Abstract
Will Atkinson’s Class, Individualization and Late Modernity addresses a debate that lies at the heart of contemporary social theory. On the one side, the ‘theorists of reflexivity’ (most notably Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens) argue that contemporary western societies have entered a new stage of modernity where class has ceased to be significant. They argue that sociologists must make a paradigm shift, and develop new conceptual tools capable of analysing the advent of the reflexive individual.
On the other side of the sociological fence, sit those who insist that traditional determinants of social inequalities persist despite social change. Atkinson’s position is clearly on this side of the fence. In his view, reflexive theories are ‘data free’, meaning that claims have not been supported with empirical evidence; as well as being theoretically inadequate. The aim of Class, Individualization and Late Modernity is to provide an empirical test of reflexivity, and once it is shown that reflexivity lacks explanatory power, he draws on the work of Bourdieu to account for the persistence of class inequalities.
Atkinson distinguishes his work from prior research in two main ways. First, he asserts that the quantitative examinations of class, in particular by Goldthorpe and Chan, offer ‘only a partial and, in many respects, problematic reply to the theories of reflexivity’ (p. 34). Whereas quantitative research can uncover inequalities, it is not enough merely to show that inequalities exist in order to refute reflexivity. It is also necessary to examine whether biographies are shaped by reflexive decision-making, and this task necessitates qualitative research. Second, Atkinson contends that qualitative researchers, such as Skeggs, Savage and Mythen, have also failed to provide a definitive rebuke to reflexivity. These authors, labelled as ‘cultural class analysts’, have provided isolated insights rather than any sustained attack. As such, their contribution has been ‘partial’, ‘superficial’, ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘contradictory’ and ‘insufficient’ (pp. 36–42).
Atkinson sets himself an ambitious goal: namely, to provide the ‘definitive assessment’ of reflexivity. He promises a ‘systematic, concentrated theoretical dissection and critical interrogation’, a ‘definitive solution’ and ‘head-on reply’ that combine ‘conceptual logic and original research’ (p. 43). No doubt, Atkinson makes an important empirical and theoretical contribution to the debate, but whether he provides a definitive assessment is more questionable.
I’ll start with Atkinson’s empirical contribution. His research is based on 55 interviews with people living in Bristol, England, who are engaged in full-time employment, and had responded positively to a postal request for interviewees. Atkinson uses the interviews to trace ‘journeys through the social structure’ (p. 72), with chapters dedicated to education, entry into the labour market, lifestyles and identities and consciousness of class as a framework for interpreting social inequalities. Each chapter demonstrates that class continues to determine inequality at each stage of individuals’ biographies. Atkinson reveals that the ‘substance’ of class, meaning the way in which class-based relations manifest and are experienced, has changed. However, the underlying structure of class remains unchanged.
It would be possible to criticize aspects of Atkinson’s methods. For instance, his sample is unrepresentative, and it is unclear how the data were analysed or quotes selected. However, the reflexive theorists who Atkinson sets out to refute are unlikely to worry about methodological details. Instead, critique is more likely to focus on Atkinson’s arguments against reflexivity. Atkinson is no stranger to debate, having previously published a series of papers attacking Beck (Atkinson, 2007a), Bauman (Atkinson, 2008) and Giddens (Atkinson, 2007b). Beck (2007) responded, claiming that Atkinson (2007a) failed to appreciate that reflexive modernity does not eliminate inequalities. Atkinson’s earlier article, however, appears to have been written prior to the completion of his empirical analysis. The data presented in Class, Individualization and Late Modernity show that class is still used by interviewees as an explanatory framework for inequalities. Class may have declined as a marker of group identity, yet only those individuals who possessed ample social capital perceived that they had choices. Interviewees who lacked capital found their opportunities were limited, and were aware that their lives were constrained by ascribed social divisions.
