Schwalbe et al - The Reproduction of Inequality

Schwalbe et al - The Reproduction of Inequality - 44 Toward...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–18. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 44 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems Abstract The study of inequality has been largely defined as the study of its measurable extent, degree, and consequences. It is no less important, however, to understand the interactive processes through which inequalities are created and reproduced in concrete settings. The qualitative research that bears on understanding these processes has not yet been consolidated, and thus its theoretical value remains unrealized. In this article we in- ductively derive from the literature a sensitizing theory of the generic processes through which in— equality is reproduced. rThe major processes that we identify are otherin g, subordinate adaptation, boundary maintenance, and emotion manage- ment. We argue that conceiving the reproduction of inequality in terms of these generic processes can resolve theoretical problems concerning the connection between local action and extra-local inequalities, and concerning the nature of in— equality itself. three questions about inequality: What kind of inequalities exist? How large are these inequalities? and How are these inequalities created and reproduced? An- sWers to the first two questions can be found Sociologists have traditionally asked From Michael Schwalbe et al., "Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis" in Social Forces, December 2000, 79 (2): 419—452. Reprinted by permission of University of North Carolina Press. in a vast literature on inequalities in income, wealth, status, political power, health, and other resources. It is fair to say that we know a great deal about patterns of resource distribution both across and within social groups. Yet without answers to the third question our knowledge remains docu- mentary. To explain inequality requires attention to the processes that produce and perpetuate it.‘ Such processes can be studied in vari- ous ways. Historical data can reveal process, or at least provide an empirical basis from which to infer it. Quantitative analyses of changes in resource distribution over time can also provide a basis for testing and refining ideas about process. Alternatively, process can be examined directly, through qualitative research. Many qualitative stud- ies have in fact looked at how inequality is reproduced (see Horowitz 1997 for a review). . . . In this article we analytically consolidate this body of qualitative work, deriving from it a conceptual scheme that can take us far toward answering that third question about inequality. . . . . We take inequality to be endemic to and pervasive in late capitalist societies (our *The authors thank Gary, Alan Fine, Sherryl Kleinman, Patricia Yancey Martin, Jim Thomas, and Christine Williams for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Direct correspondence to Michael Schwalbe, Department of Sociology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8107. E-mail: michael_schwalbe@ncsu.edu. I main concern here). We ask, How is this inequality reproduced?——and then seek an- swers in terms of the generic processes out of which inequality emerges or is sustained. To call these processes "generic" does not imply that they are unaffected by context. It means, rather, that they occur in multiple contexts wherein social actors face similar or analogous problems. The precise form a process takes in any given setting is a matter for empirical determination. Managers and mushroomers may build trust in different ways, using the resources they have at hand, but there is still a generic process of "build- ing trust” that can be studied and analyzed, with the goal of Understanding its ocCur- rence more generally. The Qualitative Literature as Data for Inductive Analysis While our theoretical orientation is symbolic interactionist, much qualitative work does not wear this label. What matters for our purposes, however, is not the label but whether the work in question can tell us something useful about (1) what happens in face-to—face interaction, such that a form of inequality is the result; (2) how symbols and meanings are created and used to sustain the patterns of interaction that lead to in- equality; or (3) how inequality itself is per- ceived, experienced, and reacted to, such that it is either reproduced or resisted. These concerns are, in effect, the criteria we used to select the studies we examined. We have not reviewed every qualitative study that bears on some issue related to inequality. Rather, we focused on studies compatible with interactionist principles, and which also could be interpreted as showing how disparities in power, status, suffering, or re- ward are created and reproduced. . . . Our analysis of the literature leads us to propose that four generic processes are The Reproduction of Inequality 45 central to the reproduction of inequality: othering, subordinate adaptation, boundary maintenance, and emotion management—each of which in turn comprises several sub— processes. We argue that these transsitua- tionally occurring processes, as revealed in a diverse body of qualitative research, are the key forms of joint action through which in- equalities are reproduced in small groups, complex organizations, communities, and societies. In the final section of the paper we consider how a focus on generic processes can resolve theoretical problems concerning the connection between local action and extra-local inequalities, and concerning the nature of inequality itself. ‘ Otherng The term othering has come to refer to the process whereby a dominant group defines into existence an inferior group (Fine 1994). This process entails the invention of cate~ gories and of ideas about what marks peo- ple as belonging to these categories.1 From an interactionist perspective, othering is a form of collective identity work (Hadden & Lester 1978; Snow & Anderson 1987; Schwalbe 8: Mason-Schrock 1996) aimed at creating and / or reproducing inequality. The literature suggests that othering can take at least three forms: (1) oppressive othering; (2) implicit othering by the creation of powerful virtual selves; and (3) defensive othering among subordinates. In each case, meanings are created that shape conscious- ness and behavior, such that inequality is directly or indirectly reproduced. Oppressive Othering Oppressive othering occurs when one group seeks advantage by defining another group as morally and / or intellectually inferior. Perhaps the clearest examples are racial 46 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems classification schemes. Social historians and historical sociologists have shown how elites in Europe and America used such schemes to claim superiority vis—a-vis peo- ples in Africa, Asia, and the New World, and later to prevent working-class solidarity in North America (Allen 1994; Brown 1993; Omi & Wmant 1986; Roediger 1991). Quali- tative research has examined how these schemes are used, intentionally or inadver- tently, in ways that reproduce inequality in the present. Blee (1996), for example, shows how Klan women used racial ideologies to make sense of apparent differences between peo- ple, create scapegoats, build community among themselves, and maintain feelings of superiority. Frankenberg (1993) shows how even whites who disavowed racism used a discourse of race that makes whiteness invis- ible, effectively defining whites as the stan- dard group and thus implicitly defining Others as exotic and different (see also Gallagher 1995). Rollins (1985) shows how middle/upper-middle-class white women defined the women of color whom they em- ployed to do domestic work as irresponsi- ble, childlike, and happy to serve (see also Romero 1992). Oppressive othering, these studies suggest, commonly entails the overt or subtle assertion of difi‘erence as deficit. Othering can also create patterns of in- teraction that reaffirm a dominant group's ideology of difference. For example, Hold- en’s (1997) study of a homeless shelter shows how the mostly white, middle-class volunteers deflected residents’ complaints by defining them as ungrateful, "having an attitude,” or “in need of rules,” and