[lit-ideas] Re: Illegal Immigration

  • From: Judy Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:11 +0100

Thursday, September 15, 2005, 12:35:19 AM, Paul Stone wrote:

PS> I don't think that better analysts of stratification would use such a
PS> nebulous term as "upper middle class",

this man isn't one of the people I had in mind, but he'll do:

>Warnerian social class model

>Another example of a stratum class model was developed by the
>sociologist William Lloyd Warner in his 1949 book, Social Class
>in America. For many decades, the Warnerian theory was dominant
>in U.S. sociological theory.

>Based on social anthropology, Warner divided American into three
>classes (upper, middle, and lower), then further subdivided each of
>these into an "upper" and "lower" segment, with the following postulates:

    * Upper-upper class. "Old money." People who have been born into
    and raised with wealth.
    * Lower-upper class. "New money." Individuals who have become
    rich within their own lifetimes.
    * Upper-middle class. High-salaried professionals (i.e.,
    doctors, lawyers, corporate executives).
    * Lower-middle class. Lower-paid professionals, but not manual
    laborers (i.e., police officers, non-management office workers, small 
business owners).
    * Upper-lower class. Blue-collar workers and manual laborers.
    Also known as the "working class."
    * Lower-lower class. The homeless and permanently unemployed,
    as well as the "working poor."

>To Warner, American social class was based more on attitudes than on the
>actual amount of money an individual made. For example, the richest people
>in America would belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them
>(i.e, Bill Gates, as a modern example) created their own fortunes;
>one can only be born into the highest class. Nonetheless, members of
>the upper-upper class tend to be more respected, as a simple survey of U.S.
>presidents may demonstrate (i.e., the Roosevelts; John Kennedy; George W. Bush)

>Another observation: members of the upper-lower class might make more
>than members of the lower-middle class (i.e., a well-salaried mechanic
>vs. a secretarial worker), but the class difference is based on the type
>of work they perform.

>In his research, Warner held that American social class was largely based
>on these shared attitudes. For example, he noted that the lower-middle
>class tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very little
>separated them from the working class. The upper-middle class, while a
>relatively small section of the population, usually "set the standard"
>for proper American behavior, as reflected in the mass media.

then there's

>Nine Classes Historian Paul Fussell has developed a nine-tier
>structure to describe the American class system:

    * Top out-of-sight: the super-rich, heirs to huge fortunes
     * Upper Class: rich celebrities and people who can afford full-time 
domestic staff
    * Upper-Middle Class: self-made well-educated professionals
    * Middle Class: office workers
    * High Prole: skilled blue-collar workers
    * Mid Prole: workers in factories and the service industry
    * Low Prole: manual laborers
    * Destitute: the homeless
    * Bottom out-of-sight: those incarcerated in prisons and institutions

Here's a bit about John Goldthorpe (who is *very* good)

>For example, John H. Goldthorpe (Social Mobility and Class Structure in
>Modern Britain, 1980) distinguishes the service class of senior managers and
>professionals; the junior or subaltern service class of lower professionals
>such as teachers, junior managers, and administrators; routine
>non-manual  workers such as clerks and secretaries; and owners of small
>businesses (the traditional petit-bourgeoisie).

>Conventionally, the service class is referred to as the upper-middle class;
>the junior service class as the middle class proper; and the others as the
>lower-middle class.

PS> especially when such obvious
PS> disparities exist.

well of course; but social analysts find it a bit difficult to go
through 100 million or so individuals each and every time so they
classify people into groups... *so*, they talk about classes or
socio-economic categories and work with 5 or so of those.

PS>   This google thingy is GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT if you need quick and dirty
PS> information,

as opposed to none, which you seem to prefer (I admit the second time
around, I searched by "Goldthorpe" and "upper middle class")


To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: