Ethnicity and Social Divisions Ethnicity and Social Divisions: Contemporary Research in Sociology Edited by Karin Halldn, Elias le Grand and Zenia Hellgren Cambridge Scholars Publishing Ethnicity and Social Divisions: Contemporary Research in Sociology.Edited by Karin Halldn, Elias le Grand and Zenia Hellgren This book first published 2008 by Cambridge Scholars Publishing 15 Angerton Gardens, Newcastle, NE5 2JA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright 2008 by Karin Halldn, Elias le Grand and Zenia Hellgren and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-84718-470-7, ISBN (13): 9781847184702 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................... vii Robert Erikson (Stockholm University) Preface......................................................................................................... x Chapter One................................................................................................. 1 Introduction:Social Stratification in Multiethnic Societies: Class and Ethnicity Elias le Grand, Zenia Hellgren and Karin Halldn(Stockholm University) Section I: Justice, Equality and the Construction of Ethnicity Chapter Two.............................................................................................. 23 Taking Childrens Distributive Justice Attitudes Seriously A Sociological Experiment on the Impact of Social Class,Gender, Ethnicity and Framing in Sweden Moa Bursell (Stockholm University) Chapter Three............................................................................................ 47 Understanding Latino Diversity: Pan-Ethnic Identity Formationamong Latinos in the United States Van C. Tran (Harvard University) Section II: Ethnic Minorities and Education: Reproduction of Social Inequality Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 81 Comparing Educational Outcomes of Second Generation Immigrantsto Natives from Kindergarten to Fifth Grade Onoso Imoagene (Harvard University) Table of Contents vi Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 115 Unfamiliar with Higher Education: How Bright Students from Non-Traditional Backgrounds Make Their Choices Sangna Kotecha (Oxford University) Chapter Six.............................................................................................. 145 Ethnic Minority Applicants and Admission to Oxford: the Challengesof Achieving Social Justice at the University Gate Anna Zimdars (DPhil Oxford University 2007, since Sept 2007 post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Manchester) Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 171 An Examination of Educational Attainment of Second Generation Immigrants in BritainLaurence Lessard-Phillips (Oxford University) Section III: The Importance of Social Class and Ethnicity for Understanding Inequality Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 209 Examining the Differential Job Search Methods of Ethnic Groupsin the U.K How Minority Members Use Their Social Resourcesand Institutional Settings to Overcome Labour Market Disadvantage Neli Demireva (Oxford University) Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 241 Infant Mortality: To What Extent Can Social Class Inequalitiesbe Explained by Maternal Working Conditions?Marit Gisselmann (DPhil Stockholm University 2007) Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 263 Concluding Remarks Zenia Hellgren and Karin Halldn(Stockholm University)

PREFACE Thisisacompilationofpapersdrawnfromanexcitingdialogueatthe annualAageSrensenMemorialConferencesin2006and2007, comprisedofPhDcandidatesfromtheSociologyDepartmentsatthe universitiesofHarvard,OxfordandStockholmwhorepresentanew generationofsociologists.Althoughthoseattendingtheconferencewere freetocontributepaperswithinallfieldsofsociology,asignificant numberchosetopicsthatinonewayoranotheraddressedissues concerningethnicity,raceandimmigration.Furthermore,therewere commonalities in the analyses and conceptual terrain: whereas many of the recent studies on ethnicity have tended to emphasize cultural identity and minorityrights,thepapersinthisconferenceprimarilyconsiderethnicity anditsrelationshiptoclaimsforsocialequalityandopportunitiesin society. This reflects that a focus on social stratification remains central in sociology and the increasing presence of ethnicity in social analysis. Byintegratingethnicityintoaframeworkofsocialstratification,we contest the kind of postmodern approaches claiming that class is no longer asrelevantacategorytounderstandmechanismsofinequalityin contemporarysocieties,highlightingthatclassandethnicityoftenare interrelated categories in multiethnic societies. Both might indeed function asmechanismsofexclusion;bothrepresentcategoriesofadvantageor disadvantage in social life. This book is intended for students, scholars and others interested in issues of ethnicity, race and social stratification in Western societies, as well as in questions of redistribution and social justice. Thus, the issues dealt with inthisbookhaverelevanceforawiderangeofdisciplines,including sociology, political science, education and ethnic studies. The editors and contributorswereatthetimeforthe2006and2007AageSrensen MemorialConferencesPhDcandidatesinsociologyatHarvard University, Oxford University, or Stockholm University. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION: SOCIAL STRATIFICATIONIN MULTIETHNIC SOCIETIES:CLASS AND ETHNICITY ELIAS LE GRAND, ZENIA HELLGRENAND KARIN HALLDNEthnicityappearsasanincreasinglyrelevantcategoryofsocial stratificationincontemporary,multiethnicsocieties.Consequently,a significant part of contemporary sociology does in one way or another deal withissuesasethnicdiscrimination,racism,ethnicidentity,ethnic minorityrights,transnationalmigrationanddiasporasetcetera.Thisdoes notexcluderecognizingthatclassremainscrucialtounderstand inequalities in opportunities and living conditions. Overthelastdecadeshowever,theconceptofclasshasoftenbeen criticized,questionedandconsideredoutofdateinpublicandpolitical debateaswellassocialresearch.Withintheoreticaldiscoursesas postmodernismand globalisation,emphasishas beenon fragmentationas characteristicforthemodernworld,andwhatcommonlyisdescribedas the cultural turn within social and political theory has led to an increased focusonparticularidentitiesandexperiences,politicalstrugglesamong