Understanding social status: a reply to Flemmen, Jarness and Rosenlund

• Published in: The British journal of sociology Vol. 70; no. 3; pp. 867 - 881
• Main Author: Chan, Tak Wing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.06.2019
• Subjects: Humans; Inequality; Modern society; Occupational status; Social Environment; Social inequality; Social status; Social stratification; Sociological research; Sociology; Worship
• ISSN: 0007-1315; 1468-4446
• DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12628

I am grateful to the Editor of the British Journal of Sociology, Dr Daniel Laurison, for giving me the space to respond to Flemmen, Jarness and Rosenlund’s (2018, hereafter FJR) critique of my work with John Goldthorpe on social status. In their article that appears in this issue of the BJS, FJR argue that Goldthorpe and I have misconstrued Max Weber’s class–status distinction. They also propose a neo‐Bourdieusian alternative that ‘recognizes class and status as distinct aspects of stratification’. I will address both claims below. But let me start with a preliminary point.Among other things, FJR argue that my work with Goldthorpe on status is ‘very loosely connected to Weber’s account’, and that ‘the key inspiration for [our] concept and measuring of status appears to come from the American sociology of stratification’. As Goldthorpe and I have labelled our approach as Weberian, I will provide some quotes from Weber to demonstrate that our research programme is indeed consistent with his ideas on social stratification. That is quite straightforward. But the really pertinent question is not whether we are true Weberians. After all, we are not in the business of ancestral worship. Rather, what matters is whether our rendition of the class–status distinction (or, for that matter, FJR’s neo‐Bourdieusian version) helps us understand important aspects of social inequality in contemporary societies. Keeping this in mind would, I believe, make for a more productive debate.