and causes of ethnic conflict and soli- dishness in the particular types of research darity; and the relationship between patri- questions that have been addressed, and the re- archy, racism, and class-based forms of or- sulting body of work has a correspondingly ganization. The following types of research haphazard and scattered feel (Lieberson 2001). questions have thus been posed: The following questions have nonetheless emerged as (relatively) central ones in the field: Awareness and consciousness: How do conventional racial and ethnic classifica- Modeling supply and demand: What tion schemes come to be accepted and types of social forces account for ethnic, institutionalized (Waters 2000; Cornell racial, and gender differentials in in- 2000)?Under what conditions are come and other valued resources? racial, ethnic, and gender identities Are these differentials attributable to likely to be salient or "activated" supply-side variability in the human (Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin 1999; Fer- capital that workers bring to the market rante and Brown 1996)? (Marini and Fan 1997; Polachek and Social conflict: What generates variabil- Siebert 1993; Marini and Brinton ity across time and space in ethnic con- 1984)?Or are they produced by flict and solidarity? Does modernization demand-side forces such as market seg- produce a "cultural division of labor" mentation, statistical or institutional (Hechter 1975) that strengthens com- discrimination, and the (seemingly) irra- munal ties by making ethnicity a princi- tional tastes and preferences of employ- pal arbiter of life chances? Is ethnic con- ers (e.g., Reskin 2000; Nelson and flict further intensified when ethnic Bridges 1999; Piore 1975; Arrow 1973; groups compete for the same niche in Becker 195 7) ? the occupational structure (Waldinger Valuative discrimination: Are occupa- 1996; Hannan 1994; Olzak 1992; tions that rely on stereotypically female Bonacich 1972)? skills (e.g., nurturing) "culturally deval- Class and ascriptive solidarities: Are ued" and hence more poorly remuner- class-based solidarities weakened or ated than occupations that are other- strengthened by the forces of patriarchy wise similar? What types of and racism? Does housework serve to organizational and cultural forces might The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality

produce such valuative discrimination? ascriptive inequalities (Johnson, Rush, Will this discrimination disappear as and Feagin 2000; Nelson and Bridges market forces gradually bring pay in ac- 1999; Leicht 1999; Reskin 1998; cord with marginal productivity (Nel- Burstein 1998; 1994; England 1992)?Is son and Bridges 1999; Kilbourne et al. there much popular support for affirma- 1994; Tam 1997)? tive action, comparable worth, and Segregation: What are the causes and other reform strategies (e.g., Schuman consequences of racial, ethnic, and gen- et al. 1998)?Does opposition to such der segregation in housing and in the reform reflect deeply internalized racism workplace? Does segregation arise from and sexism (e.g., Kluegel and Bobo discrimination, economic forces, or vol- 1993)?Could this opposition be over- untary choices or "tastes" for separa- come by substituting race-based inter- tion (Reskin, McBrier, and Kmec 1999; ventions (e.g., affirmative action) with Reskin 1993; Bielby and Baron 1986)? class-based ones (e.g., Wilson 1999b; Are ghettoization and other forms of Kluegel and Bobo 1993)? segregation the main sources of African American disadvantage (e.g., Wilson The preceding questions make it clear that 1999a; Massey and Denton 1993)?Un- ethnic, racial, and gender inequalities are of- der what conditions, if any, can ethnic ten classed together and treated as analyti- or gender segregation (e.g., enclaving, cally equivalent forms of ascription. Although same-sex schools) assist in socioeco- Parsons (1951) and others (e.g., Tilly 1998; nomic attainment or assimilation Mayhew 1970) have indeed emphasized the (Waters 1999; Portes and Zhou 1993; shared properties of "communal ties," one Sanders and Nee 1987)? should bear in mind that such ties can be The future of ascriptive inequalities: maintained (or subverted) in very different What is the future of ethnic, racial, and ways. It has long been argued, for example, gender stratification (Ridgeway and that some forms of inequality can be rendered Correll2000; Bielby 2000; Johnson, more palatable by the practice of pooling Rush, and Feagin 2000)? Does the resources (e.g., income) across all family "logic" of industrialism (and the spread members. As Lieberson (2001) points out, the of egalitarianism) require universalistic family operates to bind males and females personnel practices and consequent de- together in a single unit of consumption, clines in overt discrimination whereas extrafamilial institutions (e.g., (Sakamoto, Wu, and Tzeng 2000; schools, labor markets) must be relied on to Hirschman and Snipp 1999; Jackson provide the same integrative functions for eth- 1998; Wilson 1980)?Can this logic be nic groups. If these functions are left wholly reconciled with the persistence of mas- unfilled, one might expect ethnic separatist sive segregation by sex and race (e.g., and nationalist movements to emerge (e.g., Massey 1996), the loss of manufactur- Hechter 1975). The same "nationalist" option ing jobs and the associated rise of a is obviously less viable for single-sex groups; modern ghetto underclass (Wilson indeed, barring any revolutionary changes in 1996; Waldinger 1996), and the emer- family structure or kinship relations, it seems gence of new forms of poverty and unlikely that separatist solutions will ever gar- hardship among single women and re- ner much support among men or women. The cent immigrants (e.g., Waters 1999; latter considerations may account for the ab- Edin and Lein 1997; Portes 1996)? sence of a well-developed literature on overt Social policy: What types of social pol- conflict between single-sex groups (cf. Fire- icy and intervention are likely to reduce stone 1972; Hartmann 198l).37 The Future of stratification tain considerable power even as the transi- tion to capitalism unfolds. Under the latter It is instructive to conclude by briefly review- formulation, Central European elites take a ing current approaches to understanding the "historic short cut and move directly to the changing structure of contemporary stratifica- most 'advanced' stage of corporate capital- tion. As indicated in Figure 1, some commen- ism, never sharing their managerial power tators have suggested that future forms of (even temporarily) with a class of individual stratification will be defined by structural owners" (Eyal, Szelinyi, and Townsley 1998, changes in the productive system (i.e., struc- 2). This implies, then, an immediate transi- tural approaches), whereas others have ar- tion in Central Europe to advanced forms gued that modernity and postmodernity can of "capitalism without capitalists" (Eyal, only be understood by looking beyond the Szelinyi, and Townsley 1998). economic system and its putative conse- There is also much criticism of standard quences (i.e., cultural approaches). It will suf- "new class" interpretations of Western strati- fice to review these various approaches in cur- fication systems. The (orthodox) Marxist sory fashion because they are based on stance is that "news of the demise of the capi- theories and models that have been covered talist class is . . . somewhat premature" extensively elsewhere in this essay. (Zeitlin l982,2 16),38 whereas the contrasting The starting point for our discussion is the position taken by Bell (1973) is that neither now-familiar claim that human and political the old capitalist class nor the so-called new capital are replacing economic capital as the class will have unfettered power in the postin- principal stratifying forces in advanced indus- dustrial future. Although there is widespread trial society. In the most extreme versions of agreement among postindustrial theorists that this claim, the old class of moneyed capital is human capital is becoming a dominant form represented as a dying force, and a new class of property, this need not imply that "the of intellectuals (e.g., Gouldner 1979), man- amorphous bloc designated as the knowledge agers (e.g., Burnham 1962), or party bureau- stratum has sufficient community of interest crats (e.g., Djilas 1965) is assumed to be on to form a class" (Bell 1987, 464). The mem- the road to power. There is still much new bers of the knowledge stratum have diverse class theorizing; however, because such ac- interests because they are drawn from struc- counts were tailor-made for the socialist case, turally distinct situses (e.g., military, business, the fall of socialism complicates the analysis university) and because their attitudes are fur- and opens up new futures that are potentially ther influenced (and thus rendered heteroge- more complex than past theorists had antici- neous) by noneconomic forces of various pated. By some accounts, the rise of a new sorts. The postindustrial vision of Bell (1973) class was effectively aborted by market re- thus suggests that well-formed classes will be form, and transitional societies will ulti- replaced by the more benign divisions of situs. mately revert to a classical form of capitalism As is well-known, Bell (1973) also argues with its characteristically powerful economic that human capital (e.g., educational creden- elite. This scenario need not imply a whole- tials) will become the main determinant of life sale circulation of elites during the transi- chances, if only because job skills are up- tional period; to be sure, the old elite may graded by the expansion of professional, tech- well oversee the creation of new entre- nical, and service sectors. Although the re- preneurs from agents other than itself (e.g., turns to education are indeed increasing as Nee 2001), but alternatively it might succeed predicted (e.g., Grusky and DiPrete 1990), the in converting its political capital into eco- occupational structure is evidently not up- nomic capital and install itself as the new grading quite as straightforwardly as Bell elite (Walder 1996; Rona-Tas 1997). It is also (1973) suggested, and various "pessimistic possible that post-socialist managers will re- versions" of postindustrialism have accord- PIGURE 1 Possible trajectories of change in advanced stratification systems

I STRUCTURAL APPROACHES I

Economic Capital Human or Political Differentiation Models (Zeitlin 1982) Capital Models Models _------i A Post-Industrial Models New Class Models Gradationalism Pluralism and (Parsons 1970; Multidimensionalism Kerr et al. 1964) (Kerr et al. 1964;

Parsons 1970) "Optimistic"A Version "Pessimistic" Version KnowledgeA Class Managerial Class Party-Bureaucratic Class (Bell 1973; Clark (Gouldner 1979) (Djilas 1965) and Lipset 1991)

PolarizationA Exclusionism CapitalistA Case Post-Socialist Case (Levy 1998; (Esping-Andersen (Burnham 1962) (Eyal, Szel~nyi,and Harrison and - 1993; Offe 1985) Townsley 1998) Bluestone 198 8)

CULTURAL APPROACHES

Simple Uncoupling Postmodernism Cultural Emanationism