deprivileged groups who demand recognition of their particularity instead ofredistributionofresources,andacritiqueofclaimstouniversalism (Fraser,1997;Hobson,2003).Thisculturalturnhasbeenstronglyfelt within fields as social movement theory, post-colonial theory, segments of feminist theory and, not the least, within the field of multiculturalism. The latterhasbeencriticizedby,forinstance,Barry(2001).Hecallsfora resurrection of a liberal-egalitarian perspective and warns for a destructive WethankMichael Thlin,RobertErikson,JanneJonssonandBarbaraHobson as well as participants of the LNU seminar series for valuable comments. Chapter One 2 focusondifferenceinsteadofwhatwehaveincommon,intimesof increasingsocio-economicinequalitiesallovertheWesternworld inequalitiesthatparadoxicallymighthaveparticularlysevere consequences for immigrants and ethnic minorities, who generally belong tothelowestsocialstrata.Increasinginequalityofresourcesisalso emphasizedbyCrompton(1998),whoclaimsthatclassisbynomeans overplayed as a key concept to understand factors as distribution of power, structuralinequalityand(realandpotential)socialandpoliticalagency, but that it has been considered old-fashioned and irrelevant as it has been unclearwhatitreferstoincontemporary,rapidlychangingsocieties.In her view the class concept thus needs to be reinterpreted to better describe the contemporary social reality. Eventhoughwerestrictourdiscussiontoethnicityandsocialclass,itis important to point out that class, gender and ethnicity often are interrelated categories.Thishasrecentlybeenemphasizedbyanumberofscholars applyingtheconceptofintersectionality,asdelosReyesandMulinari (2005) in their call for a critical analysis of power and inequality. Ignoring one or more of these social stratificators might limit the understanding of thephenomenonstudied.Itmayhoweverbedifficulttoincludeall aspects, oftenimplyingtoo wideresearchscopesforsinglestudies. Also, theunderlyingmechanismsofsocialstratificationtendtobe,atleast partly, different. Thecontributionstothisvolumeprimarilyfocusonethnicandclass-related stratification from different perspectives. The book should thus not be read as an attempt to develop intersectional analysis, but does hopefully lead to new insights in some of the various ways in which inequality along ethnicandsocio-economiclinesis beingreproducedin different fields of society, in this context with a special emphasis on educational institutions. Educationisdoubtlesslyacentralarenafordeterminingtheindividuals lifechances;factorsaseducationalattainmentandaccesstoprestigious universitiesarethereforehighlyrelevantforstudiesofequalityof opportunities. Beforepresentingthechaptersincludedinthebook,wewilldiscussthe centralconceptsofethnicityandclassinrelationtocontemporary theoretical debates. The contributions in this volume address questions of inequalityandsocialstratificationintermsofethnicdiscrimination(and self-discrimination)aswellasclass-relateddisadvantagefromdiverse perspectives.Fromthisviewpoint,weareallowedtointerpretastrong Introduction 3 ethnicidentitynotonlyasamarkerofinternalcohesionandcultural securityintheethniccommunity,butalsoasaresponsetolacking opportunities and holding low status in relation to the majority society.Ethnicity as a Category of Inequality As the Western world started to receive large amounts of immigrants from the post-war era and on, postcolonial nationalism thrived in the aftermath of European dominance, and ethno-national conflicts escalated around the world,socialscientistscametodevelopagrowinginterestinethnicity. Theinterdisciplinaryresearchfieldofmulticulturalism,whichwebriefly discussedabove,hasbeenthemainareawherethisdimensionisdealt with, where the focus on ethnicity generally described as closely related toapeoplescultureandtraditionsoftenhascoincidedwiththaton identity, particularly in terms of a notion of strong group identities among ethnic minorities (e.g., Taylor, 1994; Kymlicka, 1995; Parekh, 2000). Severalmulticulturalisttheoristshavebeencriticizedfromaliberal-egalitarian and feminist perspective for applying a static and conservative viewoncultureandseeingethno-culturalcommunitiesasharmonic entities, where the emphasis lies on these communities rights to maintain theirtraditionsandpracticesandprotecttheirculturalidentitywithout recognizingtheinternalstrugglesaroundwhodefinesthisgroup identity,andwhohastosubmittoit(Stolcke,1994;Barry,2001; Benhabib,2002;FraserandHonneth,2003).Furthermore,ethnicityand culture are concepts that might become even more ambiguous over time in ethnicallypluralsocieties.Appiah(2005)arguesthatwhatinitiallyis referred to as immigrants culture (by themselves or by others) tends to becomeblurredasgenerationspassby,leadingtogreatercultural hybridisation and homogenisation between different ethnicities. Evidently, it is not an easy task to define concepts such as culture, identity and ethnicity not to mention the controversial notion of race (which is a highly contested category in Sweden, while it is more generally accepted and commonlyusedwithintheAnglo-Saxonresearchtradition). Scholars emphasizing ethnicity and cultural identity as fundamental for individuals senseofmeaningandidentificationwithothersareoftencalledstrong multiculturalists. They tend to see ethnicity as inherited and deeply rooted inthehumancharacter(e.g.,Kymlicka,1995;Parekh,2000).Others howeverconsiderethnicitytobeafluidconceptunderconstantchange andreinterpretation,whoseimportancemightbeweakenedor Chapter One 4 strengtheneddependingontheexternalenvironment.Thesescholarsthus tendtoseeethnicityprimarilyasasocialconstruction(e.g.Barth,1969; Habermas, 1994). Weber (1978 [1922]: 389) summed up the vagueness of the concept in these words: The whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether. We do however consider it relevant to speak of ethnicity and ethnic groups since ethnicity, just as class or gender, appears to be a central category that influences the opportunities people have in society. Just as social theorists mightrecognizethatthereis acapitalistorderthat deprivilegesthelower strataofsociety,andapatriarchalorderthatdeprivilegeswomen,there appearstobeanethnicorracialstatusorderthatoperatesworld-wide andprivilegesthoseconsideredwhite(delosReyesandMulinari, 2005).Beinganimmigrant,orbelongingtoanethnicminority,often