Abstract
Use of the concept of class in sociology has come under three types of attack: that it contains residues of an unacceptable Marxist holism or otherwise lacks explanatory power; that it is an essentially contested and, therefore, ambiguous term and, that it is decreasingly relevant to contemporary social conditions. This article argues that all three criticisms are mistaken and have only become possible because of the survival of economistic thinking in both the Marxist and Weberian mainstream traditions in sociology. Class analysis needs to be rethought in Durkheimian terms as an externally constraining social, not economic, fact. Such an approach entails recognition of the role of money circulation as a collective representation through which the social division of labour is framed and classified. It is argued that this approach can be adopted without conceptual ambiguity, is consistent with existing research on the `impersonal possession' of private and public capital and complements the enduring contributions of existing class theories.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Class Operations and Measures;Theory in Action;2017-01-01
2. References;Approaches to Class Analysis;2005-07-01
3. Conclusion: If “class” is the answer, what is the question?;Approaches to Class Analysis;2005-07-01
4. Foundations of a post-class analysis;Approaches to Class Analysis;2005-07-01
5. Foundations of a rent-based class analysis;Approaches to Class Analysis;2005-07-01