People persistently classify, categorise and mark off their social world, give it names and try to explain it. But how do they do this? How can they create images of society as a whole if their social relations are limited by their own particular milieu? A reasonable answer to this question while, not a definitive one, is to treat images of society as such a subjective social reality which mediates between the actor's creativity and social control in the ordering of objective social reality (Touraine 1988: 8,9,33-8).
An emphasis on actor and actions means that the action frame of references will be used for the depiction of a meaning-system based approach to the study of images of society. In this sense an image of society is the central point of a process in which the actor attaches social meanings to actions.
There are evident differences between Parsons's and Touraine's views on the subject within this frame of references. In Parsonian terms there is a common stock of `meanings', `norms', `values' in society and different social groups have different access to them. Following this line, Merton suggests that a major tension in society stems from the fact that the members of different social groups internalise the same values but do not have the same means for realising them through actions (Merton 1957). Thus, actors operate with meanings which are given. Touraine argues that actors have another role: they are actors not only because they act after having found a means (in terms of normative orientations) to match their ends, but because they create means (in terms of normative orientations) to the ends simultaneously.
The Touraine approach to the nature of meaning of actions is close to that which stems from Weber's concept of meaningful action, Schutz's phenomenology of the social world, and Berger and Luckmann's study of social construction of reality. Stressing the creative property of the dialectic process between man and the social world, Berger and Luckmann wrote: "[(...)] despite the objectivity that marks the social world in human experience, it does not thereby acquire an ontological status apart from the human activity that produced it. [(...)] the relationship between man, the producer, and the social world, his product, is and remains a dialectical one. That is, man (not, of course, in isolation but in his collectivities) and his social world interact with each other. The product acts back upon the producer. [(...)] Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality. Man is a social product. [(...)] Knowledge about society is thus a realisation in the double sense of the word, in the sense of apprehending the objectivated social reality, and in sense of ongoingly producing this reality" (1984: 78-9, 84).
In order to locate a concept of image of society within the field of subjective aspects of social process the comparison must be made between the contents of the term `image of society' and other terms which are alike, i.e. social consciousness, social representations end social schema.
The relationship between an image of society and class consciousness is difficult to define. As Bulmer has written: "[(...)] the study of social imagery focuses upon the unorganised and often diffuse representation of social structure held by members of particular occupational groups. The reflection between unorganised images and organised consciousness is complex and ramified, and the one should not be assimilated to the other...[(...)] On the other hand, they are not unconnected" (1975: 5-6).
Studies of social consciousness, namely the ideas of social order held by workers, have revealed that in spite of a wide variety of particular `pictures' obtained, several main models can be constructed to describe a majority of them. There are two-value `power' models; three-value and many-value `prestige' models; and mixed `power' and `prestige' models according to Bott (1971); power models, status models and class models according to Runciman (1966); a traditional worker proletarian variety related to the power model, a traditional worker `differential' variety related to a status hierarchy model, and a `privatised' worker variety related to a `pecuniary' model of society according to Lockwood (1975).
Generally speaking it means that social consciousness operates with three overlapping `pictures' of social order and social dynamics. The first is a conflict vision of social processes in which class-based divisions and class struggle between `us' and `them' are perceived in society ( a two-value, `power', conflict model). It is reasonable to treat this sort of vision as a content of class consciousness. The second is a consensus vision which includes a status-based continuum of occupational groups with more or less elastic boundaries between them (a three-value, `prestige', consensus model). It is reasonable to treat this model as one of status consciousness. The third is a mixed vision of society which stresses the inability of an actor to perceive or to produce a single picture of a social order or structure - i.e. society is perceived neither in terms of class division nor status hierarchy. It is widely agreed among social scientists that these different pictures have their origin in the different meaning systems available.
In spite of the similarity between images of society, there are also differences between them. (It should be noted that these are ideal types, and that images of society are not necessarily or completely open to researchers who have to rely on respondent's reports.) On the other hand, the products of social consciousness are not hidden and, thus, can be reported by respondents directly (see Goldthorpe et al. 1969; Batstone 1974; Davies 1982; Bott 1971; Lockwood 1975). Another line of thinking sharply criticises this belief (Coxton 1986; Willener 1975). To find evidence of the `hidden' nature of images of society, let us begin to analyse other terms which have a meaning close to a meaning of `images of society'.