thereby evoked angry responses that were taken as further proof that the residents were at fault. The inequalities (both within and outside the shelter) that gave rise to the residents' complaints were thus obscured. Anderson (1990) shows how young black men who adopt the “urban predator” pose as a matter of style, self-assertion, or self-protection are then treated by whites in ways that lead to tense encounters—thus affirming, for whites, the dangerousness they stereo— typically attribute to black males (see also Vander Ven 1998). Oppressive othering can also take the form of turning subordinates into commodi- ties. For example, Rogers (1995; see also Kunda 1992) shows how “temps” are de- fined by full-time employees as unambi- tious and incompetent, and thus not to be taken seriously as co-workers. In this we see old—fashioned stereotyping. What Rogers also shows is how the owners of temp agen- cies abet the problem by encouraging temp workers to change their names, voices, and job histories to appear suited for various work assignments. This demand for fakery creates a trap: if temps do not misrepresent themselves, they risk being cut off from as- signments; if they do, their chances for a full-time job with an employer who has been duped are slim. Temporary workers experience this situation as profoundly alienating, and thus seldom work to their full capacity—in turn making it likely that they will remain marginally-employed Others. The symbolic tools used to accomplish oppressive othering include not only classi- fication schemes but identity codes, which are the rules of performance and interpretation whereby members of a group know what kind of self is signified by certain words, deeds, and dress (Schwalbe & Mason— Schrock 1996:125—27). To know the code is to know how to elicit the imputation of pos- sessing a desired kind of self. Oppressive othering entails the creation of identity codes that make it impossible for members of a subjugated group to signify fully cred- itable selves. A code that treats a male body and Caucasian features as signs of compe- tence peremptorily discredits those with fe- male bodies and African features. Equally insidious are identity codes that define the adaptive or dissident behaviors of subor- dinates as signs of inferior selves—thus turning acts of resistance into evidence that subordination is deserved and inequality is legitimate. Creating Powerful Virtual Selves Inequality is reproduced by identity work that upholds the dramaturgical fronts of the powerful. These fronts obscure discrediting backstage realities, create powerful virtual (i.e., imputed) selves, and implicitly create inferior Others. The impression that elites possess powerful, worthy selves—no matter the reality—can induce feelings of trust, awe, and / or fear that help to legitimate in- equality and deter dissent (cf. Della Fave 1980; Wolf 1986).2 This kind of identity work is typically done by elites or would-be elites. For exam— ple, Iackall (1988) shows how corporate managers tried to foster impressions of competence and trustworthiness, so as to appear destined for top executive positions. Gillespie (1980) shows how the wives of politicians enact the role of "public wife” to create the impression that their husbands are strong, moral, and deserving of election. In his analysis of the presidency, Hall (1979) shows how candidates shape their pub- lic performances to elicit imputations of strength and masculinity. Similarly, Haas and Shaffir (1977) show how medical stu- dents learn to fashion a "cloak of com- petence” ~ to legitimate their status as physicians. The creation of powerful virtual selves depends on more than the dramaturgical skill of individuals. Wealth is typically needed to acquire that skill (a form of cul- tural capital), along with material signs of competence and power. Wealth can also buy the image-making services of PR firms, media doctors, and speech writers. Cooper- The Reproduction of Inequality 47 ation is important, too. Elites typically en- gage in mutually supportive facework that serves to maintain, vis—a-vis subordinate groups, a collective impression of compe- tence and trustworthiness.3 The general (and long—recognized) principle here is that an unequal distribution of wealth and power generates an unequal distribution of ability to shape symbolic realities, including powerful virtual selves. . . . Defensive Othering Among Subordinates Defensive othering is identity work done by those seekingimembership in a dominant group, or by those seeking to deflect the stigma they experience as members of a subordinate group. When homeless men disparage other homeless men as "lazy bums,” they practice a kind of defensive othering (Snow 8: Anderson 1987). A similar process occurs in the workplace, as Padavic (1991) shows, when some women join men in disdaining other women whom the men define as unattractive. Field (1994) likewise shows how some Irish immigrants distance themselves from those whose behavior feeds the stereotype of the rowdy Irish drunk. The process, in each case, involves accepting the legitimacy of a devalued iden- tity imposed by the dominant group, but then saying, in effect, "There are indeed Others to whom this applies, but it does not apply to me.” . . . Though defensive othering is an adap- tive reaction, it nonetheless aids the re- production of inequality. When members of subordinate groups seek safety or advantage by othering those in their own group, the belief system that supports the dominant group's claim to superiority is reinforced. Subordinate solidarity is also undermined. Thus when some subordinates break soli- darity and seek to fashion powerful, or at least creditable, selves by embracing and 48 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems enforcing the identity code of the dominant group, they inadvertently aid the reproduc- tion of a larger system of inequality. Subordinate Adaptation Qualitative studies of oppressive situations often highlight the strategies that people use to cope with the deprivations of subordinate status. We do not claim that all such strate— gies merely reproduce inequality. Some cop— ing strategies might be largely reproductive in their consequences; others resist inequal- ity or seek to abolish it. What qualitative research shows, however, is that most strate- gies of adaptation have dual consequences, challenging some inequalities while repro- ducing others. Exactly what consequences follow from any particular strategy is, of course, an empirical matter. Our point is that subordinates’ adaptations to inequality play an essential part in its reproduction. We see three types of adaptations implicit in the literature: (1) trading power for pa- tronage; (2) forming alternative subcultures; - (3) hustling or dropping out. Trading Power for Patronage One way to adapt to subordinate status is to accept it, while seeking ways to derive com- pensatory benefits from relationships with members of the dominant group. Stombler and Martin (1994) give us the example of women who seek status and feelings of self- worth by becoming "little sisters” for fra- ternity men who, in actuality, objectify the women as sexual mascots. Similarly, Yount (1991) shows how women coal miners felt compelled to accept men’s sexist "compli- ments," because, as women in traditionally male jobs, they wanted affirmation of their femininity. In these cases, members of a sub- ordinate gender group accept practices that demean and disempower them in exchange for a degree of approval and protection. . . . Subordinates may try to sustain these symbiotic relationships by using the same imagery that the dominant group uses to legitimate inequality. For example, Ronai and Ellis (1989) show how strippers en- hance their earnings by performing in ways that feed men’s sexual fantasies. Ronai and Ellis argue that in doing this, strippers use the gender order to con men into paying more for their performances (cf. Frank 1998). While this strategy may pay off for the women who use it, the larger conse- quence is reproduction of the sexist imagery that helps to sustain the subordination of women in general. What is situationally adaptive for some members of a subordi— nate group thus can be disadvantageous, on the whole, for other members of the same group. Power