Search

This paper explores the construction and contestation of moral distinctions as a dimension of contemporary structural inequality through a focus on the subjectivities constructed by young people who have experienced homelessness. Empirical material from two research projects shows that in young people's narratives of homelessness, material insecurity intertwines with the moral economies at work in neoliberal capitalist societies to construct homelessness as a state of moral disgrace, in which an ungovernable experience is experienced as a moral failure. When young people gain access to secure housing, the increasing stability and security of their lives is narrated in terms of a moral adherence to personal responsibility and disciplined conduct. Overall the paper describes an economy of worth organized around distinctions between order and chaos, self-governance and unruliness, morality and disgrace, which structures the experience of homelessness. As young people's position in relation to these moral ideals reflects the material conditions of their lives, their experiences demonstrate the way that moral hierarchies contribute to the existence and experience of structural inequalities in neoliberal capitalist societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how charitable giving offers an example of lay morality, reflecting people's capacity for fellow-feeling, moral sentiments, personal reflexivity, ethical dispositions, moral norms and moral discourses. Lay morality refers to how people should treat others and be treated by them, matters that are important for their subjective and objective well-being. It is a first person evaluative relation to the world (about things that matter to people). While the paper is sympathetic to the 'moral boundaries' approach, which seeks to address the neglect of moral evaluations in sociology, it reveals this approach to have some shortcomings. The paper argues that although morality is always mediated by cultural discourses and shaped by structural factors, it also has a universalizing character because people have fellow-feelings, shared human conditions, and have reason to value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the role of privileged research objects (‘model systems') in producing patterns in transnational knowledge production. In its approach it follows Bourdieu's call to focus on contexts of production and forces internal to disciplines as well as his insistence on practice. Learning from work in science and technology studies it also considers material objects of knowledge and spaces of knowledge-production. It discusses the case of sociology and argues that conventions surrounding privileged research objects matter relatively independently of authors’ national origin or field-position. Examining model systems, I argue, can contribute to our understanding of how some well-established inequalities are produced and reproduced. This focus adds specific stakes to the debates about global knowledge production: we can discuss the problem of neglected cases in ways that are not always included in current reflections that draw on general political – rather than specifically knowledge-political – categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current interest in difference has arisen in part because of its importance in recent recognition claims, and in part because of a belief that as a concept it can illuminate social diversity. Debates here have stressed the importance of the symbolic in the construction of social relations and social diversity, and have highlighted the relational underpinnings of diversity. In this paper we seek to take forward aspects of such an analysis by examining some issues in the shaping of difference and inequalities in the domains of gender, class and ‘race’. It is our argument that we can gain insights in these domains by better describing and theorising the mutuality of value and material social relations. The paper argues that issues of identity and difference need to be more firmly located within relational accounts of social practice, and in the nature of claims (to recognition and resources) which emerge out of different social locations. By exploring issues of difference in debates on class, gender and ‘race’, we argue that relational accounts must be placed within a perspective that also emphasises the content and patterned nature of (highly differentiated) social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses criticisms of a number of papers (Vogler and Pahl, 1993, 1994; Vogler, 1994) in which we attempted to explore the relationships between money, power and inequality within marriage. Subsequent criticisms have mainly centred around the concept of power that we used in those papers. It has been suggested that we either lacked a theory of power (Rottman, 1996) or that our conceptualisation of power as control over decision making was too limited (Shove, 1993). I would argue however, that while it was not made explicit in our original papers our findings point towards a more general theory of power in the household, namely to a modified version of Lukes' three dimensional model of power. While we initially conceptualised power as control over decision making (Lukes' first dimension of power) our findings also show the importance of ideological and cultural factors (Lukes' third dimension of power) as both a cause and a consequence of the allocative systems couples use to organise money within the household. More theoretically, I also suggest that discourses about money within the household may be part of, and operate in a similar way to discourses of decision making at the broader political level. It may therefore be possible to conceptualise the different ways of managing money within the household as mini political systems akin to different sorts of democracy at the broader political level, and with similar consequences for gender relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper sets out to explore the links between patterns of allocation of money within marriage and more general patterns of inequality. Goldthorpe suggested, in the passage quoted above, that while money confers power, power tends to lead to the acquisition of money: can anything be said about the relative importance of these two processes? If we take only relationships within marriage it is by no means clear which way the lines of causality flow. Do patterns of allocation of money reflect differences in 'power', however that is defined, between husband and wife? Or is it more accurate to see differences in 'power' as determining allocative patterns? Or should the relationship rather be seen in terres of complicated social processes in which the two elements interact with each other and with other variables such as economic activity and levels of income? In order to answer these questions we need hot only to draw on work done in the past on marital power and decision making, but also to consider new ways of defining such power in the context of the control and allocation of resources.