Fragmentation New Social Movements (Pakulski and Waters 1996) (Beck 1999) Q9 Q9 ingly emerged. In the American variant of features of modernity. For example, Parsons such pessimism, the main concern is that (1970) argues that the oft-cited "separation of postindustrialism leads to a "declining mid- ownership from control" (e.g., Berle and dle" and consequent polarization, as manu- Means 1932) is not a unique historical event, facturing jobs are either rendered technologi- but instead is merely one example of the cally obsolete or exported to less-developed broader tendency for ascriptively fused struc- countries where labor costs are lower (e.g., tures to break down into separate substruc- Perrucci and Wysong 1999; Levy 1998; Har- tures and create a "complex composite of dif- rison and Bluestone 1988). These losses are of ferentiated and articulating . . . units of course compensated by the predicted growth community" (Parsons 1970,25). This process in the service sector, yet the types of service of differentiation is further revealed in (1)the jobs that have emerged are quite often low emergence of a finely graded hierarchy of spe- skill, routinized, and accordingly less desir- cialized occupations (Parsons 1970; Kerr et able than Bell (1973) imagined. In Europe, al. 1964); (2) the spread of professional and the same low-skill service jobs are less com- voluntary associations that provide additional monly found, with the resulting occupational and competing bases of affiliation and soli- structure more closely approximating the darity (e.g., Parsons 1970; Kerr et al. 1964); highly professionalized world that Bell (1973) and (3) the breakdown of the "kinship com- envisaged. The European pessimists are none- plex" as evidenced by the declining salience of theless troubled by the rise of mass unemploy- family ties for careers, marriages, and other ment and the associated emergence of "out- stratification outcomes (e.g., Parsons 1970; sider classes" that bear disproportionately the Featherman and Hauser 1978, 222-32; burden of unemployment (Esping-Andersen Treiman 1970; Blau and Duncan 1967, 1999; Brown and Crompton 1994; see also 429-31). The latter tendencies imply that the Aronowitz and DiFazio 1994). In both the class standing of modern individuals is be- European and American cases, the less-skilled coming "divorced from its historic relation to classes are therefore losing out in the market, both kinship and property" (Parsons 1970, either by virtue of unemployment and exclu- 24). As Parsons (1970) argues, the family may sion (i.e., Europe) or low pay and poor have once been the underlying unit of stratifi- prospects for advancement (i.e., the United cation, yet increasingly the class standing of States). The new pessimists thus anticipate a individuals is determined by all the collectivi- "resurgent proletarian underclass and, in its ties to which they belong, both familial and wake, a menacing set of new class correlates" otherwise (see also SzelCnyi 2001). This multi- (Esping-Andersen 1999,95). dimensionalist approach thus provides the The foregoing variants of structuralism fre- analytic basis for rejecting the conventional quently draw on the quasi-functionalist familpbased model of stratification that Par- premise that classes are configured around sons himself earlier espoused (e.g., Parsons control over dominant assets (e.g., human 1954).40 capital) and that class constellations therefore The driving force behind these accounts is, shift as new types of assets assume increas- of course, structural change of the sort con- ingly prominent roles in production. The just- ventionally described by such terms as indus- so histories that new class theorists tend to trialism (Kerr et al. 1964), post-industrialism advance have a correspondingly zero-sum (Bell 1973), post-fordism (Piore and Sabel character in which stratificational change oc- 1984), and differentiation (Parsons 1970). By curs as old forms of capital (e.g., economic contrast, cultural accounts of change tend to capital) are superseded by new forms (e.g., deemphasize these forces or to cast them as &humancapital).39 This framework might be epiphenomenal, with the focus thus shifting contrasted, then, to stratification theories that to the independent role of ideologies, social treat the emergence of multiple bases of soli- movements, and cultural practices in chang- darity and affiliation as one of the distinctive ing stratification forms. The culturalist tradi- The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality tion encompasses a host of accounts that sumption practices, as the latter are have not, as yet, been fashioned into a uni- subjectively constructed in ways that al- tary or cohesive whole. The following posi- low for "respecification and invention tions within this tradition might therefore be of preferences . . . and provide for con- distinguished: tinuous regeneration" (Pakulski and Waters 1996, 155). It follows that The weakest form of culturalism rests lifestyles and identification are "shifting on the straightforward claim that eco- and unstable" (Pakulski and Waters nomic interests are no longer decisive 1996, 155), "indeterminate at the determinants of attitudes or lifestyles boundaries" (Crook, Pakulski, and (e.g., Davis 1982; see Goldthorpe et al. Waters 1992), and accordingly "diffi- 1969 on the "embourgeoisement" hy- cult to predict" (Pakulski and Waters pothesis). This "uncoupling" of class 1996, 155). and culture is not necessarily inconsis- 3. In more ambitious variants of postmod- tent with structuralist models of change; ernism, the focus shifts away from sim- for example, Adorno (1976) has long ply mapping the sources of individual- argued that mass culture only serves to level attitudes or lifestyles, and the older obscure the more fundamental class di- class-analytic objective of understand- visions that underlie all historical ing macro-level stratificational change is change, and other neo-Marxians (e.g., resuscitated. This ambition underlies, Althusser 1969) have suggested that for example, all forms of postmod- some forms of ideological convergence ernism that seek to represent "new so- are merely transitory and will ultimately cial movements" (eg., feminism, ethnic wither away as economic interests re- and peace movements, environmental- assert themselves in the "last instance." ism) as the vanguard force behind fu- The uncoupling thesis can therefore be ture stratificatory change. As argued by rendered consistent with assorted ver- Eyerman (1992) and others (e.g., sions of structuralism, yet it nonetheless Touraine 198I), the labor movement lays the groundwork for theories that can be seen as a fading enterprise are fundamentally anti-structuralist in rooted in the old conflicts of the work- tone or character. place and industrial capitalism, whereas In some variants of postmodernism, the new social movements provide a more cultural sphere is not merely repre- appealing call for collective action by sented as increasingly autonomous from virtue of their emphasis on issues of class, but the underlying dynamics of lifestyle, personal identity, and norma- this sphere are also laid out in detail. tive change. With this formulation, the The characteristic claim in this regard is proletariat is stripped of its privileged that lifestyles, consumption practices, status as a universal class, and new so- and identities are a complex function of cial movements emerge as an alternative the multiple status affiliations of indi- force "shaping the future of modern so- viduals and the correspondingly "per- cieties" (Haferkamp and Smelser 1992, manent and irreducible pluralism of the 17). Although no self-respecting post- cultures" in which they participate modernist will offer up a fresh "grand (Bauman 1992, 102; see also Pakulski narrative" to replace that of discredited and Waters 1996; Hall 1989). This ac- Marxism, new social movements are count cannot of course be reduced to nonetheless represented within this sub- structuralist forms of multidimensional- tradition as a potential source of ism (Parsons 1970); after all, most post- change, albeit one that plays out in fun- modernists argue that status affiliations damentally unpredictable ways (e.g., do not mechanically determine con- Beck 1999). 4. The popularity of modern social move- bates; and (3) the continuing diffusion of ments might be attributed to ongoing egalitarian values suggests that all departures structural transformations (e.g., the rise from equality, no matter how small, will be of the new class) rather than to any in- the object of considerable interest among so- trinsic appeal of the egalitarian ideals or ciologists and the lay public alike (see Meyer values that these movements typically 2001). In making the latter point, our intent is represent. Although structural argu- not merely to note that sociologists may be- ments of this kind continue to be come "ever more ingenious" (Nisbet 1959, pressed (see, e.g., Eyerman 1992; Brint 12) in teasing out increasingly small depar- 1984), the alternative position staked tures from perfect equality, but also to suggest out by Meyer (2001) and others (e.g., that entirely new forms and sources of in- Eisenstadt 1992) is that cultural equality will likely be discovered and mar- premises such as egalitarianism and keted by sociologists. This orientation has functionalism are true generative forces long been in evidence; for example, when the underlying the rise and spread of mod- now-famous Scientific American studies (e.g., ern stratification systems (see also Par- Taylor, Sheatsley, and Greeley 1978) revealed sons 1970). As Meyer (2001) points that overt forms of racial and ethnic prejudice out, egalitarian values not only produce were withering away, the dominant reaction a real reduction in some forms of in- within the discipline was to ask whether such equality (e.g., civil inequalities), they apparent change concealed the emergence of also generate various societal sub- more subtle and insidious forms of symbolic terfuges (e.g., differentiation) by which racism (see, e.g., Sears, Hensler, and Speer inequality is merely concealed from 1979). In similar fashion, when Beller (1982) view rather than eliminated. The recent reported a modest decline in occupational sex work of Meyer (2001) provides, then, segregation, other sociologists were quick to an extreme example of how classical ask whether the models and methods being idealist principles can be deployed to deployed misrepresented the structure of account for modern stratificational change (e.g., Charles and Grusky 1995) or change. whether the classification system being used disguised counteracting trends at the intra- The final, and more prosaic, question that occupational level (e.g., Bielby and Baron might be posed is whether changes of the pre- 1986). The rise of personal computing and ceding sort presage a general decline in the the Internet has likewise led to much fretting field of stratification itself. It could well be ar- about possible class-based inequalities in ac- gued that Marxian and neo-Marxian models cess to computers (e.g., Nie and Erbring, of class will decline in popularity with the rise 2000;, Bosah 1998; Luke 1997). The point of postmodern stratification systems and the here is not to suggest that concerns of this associated uncoupling of class from lifestyles, kind are in any way misguided, but only to consumption patterns, and political behavior emphasize that modern sociologists are (see Clark and Lipset 1991). This line of rea- highly sensitized to inequalities and have a soning is not without merit, but it is worth special interest in uncovering those "deep noting that (1)past predictions of this sort structures" of social differentiation (e.g., have generated protracted debates that, if Baron 1994, 390) that are presumably con- anything, have reenergized the field (see, e.g., cealed from ordinary view. This sensitivity to Nisbet 1959); (2) the massive facts of eco- all things unequal bodes well for the future of nomic, political, and honorific inequality will the field even in the (unlikely) event of a long- still be with us even if narrowly conceived term secular movement toward diminishing 'models of class ultimately lose out in such de- inequality. The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality dimensional scale that is strongly correlated with its constituent parts. 