can also be traded for autonomy— the bargain often made by working-class men. Instead of challenging management for control of the labor process, working- class men often accept less control in ex- change for the satisfaction of being free from the indignity of close supervision (Cherry 1974; Schwalbe 1985; Hodson 1991).4 This bargain reproduces class inequality by pre- serving managerial control of the labor process. It also reinforces an element of gen— der ideology that links manhood to control. Even if “control” is largely an illusion, men are still encouraged to stake their feelings of worth on having it, and thus may strive for it in domestic and political realms as well. Forming Alternative Subcultures Adaptation to subordinate status can be in— dividual (trying to scam one’s way through the system) or collective. In the latter case, people who share a subordinate status vis—a— vis the dominant group(s) collaborate to create alternative prestige hierarchies, forms of power, and ways to make a living (cf. Hughes 1958:49—55). Qualitative research has examined the origins, content, and con- sequences of a number of these alternative subcultures. These studies show how collec- tive adaptation strategies can be simulta- neously subversive and reproductive of inequality. For example, Bourgois (1995) shows how the urban drug trade offers a path to status and economic success for young men who have no chance for industrial work, nor the cultural capital to break into middle- class service jobs (see also Adler & Adler 1983). Similarly, Anderson (1990) shows how the lack of good jobs in the inner city leads to the creation of a subculture wherein young men achieve status through violence and sexual prowess, while young women achieve it by having babies and outfitting them in fashionable clothes (see also Jacobs 1994). These signs of status—money, might, sexuality, consumer goods—are echoes of the dominant culture, the alternative culture providing other ways to achieve them. The problem, however, is that conflict with the dominant culture tends to make success within the alternative culture tenu- ous, both economically and psychologically. As Bourgois, Anderson, and others (Mac- Leod [1987] 1995) have shown, even those who do well by the standards of the street tend to acquire habits and create situations (drug addiction, lack of education, multiple dependents, criminal records) that are debil- itating and risky, and diminish chances for mainstream success, even in the form of sta- ble working-class employment. As this pat- tern unfolds, members of dominant groups may also perceive that their stereotypes of subordinate Others as stupid, violent, irresponsible, and licentious are largely true. . . . The need for subgroup solidarity in the face of a hostile dominant culture can per- petuate inequality when members of subor- dinate groups discourage “collaboration with the enemy” by individuals seeking up- The Reproduction of Inequality 49 ward mobility for themselves. For example, black students who try hard to please their teachers may be reined-in by peers who ac- cuse them of “acting white” (Fordham & Ogbu 1986). Working-class men may show a similar disdain, or at least ambivalence, toward efforts to achieve middle-class status (Halle 1984; Fantasia 1988; Sennett & Cobb 1972). Inequality is thus perpetuated by dis- couraging individual striving.5 Adaptive subcultures have a reproduc- tive effect in part because they allow psychic needs to be met, despite subordination. For example, Burawoy (1979) shows how ma- chine operators turned a piece-rate pay sys- tem into a satisfying game of “making out,” in which workers competed to see who could earn the most with the least effort. Similarly, Paules (1991) shows how wait— resses created a workplace culture that gave them autonomy and space for self-assertion vis-a-vis customers and managers. Similar patterns of subculture building by organi- zational subordinates have been noted in schools (Becker et al. [1961] 1977), prisons (Ward & Kassebaum 1965), and the military (Shibutani 1978). Organizational elites often tolerate or even encourage the formation of such adaptive subcultures, since they func— tion to mitigate overt resistance and to stabi- lize relations of inequality. Hustling or Dropping Out The modal adaptation to inequality is ac- quiescence: accepting one’s place within existing hierarchies of status, power, and wealth—while trying to make that place reasonably comfortable. This sort of adap— tation implies acceptance of conventional goals and means of achieving them (as per Merton 1967; see also Becker 1995 on the “power of inertia”). Another possibility, however, is to work the margins of the sys- tem, looking for a niche within which one can hustle for a living. By "hustling" we 50 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems mean economic activity that is officially con— sidered illegal or dishonest. The study of groups that survive by hustling has been a staple tradition for qualitative sociologists. From classic studies of gangs (Short 8: Strodtbeck 1965) to con- temporary studies of Gypsies (Kephart 1987), fortune tellers (Boles, Davis, 8: Tatro 1983), and drug dealers (Adler 1985), quali- tative research has shown how members of subordinate groups, rather than challenge the system or push their way into the main- stream, organize to exploit it from the edge. Usually this means exploiting those who are more vulnerable—the jobless, the elderly, the uneducated, the addicted. This kind of hustling exploits the human fallout from extra-local inequalities, and in turn helps to reproduce those inequalities by further de— bilitating the already weak. “Dropping out” is another response to inequality that might, though need not al- ways, reproduce it. Individual dropping out—out of school, out of the corporate rat race, out of political involvement—is part of what we are referring to. Certainly the with- drawal of participation by people who are fed up with powerlessness and disrespect has the effect of allowing things to go on as they are. What qualitative sociologists have looked at more closely, however, is collec- tive dropping out, that is, the formation of counter-cultural groups. . . . Do such groups promote change or re- tard it? Certainly the withdrawal of dissi— dent energy from the mainstream does little to threaten existing hierarchies. Counter- cultural groups may also strive to reject one form of inequality, yet internally reproduce other inequalities present in the dominant culture (Brown 1992; Kleinman 1996). Then again, even fringe and separatist groups that engage in no overt political action can foster change by modeling its possibility. Whether such groups inspire or, through withdrawal, impede change, depends, of course, on the historical context. Our point is that a holistic view of the process through which inequality is reproduced must take into account adaptations that involve drop- ping out, as well as fitting in. Boundary Maintenance Preserving inequality requires maintaining boundaries between dominant and subordi- nate groups. These boundaries can be sym- bolic, interactional, spatial, or all of these. By preserving these boundaries, dominant groups protect the material and cultural capital they have acquired and upon which they rely to preserve their dominance. In plainer terms, the reproduction of inequal- ity depends on elites cooperating to limit Others’ access to valued resources. Most boundary maintenance is accom- plished institutionally. Schools, govern- ments, police forces, banks, and work or— ganizations can be seen as functioning, in part, to maintain boundaries between strati— fied groups. It is often easier, however, to document the boundary-maintaining results of institutional action than to see how these results are produced. Qualitative research can help us to see how these results arise out of face-to-face interaction. The processes we discern in this regard are: (1) transmitting cultural capital; (2) controlling network ac- cess; and (3) the use of violence or the threat thereof. Transmitting Cultural Capital "Cultural capital” refers to the knowledge, skills, habits, values, and tastes that are ac- quired in the course of socialization, and which can be turned to one’s advantage in particular social