Are There Social Classes?
An Empirical Test of the
Sociologist’s Favorite Concept*
David B. Grusky, Stanford Univ.
Kim Weeden, Cornell Univ.
*The research reported here was supported by the National Science Foundation
(SBS-9906419), Cornell University, and Stanford University.
A metaphysical commitment
to measurement models
A.
B.
C.
Badges of affiliation:
Measurement models determined
by discipline and “theory”
Converting to hypotheses: But
models are hypotheses embodying
empirical claims
New evidence on form of
inequality: Because we refuse to
treat models as hypotheses, we
know too little about the form
poverty and inequality take
Table 1. Examples of preferred measurement
models by discipline
Measurement approach
Discipline
Gradational
Multidimensional
Economics
Income (i.e.,
“income
paradigm”)
Capabilities
approach (e.g.,
Sen)
Sociology
Socioeconomic, Social class (e.g.,
prestige, job
neo-Marxian,
desirability
neo-Weberian)
Beyond metaphysics: Converting
assumptions into testable hypotheses
A. If measurement models are treated as
hypotheses, new questions emerge
1. Is inequality gradational? Is advantage and
disadvantage cumulative?
2. Are there social classes? Do working conditions or
capabilities come together as distinct “packages?”
3. Are gradational or class models becoming more or less
viable?
4. Is an underclass emerging? Withering away?
B. Build social indicators framework that attends
to form of inequality (not just amount)
Multidimensionalism is natural foundation
of new social indicators framework
A.
B.
Virtues of multidimensionalism: When “form” of poverty
and inequality are of interest, multidimensionalism is a
natural framework
Conventional variables within multidimensional
framework
1.
2.
3.
C.
Investments and endowments (e.g., formal education, labor force
experience, vocational education)
Working conditions (e.g., authority, autonomy, promotion
possibilities)
Rewards (e.g., income, wealth, social inclusion)
Standard problems with multidimensionalism
1.
2.
Difficult to parsimoniously characterize the structure of
multidimensional space
Social organization of multidimensional space is ignored (e.g.,
classes with adaptive preferences)
Does sociology help solve complications that
arise with multidimensional approaches?
A. Hypotheses about social organization: A
wealth of hypotheses about the social
organization of inequality and poverty (i.e.,
sociology as repository of hypotheses)
B. Statistical framework: A latent class
statistical framework that allows us to
convert measurement models into
hypotheses
Contribution #1: Hypotheses about
social organization
A. Socially organized lumpiness in the labor market
B. Structural hypothesis: Lumpiness takes form of social
conditions that “come together,” institutionalized packages of
conditions. Examples:
1. Craft class: Moderate general education, considerable on-the-job human
capital, substantial job security, middling social honor and prestige
2. Underclass: Minimal general education, minimal on-the-job human
capital, intermittent labor force participation, low income, social
denigration and exclusion.
3. NOTE: Dimensionality of inequality space equals number of classes
C. Cultural hypothesis: By virtue of social closure, adaptive
preferences and “culture” emerge, meaning that classes have
real causal effects on behavior. Types of closure:
1. Underclass: Residential segregation
2. Other classes: Workplace segregation
Contested features within class tradition
A. How many social classes?
1. A small number of big classes (e.g., underclass, working class,
professional-managerial class)
2. Micro-classes (i.e., detailed occupations) NOTE: Is the underclass
indeed unitary? Or fractured (by gender, city, etc.)?
B. Do classes form at site of production?
1. Conventional sociological models based on site of production (i.e.,
conditions of work)
2. Postmodernists: Classes based on inputs to labor market (e.g.,
education) or outputs (e.g., income)
C. Is advantage and disadvantage deeply cumulative?
1. Gradationalists: Cumulation of advantage and disadvantage
2. Pluralists: Compensating advantage and disadvantage
Job-based models
Univariate
Erikson &
Goldthorpe
(1992)
Multivariate
(e.g., Wright
1997)
Dahrendorf
auth. model
(1959)
Occupation-based
models
Big-class (e.g.,
Feath. & Hauser
1978)
Micro-class
Categorical
(Weeden &
Grusky 2005)
Unidimen.
(Hauser &
Warren 1997)
Outside the site of
production
Education (e.g.,
Meyer 2001)
Two-dimen.