The term `social representation' has its origin in the term `collective representation' which was adopted by Durkheim (1974: 24-5). Later the concept was developed into that of social representation which is concerned with how people `theorise about', or `talk about', the experiences they have as active participants in social relationships and how these theories or discussions enable them to conceive of reality and, ultimately, to determine their behaviour. According to Moscovici, "Because they determine both the object and the social judgement, and because they interact with one another, social representations are cognitive systems with a logic and language of their own and a pattern or implications, relevant to both values and concepts..." (1973: xiii).
There are two main characteristics of social representations which make this concept highly relevant to the study of images of society and how they work to produce social reality as meaningful social action. The first is the conventional nature of social representations which means "they conventionalise the objects, persons and events we encounter. They give them a definite form, locate them in a given category and gradually establish them as a model of a certain type, distinct and shared by the group of people" (Moscovici 1984: 7).
Images of society contain a common stock of ideas, symbols, themes, etc. which are available to every member of given social group.
The second of these two characteristics is the "prescriptive nature of social representations", which means that "they impose themselves upon us with irresistible force" to press us to elaborate such a notion about society which is in concordance with those we passed through in our socialisation (Moscovici 1984: 9). This property of social representations relates to a vision of social order in which the main elements of social consciousness must be reproduced over the generations.
The core of a theory of social representation is the concept of social schema. This is generally defined as a semantic or cognitive representation of social actions. It includes:
In general, two main approaches can be found to the study of the images of society. The first is associated with Popitz and is close to Parsons's notion of social action. The second is associated with Lockwood and is close to Touraine's notion of social action.
The hypothesis about wide social origin of images of society was advanced by Popitz et al. in the study of the ways in which iron and steel workers regard the social order (see Burns (ed.) 1969). It was revealed that in spite of the similarity of conditions under which they operate there are six types of workers' images of society (`static order', `progressive order', `dichotomy as collective fate', `dichotomy as individual conflict', `reform as social order', `class warfare'). This variety of images carried out by workers having similar positions within an immediate organisational context allows Popitz to conclude that: "[(...)] The `apperception' of societal circumstances is completed...in such a way that the individual social position can be seen within a broader context. [(...)] conceptions of social circumstances are never completely determined by direct social experiences. Their horizon will always extend beyond the immediate..." (Popitz: 317-318).
However, in this diversity unity was found: "In spite of the considerable differences between the individual images of society which we have stressed, two common features can be established throughout. All the workers [(...)] see society as a dichotomy - whether this is changeable or unchangeable or to be mediated by means of a `partnership'..." (ibid: 320).
Two main conclusions should be derived from these lessons.
Firstly, the images of society are not themselves products of
social consciousness, or of a set of attitudes, evaluations and opinions about
society, but they are entities that underline and
affect these attitudes, evaluations and opinions. In this sense they
serve as analytical tools for grasping the social order
rather than as a picture of it. Secondly, the images of society are cultural,
and as such they must be learned through socialisation, which has different
results because of differences in both personality and social environment.
To quote Berger and Luckmann:
"[(...)] the lower-class child will not only come to inhabit a world greatly
different from that of an upper-class child, but may do so in a manner
quite different from the lower-class child next door" (1984: 151).
The first conclusion explains a `common stock' of working class notions of social order, while the second explains the diversity of that. In other words as Davis wrote, referring to Popitz:
"[(...)] an image of society is a collection of themes, which may or may not constitute a comprehensive framework for understanding society, but which nevertheless provide a means for understanding the fragments of personal experience and collaring them in such a way as to postulate a movement between past and present and between present and future" (Davis 1979: 10).
The hypothesis about the immediate social milieu as a main source for visualisation of the class structure was advanced by Lockwood. "For the most part men visualise the class structure of their society from the vantage points of their own particular milieu, and their perceptions of social inequality in the smaller societies in which they live out their daily lives" (Lockwood 1966 in Bulmer (ed.) 1975: 16).
Lockwood's approach is based on the work of Bott, who put forward a thesis about symbolic forms of representations in common language - the current social issue facing working-class members (Bott 1957: 163). But to say "in a symbolic form" does not mean to say "from the vantage point of their own particular milieu". Symbols themselves cannot be derived from any immediate situation because their content is broader than any set of particular relationships available to the actors. There is a clear difference between `symbols' which relate to `images of society' and definitions of immediate work conditions and community relationships which relate to `products of an individual social consciousness'. Thus, the images of society are not the results, outcomes or products of social experiences, but, on the contrary, social experiences as far as they exist for the actor in the actor's consciousness are the results, outcomes or products of images of society which were learned by the actors through socialisation.