settings (Bourdieu 1977). Everyone acquires cultural capital; but not everyone acquires the kind that is useful and valued in middle—, upper-middle-, and upper-class circles. Any privileged group can keep subordinates out by limiting access to the requisite cultural capital. Without the right cultural capital, one simply cannot make connections, interact competently, or be taken seriously in certain places. A group’s boundaries can thus be maintained by regulating access to the cultural capital one needs to get in. Families are the primary settings in which cultural capital is transmitted. This ensures selectivity in the transmission of cultural capital, since families are strictly- bounded social units. The state-enforced laws and traditions governing membership in families are the principal means whereby social class boundaries are maintained through the selective transmission of cul- tural and material capital (Allen 1987). The ideology of competitive individualism also imposes a moral imperative on parents— especially middle- and upper-middle-class parents, whose class standing depends on earned income rather than durable wealth— to make sure that their children acquire as much cultural capital as possible, so as to avoid a fall into the working class (Ehren— reich 1989; Hays 1996; Kohn 1969). Schools are also key institutions for transmitting cultural capital. Getting in to schools in which valued cultural capital can be acquired requires knowhow and money (Cookson 8: Persell 1985). Even presuming entry, the cultural capital a student brings to school will limit what is acquired there. Stu- dents from lower— and working—class back- grounds ‘often have difficulty getting their middle-class teachers to respect them and recognize their capabilities (Rosenbaum 1976; Luttrell 1997). School then comes to be experienced as a hostile, or at least inhos- pitable, place, making academic success even less likely. Social distance between teachers and students, combined with middle—class cultural hegemony in the schools, can thus engender an interactive The Reproduction of Inequality 51 process—often occurring beneath the con- scious awareness of teachers and students— that nearly ensures an unequal distribution of the cultural capital potentially available in school. Qualitative studies of schools also sug- gest how inequality can be reproduced when teachers reinforce what seem like in- nocuous boundaries between "natural" so- cial groups. Thorne’s (1993) ethnography of an elementary school shows how this occurs in regard to gender. While boys and girls engage in their own territorial "boundary work,” teachers abet this process of marking gender divisions by establishing separate play areas for boys and girls, encouraging boys and girls to play different games, re- warding different kinds of behaviors, and assigning different kinds of tasks.6 We sug- gest, following Lever (1978), that such boundary work has the result, over the long haul of a school career, of selectively trans— mitting to boys the kinds of habits and skills that are likely to be rewarded in the job mar- ket and the corporation. Cultural capital is also assessed and ac- quired in workplaces. Knowing how to play golf, for instance; or how to make the right kind of small talk at parties, may open doors to acquiring more resources that can be turned to one’s further advantage. A similar process can be seen in trade unions. Getting an apprenticeship may hinge not simply on having adequate qualifying skills, but on having an inside sponsor, the right eth— nic surname, and a zest for football. What this suggests is that inter-group bound- aries are often maintained by the use of social markers that are largely invisible to non-gatekeepers. What matters for reproducing inequal- ity is the transmission of cultural capital that is valued by those who control access to jobs, pay, and positions of status and power. Subordinates are kept out, and privi- lege preserved, by selectively transmitting 52 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems valued cultural capital to those who are, by birth or display of special aptitude, deemed worthy of having it. This process repro- duces . inequality not only through the unequal distribution of resources, but by le- gitimating hierarchy. Because it can be hard to see how cultural capital is transmitted in families and schools, and even harder to see how it is “cashed in” in closed circles, the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and status can come to look as if it corresponds to a natural distribution of ability (Bourdieu 1984). ' Controlling Network Access The processes of selectively transmitting cultural capital and controlling network ac- cess overlap. Access to networks is con- trolled, in part, by selectively transmitting cultural capital; without the right creden- tials, it may be impossible to break into a network. But cultural capital per se does not guarantee access to elite networks within a group. Within a group, everyone may have roughly the same stocks of cultural capital. Inequality within the group may then be re- produced by controlling access to the key networks through which information is traded, decisions and deals are made, and rewards are disbursed. Traweek’s (1988) ethnographic study of physicists shows how networks are crucial to the reproduction of inequality in this field of science. Traweek shows how the directors of a few prominent research labs form a net— work through which post-docs are given, grants awarded, and people defined as stars or drones. What goes on in this network de— termines, in short, the fates of people’s ca— reers. Members of the elite network also effectively choose who will succeed them. Women who} manage to break into the pre- dominantly male world of high—energy par- ticle physicists suffer, Traweek’s analysis shows, because of their exclusion from key networks. Access can also be regulated by subor- dinate actors in a network. For example, Ostrander’s (1984) study of upper-class women shows how their volunteer work created opportunities to form political and business alliances between families (see also Daniels 1988; Lamont 1992). Moreover, as these women interacted on the boards of various civic organizations, they were able to assess newcomers to the community and determine if they had the right stuff— money, credentials, manners, and politics—— to be admitted to the circle of local elites. In this way, the women not only helped to con- trol network access, they also helped to re- produce the patriarchal authority of their husbands and fathers, who controlled fam- ily wealth and businesses. Jackall’s (1988) Study of corporate man- agers shows how access to top networks de- pended on making one’s peers and bosses feel comfortable. Having the right cultural capital was crucial for inducing such com— fort; but, as Iackall shows, it was consistent behavior—keeping secrets (or sharing them appropriately), not selling out one’s allies or boss, looking like a winner and avoiding blame for failures—that mattered for staying in the network. As in the world of physics, these networks were the means through which promotion decisions were made, projects approved, blame assigned, and elite succession accomplished. To be cut out of a network was to lose influence and power, and to have one’s fate sealed. . . . The Threat and Use of Violence To focus solely on the selective transmission of cultural capital and the control of net- work access would suggest that the repro- duction of inequality is more genteel than it is. Boundaries are indeed maintained, per- haps most effectively and efficiently on a daily basis, through ideological and spatial separations. People can nonetheless get “out of place” when inequalities become too much to bear. Violence—the application of damaging force to human bodies—may then be necessary, from the standpoint of elites, to protect their power and privilege, and to ensure that boundaries do not break down. What has qualitative research shown about how violence, or the threat thereof, is used to maintain boundaries? In one sense, not much. Most studies of violence by polit— ical and economic elites have been done by journalists and historians (e.g., Colby 8: Dennett 1995; James 1996). Qualitative soci- ologists have tended to study