meansbelongingtoacategoryofdisadvantageintodaysWestern multiethnicsocieties.Thisdisadvantageisnotbaseduponaparticular ethnicity,butcouldrather beunderstoodintermsofbeingdefinedas the Othersomethingthataffectscertainethnicitiesmorethanothers. Contemporaryresearcharguesthatitisindeedrelevanttotalkabout racialised others (de los Reyes and Mulinari, 2005; Burns et al., 2007). Those belonging to an ethnic minority that is perceived as very different in relationtotheautochthonouspopulation,intermsofforexampleskin colour,accent,nameorreligion,aremorelikelytoexperiencethattheir ethnicity is a disadvantage for their opportunities in society than those who areperceivedaslessdifferent(Burnsetal.,2007).Ethnicity,orthe perception of ethnicity as a dividing line between people, is thus highly relevantasamechanismofsocialstratificationandinequalityof opportunities. Inthisbook,weareprimarilyinterestedinethnicityasasocialcategory that affects individuals life chances and reproduces inequality in society wearenotconsideringthedimensionsofethnicitythatrefertocultural identityorotherwaysoflife.Thisdoesnotmeanthatwerendersuch dimensions insignificant, assuming that all immigrants and individuals that belongtoanethnicminoritywishtoparticipateinthemajoritysocietys way of life, or that these groups right to express their particular identities isnotimportant.Onthecontrary:inanethnicallystratifiedWestern society,wherethemajoritypopulationscultureandethnicityhashigher status,ethno-culturalparticularities(suchaswearingMuslimclothing, celebratingnon-Christianholidaysetcetera)mightbeexpectedtobe Introduction 5 detrimentalfortheindividualsopportunitiesinthelabourmarketand elsewhere.Themainproblemisfromthisperspectivenot,asstrong multiculturalistswouldargue,alackingrecognitionofdifference,buta (negative) focus on difference in terms of ethnicity in situations where it is irrelevant. Ethnicitymightthusbeunderstoodasastatusmarkerthatdifferentiates between groups and individuals. As we have mentioned above, immigrants andethnicminoritiesoftenbelongtothemostdeprivilegedsocio-economiccategoriesinthesocietieswheretheylive.Itmightthoughbe hardtotellhowmuchofanimmigrantsdisadvantagethatspringsfrom him or her being labelled as different in terms of ethnicity, and how much isrelatedtohisorherclassposition,aclasspositionthatoftenchanges throughmigrationassuch:downwardmobilityfromthepositioninthe countryoforigintothecountryofsettlementiscommon(Portesand Zhou,1993).Whendisadvantageintermsoflackingopportunitiesto upward mobility is reproduced in the second and even third generation, it isevenmorelikelythatdiscriminationisinvolved.Inthisway, symbolicdistinctionsbetweenethnicitiescometohaveconcretesocio-economicconsequencesforthosewhoareshutoutfromgoodjob opportunities because of factors such as their names or looks. Once again, the categories of class and ethnicity are often entwined. Fromaperspectivethatidentifiesclassandethnicityasinterrelated categoriesofstratification,onemightassumethatdisadvantagedsocial classesandethnicminoritieswoulddefinesimilarinterestsinmodifying currentpowerstructures.Theyoftenbelongtosimilarsocio-economic groups,andhavesimilarexperiencesofexclusion.Ontheotherhand, fromalife-chanceperspective,immigrantsandnativesfromthelower socialstrataaremostlikelycompetitorsoverthesametypeofjobs. Consequently,groupsdefinedasworkingclassoftentendtorepresent negativeattitudestowardethnicminoritiesandsupportemergingright-wingpopulism(Rydgren,2007).Groupsthatatleastpotentiallycould havesharedinterestsaroundeconomicissuesareconfrontedwitheach otherastheydefinedifferencebycategoriesasrace,colour,orethnicity insteadofinsocio-economicterms.Wearenotclaimingthatethnicityis only a social construction and not real, but share the view that a focus on suchanunderstandingofdifferencemightundercertaincircumstances becomedestructive,perpetuateinequalityandincreaseconfrontation between groups as they define each other in terms of ethnicity.Chapter One 6 Social Class and Contemporary Social Theory The Concept of Class OnaverygenerallevelandfollowingtheseminalworkofMarxand Weberonecansaythatclassesarepositionsintheorderofproduction intowhichindividualsareplaced.Thismeansthataclassstructureisa formofeconomicstructureembeddedinsocialrelationsandculture (Crompton and Scott, 2005: 186). For Marx, classes are the product of the capitalistmodeofproductionincapitalistsocieties,andtherefore primarilytiedtoproperty(cf.Scott,1996).Moreover,therelationship betweendifferentclassesisinherentlyantagonisticandexploitative. Centralhereisthelabourtheoryofvalue,accordingtowhichthe bourgeoisieexploitstheproletariatbygeneratingsurplusvaluefromthe labour of the latter. ForWeber(1978;2004),apersonsclasssituation,orhermembership inaparticulareconomicclass,isdeterminedbythelifechances,which inherefromherpositionwithinacapitalistmarket.Thelatterconsistsof themarketsforlabour,commoditiesandcredit.Bybeingdifferently positionedintheclassstructurepeoplehaveunequalaccesstoproperty, skills and authority (Scott, 1996). In this way, classes need not necessarily becommunities.Moreover,whatWebercallssocialclassesaresaidto existwheneverthereexistsreproductionofeconomicclassesover generations1. Also, and contra Marx, Weber talks about status, which is a form of stratification primarily based on prestige (the formation of prestige basedgroupings),lifestyles(practicesrelatedtoconsumption)andnon-marketbaseddifferencesinlifechances(e.g.citizenship)(Crompton, 1998).Bydistinguishingbetweenclassandstatus,Webermakesa distinctionbetweentwodifferentsourcesofpoweranddeterminantsof lifechances:frommarketmechanismsontheonehand(class),andfrom group dynamics on the other (status)2. 1Theprocesswherebyeconomicclasses,i.e.peoplesharingthesameclass situation,becomesocialclasses,Giddenscallsclassstructuration.Asheputsit, classstructurationinvolvesthemodesinwhicheconomicrelationsbecome translated into non-economic social structures (Giddens, 1973: 105). 