Naturally feedback exists between the images of society and the themes in the social consciousness of an actor. It provides a correction both of images and `pictures' of social reality held by the actor and makes them more relevant to `objectivity'. But it is worthwhile stressing here that images of society lie behind the contents of social consciousness. Also Lockwood's point must be mentioned concerning the problem of unity in diversity of sources of the images of society. Lockwood presumes the existence of different sources to produce different images of society. First of all different meaning-systems can be seen as such sources. Special stress was laid on this problem by Parkin in his discussion of class inequality and meaning systems. According to Parkin there are three meaning systems in class society:
To analyse Touraine's concept of images of society and Parkin's concept of meaning-systems together, let us consider Touraine's definition of an image of society. As Touraine has written, "[(...)] the image which each person forms of society is thus a combination of recognition of an existing social organisation and of demands which are an indication of another possible mode of social organisation" (see Davis 1979: 46).
It is quite clear that a cognitive component (`combination of recognition of existing...organisation') and a normative component (`combination of recognition of demands') can de derived from this definition. In turn, these components constitute any meaning-system which operates to provide an actor both with `knowledge about' and `normative orientation towards'. In order to analyse these meaning-systems in terms of `images of society' adopted by Touraine it is necessary to rearrange Parkin's descriptions using a division between cognitive and normative components.
1. DOMINANT VALUE SYSTEM
(C) Cognitive component
For the dominant class: endorsement of the existing class and status order, definition of the reward system as just and desirable (this holds not only for rules governing the distribution of rewards but also for many other aspects of social life such as culture -music, arts, language, etc.); it is very important that the actual state of affairs is equal to the desired one because of the legitimising powers of the dominant class (c.f Marx, "the ideas of ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas" ).
For the subordinate class: endorsement of the social order as it stands, expression (to a different extent) of moral commitment to many dominant class symbols.
(N) Normative component
For the dominant class: as was mentioned above, an agreement between the normative orientation towards social order and the actual social order. For the subordinate class: there are two general models of normative orientation toward accepted social order among subordinate class members. The first is called a deferential model (the `deferential worker') which presumes "social order as an organic entity in which each individual has a proper part to play, however humble. Inequality is seen as inevitable as well as just, some men being inherently fitted for positions of power and privilege" (Parkin 1975: 85-6). The second model is called the aspirational model which presents "a view of the reward structure which emphasises the opportunities for self-advancement and social promotion. This aspirational model of reality endorses the class and status as it stands, but also represents it as a relatively open order in which men of talent and ability can, with effort, rise above their present station" (ibid.).
Thus, the main difference between deferential and aspirational models lies in the area of social promotion. If the first treats the social order as fixed and the individual's place within it as relatively unchangeable, the second provides individuals with motivation to social attainments. Naturally, an evident irregularity does exist in the distribution of the characteristics of a dominant value-system among real classes in a real society, but, nevertheless, there is a certain similarity in the processes of attaching meanings to social order and social actions by actors within a particular socio-structural context.
2. SUBORDINATE VALUE SYSTEM
(C) Cognitive component
Accommodative representation of social order, i.e. neither full endorsement of, nor full opposition to, the class and status system; a strong emphasis is given to social division and social conflict, operating with categories of `them' and `us'; a strong commitment exists to the local working-class community (which is a generating milieu of this meaning-system), `instrumental collectivism' typified by the trade union movement as a means of `collective bargaining' regarding to the distribution of rewards. According to Parkin, a "subordinate value system represents what could be called a `negotiation version' of the dominant value system" (ibid: 92).
(N) Normative component
Two distinct levels of normative reference: the dominant meaning system and a `stretched' or `negotiated' version of it. The dominant system will provide a normative orientation when the situation is purely abstract (for example, in answers to a questionnaire) while in the concrete situation of day-to-day life and workplace experience collective bargaining and strike activity are more likely to be found. "Consequently, members of the subordinate class are constrained to accept the dominant moral framework as an abstract and perhaps somewhat idealised version of reality, although their conditions tend to weaken its binding force in the actual conduct of affairs" (ibid: 94-5).
Thus, the subordinate meaning-system - according to Parkin - cannot be regarded as completely different from the dominant meaning-system but it is a rather a negotiated version of the dominant meaning-system.
