Search

This research note is a contribution to an important on-going debate in British sociology on the operationalisation of class. A comprehensive framework is proposed based on three interrelated choices. All three choices have both theoretical and empirical elements. First, researchers must choose which conceptual scheme to employ--conventional occupational class or neo-Marxist social class categories. Second, what is to be the unit of analysis--the respondent or the household? Third, what is to be the degree of coverage? -- whether or not to include the economically inactive. Consideration of all three choices is followed by a discussion of their interrelations and consequences. We suggest an extended version of Erikson's solution which incorporates not only the unit of analysis decision but also the degree of coverage decision. Thus a respondent based measure covering the economically active only is appropriate for studies of production behaviour and attitudes (work position).Alternatively, a household based measure inclusive of the economically inactive is appropriate for studies of consumption behaviour and attitudes (market or class position). Acceptance of the extended Erikson solution leaves only the choice of conceptual scheme. Our indicated preference is for social class on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Finally, we recommend several ways of improving the quality of datasets with regard to the problem of operationalising class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dorfman is eulogized as the creator and curator of the definitive account of Veblen's life and work. He argued that Veblen was the archetypal marginal man and that this explains his dissenting contribution. Dissemination of Dorfman's pathography of Veblen led to its hegemony - until now. Andrew Veblen was the first to challenge Dorfman's portrait of his younger brother's life in the mid 1920s. He asserted that his family were not linguistically, socially or economically deprived. However, it was not until Dorfman's private papers became publicly available in the 1990s, that his flawed view of Veblen became more widely and comprehensively contested. An alternative appreciation of Veblen is advanced with reference to his experiences in general and the works of Bellamy, Morris and Ibsen in particular. Data sources include Dorfman's original tome, Andrew Veblen's extensive correspondence with Dorfman, and Veblen's own writings. It is concluded that Veblen's radical views are entirely congruent with his life experiences during an era of capitalist transformation. The moral of this saga is that a dose of Veblenian scepticism is essential to intellectual health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on sociologist Thorstein Veblen's theory of evolutionary change. His contribution to sociology, and his theory of evolutionary change in particular, are among the most misrepresented and undervalued in the history of the subject. Veblen's contribution has become a battleground between the rival claims of economics and sociology as autonomous disciplines. His critics have failed to comprehend the totality of his contribution, and at the same time, that the limited and contradictory compass of interpretations of his work seems to have operated to delay recognition of the originality of his overall contribution. His mode of analysis included the assumptions that production was a social activity that was facilitated by cooperation and motivated by the "instinct of workmanship" and that technological knowledge was cumulative. However, despite its social nature and primacy for the survival of the group, the expression of workmanship varies in terms of the economic and cultural conditions that prevail during any one historical period.