violence by nonelite members of dominant groups (e.g., Athens 1997). A number of studies have shown how men use violence and threats to control the social lives of their female part- ners (Denzin 1984; Ferraro 8: Johnson 1983; Jones 1993). Other studies have shown how men cooperate in their use of degrading remarks, sexual bribery, and restriction of knowledge to keep women in place at work (Padavic 1991; Tallichet 1995; Yount 1991). Gardner (1995) shows that many of these same forms of inhibiting harassment occur in public as well. The effect of these forms of action, whether it is physical or verbal, is to limit women’s access to people and places from which might be acquired the resources needed to challenge men for power (see also Chafe 1977).7 Violence can also function ideologically to maintain boundaries. When the capacity to enact violence is valorized within a cul- ture, it becomes a criterion by which to decide who qualifies for membership in dominant or elite groups. . . . Emotion Management All social arrangements consist of people doing things together in recurrent, orderly ways. Essential to maintaining these pat- terns of action are patterns of feeling. There The Reproduction of Inequality 53 must be, if not feelings of satisfaction, then feelings of complacency or resignation; there must be fear of change or of being punished for protest; and there must not be too much sympathy for the oppressed or too much anger toward elites. Sustaining a sys- tem of inequality, one that generates de— stabilizing feelings of anger, resentment, sympathy, and despair, requires that emo- tions be managed. . . . . . . Inequality is reproduced as emotions are subtly shaped by symbolic and mate- rial culture. . . . We consider how emotions are managed by (1) regulating discourse; (2) conditioning emotional subjectivity; and (3) scripting mass events. Regulating Discourse Discourse is more than talk and writing; it is a way of talking and writing. To regulate discourse is to impose a set of formal or in- formal rules about what can be said, how it can be said, and who can say what to whom (Potter & Wetherell 1987). A courtroom is at one extreme in regard to degree of formal regulation; a barroom at the other. Inasmuch as language is the principal means by which we express, manage, and conjure emotions, to regulate discourse is to regulate emotion. The ultimate consequence is a regulation of action. Cohn’s (1987) study of the “techno- strategic” language of defense intellectuals provides an example of how a form of dis- course can mute potentially inhibiting emo- tions. Cohn reports that technostrategic discourse strictly avoids reference to human pain and suffering, and instead uses the ab- stract and dispassionate language of strikes, counter-strikes, megatonnage, and mega— deaths. Given the rules of this discourse, to speak of pain and suffering is to discredit one’s self as a “soft-headed activist instead of an expert” (708). We see here a form of discourse being used as an emotional anes- thetic that allows technical experts to more 54 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems efficiently serve the interests of political and military elites. Corporate managers, as Jackall (1988) shows, use a similar rationalist discourse when making decisions that will hurt peo- ple (cf. Maccoby 1976). This discourse helps corporate managers stay focused on profits, even taking pride in their ability to make tough decisions that are “best for the com- pany.” In this case, corporate elites use a form of discourse—a language of efficien- cies, returns, and fiduciary responsibili- ties—that keeps compassion at bay and facilitates the pursuit of narrow economic interests. As in the world of defense intellec- tuals, the privileged discourse of corporate managers can also be used to exclude or dis- credit those who are unable or unwilling to engage in it. Discourse can be regulated to simulta— neously quell some emotions and evoke others. This is most apparent in wartime, when political and military elites try to reg- ulate the national discourse in ways that arouse and sustain enthusiasm for mass vio- lence, while provoking hatred for enemy leaders and decreased sympathy for civil- ians on the other side. In the case of war, dis- course must be regulated institutionally, via the mass media. This is accomplished by de- scribing events, if they are described at all, in the frames preferred by elites (Gamson & Modigliani 1989), and by excluding dissi- dent voices that might, by using alternative language and frames, evoke resistant emo- tions in the citizenry. When a form of discourse is established as standard practice, it becomes 'a powerful tool for reproducing inequality, because it can serve not only to regulate thought and emotion, but also to identify Others and thus to maintain boundaries as well. Those who wish to belong to the dominant group, or who simply want to be heard, may feel compelled to use the master’s linguistic tools. Hegemonic discourses are not, how- ever, eternal. As Wasielewski (1985) sug- gests, discourses that deny expression to the pain and anger of the oppressed create a powerful emotional tension, which in turn fosters the emergence of charismatic lead- ers. Such leaders catalyze change by artic- ulating what is repressed and linking the resolution of repressed feelings to dissident action. All hegemonic discourses may thus carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. Conditioning Emotional Subjectivity A basic tenet of symbolic interactionism is that people act toward things based on the meanings they learn to give to things (Blumer 1969). We take this idea to apply to emotion as well: people’s feelings toward things—other people, situations, events, ob- jects—depend on the meanings they learn to give to those things. Emotion thus depends, first of all, on interpretation. It also depends, however, on self—awareness of arousal and what is then done, cognitively or interac- tively, to manage that arousal. An individ- ual’s acquired habits of interpretation and of emotion work are what we mean by condi- tioned emotional subjectivity. Qualitative research in the sociology of emotions shows how emotional subjectivity can be conditioned in ways that reproduce inequality. A classic example is Hochschild’s (1983) study of flight attendants and bill col- lectors. Hochschild shows how employers train these workers to respond emotionally to people and situations in ways that allow business to get done. Flight attendants learn how to avoid getting angry by picturing ob- noxious passengers as cranky children. Bill collectors learn how to quash their feelings of sympathy for people who fall behind on their payments. What these and many other service jobs demand, Hochschild says, is not craft skill but skill at managing one’s own emotions and the emotions of others—in ways that serve an employer’s interests (see also Hall 1993; Leidner 1993). Employers in service industries have a clear interest in conditioning workers’ emo- tional subjectivity. Teaching workers to be efficient performers of emotional labor is part of the process whereby employers try to extract more value from labor than is re- turned to workers in the form of wages. Conditioning workers’ emotional subjec- tivity—making emotional labor a matter of habit—is thus an important part of repro- ducing economic inequality. In the case of Hochschild’s female flight attendants, something more is going on. When employ- ers teach them not to be angered by the sexist behavior of male passengers, flight at- tendants are compelled to collude in the re— production of gender inequality. Scully and Marolla’s (1984) study of convicted rapists suggests another link between sexism, discourse, and emotional conditioning. Scully and Marolla examined the accounts rapists used to excuse and jus- tify their behavior. Some men justified their acts by claiming that their victims were se- ducers, that their victims enjoyed it, or that she said “no” but meant “yes.” Other men excused themselves by claiming that they were drunk, stoned, or mentally distressed during the crime. A common feature of these accounts is that they preclude appreci- ation for the victim’s fear, pain, and suffer- ing. The men thus avoid empathizing or sympathizing with their victims. The