1. In some stratification systems, the distribution 9. There is, of course, an ongoing tradition of re- of rewards can be described with a single matching search in which the class structure is represented in algorithm, because individuals receive rewards di- gradational terms (see, e.g., Blau and Duncan rectly rather than by virtue of the social positions 1967). However, no attempt has been made to that they occupy. The limiting case here would be construct an exhaustive rank-ordering of individu- the tribal economies of Melanesia in which "Big als based on their control over the resources listed Menn (Oliver 1955) secured prestige and power in Table 1, nor is there any available rank-ordering through personal influence rather than through in- of the thousands of detailed occupational titles that cumbency of any well-defined roles (see also Gra- can be found in modern industrial societies (cf. novetter 1981, 12-14). Cain and Treiman 1981; Jencks, Perman, and 2. It goes without saying that the assets listed in Rainwater 1988). The approach taken by most Table 1 are institutionalized in quite diverse ways. gradationalists has been (1)to map individuals into For example, some assets are legally recognized by a relatively small number (i.e., approximately 500) the state or by professional associations (e.g., civil of broad occupational categories and (2) to subse- rights, property ownership, educational creden- quently map these categories into an even smaller tials), others are reserved for incumbents of speci- number of prestige or socioeconomic scores. fied work roles (e.g., workplace authority), and yet 10. According to Dahrendorf (1959, 171-73), others have no formal legal or institutional stand- the classes so formed are always specific to particu- ing and are revealed probabilistically through pat- lar organizational settings, and the social standing terns of behavior and action (e.g., high-status con- of any given individual may therefore differ across sumption practices, deference, derogation). the various associations in which he or she partici- 3. It is sometimes claimed that educational cre- pates (e.g., workplace, church, polity). This line of dentials are entirely investment goods and should reasoning leads Dahrendorf (1959, 171) to con- therefore be excluded from any listing of the primi- clude that "if individuals in a given society are tive dimensions underlying stratification systems ranked according to the sum of their authority po- (e.g., Runciman 1968, 33). In evaluating this sitions in all associations, the resulting pattern will clam, it is worth noting that an investment not be a dichotomy but rather like scales of stratifi- rhetoric for schooling became fashionable only cation according to income or prestige." quite recently (e.g., Becker 1975), whereas intellec- 11. The class structure can also operate in less tuals and humanists have long viewed education as obtrusive ways; for example, one might imagine a a simple consumption good. social system in which classes have demonstrable 4. This is not to gainsay the equally important macro-level consequences (and are therefore point that parents often encourage their children "realn), yet their members are not fully aware of to acquire such goods because of their putative these consequences nor of their membership in any benefits. particular class. 5. The term stratification has itself been seen as 12. The assumptions embedded in columns 4-6 anti-Marxist by some commentators (e.g., Duncan of Table 2 are clearly far-reaching. Unless a strati- 1968), because it places emphasis on the vertical fication system is perfectly crystallized, its parame- ranking of classes rather than the exploitative rela- ters for inequality and rigidity cannot be repre- tions between them. The geological metaphor im- sented as scalar quantities, nor can the plied by this term does indeed call attention to is- intercorrelations between the multiple stratifica- sues of hierarchy; nonetheless, whenever it is used tion dimensions be easily summarized in a single in the present essay, the intention is to refer generi- parameter. Moreover, even in stratification systems cally to inequality of all forms (including those in- that are ~erfectlycrystallized, there is no reason to volving exploitation). believe that persistence over the lifecourse (i.e., in- 6. Although native ability is by definition estab- tragenerational persistence) will always vary in lished at birth, it is often seen as a legitimate basis tandem with persistence between generations (i.e., for allocating rewards (because it is presumed to be intergenerational inheritance). We have nonethe- relevant to judgments of merit). less assumed that each of our ideal-typical stratifi- 7. The scholars listed in the right-hand column cation systems can be characterized in terms of a of Table 1 are not necessarily reductionists of this single "rigidity parameter" (see column 5). sort. 13. This claim does not hold with respect to gen- 8. The viability of a synthesizing approach der; that is, men and women were typically as- clearly depends on the extent to which the stratifi- signed to different roles, which led to consequent cation system is crystallized. If the degree of crys- differences in the distribution of rewards (e.g., see fallization is low, then one cannot construct a uni- Pfeiffer 1977; Leakey and Lewin 1977). 14. It should again be stressed that our typology 24. This issue is addressed in greater detail in by no means exhausts the variability of agrarian Part IV ("Generating Inequality"). stratification forms (see Kerbo 2000 for an ex- 25. Although Pakulski and Waters (1996) use tended review). the label postmodern in their analyses, other schol- 15. The state elite was charged with construct- ars have invented such alternative terms as late ing and maintaining the massive irrigation systems modernity, high modernity, or reflexive moderniza- that made agriculture possible in regions such as tion (Beck 1999; Lash 1999; Giddens 1991), and China, India, and the Middle East (cf. Anderson yet others continue to use modernity on the 1974,490-92). grounds that the changes at issue are mere exten- 16. This is not to suggest that feudalism could sions of those long underway (e.g., Maryanski and only be found in the West or that the so-called Asi- Turner 1992). We use the conventional term post- atic mode was limited to the East. Indeed, the so- modern without intending to disadvantage the cial structure of Japan was essentially feudalistic analyses of those who prefer other labels. until the mid-nineteenth century (with the rise of 26. The rise of synthetic approaches makes it in- the Meiji State), and the Asiatic mode has been dis- creasingly difficult to label scholars in meaningful covered in areas as diverse as Africa, pre- ways. Although we have avoided standard "litmus Columbian America, and even Mediterranean test" definitions of what constitutes a true neo- Europe (see Godelier 1978). The latter "discover- Marxist or neo-Weberian, we have nonetheless ies" were of course predicated on a broad and ahis- found it possible (and useful) to classify scholars torical definition of the underlying ideal type. As broadly in terms of the types of intellectual prob- always, there is a tension between scholars who lems, debates, and literatures they address. seek to construct ideal types that are closely tied to 27. This position contrasts directly with the con- historical social systems and those who seek to ventional wisdom that "social mobility as such is ir- construct ones that are broader and more encom- relevant to the problem of the existence of classes" passing in their coverage. (Dahrendorf 19.59, 109; see also Poulantzas 1974, 17. This economic interpretation of feudalism is 37; Schumpeter 1951). clearly not favored by all scholars. For example, 28. It should be stressed that Giddens departs Bloch (1961, 288-89) argues that the defining fea- from usual neo-Weberian formulations on issues ture of feudalism is the monopolization of author- such as "the social and political significance of the ity by a small group of nobles, with the economic new middle class, the importance of bureaucracy concomitants of this authority (e.g., land owner- as a form of domination, and the character of the ship) thus being reduced to a position of secondary state as a focus of political and military power" importance. The "authority classes" that emerge (Giddens 1980,297). As indicated in the contents, under his specification might be seen as feudal ana- we have nonetheless reluctantly imposed the neo- logues to the social classes that Dahrendorf (1959) Weberian label on Giddens, if only because he fol- posits for the capitalist case. lows the lead of Weber in treating the foregoing 18. In the so-called secondary stage of feudalism issues as central to understanding modern industri- (Bloch 1961), the obligations of serfs and free men alism and capitalism (see note 26). became somewhat more formalized and standard- 29. There is a close affinity between models of ized, yet regional variations of various sorts still closure and those of exploitation. In comparing persisted. these approaches, the principal point of distinction 19. It was not until the early fourteenth century is that neo-Marxians focus on the economic re- that states of the modern sort appeared in Europe turns and interests' that exclusionary practices gen- (see Hechter and Brustein 1980). erate, whereas closure theorists emphasize the 20. In describing this period of classical feudal- common culture, sociocultural cohesiveness, and ism, Bloch (1961,325) noted that "access to the cir- shared market and life experiences that such prac- cle of knights . . . was not absolutely closed, [yet] tices may produce (see Grusky and Snrrensen 1998, the door was nevertheless only very slightly ajar." 1211). 21. The Indian caste system flourished during 30. However; insofar as "every new class achieves the agrarian period, yet it persists in attenuated its hegemony on a broader basis than that of the form within modern industrialized India (see Jalali class ruling previously" (Marx and Engels [I9471 1992). 1970, 66), the presocialist revolutions can be inter- 22. This is by no means an exhaustive listing of preted as partial steps toward a classless society. the various approaches that have been taken (see 31. It is frequently argued that Americans have pp. 15-22 for a more detailed review). an elective affinity for gradational models of class. 23. Although educational institutions clearly In accounting for this affinity, Ossowski (1963) .play a certifying role, it does not follow that they and others (e.g., Lipset and Bendix 1959) have emerge merely to fill a "functional need" for highly cited the absence of a feudal or aristocratic past in trained workers (see Collins 1979). American history and the consequent reluctance of T-e Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality

Americans to recognize differences in status or tion has not been sufficiently appreciated in recent power with overt forms of deference or derogation. debates about the appropriateness of treating fami- 32. Although some of the research completed lies as the primitive units of modern stratification by Warner was gradational in character (e.g., analysis (see SzelCnyi 2001). Warner 1949, ch. 2), his preferred mapping of the American class structure is based on purely dis- crete categories. 33. This recommendation holds only for studies of attainment processes. In fact, given that other References weightings may be optimal in other research con- Abramson, Paul, and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. texts, Hauser and Warren (1997, 251) argue that Value Change in Global Perspective. Ann Ar- "the global concept of occupational status is scien- bor: University of Michigan Press. tifically obsolete." Adorno, Theodore. 1976. Introduction to the So- 34. In this context, a "job" is a collection of ac- ciology of Music. New York: Continuum. tivities that a worker is expected to perform in ex- Alba, Richard D. 1992. "Ethnicity." Pages change for remuneration, whereas an "occupa- 575-84 in Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by tion" refers to an aggregation of jobs that are Edgar F. Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta. New similar in terms of the activities performed. York: Macmillan. 35. This is not to suggest that the "subjects" Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. London: Verso. themselves always fully appreciate the class-based Anderson, Perry. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist sources of their tastes and preferences. As argued State. London: Verso. by Bourdieu (1977), the conditioning process is Aronowitz, Stanley, and William DiFazio. 1994. typically so seamless and unobtrusive that the The Jobless Future: Sci-Tech and the Dogma of _ sources of individual dispositions are concealed Work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota from view, and the "superior" tastes and privileged Press. outcomes of socioeconomic elites are therefore Arrow, Kenneth J. 1973. "The Theory of Discrimi- misperceived (and legitimated) as the product of nation." Pages 3-33 in Discrimimtion in Labor individual merit or worthiness. Markets, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and Albert 36. The defining feature of ethnic groups is that Rees. Princeton: Princeton University Press. their members "entertain a subjective belief in their Aschaffenburg, Karen E. 1995. "On the Distribu- common descent because of similarities of physical tion of Cultural Capital: Social Location and type or of customs or both, or because of memories Cultural Participation." Ph.D. diss., Depart- of colonization and migration" (Weber [I9221 ment of Sociology, Stanford University. 1968, 389). This definition implies that "races" Averitt, Robert T. 1968. The Dual Economy: The are particular types of ethnic groups in which puta- Dynamics of American Industry Structure. tive physical similarities provide the basis for a New York: Norton. subjective belief in common descent (see Alba Baltzell, Edward D. 1958. Philadelphia Gentle- 1992,575-76 for competing definitions). men. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 37. There is, of course, a large popular literature Baltzell, Edward D. 1964. The Protestant Estab- that represents gender conflict in wholly individu- lishment. New York: Random House. alistic terms. This tendency to personalize gender Baltzell, Edward D. 1991. The Protestant Estab- conflicts reflects the simple fact that men and lishment Revisited. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans- women interact frequently and intimately in family action Publishers. settings. Barber, Bernard. 1968. "Social Stratification." 38. The position that Zeitlin (1982) takes here is Pages 288-95 in Intermtiom1 Encyclopedia of directed against the conventional argument that the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills. New corporate ownership in Western industrialized so- York: Macmillan. cieties is so diffused across multiple stockholders Barley, Stephen R. 1996. "Technicians in the that effective corporate power has now defaulted Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bring- to managers. ing Work into Organization Studies." Adminis- 39. The recent work of Wright (1985) is simi- trative Science Quarterly 41:40441. larly zero-sum in character. Although Wright em- Barley, Stephen R., and Beth A. Bechky. 1994. "In phasizes that multiple forms of capital tend to co- the Backrooms of Science: The Work of Techni- exist in any given historical system, he nonetheless cians in Science Labs." Work and Occupations defines the march of history in terms of transitions 21:85-126. from one dominant form of capital to another. Barley, Stephen R. and Pamela S. Tolbert. 1991. . 40. The importance of distinguishing between "Introduction: At the Intersection of Organiza- the early and mature Parsons on matters of stratifi- tions and Occupations." Research in the Soci- cation should therefore be stressed. This distinc- ology of Organizations 8: 1-13. Baron, James N. 1994. "Reflections on Recent Mobility." American Sociological Review 58: Generations of Mobility Research." Pages 97-109. 384-93 in Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Biblarz, Timothy J., and Adrian E. Raftery. 1999. Gender in Sociological Perspective, edited by "Family Structure, Educational Attainment, David B. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. and Socioeconomic Success: Rethinking the Barrett, Michide. 1980. Women's Oppression To- 'Pathology of Matriarchy'." American Journal day: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis. of Sociology 105:321-65. London: Verso. Bielby, William T. 2000. "Minimizing Workplace Bauman, Zygmunt. 1992. Intimations of Post- Gender and Racial Bias." Contemporary Soci- modernity. London: Routledge. ology 29:120-29. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Bielby, William T., and James N. Baron. 1986. Cambridge: Polity Press. "Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation Baumol, William J. 1967. "The Macro-Eco- and Statistical Discrimination." American Jour- nomics of Unbalanced Growth." American nal of Sociology 9 1:759-99. Economic Review 57:415-26. Biernacki, Richard. 1995. The Fabrication of La- Baxter, Janeen, and Mark Western. Forthcoming. bor: Germany and Britain, 1640-1 914. Berke- Reconfigurations of Class and Gender. Stan- ley: University of California Press. ford: Stanford University Press. Birdsall, Nancy, and Carol Graham. 2000. New Bayly, Susan. 1999. The New Cambridge History Markets, New Opportunities? Economic and of India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Social Mobility in a Changing World. Washing- Press. ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Beck, Ulrich. 1987. "Beyond Status and Class: Blair-Loy, Mary. 1999. "Career Patterns of Execu- Will There be an Individualized Class Society?" tive Women in France: An Optimal Matching In Modem German Sociology, edited by Volker Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 104: Meja, Dieter Misgeld, and Nico Stehr. New 1346-97. York: Columbia University Press. Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society. London: Sage The American Occupational Structure. New Publications. York: Wiley. Beck, Ulrich. 1999. World Risk Society. Cam- Bloch, Marc. 1961. Feudal Society. London: bridge: Polity Press. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Becker, Gary S. 1957. The Economics of Discrim- Bonacich, Edna. 1972. "A Theory of Ethnic An- ination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. tagonism: The Split Labor Market." American Becker, Gary S. 1975. Human Capital. Chicago: Sociological Review 37547-59. University of Chicago Press. Bosah, Ebo, ed. 1998. Cyberghetto or Cyber- Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial topia? Race, Class, and Gender on the Internet. Society. New York: Basic Books. Westport, CT: Praeger. Bell, Daniel. 1975. "Ethnicity and Social Bottomore, Thomas B. 1965. Classes in Modern Change." Pages 141-74 in Ethnicity: Theory Society. London: Allen & Unwin. and Experience, edited by Nathan Glazer and Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Daniel P. Moynihan. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. New versity Press. York: Cambridge University Press. Bell, Daniel. 1987. "The New Class: A Muddled Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. Algeria 1960. Translated Concept." Pages 455-68 in Structured Social by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Inequality, 2d ed., edited by Celia S. Heller. versity Press. New York: Macmillan. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. A Social Cri- Beller, Andrea H. 1982. "Occupational Segrega- tique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by tion by Sex and Race, 1960-81." Pages 11-26 Richard Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University in Sex Segregation in the Workplace, edited by Press. Barbara F. Reskin. Washington, DC: National Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. "What Makes a Social Academy. Class?" Berkeley Journul of Sociology 22:l-18. Berg, Ivar. 1973. Education and Jobs: The Great Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. Training Robbery. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, Books. and Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publica- Berle, Adolf, and Gardiner Means. 1932. The tions. Modern Corporation and Private Property. Bradley, Harriet. 1996. Fractured Identities: New York: Macmillan. Changing Patterns of Inequality. Cambridge: Berreman, Gerald. 1981. Caste and Other In- Polity Press. equities. Delhi: Manohar. Brass, Paul R. 1983. Caste, Faction, and Party in Biblarz, Timothy J., and Adrian E. Raftery. 1993. Indian Politics: Faction and Party. Vol. 1. "The Effects of Family Disruption on Social Delhi: Chanakya Publications. The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality Brass, Paul R. 1985. Caste, Faction, and Party in Casey, Catherine. 1995. Work, Self, and Society. Indian Politics: Elections Studies. Vol. 2. Delhi: London: Routledge. Chanakya Publications. Castells, Manuel. 1999. The Information Age: Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Economy, Society, and Culture. Vols. I, 11, and Cupital. New York and London: Monthly Re- 111. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. view Press. Chaney, David. 1996. Lifestyles. London: Rout- Breen, Richard, and John H. Goldthorpe. 1997. ledge. "Explaining Educational Differentials: To- Chapin, Francis S. 1935. Contemporary Ameri- wards a Formal Rational Action Theory." Ra- can Institutions: A Sociological Analysis. New tionality and Society 9:275-305. York: Harper & Row. Brint, Steven. 1984. "New Class and Cumulative Charles, Maria, and David B. Grusky. 1995. Trend Explanations of Liberal Political Atti- "Models for Describing the Underlying Struc- tudes of Professionals." American Journal of ture of Sex Segregation." American Journal of Sociology 90:30-71. Sociology 100:931-71. Brinton, Mary C., Yean-Ju Lee, and William L. Chesneaux, Jean. 1964. "Le mode de production Parish. 1995. "Married Women's Employment asiatique: Une nouvelle &ape de la discussion." in Rapidly Industrializing Societies: Examples Eirenc 3:13146. from East Asia." American Journal of Sociol- Clark, Terry N., and Seymour M. Lipset. 1991. ogy 100:1099-1130. "Are Social Classes Dying?" International Soci- Brook, Timothy. 1989. The Asiatic Mode of Pro- ology 6:397410. duction in China. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Broom, Leonard, and Robert G. Cushing. 1977. Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. "A Modest Test of an Immodest Theory: The Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict Sociology. New Functional Theory of Stratification." American York: Academic Press. Sociological Review 42:157-69. Collins, Randall. 1979. The Credential Society. Brown, Phillip, and Rosemary Crompton, eds. New York: Academic Press. 1994. Economic Restructuring and Social Ex- Connor, Walter D. 1991. The Accidental Prole- clusion. London: Taylor & Francis. tariat: Workers, Politics, and Crisis in Gor- Brubaker, Rogers. 1985. "Rethinking Classical bachev's Russia. Princeton: Princeton Univer- Theory: The Sociological Vision of Pierre Bour- sity Press. dieu." Theory and Society 14:745-75. Corcoran, Mary, and Terry Adams. 1997. "Race, Bryson, Bethany. 