Atkinson claims that his work is distinct from previous efforts to test the relevance of class; however his findings are in line with those produced by other qualitative researchers (e.g. Mythen, 2005). Whereas Atkinson has criticized previous research for partiality and inconclusiveness, Atkinson’s interviews also reveal that the use of class as a framework for explaining inequalities is riddled with contradictions and incoherence. Atkinson explains that for his interviewees, class is a practical rather than a sociological category, and their hesitancy reflects the difficult task of asking lay people to provide sociological reflection (p. 174). However, it may be that while the underlying structure of class remains, the substance of class has become partial, uncertain and incoherent. This suggests that Atkinson is perhaps overly hasty in dismissing other researchers for their ambiguous findings.
Beck (2007) also argued that the global nature of reflexivity means that researchers should not adopt the nation-state as their unit of analysis. Beck’s argument would suggest that while Atkinson’s respondents may suffer from varying degrees of internal inequalities, even the most disadvantaged are relatively well off compared to individuals living in parts of the world which bear the brunt of what Beck terms the ‘world risk society’. According to Beck (2007), the focus on inequalities within nation-states produces a blind spot that allows greater forms of inequalities to exist.
Atkinson does not address this criticism in the book reviewed here, and instead clearly locates his work within a nation-state framework. For instance, Atkinson (p. 213) argues that ‘Debates over reflexivity and individualisation have gripped national sociological debates’, and that there are numerous studies focusing on differing ‘national social spaces’. While being cautious about generalization, he also asks: ‘is it so unreasonable, then, to suppose that if the national structures are homologous then the explanation for and consequences of the persistence of social space unearthed in the UK could be an indicator of what, with national specificities, is going on in other Western nation-states?’ While Atkinson has hidden these comments somewhat in a methodological appendix, his frequent references to nation-state methodologies seem to be deliberately provocative.
A possible reason behind Atkinson’s provocation is suggested by his subsequent reply to Beck published in The British Journal of Sociology. Here, Atkinson (2007c: 712) concedes the importance of transnational inequalities, ‘but do[es] not see them as inexorably eroding national class structures and thus the utility of studying class’. Atkinson explains that the study of one form of inequality, such as class inequalities within a nation-state, does not imply the negation of other types of inequalities. Instead, different forms of inequalities may be mutually complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
Beyond Beck’s criticisms, it is possible to pick some other faults in Atkinson’s work. Atkinson criticizes previous researchers for offering only a partial account of inequalities, implying that he is going to produce a complete examination. Yet, he acknowledges that the interviews included only one non-white respondent, and thus he admits that intersections between class and ethnicity could not be examined. Atkinson also gives hints that gender is an important structural determinant of respondents’ biographies. For instance, mothers of ‘advantaged’ (i.e. middle- to upper-class) respondents are observed as orientating their children towards educational achievement (p. 81), and that the availability of labour market options appear to be highly gendered (p. 95). These observations, however, are left unexplored.
After dismissing reflexivity theories as being incompatible with his empirical evidence, Atkinson’s second contribution is to offer a theoretical alternative. Just as Atkinson is unequivocal about the deficiencies of reflexivity, he is equally zealous in asserting that Bourdieu’s theory of class (with a few additions) can explain the persistence of class. The additions include an element of phenomenology, largely in the form of Alfred Schutz’s concept of ‘stock of knowledge’, in order to show how individual perceptions become structured in order to form the habitus. This theoretical contribution is tantalizing, however its potential is somewhat underdeveloped.
Atkinson is bold in his critique of previous research into inequalities and his use of empirical data to counter reflexivity, and it appears that his strengths lie more with criticism than theoretical construction. The bulk of the text is dedicated to critique, including most of the analysis of the empirical data, with only the one chapter focusing on his own theoretical contribution (Chapter 3: ‘Conceptualizing class and reconceptualizing reflexivity’). Even the conclusion seems more focused on disproving Beck and other reflexive theorists, rather than applying his own ‘phenomeno-Bourdieusian standpoint’ (p. 71).
To conclude, Atkinson has produced a provocative, empirically based critique of reflexivity which should prove difficult to ignore. It asserts that class is persistent in determining social inequalities, and calls for a future programme of research into class inequalities drawing on Bourdieu. However, whether Atkinson’s work will prove to be the definitive assessment that brings down reflexivity remains to be seen.