significance of Scully and Marolla’s study is underscored by two points. One is that many of the men, in describing their crimes, told of using the same accounts to facilitate their action. These accounts func- tioned, in other words, as legitimations that allowed the men to act on violent impulses aimed at women. A second point is that the rapists’ excuses and justifications are com- monplace, familiar to any adult raised in The Reproduction of Inequality 55 US. culture. We see these accounts as ele- ments of a wider sexist discourse that, on the one hand,‘ devalues women’s subjectiv— ity and, at the same time, conditions men’s subjectivity in a way that diminishes empa- thy with women, and thus facilitates action that perpetuates male supremacy. Emotional subjectivity must be simi- larly conditioned to enable mass violence. Armies and police forces would be feckless if it were not possible to condition individu- als to suppress feelings of empathy for those whom they are ordered to batter or kill. In— dividuals must thus be taught how to put aside inhibiting feelings—fear as well as empathy—and do what they are told. Some theorists have argued that this kind of con- ditioning is a defining feature of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1995; Seidler 1991; Schwalbe 1992). Part of learning to be a man, the argument goes, is learning to de- value emotions—not only the emotions of those who might become targets of violence, but one’s own emotions as well, because if one’s own emotions are seen as unimpor- tant, or as signs of weakness, then it be- comes easier to despise those who show emotion or value it. The flip side to the conditioning of mas— culine emotional subjectivity is the creation of femininity, as both a complementary form of conditioning and a set of adaptive prac— tices. As a complementary form of condi- tioning, conventional femininity involves learning not only to value others’ emotions (men’s in particular), but often to value them more highly than one’s own (Miller 1976; Bartky 1990). It may also entail condi- tioning one’s self to accept as normal the feelings that are attendant to subordi- nation.8 Femininity can also be seen as a subcultural adaptation that consists of prac- tices for managing the emotions of men (cf. Janeway 1980). This suggests, as a gen- eral principle, that the smooth reproduc- tion of inequality depends as much on 56 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems subordinates managing the emotions of dominants, as vice versa. Scripting Mass Events Humans are self-reflective, fraught with conflicting feelings, and capable of recondi— tioning themselves. These qualities create a problem in that emotional subjectivity can- not be so firmly conditioned that it can be taken for granted as a stable determinant of conformist behavior. Those who have an interest in preserving the status quo must therefore find ways both to reaffirm the desired conditioning, and, at extraordinary times, induce desired emotions in masses of people. Elite shaping of public discourse, we have already suggested, is part of how this is done. Another way is through the scripting of emotion—inducing events. . . . When we refer to the "scripting" of emotion-inducing events, we mean their orchestration to bring about an intended emotional result. Zurcher gives us two ex- amples. In one case, he analyzes what might be called the macroscripting of a college football game (Zurcher 1982). He examines the set of activities—practices, press confer- ences, facility preparation, rallies—leading up to the game, the timing of these activi- ties, the defining of the game's importance, the feeling rules invoked, and the interac— tion on the day of the game to show how this organization produces a powerful emo— tional experience for thousands of people. In another case, Zurcher (1985) analyzes a war game and shows how the event is scripted and orchestrated by military leaders to gen- erate enthusiasm for practice killing. . . . Scripted events that inspire feelings of solidarity at the level of the "race," the firm, or the nation, reproduce inequality by en- couraging subordinates to ignore inequality and embrace the dominant regime. Mass political rallies, wars, parades, and national celebrations are spectacular examples. The same social technology of emotion manage- ment is used on smaller scales. For example, Schwalbe (1996) shows how the leaders of men’s movement gatherings artfully com- bined simple acts—decorating a room with totemic objects, burning incense, playing ethereal music, drumming, chanting, invok- ing spirits, and excluding women—to in- duce a feeling of emotional communion that compelled men to ignore political conflicts, social class differences, and sexist behavior by other men. Other studies have shown how organizational leaders likewise script meetings to manage emotions in ways that deflect challenges to existing hierarchies (e.g., Kleinman 1996: 63—89; Kunda 1992).9 The practices of regulating discourse, conditioning emotional subjectivity, and scripting events clearly overlap. Events are always organized by using some form of discourse, which is likely to be reinforced by the event itself. Events also have socializing effects on their organizers and participants. Moreover, the kinds of emotional responses that events can induce depend on prior con- ditioning. No one of these practices can en- sure the reproduction of inequality; rather, as we see them, they are all necessary to the process, and are most powerful when or- ganized to be mutually reinforcing. These same methods of emotion inducement can also be used, of course, to incite dissident behavior; thus, under the right conditions, they are as essential to producing change as they are to reproducing the status quo. Implications Inequality as Condition, Process, and Experience Some argue that we should combine quan- titative information about the conditions under which people act with qualitative analyses of how people cope with depriva— tion. But even this can leave us with a static view of inequality. What is missing is an analysis of the relationships that arise be- tween those who seek, or seek to preserve, an unequal share of resources, power, and privilege for themselves, and those who re— sist or adapt. Our formulation identifies the generic processes through which these rela- tionships of domination and subordination are created and maintained. We see these processes not merely as generic, in the sense of occurring in multiple contexts, but as es- sential and generative. Suppose, for example, that one wished to create a hierarchy of wealth, status, and power based on the familiar notion of “race.” To do so would require a program of othering, boundary maintenance, and emo— tion management. Subordinates would also have to find ways to adapt, or the arrange~ ment would collapse. Similarly, inequalities typically identified as having to do with class, gender, and sexuality depend for their reproduction on some combination of these same processes. The implication, to put it another way, is that these processes are what give rise to the forms of inequality we commonly know as “race,” "class," "gen- der,” and so on. We would thus claim that some generic processes are more important than others, because they are generative of patterns and conditions that are signifi- cantly consequential for large numbers of people.10 Getting at these processes requires bracketing certain labor-saving reifications. “Race,” "class," and “gender,” for example, though often used as explanatory variables, are merely labels for routinized forms of thought, speech, and action through which some people attempt to dominate and ex- ploit others. Just as gender has been recog- nized as a form of doing (West & Zimmer— man 1987), we would argue that race and The Reproduction of Inequality 57 class must also be examined as they are con- stituted by particular forms of thought, speech, and action that create and maintain relations of domination and subordination. Instead of asking, for example, What effect does race have on income?