2 This also leads Weber to distinguish between what he calls the economic sphere composed of classes and the communal sphere composed of status groups (Weber, 1978; 2004). Introduction 7 Inthelastdecadestwoapproachestoclasshavebeenespecially influential.Thefirstistheneo-WeberianapproachdevelopedbyJohn Goldthorpe, Robert Erikson, David Lockwood and others. This model uses employmentpositionsfordistinguishingdifferentsocialclasses.An influentialincarnationistheEGP(Erikson,GoldthorpeandPortocarero) classschemeorEriksonGoldthorpeschema(EriksonandGoldthorpe, 1992), where employment relations, with a distinction between the service relationshipandthelabourcontractamongemployees,areusedtoderive social classes (Goldthorpe, 2000)3. ThesecondapproachisthatdevelopedbyanalyticalMarxistErikOlin Wright(1985;1997;2005).Here,classisarelationalphenomenon involvingtheunequalaccesstotherightsandpoweroverresources inheringfromtheorderofproduction(Wright,2005).Thismeansthat class is about actors having control over economic resources, what he calls assets(property,organization,andskills).Wrightsapproachhas commonalitieswithGoldthorpes,butonedifferenceisthatforWright, actors unequal access to assets is bound up with relations of exploitation. Here,heusesagametheoreticalapproachwheretheactorsinan exploitativerelationshipareinvolvedinazero-sumgame.Exploitation involves a situation where the material welfare of the exploiters causally dependsuponthematerialdeprivationsoftheexploited(Wright,2005: 16). In this sense, exploitation is said to exist if (i) A has control over an asset, which B does not have access to, and (ii) B would be better off if A did not control this asset.The Existence of Social ClassesNeedlesstosay,classanalysishasbeenoneofthecentralpillarsin sociology. It has very much been a premise that modern Western societies are class societies. Yet in recent years, not least with the turn to culture in socialtheory,thecentralityofclasshasbeenquestionedanddebated. Somescholarshaveevenproclaimedthedeathofclass(e.g.Bauman, 1992;Beck,1992;PakulskiandWaters,1996;Kingston,2000).For Marxistclasstheoryonecoredilemmahasbeentheoverwhelming 3TheSwedishSocio-economicIndex(SEI)classificationusedinGisselmanns chapter in this volume is however, operationally, fairly similar to the EGP schema (Bihagen,2000;Thlin,2007).TheSEIdistinctionisbasedonworktask complexity,qualificationrequirementsandemploymentstatus.Itshouldbenoted thatsocialclasssometimesisdefinedusingoccupationalprestigescales(cf. Treiman, 1977).Chapter One 8 critiqueformulatedagainstthelabourtheoryofvalue.Asaresponseto this critique most leading Marxists and post-Marxists, such as Stuart Hall, Bob Jessop and Ernesto Laclau, have abandoned class relations as central toexplaincapitalismandfocusedonthecapitalistorderitself.Whileit may be argued that classes still exist, they are no longer seen as the central actors for explaining contemporary capitalist societies (Savage, 2000). Moreover,whileWrighttriestoaccountforexploitationwithout anchoringitinthelabourtheoryofvalue,criticshaveclaimedthatitis difficulttodistinguishbetweenassets,i.e.exploitativematerialresources intheformoforganization,propertyandskillandotherresources(see the discussion in Savage et al., 2005). Second, it is far from clear that the accesstoassetsactuallyentailexploitativerelationships.Onegroupmay beexcludedfromgettingaccesstoacertainresource,butthismaynot mean that they are exploited, i.e. worse off than if they didnt have access tothisresource.Inthissense,itcouldbearguedthatWrightsapproach follows more the Weberian tradition of researching social closure than the Marxist one. In sum, exploitative class relations cannot be said to have the kindofexplanatoryweightforunderstandingcapitalistsocietiesas originally conceived within the Marxist tradition4. Weberian class analysis, not the least Goldthorpes class model, has fared better in this respect. Goldthorpe has been critiqued for having worked in a backwardmanner,thatis,developingtheclassschemabeforethetheory explainingit(Pahl,1989;Scott,1994).Thus,hehasputthecartbefore thehorses(Scott,1994:935).Anothercritiqueofclassanalysis,which has also affected Weberian conceptions, weakening the evidence for class communities,isclassasexistingasaformofcollectivity(Gruskyand Weeden,2001;Savageetal.,2001;Bottero,2004).Heretheargumentis that people today to a lower extent relate to one another explicitly in class terms,orconstructtheiridentities,self-worth,andstatusaroundclass. Somehaveclaimedthatthisisduetoclassstructuresbreakingdownas partofaprocessofindividualizationandincreasedreflexivitywhere diverse forms of individualized lifestyles replace collective class identities (Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). For Beck classhasbecomewhathecallsazombiecategory,anoutdated, 4Forotherattemptsofconceptualisingexploitationwithoutanchoringitinthe labour theory of value see Srensen (2000) and Roemer (1982).Introduction 9 modernistconceptthatisinadequateforunderstandingcontemporary conditions (Beck and Rutherford, 2002)5. Theargumentthatclassesnolongerexistbecauselaypeopledonot consciously construct their identities around them can be criticized in two ways.Firstly,fromaWeberianperspectiveonecanclaimthatthe argument is misplaced. By no means do processes of individualization and peoples dis-identification with class (cf. Skeggs, 1997) logically imply thedeathofclass.Asdiscussedabove,Weberconceptualisesclassfirst andforemostasasourceofpowerdeterminedfrommarketmechanisms anditisthesestructuralprocessesthatcommonlyareofinterestfor researcherswithintheareaofsocialstratification.Thus,classesdonot necessarily need to be communities. Using a Weberian concept of class, thereisplentyofresearchthatshowshowtheclasssituationswithin whichindividualsareplacedcontinuetostructurepeopleslifechances. Notleastdotheauthorsinthisvolumeshowthis.Socialclassorigin affects,amongotherthings,educationalchoicesandattainments6(cf. EriksonandJonsson,1996;BreenandJonsson,2005)andonesown socialposition(cf.EriksonandGoldthorpe,1992;Breen,2004).Health andmortalityarealsoaffectedbysocialclassorigin,butevenmoreby own position (cf. Lundberg, 1990; 1991; Erikson, 2006). In sum, there are clear and stable patterns in the way class structures life chances. Secondly,asSavage(2000)pointsout,BeckandGiddensdrawapicture wheretraditionalclasscommunitiesofthemodern,industrialagehave been eroded by individualization processes. But it is questionable whether suchcollectiveclassidentitieshaveeverbeenparticularlyprevalent. 