3. RADICAL MEANING-SYSTEM (C) Cognitive component
Perception of a social order is fundamentally opposed both to that within the dominant meaning-system (moral justification of an existing social order) and to that within the subordinate meaning-system (instrumental collectivism and trade union consciousness). It presumes an affirmation of the dignity of labour, a strong affiliation to a mass political party based on the subordinate class, a power and conflict model of social order, a vision of the social order as unfair, and a model of social attainment in terms of class promotion.
(N) Normative component
This is a commitment to the re-distribution of material and social rewards.
These three meaning-systems are available in the subordinate class. They function to provide a different level of social identification: the dominant one leads to national identity, the subordinate one refers to local community and the third one refers to working party identification. All these properties of the meaning-system allow us to treat it as a core element of an image of society. Moreover it controls the understanding of the social order and the moral evaluation of it in terms of current and desirable states of social relationships.
Summarising the systems mentioned above we can say the following about images of society:
Because of the fact that an image of society is centred on an actor, stemming from an actor toward a social world, it is more correct to refer to a meaning-system of an actor instead of simply a meaning-system; and of the social behaviour and evaluation of an actor rather than simply behaviour and evaluation in general.
The main statistical hypothesis which may be advanced here to check the constructive validity of the proposed structure of an image of society is as follows: a relationship exists between the meaning-systems, social behaviour and evaluation of an actor. In order to test this hypothesis, a new research project will have to be carried out, but data already available make it possible to consider the validity of some of the corollaries of this main hypothesis.
COROLLARY ONE
There will be a relationship between a meaning-system's components (normative and cognitive) and the class self-identification and voting behaviour of an actor.
COROLLARY TWO
In so far as an image of society underlies the opinions, beliefs and judgements, so it is more probable that a meaning system's components are the best predictors of class self-identification and voting behaviour, and vice versa. It means that a meaning-system plays a mediating role between social class self-identification and social behaviour. Thus, we can expect the existence of significant correlations between a meaning-system's empirical references and the empirical references of class self-identifications, evaluation and social behaviour even if there are no significant correlations between the latter themselves. This case is, naturally, a slight exaggeration, but it is worth mentioning here in order to make clearer the functions of an image of society in shaping the actions of a social actor.
COROLLARY THREE
The cognitive and the normative elements of dominant, subordinate and radical meaning systems combine with each other in a different way within a meaning-system and affect in a different way the social self identifications, actions and feelings of an actor. Thus, we can expect a diversity of `pictures' of society held by those who possess different meaning-systems (with different types of combinations of the cognitive and normative components) as well as different modes of expressing them: - for those with a dominant and a radical meaning-system we can predict strong consistency of the components within a meaning-system and of their actions, identifications and feelings; - for those with a subordinate meaning-system we can predict the existence of some contradictions within a meaning-system and between its components and identifications, actions and feelings. This means that the consistency of the elements of an image of society based on a subordinate meaning-system has to be controlled by the social situations in which the holders of a subordinate meaning-system act. The more abstract the situation, the higher the level of consistency and vice versa.
Within the current (preliminary) project only two corollaries are under investigation, namely the interactive hypothesis (corollary one) and the asymmetric hypothesis (corollary two).
1. MEANING-SYSTEM
This is a two-fold construction consisting of cognitive and normative components. Also it has such properties as follow:
2. SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
It can be learned as verbal/nonverbal behaviour in significant social situations.
3. SOCIAL EVALUATION
Social evaluation is the subjective aspect of a social group's estimation of the well-being of its members in comparison with those of another social group. It is expressed in the satisfaction of social group members with their well-being, as well as in their desire for social mobility. Occupational evaluation plays the main role in this process, i.e. self-evaluation as a member of an occupational group .
Thus, according to the characteristics mentioned above it seems that:
To check whether or not the referents of an image of society are consistent log linear analysis should be done.
Let me now turn back to the corollaries advanced. As an empirical base for checking them the British Social Attitudes1985 (BSA) dataset, collected by Roger Jowell et al. (Jowell, Witherspoon & Brook 1986) and British Election Study 1985 (BES), collected by Anthony Heath et al. was used. In so far as the BSA and BES surveys were not designed in any way to prove or to dismiss these hypotheses, so the results obtained in a process of exploration of the data should be treated only as preliminaries.
