SOC 312: American Society

1. SOC 312: American Society Stratification

2. Stratification • Major area in sociology in the U.S. • How do we explain the nature and types of social inequality • interpersonal: deference or discrimination • group: in-group/out-group behavior • organizational: distribution of persons/rewards over positions • institutional: enduring race, class, and gender inequality

3. History • Earliest theory: Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification," ASR 10 (April 1945), pp. 242-249 • But problem of inequality dates back to Emile Durkheim, Division of Labor in Society (1893) • modern (late 19th C) industrial society: achieved inequality • replacing traditional society of inherited (ascribed) status

4. Durkheim (cont.) • Inequality was inevitable but nature was variable • achieved corresponded to talents and inclinations: functional in modern industrial society • functional not because of efficiency (Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith) • served moral function: organic solidarity

5. Modern Division of Labor • could maintain society • reinforce individual commitment to collective enterprise • reaffirm sense of belonging to larger community of society • regulate behavior: occupational/industrial groups establish and enforce standards/ethics

6. Durkheim Div of Labor (cont.) • Thus occupational groups and modern division of labor might replace functions of family and religion in traditional society • Durkheim later realized that both religion and family (and mechanical solidarity) continued to serve important/critical function • But saw predominance of differentiation and organic solidarity

7. Durkheim’s Functional Model of the Division of Labor and Mechanical or Organic Solidarity - + Division Of Labor Solidarity - Increasing Social Density

8. Potential conflict between achieved and ascribed status ascribed: inherited; sustained simple, undifferentiated society achieved: sustained modern differentiated society Impossible to eliminate inheritance But need to minimize its effect—even affirmative action, for moral/economic viability Durkheim (cont.)

9. Davis and Moore (1945) • Rooted in functional theory/Durkheim • assumed • some occupations more important • some occupations more difficult to fill • talent required • unpleasant nature of work • years of preparation required These occupations need to confer higher status (honor and money) to attract best and brightest

10. Davis and Moore’s Functional Model of Stratification - Recruitment Of Best and Brightest + Hierarchy of Rewards - External Threat

11. Cold War (1956-1989) Competition between U.S. and U.S.S.R. • military • industrial • technological • ideological U.S.S.R. launched Sputnik - inspired space race - tons of money for eduction - "rocket science"

12. Status Attainment and Occupational Prestige • Weber: status was honor bestowed by community of likeminded persons • celebrated particular lifestyle (e.g. Green or Hip Hop) • honored the exemplary taste, virtue, dignity or style of those who followed this lifestyle (gourmet, Catholic, recovering alcoholic) • gave awards, prizes or simply "esteem"

13. Weber on Class and Status • Weber viewed status (lifestyle) and class (life chances) as distinct but related social interests • metro-sexuals honor a particular status • which requires a minimal standard of living (class-based requirement) • but not all middle class people are or can be metro-sexuals

14. Weber on Party (power) • Weber viewed party as a third independent or at least distinct social base for interest group formation • parties are actively in pursuit of power (ability to achieve goals despite resistance) • sometimes based on class interests • sometimes based on status interests • sometimes mixture of both • sometimes neither: purely political

15. Status Attainment • status attainment literature in the U.S. in 1950s and 1960s • not well rooted in classical theory (or any theory) • used "status" to refer to prestige that was accorded a particular position or occupation • developed empirically rather than theoretically • inductive statistics • rather than deductive theory

16. Occupational Mobility Tables • Beginning with the Warner, Yankee City Studies • sociologists in U.S. have viewed statification by ill-defined social classes • middle class versus working class (Lynds in Middletown) • upper, middle, lower (and intermediate categories) used by Warner et al

17. Featherman and Hauser • Used manual/nonmanual occupations as major categories • created categories of upper and lower manual and nonmanual, as opposed to farm • used these categories to study occupational mobility, father to son

18. Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo, Sixth Edition (2006), p. 373)

19. Featherman and Hauser (cont.) • the diagonal indicates the inheritance of occupation: 57% of sons of upper non-manual fathers find themselves in upper non-manual • these tend to be the largest numbers (only 10% of farmers' sons in upper non-manual) • above the diagonal is downward mobility • below the diagonal is upward mobility • lots of upward mobility, increasing 1962-1973

20. Blau and Duncan's Occupational Prestige Scores • Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967) • developed ratio (or, at least, interval) scale for occupational prestige • asked people to rate 45 occupations: excellent, good, fair, poor; calculated % rated excellent or good (Y) • matched occupations with 1950 census and computed percent of people in that occupation with high school or more education (X1) and percent in that occupation earning $3500 plus (X2)

21. Predicting Occupational Prestige Predicted Prestige Score: Yp High . ...... . . . . ................. . .............. . .. . ................. . . .. ............ . ... ........... ........ .. ... .............. . .. .......... .. ... . . ..... .... .Yo observed values ... ... . Prestige of Occupation Y low High Average income and education of occupation (X1+X2)

22. Blau and Duncan • using ordinary least squares regression • predict prestige for occupations that were not among the 45 • using the percent in each occupation with high school plus (x1) and percent earning $3500 plus (x2) • Yp=a+B1X1+B2X2+e • the line is drawn to minimize the error: • ∑(Yo-Yp)2/N (N is the number of observations)

23. Blau and Duncan (cont.) • the OLS model fit the data extra-ordinarily well (for social science) • Multiple R=.91 • that means that 83% of the variance in occupational prestige was explained by education and income (as measured in this model) • this was an amazing feat, which made Blau and Duncan famous

24. Blau and Duncan (cont.) • they used this model to predict prestige scores for every occupation in the U.S. census • coding education and income • predicting occupational prestige • they then used this wonderful ratio scale variable to predict mobility from father to son • this became the standard model of status attainment (and is still popular)