5 It is important to note, however, that while critics of class analysis such as Beck (1992)claimthatpeopleincreasinglyformanindividualizedoutlooktolife,they alsorecognisethatinequalitystillpersiststoahighdegree.But theseinequalities are not conceived of as being based on class.6 Children from a white-collar background proceed to higher education much more oftenthandochildrenfromblue-collarhomes(Jonsson,1988).Thiswell established fact is referred to a) primary effects implying that children with white-collarbackgroundsonaveragedobetterinschool,whereasb)secondaryeffects capturethatgiventhesamegrade,childrenfromlowersocialclassesmakeless prestigiouseducationalchoices(theychoosetheoreticalsubjectstoalower extentrelativechildrenfromwhite-collarhomes)(Jonsson,1988).Thiscan,in part, be connected to the educational attainment of their parents, but still there are pronouncedsocialclassdifferences(Ibid.).Otherinterpretationsconnectto Bourdieus(1984)notionofculturalcapital,whichtosomeextentoverlapswith social class (Ibid.).Chapter One 10 Evidencesuggeststhattheworking-class,whichisagroupwithan allegedlystrongclassculture,haveadoptedinstrumentaloutlooksfora longtime(Goldthorpeetal.,1968-9;Marshalletal.,1988).Inthisway, BeckandGiddenscanbecriticizedforhavingconstructedastrawman argument (Savage, 2000). Yet, it is clear that the consciousness model of social class no longer has muchbearingamongclassscholarstoday,afactthatisalsoreflectedin contemporaryclasstheory.Thisisshown,firstly,inGoldthorpes(1996) recentreorientationofclassanalysis,whereclassisunderstoodina minimal sense, and in a way that downplays the role of cultural factors suchasnormsandvalues.Instead,heemploysrationalactiontheory (RAT), a weaker form of rational choice theory. The use this approach is showninhowheexplainsthepersistingclassdifferencesineducational attainment:whileculturalfactorsmaybepartinshapingtheresources individualshaveathand(primaryeffects),theverychoicesofeducation (secondary effects) are determined through rational decision-making rather than norms and values. This means that class constrains enable the choices people make solely as a structural relation7. Anotherresponsetothecritiqueoftheconsciousnessmodelofclasshas beenformulatedbyDavidGruskyandhiscolleagues(e.g.Gruskyand Weeden, 2001; Grusky, 2005; Weeden and Grusky, 2005). The argument hereisthatclassesconceivedintermsofemploymentaggregates(as arguedby,forinstance,GoldthorpeandWright)nolongerexistas meaningfulgroupingswherecollectiveaction,community,andsolidarity takeplace.Rather,onemustshiftfocustowhatGruskycallssmall classes constituted by occupational groups.

A third response has been in the form of a recent strand of mostly British researchers(e.g.Skeggs,1997;2004;Savage,2000;Devineetal.,2005; Lawler, 2005) who work with a more culturalist notion of class, and for whomPierreBourdieuhasbeenacommoninspiration.Hereithasbeen argued that processes of individualization are compatible with recognizing classasformativeinidentityconstructionandtheculturalrealmmore generally.Whileclassmayrarelybeaconceptlaypeopleconsciously 7Atthesametimeitcanbenotedthatwhileculturalfactorshascometoplaya lesssignificantroleinGoldthorpesconceptionofclass,theturntoculturein socialtheorycouldalsobesaidtobereflectedinhisrecentinterestinstatusand culturalconsumption(seeChanandGoldthorpe,2005;2007a;2007b;2007c; 2007d).Introduction 11 constructtheiridentitiesaround,itisboundupwiththeirsubjective meaningsandpractices,includingtheirself-worth,status,beliefs,tastes andvalues.DrawingonGoffman(cf.1951),Bourdieu(1984[1979]; 1985; 1986) argues that class is tied to a persons sense of ones place, e.g.herlargelyintuitiveunderstandingofwhereshebelongsinastatus hierarchy.Thus,forinstance,aworking-classpersonmightexpressthe view that going to an expensive restaurant is for posh people and not for peoplelikeus.Inthissense,classinformspeoplesidentitiesand subjectivemeaningsbyentailingthemtodrawdistinctionsanddistance themselvesfromothers(Savage,2000;Bottero,2004).Thisalsomeans exploringthewaysinwhichpeoplevaluethemselvesandothers,both morallyandaesthetically,inclassedways(Bourdieu,1984[1979]; Lamont, 1992; 2000; Skeggs, 1997; 2004; Lawler, 2005). An informative exampleofthewaysinwhichclassworksonthesubjectivelevelwhile simultaneouslybeingdis-identified,isBeverlySkeggs(1997) ethnography of British working-class women in the Midlands. She depicts aviewofworking-classfemininityasbeinghighlystigmatised.Thisis shown by the fact that the women in her study actively denied or resisted beingcategorizedasworking-class,sinceitonlysignifiedbadtasteand mannersaswellassocialproblems.Tosummarize,whiletheconceptof classcanstillberecognizedasbeinghighlyrelevantincontemporary sociology, this has not come without a change in direction.Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Conditions Adistinctionoftenmadeinsocialstratificationresearchisbetween equalityofopportunity,wherelifechancesaredependentonascribed categories of stratification (like gender, ethnicity or social class of origin)8 and equality of conditions (e.g. labour market rewards). It might be argued fromanequalityofopportunitystrandthatitisequalityofopportunities (in e.g. the educational system) that is of importance in a society. Scholars having an equality of condition perspective may, on the other hand, claim that this is not enough since it is the equality of outcomes that are central. The latter would thus favour policy interventions to a higher extent. 8Researchonequalityofopportunitiesoftendealswiththeconnectionbetween ascribedcharacteristicsandeducationalattainmentorachievedsocialposition, whereasresearchonequalityofconditionsismorerelatedtoissueslikethe distribution of rewards in the labour market including also the welfare state (Breen and Jonsson, 2005). Chapter One 12 Ithasalsobeenarguedthatinequalityinconditionsbetweendifferent groups in a society must be reduced before equality in opportunities can be achieved(Tawney,1964).Butthereverseisalsooftenassumed,i.e.that highequalityinopportunitiesjustifieshighinequalityinconditions(in linewiththemeritocraticapproach).Closetothequestionofequalityin opportunitiesandequalityinconditionsliestheconceptofjustice,and howthisisinterpretedindifferentcontexts.Whether,forinstance,a meritocratic or an egalitarian interpretation of justice is dominant within a given society most certainly has consequences for how social inequality is viewedanddealtwithinthatsociety.Therefore,itisindeedinteresting thatthecontributorsinthisvolumerepresentWesternsocietieswhere justiceandequalityisunderstoodindifferentways:Sweden,wherethe