Traditional economics, on the other hand, bas construed the household as a black box, within which the resources acquired by individuals are assumed to be shared among household members. One aim of this paper is to open up this black box, in order to investigate some of the social processes involved in the flows of money within households. Can we make the assumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unplanned, exponential economic growth has been the liberal standard for evaluating economies, societies and effectiveness of political leaders and for addressing problems of all sorts. In the later twentieth century, the American conservative movement revived market liberalism to restore growth after the long post-World War II boom ended. The neoliberal policy regime stressed the growth imperative to the exclusion of other social ends, which were alleged to undermine innovation and growth. Neoliberalism conflates growth with development, precludes sustainable growth, and trends toward plutocratic dedemocratization. This immoderate policy regime denies the reality of the commons and disregards the interdependence of nature and culture and individual and society. This paper addresses crisis tendencies, which have been exacerbated by neoliberal policies, and concludes with a departure point for an alternative. John Dewey's naturalism stressed the need to secure the commons, biotic and social, and to balance individualism with community, efficiency with social justice, and markets with planning to cultivate uncoerced cooperation and preserve democracy, in the face of crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are signs that a significant number of British people do not feel that their concerns are being addressed by the mainstream parties or the political system. This paper attends to the quality of that political dissatisfaction amongst members of 'the white working classes'. There is a need to extend typical concerns about youth disengagement to adults and to consider the role that class plays. Lower participation in formal democratic processes may not mean disengagement from all forms of politics, but could have considerable consequences for who gains power and for the tone and focus of political debates and policies. Our project contributes to exploring political dissatisfaction by engaging with low wage workers in Yorkshire and the North West, where high support for the far-right BNP and low voter turnout are signs that mainstream politics and politicians are failing to impress. We asked people about their feelings in relation to mainstream politics and their concerns. These participants feel distanced from governing elites, formal political processes and old ideologies. They are searching for ways to make sense of their struggles to live a decent life, and in doing so must contend with the dominance of racist discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on British data from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) module on ‘Family and Changing Gender Roles’, this paper is an exploratory attempt to assess the extent to which newly emerging ‘individualised’ patterns of money management in intimate relationships, are coming to be associated with shifts towards greater equality between partners, in terms of who has the final say over large expenditure decisions, and the implications this has for overall satisfaction with the relationship and happiness with life in general. Our findings show that while in general, keeping money partly separate was associated with a relatively high level of male control, which was more visible to female respondents than male control in other systems, a minority of (sometimes) higher earning, cohabiting women with partly separate finances, were able to make autonomous decisions about spending, possibly by using their own personal spending money. However, the analysis also indicates that when either men or women made autonomous decisions about spending, both male and female respondents were less satisfied with family life, as well as with life in general, than those who made joint decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the conceptual confusions characteristic of the practice of equal opportunities policies at the workplace. The differences between 'liberal' and 'radical' approaches to policy making are identified and described. It is argued that, while these are conceptually distinct from one another, in practice they are routinely confused and conflated. In particular the preferred procedures of the liberal approach are widely assumed to result in the preferred outcomes of the radical approach. It is suggested that these confusions are not merely the product of intellectual error but arise from misunderstandings and deceptions generated in the struggle for power between participants in the work process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social inequality has been overwhelmingly studied from the perspective of those who are deprived and disadvantaged. The emphasis, accordingly, has been on lack of wealth, status and power. However, social inequality equally implies privilege and this has received little serious attention. Indeed, in the literature of sociology there are relatively few extended references to it.[1] With few exceptions those that exist tend to treat it unproblematically and often pejoratively. Thus the possessors of privilege are frequently cast as the villains of the piece and, even where the underdog has privileges in the sense of legal rights, these are commonly exposed as illusory or detrimental to his interests.[2] In order to contribute to the understanding of privilege in general, and thereby social inequality, this paper will consider the privileges of the professions.[3] This is because professions are examples of privilege not only in the sense of being privileged occupations, but also in the sense that the elites of professions are an integral part of the dominant elites of society.[4]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I want to outline a model for the analysis of worker advancement and political order in a state socialist society.[1] Use of the model requires the application of general principles to the particular circumstances of each state socialist society in eastern Europe. I shall illustrate its use in the Polish case and leave open its potential applicability to others. Of the two components in the model, the first, and most basic, posits a connection between 'worker advancement' and political order. Of course something like this has often been suggested before. Parkin, for example, in his Class Inequality and Political Order (1971) stressed the importance of continued provision for upward social mobility in state socialist societies. He argued that in the past they had provided for more mobility than their capitalist counterparts but he was unsure that they could go on doing so and he conceded that this might well have political repercussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]