Search

The paper evaluates spatial, behavioural, and material signalling of social class in African contexts, focusing on Kenya and Zambia. In particular, it draws on notions of mode of class signalling and intersectionality and a vignette of an interaction between urban-based Western educated development agents and local participants in rural Kenya to illustrate how social class is implicated in interactions. The paper shows how significant features of class and dimensions of social inequality may be perceived intersectionally so that positionalities in class structures are negotiated in contexts of interaction, thus illustrating how structural conditions of class may be challenged and questioned. The paper concludes that sociolinguistics needs to identify the various ways in which the marginalized challenge social structures of inequality. Otherwise there is a risk that sociolinguistics will work to validate inequalities as permanent and fixed, and victims of unequal treatment as permanently condemned and never able to rise against oppressive social structures that tyrannize them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper advances a psychosocial hypothesis in understanding relations between recipients, and providers, of health and social care. In doing so, it draws on psychoanalytically informed work which considers the relation between the internal and external worlds and more generally the wider social context. The particular hypothesis in this paper relates to an understanding of an abusive form of relating underpinned by shame and envy. The paper suggests that exposure to these feeling states is more prevalent in a social world marked by increasing inequalities and environmental failures. This argument is underpinned with reference to qualitative and quantitative research, suggesting that antagonistic relationships are increasing and are part of a significant change in the culture. The argument is illustrated by a single detailed description of an initial consultation in an NHS psychotherapy service. An examination of the social context suggests how unhelpful or abusive relations may be manifest between health care providers and recipients, in care organizations and in the wider social world. This aspect of the argument is constructed with reference to relevant organizational and sociological literature. It is suggested that established relations of this type act to limit development, in this case a social development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper suggests that the state is subject to assessment according to principles of social justice because state institutions or practices exercise forms of power over which no particular person has control. This rationale for assessment of social justice equally applies to legally optional or informal social practices. But it does not apply to individual conduct. Indeed, it follows that principles of social justice cannot provide a basis for the assessment and guidance of individual choice. The paper develops this practice-based conception of the subject of justice by rejoining G. A. Cohen's influential critique of Rawls’ focus on the“basic structure” of society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses spatial inequality as an emerging specialty area in sociology. Rural sociologists have long attended to spatial inequalities. The authors tend to view their work as uniquely centered on the rural experience, as opposed to occupying the forefront of spatializing stratification theory and of sociology as a whole. First the development of sociological interest in spatial inequality is discussed, providing an overview of factors that have contributed to a spatial trend in the study of stratification. Then, the implications for rural sociology are discussed, describing how rural sociologists contribute to research on spatial inequality, and distinguishes the approach of rural sociology from those of other subfields and disciplines. Finally, some examples of research in this emerging specialty area are highlighted by drawing from papers included in this issue. The authors call for the development of research based on qualitative approaches to provide deeper insights into the processes linking space with stratification, both from the perspective of people who are disadvantaged and from the standpoint of those who enjoy an advantage because of such a connection. They encourage the development of international and cross-national research on spatial inequality to broaden the understanding of the links between space and inequality.

Distinguishing between an explanatory and a normative interest in social stratification, this paper considers the relation between class analysis and the value of equality. Starting from the familiar distinction between (in) equality of position and (in) equality of opportunity, and noting the extent to which mobility research focuses on the latter, it suggests that class positions can themselves be characterized in terms of the opportunities they yield to those occupying them. This enables the clear identification of the kinds of inequality that are and are not addressed by research findings presented in terms of class categories and odds ratios. The significance of those findings from a normative perspective is then discussed, and their limitations are emphasized - though the paper also explains in what ways they are indeed of normative relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper suggests that, for a variety of reasons, the sociology of social stratification -- and, as a consequence, mainstream sociology more generally -- has neglected the topic of disability. Using material drawn from a range of sources, it is argued that disability is related in definite ways to social class. Further, it is also argued that disability must be considered as a factor contributing to the production and reproduction of stratification in its own right, independently of class relations. These arguments are further advanced in the course of a more detailed consideration of research evidence concerned with mental handicap. The paper ends with a consideration of the role of non-class factors -- specifically social status and citizenship -- in the stratification systems of modern industrial societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engel presented a compelling case for a biopsychosocial model of health. This challenged a biomedical model that he saw as reductionistic, physicalistic, and exclusionist. Yet despite its laudable goals and popularity, the biopsychosocial model can be faulted for being incremental, imprecise, and individualistic. Ultimately, this means it is no less reductionist than the biomedical model which it sought to supplant. In this paper, we present a reformulation of this model that foregrounds the capacity for social groups—and the social contexts in which those groups are embedded—to structure psychology and, through this, biology and health. This sociopsychobio model argues that the three elements of Engel's framework are not fixed and immutable but rather dynamic and interdependent. The model is consistent with a range of recent approaches to health that have focused on the important role that social class, social inequality, social structure, and social networks play in shaping health outcomes. In this paper, though, the concrete value of this reformulation is illustrated through a discussion of recent research that focuses on the role of group memberships and associated social identities in shaping the psychology and biology of stress. This review underlines two key points that are central to the general case for a sociopsychobio model of health. First, that groups are a force in the world that shape the psychology and biology of their members (as well as members of other groups) in ways that cannot be reduced to those group members' functioning as individuals. Second, that groups provide their members with a basis for seeking to change the world rather than simply accepting it. In this, group life is not merely an appendage to psychology and biology but is instead a basis for collective experiences that have the potential to unleash new expressions of both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several recent articles seeking to validate the Goldthorpe class schema have implicitly raised some interesting questions about the relation between analytical techniques and theory. The favoured technique of latent class analysis actually brings this variety of class analysis close to the much older tradition of ideal-type analysis. In doing so, it helps to illustrate a much wider problem that arises in any conceptualization in terms of classes. The paper seeks to show how, just as in popular discourse around 'class', stereotypes are used to simplify and summarize a complex set of related characteristics, so similarly ideal types, as used in class analysis, are an over-simplification. As elsewhere in social science, the danger of using them is that they serve to protect a theoretical concept from empirical refutation. An alternative 'research programme' to that of class analysis is presented, based on measures of stratification arrangements that are more closely linked to the reproducing structure of inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within most approaches to stratification gender and ethnicity are seen to pertain primarily to the symbolic or cultural realms, whilst class is regarded as pertaining to material inequality. This constructs gender and ethnic positioning as entailing honour, deference, worth, value and differential treatment (sometimes expressed through the notion of 'status'), but the social relations around these are themselves not seen as constitutive of social stratification. In this paper I will rethink social stratification away from the polarity between the material and the symbolic, and argue that material inequality, as a set of outcomes relating to life conditions, life chances and solidary processes, is informed by claims and struggles over resources of different types, undertaken in terms of gender, ethnicity/race and class. This formulation allows us to include these categorial formations, alongside class, as important elements of social stratification i.e. as determining the allocation of socially valued resources and social places/locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]