egalitarian tradition founded by social-democratic hegemony still remains stronginpublicdiscourseandpolicy,implyinganextensivewelfare system; the United States with dominant meritocratic ideals and priority to principlesoffreedomoverprinciplesofsocialequalityleadingtolittle stateinterferenceinthecapitalisticmarketeconomy;andfinallyBritain, whichsomewhatrepresentsapositioninbetweenwithasocialfluidity lowerthaninSweden,butnotbeingamongtheleastfluidcountriesin Europe (Breen and Luijkx, 2004). It might be useful for the reader to keep these contextual differences in mind when reading the chapters. ContributionsThisvolumeisstructuredintothreesections.SectionI,Justice,Equality and the Construction of Ethnicity, is intended to lay the ground for further analysis of ethnic and class inequality in the subsequent chapters. It deals withontheonehandtheconceptsofjusticeandequality,ontheother hand, the complexity of ethnic and pan-ethnic identity. Theformernotionsareexploredwithinthecontextofanexperimental designed study by Moa Bursell, where distributive justice attitudes among schoolchildreninSwedenareexamined.Bursellanalysesapossible impactofindividualcharacteristicssuchassocialclass,genderand ethnicity as well as the dominant interpretations of ideologically important wordsondistributivejusticeattitudesbypresentingatextwithajustice dilemmatothechildrenandlettingthemchoosebetweensixalternative waysofsolvingtheproblem.Theoptions,inaccordancewithdifferent theoriesofjustice,werelabelled:need,equality,originalacquisition, merit,maximizingutilityandsocialcontract.Itisconcludedfromthe experimentthatdistributivejusticeattitudestosomedegreevary Introduction 13 depending on the childrens ethnic and socio-economic background and on whether the word justice is present or not. Theconceptionsofethicandpan-ethnicidentityareexaminedthrough Van Trans multifaceted approach to the Latinos in the United States. The questiononassimilationorracialisationofimmigrantsinthischapter conceptualisedaswhetherornotpan-ethnicidentificationtendstobe moreorlesspronouncedforLatinoimmigrantsovertimeandacross generations,isansweredbyTrantakingthenationalorigin,arrivalage, immigrantgenerationstatusandtheheterogeneityamongLatinosinto account.Transhowsthatfirstgenerationteen-andadult-arrival immigrants are more likely to use the Latino pan-ethnic identity compared tosecondgenerationimmigrants,evenwhenimportantsocialand background characteristics are adjusted for. However, these dissimilarities canbeattributedtodifferencesintheproficiencyanduseoftheSpanish languageaswellastheuseofSpanishmedia.Nonetheless,the identification as Latinos still varies across different Hispanic communities andforseveralreasonsthuscallingintoquestiontheoftenassumed homogeneity of Latinos in the United States. Educationalattainmentisacentralstratifyingmechanism,allocating individuals to different positions in the social hierarchy, primarily through post-graduationlabourmarketposition.ThisisthefocusofSectionII, Ethnic Minorities and Education: Reproduction of Social Inequality. ThissectionstartswithachapterbyOnosoImoagene,usinglongitudinal data to compare the educational performance of second generation United Statesimmigrantchildrenrelativetonativesfromkindergartentofifth grade.Contrastingtheracialandethnicitygroupsofnon-Hispanicwhite, black,HispanicandAsiansecondgenerationimmigrantstotheirnative counterpartsImoagenefinds,inlinewithpreviousresearch,thatsocio-economicstatus,parentalschoolattainmentexpectationsandteacher evaluationsareimportantpredictorsofchildrensschoolperformancein mathandreading.However,neithersocio-economicstatusnoranyother oftheexplanatoryfactorsincludedintheanalyses,couldexplainthe sustainedloweracademicperformanceofHispanicsecondgeneration immigrantstotheirnativecounterpartsorthemorefavourableoutcomes inmathandreadingscoresofsecondgenerationblackimmigrants comparedtonativeBlacks.Itisarguedthatthesestudentsacademic performancesareaffectedbytheinteractionofclassandethnicityand their contexts of reception in the United States.Chapter One 14 Inthesecondchapterinthissection,SangnaKotechashedslightonthe under-representationofethnicminoritystudentsinelitehighereducation institutions,byface-to-faceinterviewswithstudentsofforeign background in Britain. The author focuses on how educational choices are madeamongethnicminoritygroups,reflectingaformofself-discriminationthatrestrainsthesestudentsfromapplyingtothemost prestigiousuniversities.Thefindingsarepresentedinthreemainthemes; Elitehighereducationinstitutionslocationsarenotdesirable,Elite highereducationinstitutionsrequiretoomuchachangeofdirection andLowperceivedprobabilityofsuccessatelitehighereducation institutions. The results suggest strong parent and peer group influence as wellasafearofnotfittinginandbeingunabletomeettheperceived requirements. This sections third paper by Anna Zimdars draws further attention to the fact that there are differences between ethnic minorities and Whites in the qualityofhighereducationinBritain,eventhoughethnicminoritiesin generalarewellrepresented.InthismultimethodscasestudyofOxford University,oneoftheleadinguniversitiesinBritain,itisshownthatthe application rate of ethnic minorities resembles the shares of high achievers within these groups, but the acceptance rates are much lower compared to highachievingWhites.ThisresultholdstrueforSouthAsiaethnic minorities with adjustment for relevant factors such as grades, test scores, subject of study, and social class. The findings stress lower cultural capital as well as attitudes to higher education to be part of the explanation, but it cannotwhollyexplainthedisadvantagesoftheseethnicminorities.To gainfurtherunderstandingZimdarsconductedqualitativeinterviewswith selectorsforadmissiontoOxford.Itisconcludedthattheinterview selectionprocessesforadmissiontoOxfordUniversityopensthe possibilityforthepredominantlywhiteselectorstohighereducationto advantagewhiteapplicantsandisproblematicinanequalopportunity perspective. Inthefinalpaperofthissection,LaurenceLessard-Phillipsarguesthat immigrantstatusaswellasethnicbelongingplaysasignificantrolein attainmentofhighereducationinBritain.Drawingontheorieson immigrantadaptationandeducationalattainmentLessard-Phillipsshows that,ingeneral,secondgenerationimmigrantshavehigherchancesof holdinguniversitydegreesrelativetonatives.Thisholdstruealsowhen