1996. "'Anything But Heavy Sex, and the Intergenerational Transmission of Metal': Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dis- Poverty." Pages 46 1-5 17 in Consequences of likes." American Sociological Review 61: Growing Up Poor, edited by Greg J. Duncan 884-99. and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. New York: Russell Burnham, James. 1962. The Managerial Revolu- Sage Foundation. tion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cornell, Stephen. 2000. "That's the Story of Our Burstein, Paul, ed. 1994. Equal Employment Op- Life." Pages 41-53 in We Are a People: Narra- portunity: Labor Market Discrimination and tive and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Public Policy. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Identity, edited by Paul Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burstein, Paul. 1998. Discrimination, Jobs, and Burroughs. Philadelphia: Temple University Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Press. Opportunity in the United States since the New Coser, Lewis A. 1975. "Presidential Address: Two Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Methods in Search of a Substance." American Burt, Ronald S. 1997. "The Contingent Value of Sociological Review 40:691-700. Social Capital." Administrative Science Quar- Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsen, and Reeve terly 42:339-65. Vanneman. 1999. "Systems of Gender, Race, Burton, Mary D., and David B. Grusky. 1992. "A and Class Inequality: Multilevel Analyses." So- Quantitative History of Comparative Stratifica- cial Forces 78:433-60. tion Research." Contemporary Sociology Crompton, Rosemary. 1996. Class and Stratifica- 21:623-31. tion: An Introduction to Current Debates. Cain, Pamela S., and Donald J. Treiman. 1981. Cambridge: Polity Press. "The Dictionary of Occupational Titles as a Crook, Stephen, Jan Pakulski, and Malcolm Source of Occupational Data." American Soci- Waters. 1992. Postmodernization. London: ological Review 46:253-78. Sage Publications. Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Po- Cullen, John B., and Shelley M. Novick. 1979. stone, eds. 1993. Bourdieu: Critical Perspec- "The Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification: A 'tives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Further Examination and Extension." Ameri- Calhoun, Craig, ed. 1994. Social Theory and the can Journal of Sociology 84:1424-37. Politics of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict Trend." Pages 675-719 in Indicators of Social in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford Uni- Change, edited by Eleanor B. Sheldon and versity Press. Wilbert E. Moore. New York: Russell Sage Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1968. Essays in the Theory of Foundation. Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Durkheim, fimile. [I8931 1933. The Division of Danziger, Sheldon, and Peter Gottschalk, eds. Labor in Society. New York: Macmillan. 1993. Uneven Tides: Rising Inequality in Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Amerka. New York: Russell Sage. Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Wel- Danziger, Sheldon, and Peter Gottschalk. 1995. fare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell America Unequal. New York: Russell Sage. Sage Foundation. Davis, James. 1982. "Achievement Variables and Ehrenreich, Barbara, and John Ehrenreich. 1979. Class Cultures: Family, Schooling, Job, and "The Professional-Managerial Class." Pages Forty-Nine Dependent Variables in the Cumu- 5-45 in Between Labor and Capital, edited by lative GSS." American Sociological Review Pat Walker. Boston: South End Press. 47569-86. Eisenstadt, S. N. 1992. "A Reappraisal of Theo- Davis, Kingsley. 1948. Human Society. New ries of Social Change and Modernization." York: Macmillan. Pages 412-29 in Social Change and Modernity, Davis, Kingsley. 1953. "Reply." American Socio- edited by Hans Haferkamp and Neil J. Smelser. logical Review 18:394-97. Berkeley: University of California Press. Davis, Kingsley, and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945. Emmison, Michael, and Mark Western. 1990. "Some Principles of Stratification." American "Social Class and Social Identity: A Comment Sociological Review 10:242-49. on Marshall et al." Sociology 24:241-53. DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. "Cultural Boundaries and England, Paula. 1992. Comparable Worth: Theo- Structural Change: The Extension of the High ries and Evidence. New York: de Gruyter. Culture Model to Theater, Opera, and the Erikson, Robert, and John H. Goldthorpe. 1992. Dance, 1900-1940." Pages 21-57 in Cultivat- The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility ing Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Making of Inequality, edited by Michde La- Press. mont and Marcel Fournier. Chicago: University Erikson, Robert, and John H. Goldthorpe. 2000. of Chicago Press. "Trends in Class Mobility: The Post-War Euro- DiMaggio, Paul. 2000. "Social Stratification, Life pean Experience." Pages 344-372 in Social Style, and Social Cognition." Pages 542-552 in Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Soci- Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender ological Perspective, 2d ed., edited by David B. in Sociological Perspective, 2d ed., edited by Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. David B. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Esping-Andersen, Gssta. 1990. The Three Worlds DiPrete, Thomas A., Paul M. de Graaf, Ruud of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Luijkx, Michael Tihlin, and Hans-Peter Bloss- Esping-Andersen, Gssta. 1993. Changing Classes: feld. 1997. "Collectivist versus Individualist Stratification and Mobility in Post-Industrial Mobility Regimes? Structural Change and Job Societies. London: Sage. Mobility in Four Countries." American Journal Esping-Andersen, Gssta. 1999. Social Founda- of Sociology 103:318-58. tions of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: DiPrete, Thomas A., and Patricia A. McManus. Oxford University Press. 1996. "Institutions, Technical Change, and Di- Evans, Geoffrey. 1999. The End of Class Politics? verging Life Chances: Earnings Mobility in the Class Voting in Comparative Context. Oxford: United States and Germany." American Journal Oxford University Press. of Sociology 102:34-79. Eyal, Gil, Ivin Szelinyi, and Eleanor Townsley. Djilas, Milovan. 1965. The New Class. New 1998. Making Capitalism without Capitalists: I York: Praeger. The New Ruling Elites in Eastern Europe. Lon- ; Doeringer, Peter, and Michael Piore. 1971. Inter- don: Verso. nal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Eyal, Gil, Ivin Szelinyi, and Eleanor Townsley. ; Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. 2000. "Making Capitalism without Capital- ' Domhoff, G. William. 1998. Who Rules America? ists." Pages 852-858 in Social Stratification: Power and Politics in the Year 2000. Mountain Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Per- View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. spective, 2d ed., edited by David B. Grusky. Drucker, Peter. 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. New Boulder, CO: Westview Press. York: Harper. Eyerman, Ron. 1992. "Modernity and Social Dumont, Louis. 1970. Homo Hierarchicus. Movements." Pages 37-54 in Social Change Chicago: University of Chicago Press. and Modernity, edited by Hans Haferkamp Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1968. "Social Stratification and Neil J. Smelser. Berkeley: University of and Mobility: Problems in the Measurement of California Press. The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality

Featherman, David L. 1981. "Social Stratification ory and Experience, edited by Nathan Glazer and Mobility." American Behavioral Scientist and Daniel P. Moynihan. Cambridge: Harvard 24:364-85. University Press. Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser. Godelier, Maurice. 1978. "The Concept of the 1978. Opportunity and Change. New York: 'Asiatic Mode of Production' and Marxist Academic Press. Models of Social Evolution." Pages 209-57 in Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Consumer Culture and Relations of Production, Marxist Approaches Postmodernism. London: Sage. to Economic Anthropology, edited by D. Sed- Ferrante, Joan, and Prince Brown, Jr. 1996. The don. London: Cass. Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity in Goldthorpe, John H. 1982. "On the Service Class: the United States. New York: Longrnan. Its Formation and Future." Pages 162-185 in Finley, Moses J. 1960. Slavery in Classical Antiq- Social Class and the Division of Labor, edited uity. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons. by A. Giddens and G. Mackenzie. Cambridge: Firestone, Shulamith. 1972. The Dialectic of Sex. Cambridge University Press. New York: Bantam. Goldthorpe, John H. 1987. Social Mobility and Fischer, Claude S., Michael Hout, Martin SQnchez Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Clarendon Press. Kim Voss. 1996. Inequality by Design: Crack- Goldthorpe, John H., David Lockwood, Frank ing the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton: Princeton Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt. 1969. The Aff2u- University Press. ent Worker in the Class Structure. London: Fligstein, Neil, and Peter Brantley. 1992. "Bank Cambridge University Press. Control, Owner Control, or Organizational Goldthorpe, John H., and Gordon Marshall. Dynamics: Who Controls the Modern Corpo- 1992. "The Promising Future of Class Analy- ration?" American Journal of Sociology 98: sis: A Response to Recent Critiques." Sociology 280-307. 26:381400. Fligstein, Neil, and Haldor Byrkjeflot. 1996. "The Gordon, Milton M. 1978. Human Nature, Class, Logic of Employment Systems." Pages 11-35 in and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Social Differentiation and Social Inequality, Press. edited by James N. Baron, David B. Grusky, Gottschalk, Peter. 1997. "Inequality, Income and Donald J. Treiman. Boulder, CO: Westview Growth, and Mobility: The Basic Facts." Jour- Press. nal of Economic Perspectives 11:2140. Freidson, Eliot. 1994. Professionalism Reborn: Gouldner, Alvin. 1979. The Future of Intellectuals Theory, Prophecy, and Policy. Chicago: Univer- and the Rise of the New Class. New York: sity of Chicago Press. Seabury. Fussell, Paul. 1983. Class. New York: Ballantine. Gouldner, Alvin. 1980. The Two Marxisms: Con- Ganzeboom, Harry B. G., Donald J. Treiman, and tradictions and Anomalies in the Development Wout C. Ultee. 1991. "Comparative Intergen- of Theory. New York: Seabury Press. erational Stratification Research: Three Gener- Granovetteq Mark. 1981. "Toward a Sociological ations and Beyond." Annual Review of Sociol- Theory of Income Differences." Pages 11-47 in ogy 17:277-302. Sociological Perspectives on Labor Markets, Gartman, David. 1991. "Culture as Class Sym- edited by Ivar Berg. New York: Academic bolization or Mass Reification? A Critique of Press. Bourdieu's Distinction." American Journal of Grusky, David B. 2000. "Foundations of Class Sociology 97:42147. Analysis: A Durkheimian Perspective." Center Gershuny, Jonathan. 1983. Social Innovation and for the Study of Inequality Working Paper, Cor- the Division of Labor. Oxford: Oxford Univer- nell University, Ithaca. sity Press. Grusky, David B., and Thomas A. DiPrete. 1990. Giddens, Anthony. 1973. The Class Structure of "Recent Trends in the Process of Stratifica- the Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson. tion." Demography 27:617-37. Giddens, Anthony. 1980. "Postscript." In The Grusky, David B., and Robert M. Hauser. 1984. Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. Lon- "Comparative Social Mobility Revisited: Mod- don: Hutchinson. els of Convergence and Divergence in 16 Coun- Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self- tries." American Sociological Review 49: Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern 19-38. Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grusky, David B., and Jesper B. Ssrensen. 1998. Gilbert, Dennis. 1998. The American Class Struc- "Can Class Analysis Be Salvaged?" American .ture in an Age of Growing Inequality. Belmont, Journal of Sociology 103:1187-1234. CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Grusky, David B., and Jesper B. Ssrensen. 2001. Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1975. "Are There Big Social Classes?" Pages 183-194 "Introduction." Pages 3-26 in Ethnicity: The- in Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gen- der in Sociological Perspective, 2d ed., edited Hauser, Robert M., and Megan M. Sweeney. by David B. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview 1997. "Does Poverty in Adolescence Affect the Press. Life Chances of High School Graduates?" Pages Grusky, David B., and Ann Azumi Takata. 1992. 541-95 in Consequences of Growing Up Poor, "Social Stratification." Pages 1955-70 in Ency- edited by Greg J. Duncan and Jeanne Brooks- clopedia of Sociology, edited by Edgar F. Bor- Gunn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. gatta and Marie L. Borgatta. New York: Hauser, Robert M., and John Robert Warren. Macmillan. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes of Occupa- Grusky, David B., and Stephen E. Van Rompaey. tional Status: A Review, Update, and Critique." 1992. "The Vertical Scaling of Occupations: Pages 177-298 in Sociological Methodology, Some Cautionary Comments and Reflections." 1997, edited by Adrian Raftery. Cambridge: American Journal of Sociology 97:1712-28. Blackwell. Haferkamp, Hans, and Neil J. Smelser. 1992. "In- Hauser, Robert M., Shu-Ling Tsai, and William troduction." Pages 1-33 in Social Change and H. Sewell. 1983. "A Model of Stratification Modernity, edited by Hans Haferkamp and with Response Error in Social and Psychologi- Neil J. Smelser. Berkeley: University of Califor- cal Variables." Sociology of Education 56: nia Press. 2046. Halaby, Charles N., and David Weakliem. 1993. Hechter, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism: "Class and Authority in the Earnings Function." The Celtic Fringe in British National Develop- American Sociological Review 58:16-30. ment, 1536-1 966. Berkeley: University of Cali- Hall, Stuart. 1989. "The Meaning of New fornia Press. Times." Pages 116-34 in New Times: The Hechter, Michael, and William Brustein. 1980. Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s, edited "Regional Modes of Production and Patterns by Stuart Hall and Martin Jacques. London: of State Formation in Western Europe." Amerz- Lawrence & Wishart. can Journal of Sociology 85:1061-94. Hall, John R. 1992. "The Capital(s) of Cultures: Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. A Nonholistic Approach to Status Situations, 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Class, Gender, and Ethnicity." Pages 257-85 in Structure in American Life. New York: Simon Cultivating Differences. Symbolic Boundaries & Schuster. and the Making of Inequality. Chicago: Univer- Hill Collins, Patricia. 1990. Black Feminist sity of Chicago Press. Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Halle, David. 1996. Inside Culture: Art and Class Politics of Empowerment. London: Routledge. in the American Home. Chicago: University of Hirschman, Charles, and C. Matthew Snipp. Chicago Press. 1999. "The State of the American Dream: Race Han, Shin-Kap, and Phyllis Moen. 1999. and Ethnic Socioeconomic Inequality in the "Clocking Out: Temporal Patterning of Re- United States, 1970-1990." Pages 89-107 in A tirement." American Journal of Sociology Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and 105:191-236. Community in American Society, edited by Hannan, Michael. 1994. "Dynamics of Ethnic Phyllis Moen, Donna Dempster-McClain, and Boundaries." Pages 500-8 in Social Stratifica- Henry A. Walker. Ithaca: Cornell University tion: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Press. Perspective, edited by David B. Grusky. Boul- Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1965. "Introduction." Pages der, CO: Westview Press. 9-65 in Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, Harrison, Bennett, and Barry Bluestone. 1988. translated by Jack Cohen and edited by Eric J. The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring Hobsbawm. New York: International Publishers. and the Polarizing of America. New York: Ba- Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1981. What's Fair? Amer- sic Books. ican Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cam- Hartmann, Heidi. 1981. "The Unhappy Marriage bridge: Hanard University Press. of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1995. Facing Up to the Progressive Union." Pages 1-41 in Women and American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of Revolution, edited by Lydia Sargent. Boston: the Nation. Princeton: Princeton University South End Press. Press. Hauser, Robert M., and David L. Featherman. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno. 1972. 1977. The Process of Stratification: Trends and Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder Analyses. New York: Academic Press. & Herder. Hauser, Robert M., and Min-Hsiung Huang. Hout, Michael. 1988. "More Universalism, Less . 1997. "Verbal Ability and Socioeconomic Suc- Structural Mobility: The American Occupa- cess: A Trend Analysis." Social Science Re- tional Structure in the 1980s." Amerrcan Jour- search 26:331-76. nal of Sociology 93:1358-1400. The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality

Hout, Michael, and Robert M. Hauser. 1992. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1994. "Mother's Occupational "Symmetry and Hierarchy in Social Mobility: Status and Children's Schooling." American A Methodological Analysis of the CASMIN Sociological Review 59:257-75. Model of Class Mobility." European Sociologi- Kautsky, Karl. 1903. The Social Revolution. cal Review 8:23946. Chicago: C. H. Kerr and Company. Hout, Michael, Clem Brooks, and Jeff Manza. Keller, Suzanne. 1991. Beyond the Ruling Class: 1993. "The Persistence of Classes in Post- Strategic Elites in Modern Society. New Industrial Societies." International Sociology Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 8:259-77. Kelley, Jonathan. 1981. Revolution and the Re- Huaco, George A. 1966. "The Functionalist The- birth of Inequality. Berkeley: University of Cal- ory of Stratification: Two Decades of Contro- ifornia Press. versy." Inquiry 9:215-40. Kelley, Jonathan, and M. D. R. Evans. 1995. Hyman, Herbert H. 1966. "The Value Systems of "Class and Class Conflict in Six Western Na- Different Classes. A Social Psychological Con- tions." American Sociological Review 60: tribution to the Analysis of Stratification." 157-78. Pages 488-99 in Class, Status, and Power, Kerbo, Harold R. 1991. Social Stratification and edited by Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical and Lipset. New York: Free Press. Comparative Perspective. New York: McGraw- Ishida, Hiroshi, Walter Miiller, and John M. Hill. Ridge. 1995. "Class Origin, Class Destination, Kerbo, Harold R. 2000. Social Stratification and and Education: A Cross-National Study of Ten Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical, Com- Industrial Nations." American Journal of Soci- parative, and Global Perspective. New York: ology 101:145-93. McGraw-Hill. Jackson, Elton F., and Richard F. Curtis. 1972. Kerckhoff, Alan C. 1996. Generating Social Strat- "Effects of Vertical Mobility and Status Incon- ification: Toward a New Research Agenda. sistency: A Body of Negative Evidence." Amer- Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ican Sociological Review 37:701-13. Kerr, Clark, John T. Dunlop, Frederick H. Harbi- Jackson, Robert Max. 1998. Destined for Equal- son, and Charles A. Myers. 1964. Industrialism ity: The Inevitable Rise of Women's Status. and Industrial Man. New York: Oxford Uni- Cambridge: Harvard University Press. versity Press. Jalali, Rita. 1992. "Caste and Class." Pages Kilbourne, Barbara Stanek, Paula England, 172-76 in Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by George Farkas, Kurt Beron, and Dorothea Edgar F. Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta. New Weir. 1994. "Returns to Skill, Compensating York: Macmillan. Differentials, and Gender Bias: Effects of Occu- Jencks, Christopher, Susan Bartlett, Mary Corco- pational Characteristics on the Wages of White ran, James Crouse, David Eaglesfield, Gregory Women and Men." American Journal of Soci- Jackson, Kent McClelland, Peter Mueser, ology 100:689-719. Michael Olneck, Joseph Schwartz, Sherry Kingston, Paul W. Forthcoming. The Classless So- Ward, and Jill Williams. 1979. Who Gets ciety. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success Kluegel, James R., and Lawrence Bobo. 1993. in America. New York: Basic Books. "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Jencks, Christopher, Lauri Perman, and Lee Rain- Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?" water. 1988. "What Is a Good Job? A New American Sociological Review 58:443-64. Measure of Labor-Market Success." American Kluegtl, James R., and Eliot R. Smith. 1986. Be- Journal of Sociology 93:1322-57. liefs About Inequality: Americans' Views of Jencks, Christopher, Marshall Smith, Henry What Is and What Ought to Be. New York: Al- Acland, Mary Jo Bane, David Cohen, Herbert dine de Gruyter. Gintis, Barbara Heyns, and Stephen Michelson. Kohn, Melvin L. 1980. "Job Complexity and 1972. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect Adult Personality." Pages 193-210 in Themes of Family and Schooling in America. New of Work and Love in Adulthood, edited by Neil York: Basic Books. J. Smelser and Erik H. Erikson. Cambridge: Johnson, Jacqueline, Sharon Rush, and Joe Fea- Harvard University Press. gin. 2000. "Doing Antiracism and Making a Kohn, Melvin L., and Carmi Schooler (with the Nonracist Society." Contemporary Sociology collaboration of Joanne Miller, Karen A. Miller, 29:95-110. Carrie Schoenbach, and Ronald Schoenberg). Jowitt, Ken. 1992. New World Disorder: The 1983. Work and Personality: An Inquiry into Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, California Press. NJ: Ablex. Kohn, Melvin L., and Kazimierz M. Slomczynski Levy, Frank. 1998. The New Dollars and Dreams: (with the collaboration of Carrie Schoenbach). American Incomes and Economic Change. 1990. Social Structure and Self-Direction: A New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Comparative Analysis of the United States and Levy, Marion, Jr. 1966. Modernization and the Poland. Oxford: Blackwell. Structure of Societies. Princeton: Princeton Uni- Kohn, Melvin L., Kazimierz M. Slornczynski, versity Press. Krystyna Janicka, Valeri Khmelko, Bogdan Lieberson, Stanley. 2001. "Understanding Ascrip- W. Mach, Vladimir Paniotto, Wojciech tive Stratification: Some Issues and Principles." Zaborowski, Roberto Gutierrez, and Cory Hey- Pages 580-592 in Social Stratification: Class, man. 1997. "Social Structure and Personality Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Under Conditions of Radical Social Change: A 2d ed., edited by David B. Grusky. Boulder, Comparative Analysis of Poland and Ukraine." CO: Westview Press. American Sociological Review 62:6 14-3 8. Lin, Nan. 1999. "Social Networks and Status At- Konrld, George, and Ivln Szelknyi. 1979. The In- tainment." Annual Review of Sociology tellectuals on the Road to Class Power. New 25:467-87. York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. Political Man: The So- Krader, Lawrence. 1975. The Asiatic Mode of cial Bases of Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Production: Sources, Development, and Cri- University Press. tique in the Writings of Karl Marx. Assen: Van Lipset, Seymour M. 1968. "Social Class." Pages Gorcum. 