Bourdieau Sociology

bs_bs_banner
Class, culture and politics: on the relevance of a Bourdieusian concept of class in political sociology
Gitte Sommer Harrits

Abstract
Even though contemporary discussions of class have moved forward towards recognizing a multidimensional concept of class, empirical analyses tend to focus on cultural practices in a rather narrow sense, that is, as practices of cultural consumption or practices of education. As a result, discussions within political sociology have not yet utilized the merits of a multidimensional conception of class. In light of this, the article suggests a comprehensive Bourdieusian framework for class analysis, integrating culture as both a structural phenomenon co-constitutive of class and as symbolic practice. Further, the article explores this theoretical framework in a multiple correspondence analysis of a Danish survey, demonstrating how class and political practices are indeed homologous. However, the analysis also points at several elements of eld autonomy, and the concluding discussion therefore suggests the need for further studies. Keywords: class, cultural capital, political participation, Bourdieu, multiple correspondence analyses
Death and rise of the class debate

Many scholars have proclaimed the death of class (Pakulski and Waters, 1996a, 1996b), and especially in political sociology analyses of class seems to have lost their former strength (Lipset and Clark, 1991, 2004; Lipset et al., 1993; see also Goldthorpe, 1999, 2004; Manza and Brooks, 1999; Hout et al., 1993, 1995, 1999; Weakliem, 2004). In recent years, however, sociological scholars have managed to revitalize the class debate (eg Bennett et al., 2009; Crompton, 2008; Devine et al., 2005; Savage, 2000; Skeggs, 1997, 2004; Lareau and Conley, 2008), and many of these contributions emphasize the importance of culture for understanding contemporary class relations. This is a point also recognized by traditional class theorist (eg Wright, 1985, 1997, 2005; Goldthorpe, 1996, 2000), even though the understanding of what culture means is far from clear across the different traditions. For many recent contributions, emphasis on the interdependence of class and culture has resulted in an overweight of empirical analyses of cultural
The Sociological Review, Vol. 61, 172202 (2013) DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12009 2013 The Author. The Sociological Review 2013 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review. Published by Blackwell Publishing Inc., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, 02148, USA.
Class, culture and politics
practices. This goes for studies of cultural practices in the narrow sense of the word, that is, as cultural consumption (eg Bennett et al., 2009, Prieur et al., 2008; Wood and Skeggs, 2008), as well as for studies of cultural practices in relation to education and knowledge (eg Lareau, 2002, 2003; Lareau and Weininger, 2003; Reay et al., 2009, 2010, 2011). Strikingly, however, very few of the recent contributions include politics and political practices in their analyses and, partly as a result of this, the concept of class as well as contemporary understandings of class and culture is almost absent within political sociology (for exceptions see Harrits et al., 2010; Skeggs, 2004, van der Waal et al., 2007, Houtman et al., 2008). In light of this, the present article demonstrates how a multidimensional concept of class also contributes to understanding contemporary patterns of political participation, understood as political practice and political culture in the broad sense of the word. As many contemporary scholars of class, I take a point of departure in the works of Pierre Bourdieu, arguing that his double understanding of class and culture that is, class and culture as intertwined at the structural level of capital and social relations as well as at the level of symbolic practices is suitable also for analyses of political practices. Indeed, Bourdieu included political practices in many of his analyses (eg Bourdieu, 1984a, 1991, 2001, 2005) at the same time as he conducted several analyses of the state (eg 1996b, 2012). In particular, Bourdieus understanding of symbolic power and politics as a eld has inspired recent contributions to political sociology (eg Wacquant, 2005, 2009; Swartz, 2006, 2003; Christin, 2005; Liddle and Michielsens, 2007; Kauppi, 2004; Gaxie, 2007; Eyal, 2005). However, none of these contributions include thorough analyses of class relations, and empirical analyses of class relations and political practices in a Bourdieusian perspective are almost non-existent. I therefore begin the article by a comprehensive discussion of class and culture in the Bourdieusian class analysis, and supplement this by a discussion of politics as a eld and as practice. More precisely, I introduce the notion of a consumption eld or consumption space of political practices as the key to analysing relations of class, culture and politics. After the theoretical discussion, I move on to an empirical exploration of the theoretical model, using multiple correspondence analysis as methodological tool. As the analyses will show, the suggested theoretical understanding of a homology between class relations and political practices seems to hold rather well, even in the country case chosen here: Denmark, a small Scandinavian country otherwise considered to be a post-industrial society with weak class relations and characterized by a high degree of social and political equality and individualization.
Bourdieusian analysis of class and culture