Three sets of questions were chosen from the BSA questionnaire. The first refers to the normative orientation towards political issues (questions 201 to 204, all 15 variables; see British Social Attitudes 1986 Report ppendix III: 227-41). The second refers to the normative orientation towards economic issues (questions 221 to 222, 230, all 23 variables; opt.cit.). The third refers to the cognitive orientations towards economic issues (question 220, all 10 variables; opt.cit.). The analysis of cognitive orientations was not successful because of the lack of significant correlations between the initial variables chosen.
As to normative orientation towards economic issues the factor analysis (method of general component with varimax rotation) reveals 7 factors. The 1st factor has significant correlations with 7 variables (see Appendix 1, qq. 221 c,e,g,a,b; 230 a,e) and can be interpreted as `governmental support for the economy'. The 2nd factor (4 variables: qq. 222 g,f; 230 d,f) can be identified as meaning `governmental support for a social programme'. The 3rd factor (2 variables: qq. 222 b; 223 c) can be identified as meaning `governmental support for health care'. The 4th factor (5 variables: qq. 221 f,g,h,d; 230 e) can be identified as meaning `governmental support for technological development'. The 5th factor (4 variables: qq. 222 h,a,d,b) can be identified as meaning `governmental support for the arts and the environment movement'. The 6th factor (3 variables: qq. 230 b; 221 a,b) can be identified as meaning `governmental control of wages and prices'. The 7th factor (2 variables: qq. 220 e,c) can be identified as meaning `governmental support for the military and defence'.
As to normative orientations towards political issues the factor analysis reveals 3 factors. The 1st factor has significant correlation with 4 variables (qq. 203 a,b,c; 201 a) and can be identified as meaning `actions opposing government'. The 2nd factor (4 variables: qq. 204 a)i,iii; 203 e,f) can be identified as meaning `actions against government'. The 3rd factor (5 variables: qq. 201 a,b; 202; 203 d; 204 a)ii) can be identified as meaning `function of governmental bodies'.
New variables were then created using z-score transformation. The labels of levels of the new variables were made to correspond to those of the initial variables. This means that the perception of economic issues outlined in the questionnaire is to be studied by means of a set of normative orientations such as `governmental support for the economy', `governmental support for a social programme', `governmental support for health care', `governmental support for technological development', `governmental support for the arts and environment movement', `governmental support for the military and defence'. In all these cases, responses were coded as `should be allowed'/`can't choose'/`should not be allowed'; for the question relating to `governmental control of wages and prices' the responses were `in favour'/`neither in favour nor against'/`against'.
Similarly, a study of the perception of political issues posed in the questionnaire is based on meanings of `actions opposing government', and `actions against government' (the responses for which were `should be allowed'/`can't choose'/`should not be allowed') and on `function of governmental bodies' (for which the responses were `in favour'/`neither in favour nor against'/`against').
The next step before testing the interactive hypothesis was to check whether class self-identification which the surveys usually reveal is an artificial construct. The idea behind the procedure of doing this is as follows. It is a well-established fact that the members of the dominant class share the ideas of social mobility which differ from those shared by members of the subordinate class. On this issue the members of the upper middle and middle classes are expected to think in terms of personal efforts. On the other hand, the members of the working class are expected to think in terms of opportunities which depend on class membership (Davis 1979). I have used the BES dataset to check whether this tendency really exists.1
The analysis of the bivariate distribution of the variable `class self-identification' (`subjective' class) (see Appendix 1, q. 13 a) and variables which reflect different reasons why people end up in different social classes (see Appendix 1, q. 15), reveals no association model which fits the data set. It indicates that at least in the reflection of the importance of `a person's family background', `the intelligence and ability a person is born with', `a person's own hard work and achievements', `a person's education' and `luck or chance' for social attainment there is a consensus between those who associate themselves with different social classes (see Appendix 2, Table 1).2
Does it mean that class self-identification has no effect on social consciousness at all? To answer this question a new study must be designed and run. The size of the BES sample does not allow us to check this finding carefully. Unfortunately, the BSA data set available to me does not contain primary material on the subject. Thus the question remains to be answered. However, it is quite clear that the study of the impact of social class-identification on products of social consciousness has to be conducted in a very careful way because of a slight tendency in society to maintain to class consensus instead of resorting to class conflict as was the case in previous times.
Let me now to start with a model of relationships between normative orientations toward economic and political issues, voting behaviour, and class self-identification.
