Among the several approaches to the empirical analysis of patterns of social inequality in the advanced capitalist societies, two have produced large bodies of findings: the status attainment approach introduced by Duncan, Sewell, and others in the 1960s, and the log- linear analysis of mobility tables pioneered by Goodman, Hauser, and others in the 1970s. We use both these analytic techniques to assess the degree of openness in Australian society and argue that its relatively high degree of social fluidity provides at least a partial explanation of the failure of the proletariat to perform the revolu tionary task set for it by some class theorists. In a relatively open class society with attenuated bases for class identity and class soli darity, the politics of change are more likely to be the pursuit of progressive reforms than naked class warfare.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bishop, Yvonne M.M., Stephen E. Fienberg and Paul W. Holland (1975), Discrete Multi-variate Analysis: Theory and Practice, Cambridge, MIT Press.
2.
Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967), The American Occupational Structure, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
3.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), 'Cultural reproduction and social reproduction' in Jerome Karabel and A.H. Halsey (eds), Power and Ideology in Education, New York, Oxford University Press, 487-511.
4.
Broom, Leonard, P. Duncan-Jones, F.L. Jones and P. McDonnell (1977), Investigating Social Mobility, Department of Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Departmental Monograph No. 1.
5.
Broom, Leonard, F.L. Jones, P. McDonnell and T. Williams (1980), The Inheritance of Inequality, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
6.
Campbell, Richard T. (1983), 'Status attainment research: end of the beginning or beginning of the end?', Sociology of Education , 56, January, 47-62.
7.
Cottrell, Allin (1984), Social Classes in Marxist Theory, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 120-36.
8.
Erikson, Robert, John H. Goldthorpe and Lucienne Portocarero (1982), 'Social fluidity in industrial nations', British Journal of Sociology , 33, March, 3-34.
9.
Featherman, David L., F.L. Jones and Robert M. Hauser (1975), 'Assumptions of social mobility research in the United States: the case of occupational status' , Social Science Research, 4, December, 329-60.
10.
Goldthorpe, John H. (1980), Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain, Oxford, Clarendon Press, (in collaboration with Catriona Lewellyn and Clive Payne).
11.
Hope, Keith (1982), 'Vertical and non-vertical class mobility in three countries', American Sociological Review , 47, February, 99-113.
12.
Hout, Michael (1983), Mobility Tables, Quantitative applications in the social sciences, No. 31, Beverley Hills, Sage.
13.
Jones, F.L. (1973), 'Social stratification in Australia: an overview of a research program', Social Science Information , 13, February, 99-118.
14.
Jones, F.L. (1985a), 'New and (very) old mobility ratios: is there life after Benini?', Social Forces, 63, March, 838-50.
15.
Jones, F.L. (1985b), 'Structural and circulation mobility are alive and well: a critical comment on Sobel's premature obituary notice', Sociology, 19, 1, 139-42.
16.
Jones F.L. (1985c), 'Response to Sobel', Sociology , 19, 3, 442-5.
17.
Jones F.L., Susan R. Wilson and Yvonne Pittelkow (1985), Modelling Mobility: the Use of Simulation to Choose Between Near-Equivalent Models. Unpublished manuscript.
18.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1951), Imperialism and Social Classes, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
19.
Sewell, William H. and Robert M. Hauser (1975), Education, Occupation, and Earnings: Achievement in the Early Career, New York, Academic Press.
20.
Sobel, Michael (1983), 'Structural mobility, circulation mobility and the analysis of occupational mobility: a conceptual mismatch', American Sociological Review, 48, October, 721-7.
21.
Sobel, Michael (1985), 'Theory, description, and quantification: a note on the use of the independence model in mobility research', Sociology, 19, 3, 437-41.
22.
Sorokin, Pitirim A. (1927), Social and Cultural Mobility, New York, Harper and Brothers.
23.
Turner, Ralph H. (1964), The Social Context of Ambition: A Study of High-School Seniors in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chandler Publishing.
24.
Yamaguchi, Kazuo (1983), 'The structure of intergenerational mobility: generality and specificity in resources, channels, and barriers', American Journal of Sociology, 88, January, 718-45.
