Theoretically, Lamount Represents a Durkheimian/Gruskyite Perspective on Social Class

SOC 611

Fall 2007

Michèle Lamont

Theoretically, Lamount represents a Durkheimian/Gruskyite perspective on social class

- occupation rather than relations of production

- moral judgement rather than exploitation or opportunity hoarding

- cultural rather than economic focus

- consensus rather than conflict model

Methodologically, Lamount's study is

- qualitative rather than quantitative

- in depth interviews

- interpretive rather than analytical

- comparative rather than historical

- implicit and sometimes explicit comparison to previous work on the upper-middle class

- explicit comparison of U.S. and French workers

- explicit comparison of dominant (white or French) status to subordinate (black or Algerian) status

- not much consideration of how class and status are related

- subjective rather than objective

- concerned with how workers see themselves (and "people like me")

- concerned with how they see others (classes or statuses but not nationalities)

We could talk about her findings

- U.S. workers more religious

- French workers more class conscious and political

- racial differences in commitment to peers versus individualism

- some degree of similar cleavage across classes

- underlying assumption that moralty is basis for

- discrimination

- self-respect

- dignity

How compelling are these generalizations?

Are there other findings that you found to be particularly important?

What does this tell us about social class in the U.S.?

Is the comparative perspective on status differences a useful way to analyze racial discrimination in the working class (or a welcome alternative to Working Class Authoritarianism)?

Could we contrast this book to Wright's book, which is also a comparative project that attempts to enlighten us on social class in the U.S.?

Consider how Wright's comparative study is different

- he does Marxist analysis

- quantitative analysis

- structural analysis

- standardized survey versus in-depth interviews

How do these differences affect the final product

- findings?

- reliability?

- validity?

To what extent do the authors find what they are looking for?

Is value free sociology an illusion?

Is this really scientific? Or even sociological?

How can we make sense of these highly discrepant comparative studies?

Clearly one deals with gender but not race. The other deals with race but not gender. Should we be trying to deal with both?