1. NORMATIVE ORIENTATIONS TOWARDS ECONOMIC ISSUES
alysis of bivariate distribution reveals that there is a strong association etween class self-identification (see Appendix 1, Q.92 and also British Social Attitudes1986 Report p.23,Q.92 ) and the meaning of `governmental support for the economy' (Chi-Square (Pearson) = 148.5129; df = 4; Significance = 0.0), `governmental support for a social programme' (C-S(P) = 54.61172; df = 4; S = 0.0), and `governmental support for the military and defence' (C-S(P) = 55.42295; df = 4; S = 0.0); a weak association exists between class self-identification and the notion of `governmental support for health care' (C-S(P) = 19.62226; df = 4; S = 0.00059, and `governmental support for the arts and environment movement' (C-S(P) = 10.11122; df = 4; S = 0.03860); no association exists between class self-identification and the notion of `governmental support for technological development' (C-S(P) = 6.35730; df = 4; S = 0.17401), and `governmental control of wages and prices' (C-S(P) = 3.95976; df = 4; S = 0.41148)
This means that those who associate themselves with different social classes do attach a different meaning to the governmental activity in the area of the economy, social programmes, and military and defence. Namely, those who identify themselves with the poor or working classes are inclined to allow the government to control these issues; and those who identify themselves with middle or upper-middle classes are inclined not to. The same, but really very weak, tendency remains in relation to the notion of government's control of the arts and environmental movement as well as of the health service. There is a consensus between members of different `subjective' classes in relation to the notions of the governmental activity in such areas as technological development and wages and prices.
The association model fits well the relationships between voting behaviour (see Appendix 1, Q.2(e) and also British Social Attitudes 1986 Report, p.1,Q.2(e)) and the normative orientations mentioned above. An aggregation of the variables related to voting behaviour was done in such a way that the Conservative party has become `right', Labour was labelled as `left' and other parties were unified under the title `centre'.
A strong association exists between the voting behaviour pattern (an example of social behaviour pattern) and the notion of governmental activity in such areas as the economy (C-S(P) = 55.42295; df = 4; S = 0.0), social programmes (C-S(P) = 120.25420; df =4; S = 0.0), health service (C-S(P) = 35.07479; df = 4; S = 0.0), wages and prices (C-S(P) = 53.34396; df = 4; S = 0.0), and military and defence -S(P)P = 138.77984; fd = 4; S = 0.0). A weaker association xists between the voting behaviour and the notion of `governmental support for the arts and environment movement' (C-S(P)P = 9.05318; df = 4; S = 0.05978) and `governmental support for technological development' (C-S(P)P = 7.94838; df = 4; S = 0.09349).
It means that those who associate themselves with the `left' parties are inclined to favour government control of the economy, social programmes, wages and prices, military and defence, while those who associate themselves with `centre' and `right' parties do not. Neither consensus nor conflict exists in relation to the meaning attached by members of different `subjective' social classes to the meaning of the government activity in such areas as technological development and arts and environmental movements. In general the results show that the voting behaviour is associated with normative orientations towards economic issues more strongly than class self-identification is.
2. NORMATIVE ORTENTATIONS TOWARDS SOCIAL ISSUES
Approximately the same relationships were found here. It means that voting behaviour is associated with orientation towards social sues more strongly than is social class self-identification. The no association odel fits the relationships between class self-identification and the meaning of `actions opposing government' (C-S(P)P = 0.15598; df = 4; S = 0.99711) and `actions against government' (C-S(P)P = 7.39948; df = 4; S = 0.11622). A strong association exists between the class self-identification and the meaning of `functioning of the governmental bodies' (C-S(P) = 32.75587; df = 4; S = 0.0). This means that those who consider themselves as members of the classes of workers and the poor tend to favour a wide range of public control over the functioning of governmental bodies and, on the other hand, those who identify themselves with middle and upper-middle classes do not.
The association model fits the hypothesised relationships between party affiliation and normative orientations towards social issues. It means that `supporters' of `left' parties tend to allow actions opposing government (C-S(P) = 77.48730; df = 4; S = 0.0) and against government policy (C-S(P)P = 44.38106; df = 4; S = 0.0) and establish a wide range of public control over the functioning of government bodies (C-S(P)P = 256.61916; df = 4; S = 0.0) and the `supporters' of the Conservative party do not.