(Bourdieu 1984)
Figure 1. A classification of testable models
of inequality
Wealth
Contribution #2: A latent class
framework
A. New developments in latent class models
1. Mixed mode data (continuous and categorical indicators)
2. Scaling of classes
3. Models with many parameters
B. Resulting general latent class model
1. yi denotes the respondent’s scores on the manifest variables
2. K is the number of latent classes
3. πk refers to the probability of belonging to the kth latent class (thus
indexing latent class sizes)
4. J denotes the total number of manifest variables and j is a
particular manifest variable
K
J
k 1
j 1
f (y i /  )    k  f k ( yij /  jk )
Disorganized big-class regime
A. Multidimensional space of
inequality resolves into small
number of big classes (i.e.,
institutional solution to
parsimony problem)
B. Each big class characterized by
different constellation of scores
on underlying variables
C. Within each big class, underlying
variables do not covary with one
another (i.e., no residual intraclass clustering into microclasses)
D. Class incumbents diversely
drawn from different positions in
the division of labor
Figure 1. Disorganized big-class regime
Organized big-class regime
A. Big classes now rooted in
division of labor (i.e.,
latent classes become
manifest)
B. Can explicitly test for the
number of latent and
manifest social classes
Figure 2. Organized big-class regime
Organized micro-class regime
A. Big-classes subdivide
occupationally into microclasses
B. Independence constraint
is violated and further
subdivision into microclasses is therefore
necessary
Figure 3. Organized micro-class regime
Gradational micro-class regime
A. Inequality characterized with a simple
unidimensional scale (possibly
socioeconomic)
B. Socioeconomic index is particular type
of class model that treats all occupations
with the same socioeconomic score as a
micro-class and presumes that such
socioeconomic scores adequately index
inequality along a host of dimensions
(not just income and education)
C. Rather than imposing unidimensional
solution on data, here we explicitly test
viability of gradational model
Figure 4. Gradational micro-class regime
Individualized inequality
A. Class concept rejected because,
no matter the level of
disaggregation, the underlying
inequality variables continue to
covary with one another
B. Extreme micro-class solution in
which diagonal of Figure 4 thins
out to point where each
individual becomes a class unto
himself or herself
C. Same gradational solution is
apparent at each level of
disaggregation
Figure 5. Individualized inequality
Disorganized inequality
A. Underlying individual-level
variables no longer covary (i.e.,
a “one class” solution)
B. Structureless form of inequality
in which independence
assumption holds throughout
multidimensional space, not just
within a given latent class
C. Represents form of inequality
that some postmodernists argue
is emerging
Figure 6. Disorganized inequality
Testing the culture hypothesis
A. Tests of structural hypothesis: Prior tests
pertain to structural hypothesis that inequality
space can be understood in terms of classes (i.e.,
institutionalized packages of conditions)
B. Fallback reaction: If class models fail, class
analysts might respond: “We never intended to
capture structure of multidimensional space but
rather only to explain key outcomes of interest”
C. Building effect-calibrated approaches: Testing
for true class effects (presumably generated by
class-specific cultures)
Full set of controls required
A. Culture hypothesis: Classes have effects that are not
reducible to individual self-selection or structural constituents
of class
1. Example of self-selection: Surprisingly conservative politics of the
underclass is attributable to low levels of formal education of its
members
2. Example of “structural constituents” reductionism: Children of
professionals disproportionately attend college because their parents
can afford it (i.e., a simple “background income” effect)
B. Is class concept superfluous? If class effects disappear when
both self-selection and structural conditions are controlled,
the class concept becomes superfluous
C. Test for class effects is analogous to now-fashionable tests
of neighborhood effects
D. Class as an act of faith: It is startling that the class concept,
one of the most fundamental concepts in sociology, has to this
date gone untested
Testing for class effects
Outcome
variable
Social class
Investments &
Endowments
Working
Conditions
Rewards
Main features of proposed
multidimensional framework
A. Convert assumptions to hypotheses: Convert
assumptions about the shape of poverty and
inequality to hypotheses about the extent to
which postulated shapes do or do not hold
B. Latent class statistical framework allows
measurement models to be tested
1. Structural hypothesis
2. Cultural hypothesis
C. Emphasize shape of inequality: Address
excessive focus on amount of inequality or
poverty rather than shape of inequality or
poverty