adjustingforparentseducationallevel.Theheterogeneityineducational attainmentamongdiverseethnicgroupsishoweverrevealedonce Introduction 15 ethnicityisincludedintheanalyses.AsianIndianmendosignificantly betterrelativetoWhites,whereasBlackCaribbeanmenandwomen clearlyhavedisadvantagesinhighereducationalattainmentcomparedto those belonging to the white ethnic category. It is though emphasized that this could be due to differences in socio-economic position, which, due to limitationsofthedata,couldnotbetakenintoconsideration. Contradictory to what was expected, having one native and one immigrant parentdoesnotprovideanyadvantagesinhighereducationalattainment comparedtothosesecondgenerationimmigrantswithtwoimmigrant parents. In the third and final section, The Importance of Social Class and Ethnicity for Understanding Inequality, we move beyond the educational system to illustratehowsocio-economicstatusandethnicityarekeyfactorsin understandingtheprocessesofsocialstratificationandinequalityin societyingeneral.Itishereexemplifiedbythedifficultiesethnic minoritiesfaceinfindingajobwhichpointsinthedirectionoflabour market discrimination as well as differences in health to the disadvantage ofthosewithlowersocio-economicstatus,implyingclass-relatedhealth inequalities. Workinglifeisdoubtlesslyoneofthemostimportantcontextsforthe reproductionofinequality.Someofthelabourmarketdifferencescanbe attributedtodiscrimination,relatedtofactorssuchasgender,ethnicity, sexualityanddisability.Inchapteroneinthissection,NeliDemireva approachestheissueoflabourmarketinequalitybyfocusingonthe differentjobsearchmethodsthatethnicminoritiesusecomparedto nativesinBritain.Inadditiontojobsearchmethoddifferentials,the impact of the employed method on holding a professional position relative toanintermediateorlow/unskilledpositionisexamined.Itisshown, among other things that the Chinese respondents use social ties to a higher extentcomparedtotheothergroups,whilethesearelessfrequently employedbyBlackAfricansandCaribbean.Theselattergroupsinstead tendtorelyonstateemploymentagencies.Indiansmakemoreuseof privateemploymentagenciescomparedtotheotherminoritycategories. The results are discussed in terms of strategies ethnic minorities employ to improvetheirlabourmarketchancesandavoiddiscrimination.This approachisimportantnottheleastasitcontraststheperceptionof disadvantagedgroupsaspassivevictimsofdiscriminatorystructures,by showing that they are also actors. Chapter One 16 Inthesecondchapterofthissection,MaritGisselmannanalysesthe influenceofsocialclassandworkingconditionsoninfantmortality. Inequalityinbirthoutcomeinitselfquestionsassumptionsaboutequal opportunities,sinceinfluenceofsocialclassbeginsbeforebirth. Gisselmann argues that social inequality in infant mortality can definitely beconsideredasunjust,asinfantsobviouslyhavenoabilitytoinfluence whatsocialconditionstheyareborninto.Theresultsshowthata substantialpartofsocialclassinequalitiesininfantmortalityinSweden canbeattributedtothephysicalandpsychosocialdimensionsofthe mothers'workingconditions.Lowjobcontrolwasthesinglemost importantfactorexplaining45-58percentoftheincreasedriskofinfant mortalityforamajorityofallmanualworkersandself-employed comparedtohighernon-manualworkers.Physicaldemandsandjob hazardsalsohadsignificantconnectiontoinfantmortalityforthese occupational groups, while this was not the case for social support at work andpsychologicaldemandsofthejob.Thus,thischapterindicatesthata substantialpartofinequalitiesininfantmortalityistiedtothesocial structurethroughworkingconditions,andtherebypossibletodecrease through the implement of policy directed at working conditions.ReferencesAppiah,K.A.(2005).TheEthicsofIdentity.Princeton:Princeton University Press. Barry,B.(2001).CultureandEquality:AnEgalitarianCritiqueof Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Oslo: Univ.-forl., cop.Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. London: Sage.Beck,U.andBeck-Gernsheim,E.(2002).Individualization.London: Sage. Beck,U.andRutherford,J.(2002).ZombieCategories:AnInterview withUlrichBeck,inU.BeckandE.Beck-Gernsheim(eds.), Individualization. London: Sage.Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bihagen,E.(2000).TheSignificanceofClass.StudiesofClass Inequalities,ConsumptionandSocialCirculationinContemporary Sweden. Doctoral theses no. 17 at the Department of Sociology, Ume University.Introduction 17 Bottero, W. (2004). Class Identities and the Identity of Class, Sociology, vol. 38(5), pp. 9851003.Bourdieu,P.(1984[1979]).Distinction:ASocialCritiqueofthe Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press..(1985).TheSocialSpaceandtheGenesisofGroups,Theoryand Society vol. 14, pp. 72344.. (1986). What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, vol. 32, pp. 18.Breen,R.(ed.)(2004).SocialMobilityinEurope.Oxford:Oxford University Press. Breen,R.andJonsson,J.O.(2005).InequalityofOpportunityin Comparative Perspective: Recent Research on Educational Attainment andSocialMobility,AnnualReviewofSociology,vol.31,pp.223243. Breen, R. and Luijkx, R. (2004). Social Mobility in Europe between 1970 and2000,inR.Breen(ed.),SocialMobilityinEurope.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burns, T., Machado, N., Hellgren, Z. and Brodin, G. (eds.) (2007). Makt, kulturochkontrollverinvandrareslivsvillkor[Power,Cultureand Control of Immigrants Life Conditions]. Uppsala: Acta. Chan,T.W.andGoldthorpe,J.H.(2005).TheSocialStratificationof Theatre,DanceandCinemaAttendance,CulturalTrends,vol.14(3), pp. 192212. .(2007a).SocialStratificationandCulturalConsumption:Musicin England, European Sociological Review, vol. 23(1), pp. 119. .(2007b).ClassandStatus:TheConceptualDistinctionandits EmpiricalRelevance,AmericanSociologicalReview,vol.72(4),pp. 512532. .(2007c).SocialStratificationandCulturalConsumption:TheVisual Arts in England, Poetics, vol. 35(2-3), pp. 16890. .(2007d).SocialStatusandNewspaperReadership,American Journal of Sociology, vol. 112(4), pp. 1095134.Crompton, R. (1998). Class and Stratification: An Introduction to Current Debates. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Crompton,R.andScott,J.(2005).ClassAnalysis:BeyondtheCultural Turn,inF.Devine,M.Savage,J.Scott,andR.Crompton(eds.), RethinkingClass:Culture,IdentitiesandLifestyle.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Devine,F.,Savage,M.,Scott,J.andCrompton,R.