Finally there is a strong association between class self-identification and voting behaviour (C-S(P)P =171.61784; df = 4; S = 0.0). Those who identify themselves with working and poor classes are inclined to vote for `left' parties and those who identify themselves with middle and upper -middle classes are inclined to vote for the Conservative party.
Thus we can conclude that interaction exists between normative orientations towards economic and social issues, class self-identification, and voting behaviour.3
"(1) the ecological - dealing with safety of natural environment; (2) the military - concerned with peace and security; (3) the economic - stressing human material well-being; (4) the social - based on social harmony and justice; (5) the political - dealing with freedom, human rights and dignity; and (6) the cultural - based on the preservation and fostering of the development of cultural values" (Zinam 1989: 57).
Thus the project will be extended to deal with these.
1. An aggregation of variables was done in such a way that `upper middle' + `middle' = `middle'; `upper working' = `upper working' and `working' + `poor' = `working'.
2. Actually, this method of proving an interactive model is somewhat limited because of the use of correlation analysis only. A fuller investigation, to be carried out in the future, would require log linear analysis.
e following questions from British Social Attitudes - 1986 Report. R. Jowell et al. SCPR) have been used in the analysis:
2.a) If there were a general election tomorrow which political party
do you think you would be most likely to support?
- Conservative
- Labour
\* - Others (Liberal, SDP/Social Democrat (Alliance), Scottish Nationalist, other
party).
13. a) Most people see themselves as belonging to a particular social
class. Please, look at this card and tell me which social class you
would say you belong to?
- upper middle
- middle
- upper working
- working
- poor
- don't know
15. On these cards are some ideas about why people end up in different
social classes. Please look at all five cards.
Could you put them into order from the most important to the least
important, thinking of reasons why people end up in different social
classes.
[Take back cards one by one, coding `1' in the appropriate box below
for the most important reason, `2' in the box for the next more
important reason, and so on, with `5' next to the least important
reason. Check that codes run from 1 to 5.)]
X = A person's family background
S = The intelligence and ability a person is born with
N = A person's own hard work and achievements
J = A person's education
H = Luck or chance.
92. Most people see themselves as belonging to a particular social
class. Please, look at this card and tell me which social class you
would say you belong to?
- upper middle
- middle
- upper working
- working
- poor
- don't know
201.a) Suppose a newspaper got hold of confidential government papers
about defence plans and wanted to publish them.
- should the newspaper be allowed to publish the paper?
- should the government have the power to prevent publication?
- can't choose
b) Now suppose the confidential government papers were about
economic plans.
- should the newspaper be allowed to publish the paper?
- should the government have the power to prevent publication?
- can't choose
202. In general, would you say that people should obey the law without
exception, or are there exceptional occasions on which people should
follow their consciences even if it means breaking the law?
- obey the low without exception
- follow conscience on occasions
- can't choose
203. There are many ways people or organisations can protest against a
government action they strongly oppose. Please show which you think
should be allowed and which should not be allowed (definitely/probably/
probably not/definitely not/can't choose)?
A. Organising public meetings to protest against the government
B. Publishing pamphlets to protest against the government
C. Organising protest marches and demonstrations
D. Occupying a government office and stopping work there for several
days
E. Seriously damaging government buildings
F. Organising a nationwide strike of all workers against the
government.
204. There are some people whose views are considered extreme by the
majority.
a) first, consider people who want to overthrow the government by
revolution. Do you think such people should be allowed
(definitely/probably/probably not/definitely not/can't choose) to...
i)...hold public meeting to express their views?
ii)...teach 15 years olds in schools?
iii)...publish books expressing their views?
b) Second, consider people who believe that whites are racially
superior to all other races. Do you think such people should be
allowed (definitely/probably/probably not/definitely not/can't choose) to...
i)...hold public meeting to express their views?
ii)...teach 15 years olds in schools?
iii)...publish books expressing their views?
220. Please show whether you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements (agree/disagree/can't choose).
A. The public has little control over what politicians do in office
B. The average person can get nowhere by talking to public officials
C. The average citizen has considerable influence on politics
D. The average person has much to say about running local government
E. People like me have much to say about government
F. The average person has a great deal of influence on government
decisions
G. The government is generally responsive to public opinion.
H. I am usually interested in local elections
J. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people
can control world affairs
K. Taking everything into account, the world is getting better.
221. Here are some things the government might do for the economy.
Please show which actions you are in favour of and which you are against
(strongly in favour/In favour/Neither in favour nor against/against/strongly
against).