296-316 in International Encyclopedia of the Lachmann, Richard. 1990. "Class Formation Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills. New York: without Class Struggle: An Elite Conflict The- Macmillan. ory of the Transition to Capitalism." American Lipset, SeymourM., and Reinhard Bendix. 1959. Sociological Review 55:398414. Social Mobility in lndustrial Society. Berkeley: Lamont, Michele. 1992. Money, Morals, and University of California Press. Manners: The Culture of the French and the Logan, John Allen. 1996. "Rational Choice and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: Uni- the TSL Model of Occupational Opportunity." versity of Chicago Press. Rationality and Society 8:207-30. Landecker, Werner S. 1981. Class Crystallization. Luke, Timothy W. 1997. "The Politics of Digital New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Inequality: Access, Capability, and Distribution Lasch, Christopher. 1977. Haven in a Heartless in Cyberspace." New Political Science 4142: World. New York: Basic Books. 12144. Lash, Scott. 1999. Another Modernity, A Differ- Mandel, Ernest. 1971. The Formation of the Eco- ent Rationality. Oxford: Blackwell. nomic Thought of Karl Marx. New York: Leach, Edmund R. 1960. Aspects of Caste in Monthly Review Press. South India, Ceylon, and North- West Pakistan. Manza, Jeff. 1992. "Classes, Status Groups, and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Social Closure: A Critique of Neo-Weberian Leakey, Richard, and Roger Lewin. 1977. Ori- Social Theory." Pages 275-302 in Current Per- gins. New York: Dutton. spectives in Social Theory, edited by Ben Agger. Leicht, Kevin T., ed. 1999. The Future of Afirma- Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. tive Action. Stamford: JAI Press. Manza, Jeff, and Clem Brooks. 1999. Social Lenski, Gerhard E. 1954. "Status Crystallization: Cleavages and Political Change: Voter Align- A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status." ments and U.S. Party Coalitions. Oxford: Ox- American Sociological Review 19:405-13. ford University Press. Lenski, Gerhard E. 1966. Power and Privilege. Marini, Margaret M., and Mary C. Brinton. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1984. "Sex Typing in Occupational Socializa- Lenski, Gerhard E. 1978. "Marxist Experiments tion." Pages 192-232 in Sex Segregation in the in Destratification: An Appraisal." Social Workplace, edited by Barbara Reskin. Wash- Forces 57:364-83. ington, DC: National Academy Press. Lenski, Gerhard E. 2001. "New Light on Old Is- Marini, Margaret Mooney, and Pi-Ling Fan. sues: The Relevance of 'Really Existing Social- 1997. "The Gender Gap in Earnings at Career ist Societies' for Stratification Theory." Pages Entry." American Sociological Review 62: 77-84 in Social Stratification: Class, Race, and 588-604. Gender in Sociological Perspective, 2d ed., Marshall, Gordon, David Rose, Howard Newby, edited by David B. Gmsky. Boulder, CO: West- and Carolyn Vogler. 1988. Social Class in Mod- view Press. ern Britain. London: Unwin Hyman. Lerner, Robert, Althea K. Nagai, and Stanley Marshall, Gordon. 1997. Repositioning Class: So- Rothman. 1996. American Elites. New Haven: cial Inequality in lndustrial Societies. London: Yale University Press. Sage Publications. The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality 47 Marshall, Thomas H. 1981. The Right to Welfare Murphy, Raymond. 1988. Social Closure: The and Other Essays. New York: Free Press. Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion. Ox- Marx, Karl. 1948. Manifesto of the Communist ford: Clarendon Press. Party. New York: International Publishers. Nee, Victor. 2001. "Postsocialist Transition." Marx, Karl. [I9391 1971. The Gnmdrisse. New Pages 846-852 in Social Stratification: Class, York: Harper & Row. Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Marx, Karl. [I8941 1972. Capital. 3 vols. Lon- 2d ed., edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: don: Lawrence & Wishart. Westview Press. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. [I9471 1970. Nelson, Robert L., and William P. Bridges. 1999. The German Ideology. Edited by C. J. Arthur. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, New York: International Publishers. and Unequal Pay for Women in America. Cam- Maryanski, Alexandra, and Jonathan H. Turner. bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Nie, Norman H., and Lutz, Erbring. 2000. Inter- Evolution of Society. Stanford: Stanford Uni- net and Society: A Preliminary Report. Palo versity Press. Alto, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantita- Massey, Douglas S. 1996. "The Age of Extremes: tive Study of Society. Concentrated Affluence and Povertv in the Nisbet, Robert A. 1959. "The Decline and Fall of Twenty-First Century." ~emo~ra&~33: Social Class." Pacific Sociological Review 395-412. 2:ll-17. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. Nolan, Patrick, and Gerhard Lenski. 1998. Hu- American Apartheid: Segregation and the Mak- man Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociol- ing of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard ogy. New York: McGraw-Hill. University Press. Offe, Claus. 1985. Disorganized Capitalism. Mayer, Kurt B., and Walter Buckley. 1970. Class Cambridge: MIT Press. and Society. New York: Random House. O'Leary, Brendan. 1989. The Asiatic Mode of Mayhew, Leon. 1970. "Ascription in Modern So- Production. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. cieties." Pages 308-23 in The Logic of Social Oliver, Douglas L. 1955. A Solomon Island Soci- Hierarchies, edited by Edward 0. Laumann, ety. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Paul M. Siegel, and Robert W. Hodge. Chicago: Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Markham Publishing. Competition and Conflict. Stanford: Stanford Meyer, John W. 2001. "The Evolution of Mod- University Press. ern Stratification Systems. Pages 881-890 in Ossowski, Stanislaw. 1963. Class Structure in the Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender Social Consciousness. New York: Free Press. in Sociological Perspective, 2d ed., edited by Pakulski, Jan, and Malcolm Waters. 1996. The David B. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Death of Class. London: Sage Publications. Press. Pappas, Gregory, Susan Queen, Wilbur Hadden, Michels, Robert. 1949. Political Parties. Trans- and Gail Fisher: 1993. "The Increasing Dispar- lated by Eden Paul and Cedar Paul. Glencoe, ity in Mortality Between Socioeconomic Groups IL: Free Press. in the United States, 1960 and 1986." The New Michman, Ronald D. 1991. Lifestyle Market Seg- EnglandJoumal of Medicine 329:103-9. mentation. New York: Praeger. Pareto, Vilfredo. 1935. The Mind and Society. Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New Translated by A. Bongiorno and A. Livingston, York: Oxford University Press. edited by A. Livingston. New York: Harcourt, Mitchell, Arnold. 1983. The Nine American Brace. Lifestyles. New York: Macmillan. Parkin, Frank. 1971. Class Inequality and Politi- Mizruchi, Mark S. 1982. The American Corpo- cal Order: Social Stratification in Capitalist and rate Network, 1904-1 974. Beverly Hills, CA: Communist Societies. New York: Praeger. Sage Publications. Parkin, Frank. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: Mizruchi, Mark S. 1996. "What Do Interlocks A Bourgeois Critique. New York: Columbia Do? An Analysis, Critique, and Assessment of University Press. Research on Interlocking Directorates." An- Parsons, Talcoa. 1951. The Social System. Glen- nual Review of Sociology 22:271-98. coe, IL: Free Press. Moore, Wilbert E. 1963a. "But Some Are More Parsons, Talcott. 1954. Essays in Sociological Equal Than Others." American Sociological Theory. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Review 28:13-28. Parsons, Talcoa. 1970. "Equality and Inequality in Moore, Wilbert E. 1963b. "Rejoinder." American Modem Society, or Social Stratification Revis- Sociological Review 28:27. ited." Pages 13-72 in Social Stratification: Re- ~osca,Gaetano. 1939. The Ruling Class. New search and Theory for the 1970s, edited by Ed- York: McGraw-Hill. ward 0. Laurnam. Ind~anapolis:Bobbs-Merrill. Parsons, Talcott. 1975. "Some Theoretical Con- Reskin, Barbara F., Debra B. McBrier, and Julie A. siderations on the Nature and Trends of Kmec. 1999. "The Determinants and Conse- Change of Ethnicity." Pages 53-83 in Ethnic- quences of Workplace Sex and Race Composi- ity: Theory and Experience, edited by Nathan tion." Annual Review of Sociology 25:335-61. Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan. Cambridge: Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley Correll. 2000. Harvard University Press. "Limiting Gender Inequality through Interac- Patterson, Orlando. 1982. Slavery and Social tion: The End(s) of Gender." Contemporary So- Death. Cambridge: Haward University Press. ciology 29:llO-20. Perrucci, Robert, and Earl Wysong. 1999. The Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Lynn Smith-Lovin. New Class Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & 1999. "The Gender System and Interaction." Littlefield. Annual Review of Sociology 25:191-216. . Peterson, Richard A., and Roger M. Kern. 1996. Rizzi, Bruno. 1985. The Bureaucratization of the "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to World. London: Tavistock Publications. Omnivore." American Sociological Review Rodriguez, Junius P., and Orlando Patterson. 61:900-7. 1999. Chronology of Slavery. Santa Barbara, Pfeiffer, John. 1977. The Emergence of Society: A CA: ABC-Clio. Prehistory of the Establishment. New York: Roemer, John. 1988. Free to Lose. Cambridge: McGraw-Hill. Haward University Press. Piore, Michael J. 1975. "Notes for a Theory of Rona-Tas, Akos. 1994. "The First Shall Be the Labor Market Segmentation." Pages 125-71 in Last? Entrepreneurship and Communist Cadres Labor Market Segmentation, edited by Richard in the Transition from Socialism." American C. Edwards, Michael Reich, and David M. Jourml o Sociology 100:40-69. Gordon. Lexington, MA.: D. C. Heath. Rona-Tar, kos. 1997. The Great Surprise of the Piore, Michael J., and Charles F. Sabel. 1984. The Small Transformation: The Demise of Commu- Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic nism and the Rise of the Private Sector in Hun- Books. gary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Podolny, Joel M., and James N. Baron. 1997. Rose, Arnold. 1967. The Power Structure. New "Resources and Relationships: Social Networks York: Oxford University Press. and Mobility in the Workplace." American So- Rossides, Daniel W. 1996. Social Stratification: ciological Review 62:673-93. The Interplay of Class, Race, and Gender. En- Polachek, Solomon W., and W. Stanley Siebert. glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1993. The Economics of Earnings. Cambridge: Rothman, Robert A. 1999. Inequality and Stratifi- Cambridge University Press. cation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Portes, Alejandro, ed. 1996. The New Second Runciman, Walter G. 1968. "Class, Status, and Generation. New York: Russell Sage Founda- Power?" Pages 25-61 in Social Stratification, tion. edited by J. A. Jackson. New York: Cambridge Portes, Alejandro. Forthcoming. "The Resilient University Press. Importance of Class: A Nominalist Interpreta- Runciman, Walter G. 1974. "Towards a Theory tion." Political Power and Social Theory. of Social Stratification." Pages 55-81 in The Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. "The Social Analysis of Class Structure, edited by New Second Generation: Segmented Assimila- Frank Parkin. London: Tavistock Publications. tion and Its Variants." The Annals of the Amer- Rytina, Steven. 1992. "Scaling Intergenerational ican Academy of Political and Social Science Continuity: Is Occupational Inheritance Ascrip- 530:74-96. tive After All?" American Journal of Sociology Poulantzas, Nicos. 1974. Classes in Contempo- 97:1658-88. rary Capitalism. London: Verso. Rytina, Steven. 2000. "Is Occupational Mobility Reich, Michael. 1977. "The Economics of Declining in the United States?" Social Forces Racism." Pages 184-88 in Problems in Political 78: 1227-76. Economy: An Urban Perspective, edited by Sakamoto, Arthur, Huei-Hsia Wu, and Jessie M. David M. Gordon. Lexington, MA: D. C. Tzerig. 2000. "The Declining Significance of Heath. Race Among American Men During the Latter Reskin, Barbara F. 1993. "Sex Segregation in the Half of the Twentieth Century." Demography Workplace." Annual Review of Sociology 37: 41-51. 19:241-70. Sanders, Jimy M., and Victor Nee. 1987. "Limits Reskin, Barbara F. 1998. The Realities of Afirma- of Ethnic Solidarity in the Enclave Economy." tive Action in Employment. Washington, DC: American Sociological Review 52:745-67. - American Sociological Association. Saunders, Peter R. 1987. Social Theory and the Reskin, Barbara F. 2000. "The Proximate Causes Urban Question. London: Unwin Hyman. of Employment Discrimination." Contempo- Saunders, Peter R. 1989. "Left Write in Sociol- rary Sociology 29:3 19-28. ogy." Network 44:3-4. The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality

Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Sarensen, Jesper B. 1992. "Locating Class Cleav- Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1998. Racial Atti- ages in Inter-Generational Mobility: Cross- tudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. National Commonalities and Variations in Mo- Cambridge: Harvard University Press. bility Patterns." European Sociological Review Schumpeter, Joseph. 1951. Imperialism and Social 8:267-81. Classes. New York: Augustus M. Kelley. Sarensen, Jesper B., and David B. Grusky. 1996. Schumpeter, Joseph. 1953. Aufsatze zur Soziolo- "The Structure of Career Mobility in Micro- gie. Tiibingen: MohrISiebeck. scopic Perspective." Pages 83-114 in Social Sears, David O., Carl P. Hensler, and Leslie K. Differentiation and Social Inequality, edited Speer. 1979. "Whites' Opposition to 'Busing': by James N. Baron, David B. Grusky, and Self-Interest or Symbolic Politics?" American Donald J. Treiman. Boulder, CO: Westview Political Science Review 73:369-84. Press. Sewell, William H., Archibald 0. Haller, and Ale- Spenner, Kenneth I. 1995. "Technological Change, jandro Portes. 1969. "The Educational and Skill Requirements, and Education: The Case Early Occupational Attainment Process." for Uncertainty." Pages 81-137 in The New American Sociological Review 34:82-92. Modern Times: Factors Reshaping the World of Sharma, Kanhaiyalal. 1997. Social Stratification Work, edited by David B. Bills. Albany: State in India: Issues and Themes. Beverly Hills, CA: University of New York Press. Sage Publications. Srinivas, Mysore N. 1962. Caste in Modern India. Sharma, Ursula. 1999. Caste. Buckingham: Open London: Asia Publishing House. University Press. Steinmetz, George, and Erik 0. Wright. 1989. Shaw, William H. 1978. Marx's Theory of His- "The Fall and Rise of the Petty Bourgeoisie: tory. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Changing Patterns of Self-Employment in the Shils, Edward. 1968. "Deference." Pages 104-32 Postwar United States." American Journal of in Social Stratification, edited by J. A. Jackson. Sociology 94:973-1018. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stovel, Katherine, Michael Savage, and Peter Shils, Edward. 1982. "The Political Class in the Bearman. 1996. "Ascription into Achievement: Age of Mass Society: Collectivistic Liberalism Models of Career Systems at Lloyds Bank, and Social Democracy." Pages 13-32 in Does 1890-1970." American Journal of Sociology Who Governs Matter? Elite Circulation in 102:358-99. Contemporary Societies, edited by Moshe M. Svalastoga, Kaare. 1965. Social Differentiation. Czudnowski. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univer- New York: D. McKay. sity Press. Szelinyi, Ivin, and Szonja Szelinyi. 1995. "Circu- Sio, Arnold A. 1965. "Interpretations of Slavery: lation and Reproduction of Elites in Post-Com- The Slave Status in the Americas." Compara- munist Transformation." Theory and Society tive Studies in Society and History VII: 24:615-38. 289-308. Szelinyi, Szonja. 1998. Equality by Design: The Smaje, Chris. 2000. Natural Hierarchies: The His- Grand Experiment in Destratification in Social- torical Sociology of Race and Caste. Oxford: ist Hungary. Stanford: Stanford University Basil Blackwell. Press. Smith, Michael R. 1990. "What Is New in 'New Szelknyi, Szonja. 2001. "The 'Woman Problem' in Structuralist' Analyses of Earnings?" American Stratification Theory and Research." Pages Sociological Review 55827-41. 681-688 in Social Stratification: Class, Race, Sobel, Michael E. 1981. Lifestyle and Social and Gender in Sociological Perspective, 2d ed., Structure: Concepts, Definitions, Analyses. edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: West- New York: Academic Press. view Press. Smensen, Aage B. 1996. "The Structural Basis of Tam, Tony. 1997. "Sex Segregation and Occupa- Social Inequality." American Journal of Sociol- tional Gender Inequality in the United States: ogy 101:1333-65. Devaluation or Specialized Training?" Ameri- Ssrensen, Aage B. 2001. "The Basic Concepts of can Journal of Sociology 102:1652-92. Stratification Research: Class, Status, and Tawney, R. H. 1931. Equality. London: Allen & Power." Pages 287-300 in Social Stratification: Unwin. Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Per- Taylor, D. Garth, Paul B. Sheatsley, and Andrew spective, 2d ed., edited by David Grusky. Boul- M. Greeley. 1978. "Attitudes Toward Racial der, CO: Westview Press. Integration." Scientific American 238:42-5 1. Smensen, Aage B., and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1981. Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berke- . "An Outline of a Theory of the Matching of ley: University of California Press. Persons to Jobs." Pages 49-74 in Sociological Touraine, Alain. 1981. The Voice and the Eye: An Perspectives on Labor Markets, edited by Ivar Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge: Berg. New York: Academic Press. Cambridge University Press. Treiman, Donald J. 1970. "Industrialization and lished paper, Department of Sociology, Stan- Social Stratification." Pages 207-34 in Social ford University. Stratification: Research and Theory for the Wegener, Bernd. 1992. "Concepts and Measure- 1970s, edited by Edward 0. Laumann. Indi- ment of Prestige." Annual Review of Sociology anapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. 18:253-80. Treiman, Donald J. 1976. "A Standard Occupa- Weiss, Michael J. 1988. The Clustering of Amer- tional Prestige Scale for Use with Historical ica. New York: Harper & Row. Data." Journal of Interdisciplinary History Wesolowski, Wlodzimierz. 1962. "Some Notes on 7:283-304. the Functional Theory of Stratification." Polish Treiman, Donald J. 1977. Occupational Prestige Sociological Bulletin 3428-38. in Comparative Perspective. New York: Aca- Western, Mark, and Erik Olin Wright. 1994. demic Press. "The Permeability of Class Boundaries to Inter- Tumin, Melvin M. 1953. "Some Principles of generational Mobility Among Men in the Stratification: A Critical Analysis." American United States, Canada, Norway, and Sweden." Sociological Review 18:378-94. American Sociological Review 59:606-29. Tumin, Melvin M. 1985. Social Stratification. The Williams, David R., and Chiquita Collins. 1995. Forms and Functions of Inequality. Englewood "United States Socioeconomic and Racial Dif- Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ferences in Health: Patterns and Explana- Useem, Michael. 1984. The Inner Circle. New tions." Annual Review of Sociology 21: York: Oxford University Press. 349-86. Useem, Michael, and Jerome Karabel. 1986. Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Sig- "Pathways to Top Corporate Management." nificance of Race: Blacks and Changing Ameri- American Sociological Review 5 1:184-200. can Institutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Van Maanen, John, and Stephen R. Barley. 1984. Chicago Press. 'Occupational Communities: Culture and Con- Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disap- trol in Organizations." Research in Organiza- pears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New tional Behavior 6:287-365. York: Alfred A. Knopf. Walder, Andrew G. 1996. "Markets and Inequal- Wilson, William Julius. 1999a. "Jobless Poverty: ity in Transitional Economies: Toward Testable A New Form of Social Dislocation in the Inner- Theories." American ]ournal of Sociology City Ghetto." Pages 133-50 in A Nation Di- 101:950-92. vided: Diversity, Inequality, and Community in Waldinger, Roger. 1996. Still the Promised City? American Society, edited by Phyllis Moen, African-Americans and New Immigrants in Donna Dempster-McClain, and Henry A. Postindustrial New York. Cambridge: Harvard Walker. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. University Press. Wilson, William Julius. 1999b. The Bridge Over Warner, W. Lloyd. 1949. Social Class in America. the Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coali- Chicago: Science Research Associates. tion Politics. Berkeley: University of California Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West In- Press. dian Immigrant Dreams and American Reali- Wittfogel, Karl A. 1981. Oriental Despotism: A ties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Comparative Study of Total Power. New York: Waters, Mary C. 2000. "Multiple Ethnicities and Vintage Books. Identity in the United States." Pages 23-40 in Wright, Erik 0. 1978. Class, Crisis, and the State. We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity in London: New Left Books. Constructing Ethnic Identity, edited by Paul wright; Erik 0. 1979. Class Structure and Income Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burroughs. Philadel- Determination. New York: Academic Press. phia: Temple University Press. Wright, Erik 0. 1985. Classes. London: Verso. Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Wright, Erik 0. 1989. The Debate on Classes. Sociology. Edited and translated by Hans London: Verso. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford Wright, Erik 0. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative University Press. Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cam- Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and bridge University Press. Economic Organization. Edited by Talcott Par- Wright, Erik 0. Forthcoming. "A Conceptual sons. New York: Free Press. Menu for Studying the Interconnections of Weber, Max. [I9221 1968. Economy and Society. Class and Gender." In Reconfigurations of Class Berkeley: University of California Press. and Gender, edited by Janeen Baxter and Mark Weeden, Kim. 1998. "From Borders to Barriers: Western. Stanford: Stanford University Press. - Strategies of Occupational Closure and the Wrong, Dennis H. 1959. "The Functional Theory Structure of Occupational Rewards." Unpub- of Stratification: Some Neglected Considera- The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality tions." American Sociological Review 24: Power, and Conflict, edited by Anthony Gid- 772-82. dens and David Held. Berkeley: University of Young, Michael. 1958. The Rise of the Meritoc- California Press. racy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Zweigenhaft, Richard L., and G. William Zeitlin, Maurice. 1982. "Corporate Ownership Domhoff. 1998. Diversity in the Power Elite: and Control: The Large Corporation and the Have Women and Minorities Reached the Top? Capitalist Class." Pages 196-223 in Classes, New Haven: Yale University Press.