25. Blau and Duncan's Path Model (Kerbo, p. 394) X X .859 Son's Education .753 Father's Education .310 .394 Son's Occupation .440 .279 .115 .516 .281 Father's Occupation Son's First Job .224 .818 X

26. social psychologists at U. Wisconsin attempted to specify the effects of individual and group differences included IQ and academic performance included evaluation by significant others (teachers, etc.) including attitudes (educational and occupational aspirations) The Wisconsin School

27. Figure 12-7. Wisconsin School Path Model (Kerbo, p. 396) X X .859 .778 Occupational Aspirations .441 Parental SES .246 Significant Others .152 Occupational Status .227 .179 .522 Educational Attainment .320 .288 .261 .457 .508 .218 Mental Ability Academic performance .589 Educational Aspirations .654 .218 .808 .792 .768 X X X X .627

28. Operationalization • occupational status (Blau & Duncan) (parents average occ and ed) • IQ measured by standard WI test • aspiration (occ/ed hope in 1957: 7 years earlier) • peer influence: perceived parental and teacher encouragement for college and friends college plans • academic performance is ranking in hs class

29. Critiques of Status Attainment • Hauser and his students: occupational mobility largely determined by changes in occupational structure • 1950s and 1960s: creation of well-paid jobs in manufacturing increased mobility to upper white collar (nonmanual) and blue collar (manual) • 1970s and 1980s: relative decline of manufactures and rise of sales and service decreased mobility: more lower white and blue collar jobs

30. Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo, p. 373)

31. Ross Stoltzenberg and Students • Argued that both industry and occupation constrain workers and their ability to increase their earnings • Return on education • Managers and professionals • Research and development • Versus line workers in manufacturing • Return on experience • White collar/managerial-professional versus manual

32. Career Earnings white collar white collar earnings earnings blue collar blue collar Years of education Years of experience

34. Randy Hodson and students • Labor markets are segmented: dual economy • Core sector: large firms, large market shares, large and stable/predictable profits, offer high pay and benefits, high returns on education and experience • Peripheral sector: small firms, small market shares, small and unstable profits, low pay and no benefits or job security, low returns on education and experience

35. Erik Olin Wright and students • Status attainment and labor market theories ignore exploitation • Value of worker’s labor is appropriated • Directly, as profit (or reinvested in capital) by employer • Indirectly, as surplus wages/bonuses, by managers and supervisors • Employers and managers earn more and receive greater return for education

36. Wright and Perrone (1977) employers high earnings managers workers low high Years of education

37. Erik Olin Wright and students • Need to look at Marxist class categories • Need to look at movement of capital and labor • In and out of industries • In pursuit of windfall/stable profits • In pursuit of high wages/stable employment • As Hogan (1990) argued, industrial frontiers offer high risk/high profits • Entrepreneurial labor and capital absorbs risks • Establishes reliable rates of return (or not)

38. Hogan (1990) continued • Reliable rates of return (not large but reliable profits) attract big capital • Economies of scale yield higher rates of return (bigger potential profits) • Only if rate of return is reliable • Otherwise excessive overhead and sunk costs make it hard to respond to market fluctuations • Which is why entrepreneurs tend to be small scale and are able to exploit industrial frontiers

39. Marxist Perspective • Big (corporate/monopoly) capital and big (unionized) labor yield reliable profits and wages in what Hodson calls the “core” sector • But proletarianization reduces skill and return on skill as big capital replaces skilled labor with machines and unskilled machine minders

40. Marxist Perspective (continued) • The extent to which there are opportunities for higher wages or better jobs depends on the rate of • emerging industrial frontiers (rocket science in the 1950s, computers in the 1970s, micro computers in the 1980s, the internet.com world of the 21st century) • and proletarianization within industrial sectors

41. Wright and his students • Wright and Perrone (1977) also looked at race and gender differences • In earnings • Within class • Return to education within class • Findings • Black and white male managers: intercept but not slope differences • White women managers: intercept and slope differences

42. Wright and Perrone (1977) white male mangers high black male managers earnings white female managers low high Years of education

44. Featherman and Hauser : Black Mobility, 1962 and 1973 • Virtually no inheritance of occupation for blacks in 1962 • Contrast to whites (see above) • Virtually all black men in lower manual occs • Some improvement in 1973

45. Table 12-5. Black Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo , p. 381)

46. Race and Gender Gaps • Many studies, 1977-2009 • racial differences (black/white male earnings) interpreted/specified by education and occupation/class • gender differences remain after controlling for education and occupation/class • women exceeding men on education and gaining access to managerial/professional jobs • gender gap in earnings is shrinking

47. Progress in Reducing Race and Gender Earnings Gaps, 1974-2004 • Gender/racial gap and measurement biases • include all workers, or fulltime, year-round • Mean versus median earnings • Generally, gender gap declines and racial gap remains the same • white women earning more than black men? (depends on measurement)

48. Mean and Median Annual Income in 2004 for Fulltime, Year-round Workers: White and Black Men and Women (with gaps: percent of white male earnings) Source: Richard Hogan and Carolyn C. Perrucci, “Gender, Race, and Income Gaps,” in Robert Perrucci and Carolyn Perrucci (eds.), Transformation of Work in the New Economy (Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2007)

49. Mean Income (in 2003 dollars) for All White and Black Male and Female Workers (With Income Gap: percent of White Males) Source: Hogan and Perrucci 2006 (census.gov, 2005)

50. Racial and Gender Gaps (Compared to White Men) in Mean Income, 1974-2004 Source: Hogan and Perrucci 2006 (census.gov, 2005)