(eds.)(2005). RethinkingClass:Culture,IdentitiesandLifestyle.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter One 18 Erikson,R.(2006).SocialClassAssignmentandMortalityinSweden, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 62(9), pp. 21512160. Erikson,R.andGoldthorpe,J.H.(1992).TheConstantFlux:AStudyof Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Erikson,R.andJonsson,J.O.(1996).CanEducationBeEqualized?The SwedishCaseinComparativePerspective.Boulder,CO:Westview Press. Fraser,N.(1997).JusticeInterruptus:CriticalReflectionsonthe "Postsocialist Condition. London: Routledge.Fraser,N.andHonneth,A.(2003).RedistributionorRecognition?A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.Giddens,A.(1973/1980).TheClassStructureoftheAdvancedSocieties. London: Hutchinson .(1991).ModernityandSelf-Identity.Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press.Goffman,E.(1951).SymbolsofClassStatus,BritishJournalof Sociology, vol. 2(4), pp. 294304.Goldthorpe,J.H.(1996).ClassAnalysisandtheReorientationofClass Theory:TheCaseofPersistingDifferentialsinEducational Attainment, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 47(3), pp. 481505..(2000).OnSociology:Numbers,NarrativesandtheIntegrationof Research and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Goldthorpe, J.H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. and Platt, J. (1968-9). The Affluent Worker (3 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grusky,D.B.(2005).FoundationsofaNeo-DurkheimianClass Analysis,inE.O.Wright(ed.),ApproachestoClassAnalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grusky, D.B. and Weeden, K.A. (2001). Decomposition Without Death? A Research Agenda for a New Class Analysis, Acta Sociologica, vol. 44, pp. 203218. Habermas,J.(1994).Kampenfrmsesidigterknnandeiden demokratiskarttsstaten,inA.Gutman(ed.),Detmngkulturella samhllet och erknnandets politik. Gteborg: Daidalos. Hobson,B.(ed.)(2003).RecognitionStrugglesandSocialMovements; ContestedIdentities,AgencyandPower.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Jonsson. J.O. (1988). Utbildning, social reproduktion och social skiktning [Education,SocialReproduction,andSocialStratification].Doctoral Dissertationno.6,SwedishInstituteforSocialResearch(SOFI), Stockholm University.Introduction 19 Kingston,P.W.(2000).TheClasslessSociety.Stanford:Stanford University Press.Kymlicka,W.(1995).MulticulturalCitizenship:ALiberalTheoryof Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lamont,M.(1992).Money,MoralsandManners:TheCultureofthe FrenchandtheAmericanUpperClass.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.. (2000). The Dignity of Working Men. New York, NY/Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation/Harvard University Press.Lawler,S.(2005).DisgustedSubjects:TheMakingofMiddle-Class Identities, The Sociological Review, pp. 429446.Lundberg, O. (1990). Den ojmlika ohlsan. Om klass- och knsskillnader isjuklighet.DoctoralDissertationno.11SwedishInstituteforSocial Research (SOFI), Stockholm University. .(1991).CausalExplanationsforClassInequalityinHealthAn Empirical Analysis, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 32, pp. 385393. Marshall, G., Rose, D., Newby, H. and Vogler, C. (1988). Social Class in Modern Britain. London: Unwin Hyman.Pahl,R.E.(1989).IstheEmperorNaked?SomeCommentsonthe AdequacyofSociologicalTheoryinUrbanandRegionalResearch, InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,vol.13,pp. 70920.Pakulski, J. and Waters, M. (1996). The Death of Class. London: Sage.Parekh,B.(2000).RethinkingMulticulturalism.CulturalDiversityand Political Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Portes,A.andZhou,M.(1993).TheNewSecondGeneration: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants, The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 530, pp. 7496. delosReyes,P.andMulinari,D.(2005).Intersektionalitet:Kritiska reflektionerver(o)jmlikhetenslandskap[Intersecionality:Critical Reflections on (in)Equality]. Malm: Liber. Roemer,J.(1982).AGeneralTheoryofExploitationandClass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rydgren, J. (2007). The Sociology of the Radical Right, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 33, pp. 241262. Savage,M.(2000).ClassAnalysisandSocialTransformation. Buckingham: Open Univeristy Press.Savage, M., Bagnall, B. and Longhurst, L. (2001). Ordinary, Ambivalent andDefensive:ClassIdentitiesintheNorth-WestofEngland, Sociology, vol. 35, pp. 875892. Chapter One 20 Savage,M.,Warde,A.andDevine,F.(2005).Capitals,Assets,and Resources:SomeCriticalIssues,BritishJournalofSociology,vol. 56(1), pp. 3147.Scott,J.(1994).ClassAnalysis:BacktotheFuture,Sociologyvol. 28(4), pp. 93342. .(1996).StratificationandPower:StructuresofClass,Statusand Command. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of Class and Gender. London: Sage.. (2004). Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge.Srensen,A.(2000).TowardaSounderBasisforClassAnalysis, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 45(6), pp. 152358. Stolcke,V.(1994).Europa:nuevasfronteras,nuevasretricasde exclusin[Europe:NewBorders,NewRhetoricsofExclusion],in Extranjeros en el paraso [Foreigners in Paradise]. Barcelona: Virus. Thlin, M. (2007). Class Clues, European Sociological Review, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 557572. Tawney, R.H. (1964 [1931]). Equality. London: Unwin Books.Taylor,C.(1994).ThePoliticsofRecognition,inA.Gutman(ed.), Multiculturalism:ExaminingthePoliticsofRecognition.Princeton: Princeton University Press. Treiman, D.J. (1977). Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press. Weber,M.(1978[1920]).StatusGroupsandClasses,inEconomyand Society. Berkley: University of California Press.. (1978 [1922]) Economy and Society. Berkley: University of California Press. .(2004).TheDistributionofPowerinSociety:Classes,Statusand Power,inS.Whimster(ed.),TheEssentialWeber:AReader. London: Routledge.Weeden,K.A.andGrusky,D.B.(2005).TheCaseforaNewClass Map, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 111(1), pp. 141212.Wright, E.O. (1985). Classes. London: Verso. . (1997). Class Counts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .(2005).FoundationsofaNeo-MarxistClassAnalysis,inE.O. Wright(ed.),ApproachestoClassAnalysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.