A. Control of wages by legislation
B. Control of prices by legislation
C. Cuts in government spending
D. Government financing of projects to create new jobs.
E. Less government regulation of business
F. Support for industry to develop new products and technology
G. Supporting declining industries to protect jobs
H. Reducing the working week to create more jobs.
222. Listed below are various areas of government spending. Please
show whether you would like to see more or less government spending in
each area. Remember that if you say "much more", it might require a
tax increase to pay for it. (Spend much more/Spend more/Spend the same as
now/Spend less/Spend much less/Can't choose)
A. The environment
B. Health.
C. The police and law enforcement.
D. Education.
E. The military and defense.
F. Old age pensions.
G. Unemployment benefits.
H. Culture and the arts.
230. On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's
responsibility (definitely should be/probably should be/probably should not
be/definitely should not be/can't choose) to...
A....provide a job for everyone who wants one
B....keep prices under control
C....provide health care for the sick
D....provide a decent standard of living for the old
E....provide industry with the help it needs to grow
F....provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed
G....reduce income differences between the rich and poor
1. Subjective class by family background
_ Subjective class Importance of ability Row (row %) high middle low Total _ upper + middle 41.7 29.2 29.2 48 upper working 45.5 25.5 29.1 55 working + poor 43.4 28.3 28.3 106 _ Total 91 58 60 209 _ Chi-Square = 0.24868 (Pearson) df = 4 Significance = 0.99288
3. Subjective class by a person's own efforts
_ Subjective class Imp. of person's own efforts Row (row %) high middle low Total _ upper + middle 54.2 18.8 27.1 48 upper working 34.5 29.1 36.4 55 working + poor 48.1 22.6 29.2 106 _ Total 96 49 64 209 _ Chi-Square = 4.45315 (Pearson) df = 4 Significance = 0.34814
4. Subjective class by a person's education
_
Subjective class Imp. of person's education Row
(row %) high middle low Total
_
upper + middle 47.9 31.3 20.8 48
upper working 58.2 21.8 20.0 55
working + poor 52.8 27.4 19.8 106
_
Total 111 56 42 209
_
Chi-Square = 1.40575 df = 4 Significance = 0.84320
5. Subjective class by luck or chance
_
Subjective class Importance of luck or chance Row
(row %) high middle low Total
_
upper + middle 6.3 10.4 83.3 48
upper working 1.8 9.1 89.1 55
working + poor 6.6 5.7 87.7 106
_
Total 11 16 182 209
_
Chi-Square = 2.97633 (Pearson) df = 4 Significance = 0.56179
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1984) The Social Construction of Reality: Group Influences on Personal Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bott, E. (1971) Family and Social Network. (2nd ed.) London: Tavistock Publications.
Bulmer, M. (ed.) (1975) Working-Class Images of Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Burns, T. (ed.) (1969) Industrial Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Coxon, A.P.M. & Davies, P.M. with Jones, C.L. (1986) Images of Social Stratification: Occupational Structure and Class. London: Saga. Davis, H.H. (1979) Beyond Class Images. London
Davies, P.M & Coxton, A.P.M. (1982) Key Texts in Multidimensional Scaling. London: Heinemann.
Durkheim, E. (1974) Sociology and Philosophy. New York: The Free Press.
Goldthorpe J.H. et al. (1969) The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure. Cambridge: C.U.P.
Hogart, R. (1959) The Uses of Literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lockwood, D. (1975) Sources of Variation in Working-Class Images of Society. In M.Bulmer (ed) (1975) Working-Class Images of Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
Moscovici, S. (1973) Foreword. In C. Herlich Health and Illness: a Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press. Moscovici, S. (1984) The Phenomenon of Social Representation. In R.M. Farr & S. Moscovici (eds.) Social Representation. Cambridge: C.U.P.
Parkin, F. (1971) Class Inequality and Political Order. London: MaGibbon and Kee.
Parsons, T. (1952) The Social System. London: Tavistock.
Popitz, H. et al. (1969) The Worker's Image of Society. In T. Burns (ed.) (1969) Industrial Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Runciman, W.G. (1966) Relative Deprivation and Social Justice.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Willener, A. (1975) Images, Actions, `us' and `them'. In Bulmer, M. (ed.) (1975) Working-Class Images of Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Zinam, O. (1989) Quality of Life, Quality of the Individual, Technology and Economic Development. In American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 48:1.