——as if we knew what "race" is and that it is the same everywhere—we would ask, How do peo- ple think, feel, and interact here, such that some material or felt inequality is a result, whether intended or not? Or, instead of pre— suming to know what "gender" is and that gender inequality will be obvious if present, we might study the beliefs and practices that seem to constitute gender in a setting, and then try to discern the consequences of these beliefs and practices. Class, too, can be approached as a situated construc- tion, accomplished through people's daily efforts to make a living; through strug- gles between workers and employers to control the labor process and the disposition of the surplus; and through cooperation among elites to control business, finance, and government. . . . NOTES 1. Michelle Fine (1994) argues that social sci- entific research is often implicated in the process of othering. When researchers define a group or type of people as objects of curios- ity and targets of study, the unconscious sub- text may be that ”these people are interesting because they are different from us.” To focus attention on a group in this way—that is, from the implicit standpoint of the dominant culture—is, in effect, to contribute to their continued othering. 2. Subordinates may also engage in a kind of silent othering aimed at deflating the impres- sive virtual selves that dominants try to cre- ate. For example, Pierce (1995) describes how paralegals defined their overly demanding bosses as "immature children” who needed a lot of hand-holding. This kind of cognitive coping strategy makes interaction more bear— able for subordinates, but at the same time allows oppressive patterns of interaction to persist. 58 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems 3. It might seem that the Clinton sexual miscon- duct debacle, commonly called the "Monica Lewinsky affair,” is an example of elites fail— ing to do face-work for one of their own. Attacks on Clinton’s character can be seen, however, as self—serving attempts by elites to signify a concern for morality, and thus to re- inforce the illusion of elite virtue. Focusing on Clinton as an individual also functions to avoid bringing into question the system that put him in office. 4. It is not only working-class men who trade power for autonomy. Paules’s (1991) study of waitresses shows working-class women do- ing much the same thing. There are, however, reasons to expect this kind of adaptive strat— egy to vary by gender. Men may be more in- clined to seek autonomy because they are less economically and physically vulnerable than women, and because they are taught to see autonomy as a sign of manhood. 5. Individual striving for upward mobility does not, of course, threaten the system against which subordinates are reacting. In fact, indi— vidual striving is encouraged because it pro— tects the larger system of inequality by mak— ing collective protest unlikely. Allowing a limited amount of upward mobility also serves to legitimate inequality by implying that the system allows the truly gifted to get ahead, and that those who remain at the bottom belong there because of their lesser merits. 6. Van Ausdale and Feagin (1996) show how young children use racial categorization schemes to do an analogous kind of bound- ary work. 7. In a study of Appalachian women, Gag-ne (1992) shows how a lack of reproductive free- dom, sexist stereotypes about women, lack of transportation, lack of job opportunities, and ideologies that legitimated violence made women vulnerable to violence and allowed men to use it with near impunity. Gagne’s study reminds us that the effectiveness of violence as a means of social control depends on the context in which it is used. 8. Bartky (1990:42—44, 63—82) argues that part of socialization into femininity is learning to take pleasure in practices that have the con- sequence of reinforcing women's subordina- tion. DeVault’s (1991) study of women’s work in feeding families can be interpreted as showing how socialization into feminin- ity equips and conditions women to create meaning and satisfaction in activities that pose no threat to male supremacy. 9. Scripting can also be seen as a form of work- process rationalization. Leidner’s (1993) studies of fast-food workers show how em- ployers routinize not only manual tasks but also the interactions that workers are sup- posed to have with customers. The goal of this scripting, Leidner suggests, is to regulate the emotions of workers and customers, so as to make the outcomes of these interactions predictable and profitable. 10. Giddens (1979, 1984) treats the tacit rules that guide interaction as generative of structure, in much the way that the rules of grammar are generative of well-formed, meaningful sen— tences. Somewhat differently, we presuppose the existence of an interaction order (Goff-man 1983) and treat generic social processes as gen- erative of types of experiences and relation— ships, in much the way that the rules of schol- arship are generative of different kinds of literary experiences than the rules of poetry. REFERENCES Adler, Peter. 1985. Wheeling and Dealing: An Ethnography of an Upper—Level Drug Dealing and Smuggling Community. Columbia University Press. Adler, Patricia, and Peter Adler. 1983. "Shifts and Oscillation in Deviant Careers: The Case of Upper-Level Dealers and Smugglers.” Social Problems 31:195—207. Allen, Michael Patrick. 1987. The Founding For- tunes. E.P. Dutton. Allen, Theodore. 1994. The Invention of the White Race. Verso. Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. University of Chicago Press. Athens, Lonnie. 1997. Violent Criminal Acts and Actors Revisited. University of Illinois Press. Bartky, Sandra. 1990. Femininity and Domination. Routledge. Becker, Howard S. 1995. "The Power of Inertia.” Qualitative Sociology 18:301—309. Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. [1961] 1977. Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. Transaction. Blee, Katherine. 1996. "Becoming a Racist: Women in Contemporary Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi Groups.” Gender and Society 10:680—702. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Prentice-Hall. Boles, Jacqueline, Phillip Davis, and Charlotte Tatro. 1983. "False Pretense and Deviant Ex- ploitation: Fortunetelling as a Con.” Deviant Behavior 42375—94. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. "Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” Pp. 487—511 in Power and Ideology in Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and AH. Halsey. Oxford Uni- versity Press. . 1984. Distinction. Harvard University Press. Bourgois, Phillipe. 1995. In Search of Respect: Sell— ing Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge University Press. Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent. University of Chicago Press. Brown, Elaine. 1992. A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story. Pantheon. Brown, Richard H. 1993. "Cultural Representa— tion and Ideological Domination.” Social Forces 711657—76. Chafe, William. 1977. Women and Equality: Chang- ing Patterns in American Culture. Oxford Uni- versity Press. Cohn, Carol. 1987. "Sex and Death in the Ra— tional World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs 12:687—718. Colby, Gerard, with Dennett, Charlotte. 1995. Thy Will Be Done. Harper Collins. Connell, Robert. 1995. Masculinities. University of California Press. Cookson, Peter, and Persell, Caroline. 1985. Preparing for Power. Basic Books. Daniels, Arlene. 1988. Invisible Careers. University of Chicago Press. Della Fave, L. Richard. 1980. "The Meek Shall Not Inherit the Earth: Self-Evaluation and the Legitimacy of Stratification.” American Socio— logical Review 452955—71. Denzin, Norman K. 1984. "Toward a Phenome- nology of Domestic Family Violence.” Ameri- can Jouraal of Sociology 90:483—513. DeVault, Marjorie. 1991. Feeding the Family. Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1989. Fear of Falling. Pantheon. Fantasia, Rick. 1988. Cultures of Solidarity. Univer- sity of California Press. Ferraro, Kathleen, and Johnson, John M. 1983. "How Women Experience Battering: The Process of Victimization.” Social Problems 30:325—39. Field, Stephanie J. 1994. "Becoming Irish: Personal Identity Construction among First— The Reproduction of Inequality 59 Generation Irish Immigrants.” Symbolic Interac- tion 17:431—52. Fine, Michelle. 1994. "Working the Hyphens: Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative Re- search.” Pp. 70—82 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Sage. Fordham, S., and J. Ogbu. 1986. "Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the ’Burden of Acting White.’ ” Urban Review 18:176—206. Frank, Katherine. 1998. "The Production of Iden- tity and the Negotiation of Intimacy in a ’Gen— tleman’s Club.’ ” Sexualities 1:175—201. Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. The Social Construction of Whiteness. University of Minnesota Press. Gagne, Patricia. 1992. "Appalachian Women: Vio- lence and Social Control.” Journal of Contempo— rary Ethnography 20:387—415. Gallagher, Charles. 1995. "White Reconstruction in the University.” Socialist Review 242165—87. Gamson, William, and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 9521—37. Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1995. Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment. Temple University Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. University of California Press. . 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of Cali- fornia Press. Gillespie, Joanna. 1980. "The Phenomenon of the Public Wife: An Exercise in Goffman’s Im- pression Management.” Symbolic Interaction 3:109—25. Goffman, Erving. 1983. "The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review 4821-17. Haas, Jack, and William Shaffir. 1977. "The Pro- fessionalization of Medical Students: Develop- ing Competence and a Cloak of Competence.” Symbolic Interaction 1:71—88. Hadden, Stuart, and Marilyn Lester. 1978. "Talk- ing Identity: The Production of ’Self’ in Inter— action.” Human Studies 1:331—56. Hall, Elaine. 1993. "Waitering/Waitressing: En- gendering the Work of Table Servers.” Gender and Society 7:329—46. Hall, Peter. 1979. "The Presidency and Impres- sion Management.” Studies in Symbolic Interac— tion 2:283—305. Halle, David. 1984. America's Working Man. Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale University Press. 60 Toward an Understanding of Current Social Problems Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The Managed Heart. Uni- versity of California Press. Holden, Daphne. 1997. "On Equal Ground: Sustaining Virtue Among Volunteers in a Homeless Shelter.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 26:117—45. V . Horowitz, Ruth. 1997. "Barriers and Bridges to Class Mobility and Formation: Ethnographies of Stratification.” Sociological Methods and Re- search 25:495—538. Hughes, Everett C. 1958. Men and Their Work. Free Press. Jackall, Robert. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. Oxford University Press. Jacobs, Janet L. 1994. "Gender, Race, Class, and the Trend Toward Early Motherhood: A Feminist Analysis of Teen Mothers in Con- temporary Society.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 222442—62. James, Joy. 1996. Resisting Street Violence: Radical- ism, Candor, and Race in US. Culture. University of Minnesota Press. Janeway, Elizabeth. 1980. Powers of the Weak. Knopf. Jones, Rachel K. 1993. “Female Victim Percep— tions of the Causes of Male Spouse Abuse.” So— ciological Inquiry 63:351—61. Kephart, William M. 1987. Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Life-Styles. St. Martin's. Kleinman, Sherryl. 1996. Opposing Ambitions: Gender and Identity in an Alternative Organiza- tion. University of Chicago Press. Kohn, Melvin. 1969. Class and Conformity. Dorsey. Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture. Tem- ple University Press. Lamont, Michele. 1992. Money, Morals, and Man- ners. University of Chicago Press. Leidner, Robin. 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life. Uni- versity of California Press. Lever, Janet. 1978. “Sex Differences in the Com- plexity of Children’s Play and Games.” Ameri- can Sociological Review 43:471—83. Luttrell, Wendy. 1997. Schoolsmart and Mo therwise: Working-Class Women’s Identity and Schooling. Routledge. Maccoby, Michael. 1976. The Gamesman. Bantam. MacLeod, Jay. [1987] 1995. Ain’t No Makin’ It. 2d ed. Westview. Merton, Robert K. 1967. Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press. Miller, Jean Baker. 1976. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Beacon. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States. Routledge 8: Kegan Paul. Ostrander, Susan. 1984. Women of the Upper Class. Temple University Press. Padavic, Irene. 1991. “The Re-Creation of Gender in a Male Workplace.” Symbolic Interaction 142279—94. Paules, Greta. 1991. Dishing It Out: Power and Re- sistance Among Waitresses in a New Jersey Restau~ rant. Temple University Press. ‘ Pierce, Jennifer. 1995. Gender Trials. University of California Press. Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. Sage. Roediger, David. 1991. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. Verso. Rogers, Jackie K. 1995. "Just a Temp: Experience and Structure of Alienation in Temporary Clerical Employment.” Work and Occupations 22:137—66. Rollins, Judith. 1985. Between Women: Domestics and Their Employers. Temple University Press. Romero, Mary. 1992. Maid in the USA. Routledge. Ronai, Carol Rambo, and Carolyn Ellis. 1989. “Turn-Ons for Money.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 182271—98. Rosenbaum, James E. 1976. Making Inequality. Wiley & Sons. Schwalbe, Michael. 1992. "Male Supremacy and the Narrowing of the Moral Self.” Berkeley Jour- nal of Sociology 37:29—54. 1996. Unlocking the Iron Cage: The Men’s Movement, Gender Politics, and American Cul- ture. Oxford University Press. Schwalbe, Michael, and Douglas Mason-Schrock. 1996. "Identity Work as Group Process.” Pp. 13-47 in Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 13, edited by Barry Markovsky, Michael Lovaglia, and R. Simon. JAI Press. I Scully, Diane, and Joseph Marolla. 1984. “Con- victed Rapists’ Vocabularies of Motive: Ex- cuses and Justification.” Social Problems 312530—44. Seidler, Victor. 1991. Recreating Sexual Politics. Routledge. Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Hidden Injuries of Class. Vintage. Shibutani, Tamotsu. 1978. The Derelicts of Com- pany K. Jossey-Bass. Short, James, and Fred Strodtbeck. 1965. Group Processes and Gang Delinquency. University of Chicago Press. Snow, David, and Leon Anderson. 1987. "Iden— fity Work among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identi- ties.” American journal of Sociology 92:1336—71. Stombler, Mindy, and Patricia Yancey Martin. 1994. "Bringing Women In, Keeping Women Down: Fraternity ’Little Sister’ Organizations.” journal of Contemporary Ethnography 232150—84. Tallichet, Suzanne E. 1995. “Gendered Relations in the Mines and the Division of Labor Under- ground.” Gender and Society 92697—711. Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Rutgers University Press. Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Harvard University Press. Van Ausdale, Debra, and ]oe Feagin. 1996. “UsingRacial and Ethnic Concepts: The Criti- cal Case of Very Young Children.” American So— ciological Review 61:779—93. Vander Ven, Thomas M. 1998. “Fear of Victimiza- tion and the Interactional Construction of Ha- rassment in a Latino Neighborhood.” journal of Contemporary Ethnography 272374—98. Ward, David AC, and Gene Kassebaum. 1965. Women ’s Prison: Sex and Social Structure. Aldine. Wasielewski, Patricia. 1985. "The Emotional Basis of Charisma.” Symbolic Interaction 8:202—222. West, Candace, and Sarah Fenstermaker. 1995. "Doing Difference.” Gender and Society 928-37. West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 1987. "Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 11125—51. Wolf, Charlotte. 1986. "Legitimation of Oppres- sion: Response and Reflexivity.” Symbolic Inter— action 92217—34. The Reproduction of Inequality 61 Yount, Kristen R. 1991. "Ladies, Flirts, and Tomboys: Strategies for Managing Sexual Ha- rassment in an Underground Coal Mine.” jour- nal of Contemporary Ethnography 19:396—422. Zurcher, Louis. 1982. "The Staging of Emotion: A Dramaturgical Analysis.” Symbolic Interaction 5:1—22. . 1985. "The War Game: Organizational Scripting and the Expression of Emotion.” Symbolic Interaction 8:191—206. ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 18

Schwalbe et al - The Reproduction of Inequality - 44 Toward...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 18. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online