In my reading, Bourdieus class analysis is a strong analytical tool containing two main elements.The rst is the conceptualization of social relations, and the
2013 The Author. The Sociological Review 2013 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review
173
specic analysis of modern society that it entails, and the second is the strategy for analysing the relationship between class and practice. The rst element introduces concepts such as capital, social space and class; whereas the second element points towards concepts such as eld, symbolic space, and practice. Both elements contain an understanding of culture, although in two different (but interrelated) meanings. Within the rst context, culture is capital, that is, a structurally founded social resource on par with other forms of capital such as economic, physical and social capital. Within the second context, culture is meaningful symbolic practices, lifestyles, identities and discourses, embedded in a relational web of meaning and exchange, and contributing to the establishment (and sedimentation) of value and power, that is, contributing to the structure of social relations. These two understandings of culture culture as capital and culture as symbolic practices is further supplemented by a third meaning of the word, namely culture as a specic eld of practices, including art, food, music, literature etc. Bourdieu contributed to understanding the eld of cultural consumption practices in the narrow sense of the word in his famous book Distinction (1984a), and he did several analyses of the much smaller elds of cultural production (eg Bourdieu, 1993, 1996a). However, it would be a mistake to restrict Bourdieus understanding of class and culture to his analyses of cultural elds in this narrow sense. On the contrary, the understanding of a relationship (ie homology) between social class relations on the one hand and symbolic practices on the other hand, has a much broader applicability, and goes for almost any eld. Thus, as Bourdieu argues, elds are always both elds of forces and elds of struggle (Bourdieu, 2005), meaning that to understand any social practice we must understand both its structural underpinnings as well as the symbolic context. I return to the discussion of symbolic practices and elds below, as I rst concentrate on a discussion of the concept of class and the importance of cultural capital. The basic element in the Bourdieusian class model is the concept of capital. Capital is accumulated labour (Bourdieu, 1986: 241), and the dening element of capital is that it can be accumulated, stored and used as a resource at a future point in time (Lareau and Weininger, 2003). Thus, capital can take many forms (eg material, embodied, institutional), and in complex and differentiated societies there are many types of capital, (cultural, economic, social etc) founded in different elds (Bourdieu, 1986; Swartz, 1997). Although Bourdieu seldom explicates this, I would argue that his conception of capital is based on a specic understanding of modern society, equivalent to the Marxian conception of political economy. However, Marxian theory is inadequate, Bourdieu argues, because it reduces the social world to the economic eld alone, thereby presenting a one-dimensional view of society (Bourdieu, 1984b: 736). Consequently, cultural capital, as well as other forms of capital, must be recognized in their own right, constituting competing and not necessarily subordinated structures of power vis--vis economic capital. Hence, we must recognize how cultural capital develops concurrently with the 174
cultural or informational elds (esp. the eld of cultural production, the eld of education and the eld of science), where the development of written language, the printing press and institutions for issuing educational credentials facilitates the accumulation and storage of cultural resources. This process, Bourdieu argues, is in many ways similar to the development of the economic eld, where a monetary economy develops, facilitating the accumulation of wealth and the constitution of economic capital (Bourdieu, 1990). Some types of capital are stronger than others, though, and the strongest constitute what Bourdieu calls social space (Bourdieu, 1998: 10, 1984b: 723 725). Based upon empirical analysis, Bourdieu puts forward the hypothesis that in the Western democracies of late modernity, the strongest types of capital are economic, cultural and (to a lesser extent) social and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1998, 1987c). Also, a secondary hypothesis suggests that the social space is structured primarily by total volume and composition of capital. Returning to the concept of class, then, this is dened as positions close to each other in social space. This means that the primary classes are distinguished by their overall volume of capital, whereas the composition of capital differentiates between class fractions within the main classes (Bourdieu, 1984a). Some scholars suggest that Bourdieu denes classes by way of occupational groups (Weininger, 2002; Brubaker, 1985), and surely Bourdieu mentions occupational classes in connection to the empirical construction of the social space. But occupations are here seen as an economic indicator (meaning that it provides much information at low costs) of the position in social space, that is, the volume and composition of capital (Bourdieu, 1987c; Rouanet et al., 2000), and occupations are thus an operational feature and not a dening element of class. In sum, Bourdieus concept of class is multidimensional, condensing the main structuring dimensions into relational positions of upper, middle and lower classes, as well as cultural and economic class fractions within each of these classes. It should be noticed, however, that this class map is empirically derived and thus temporary. It is inherently connected to the thesis on the main structuring dimensions of the social spaces of Western societies, and a class analysis of a different society would thus have to be adapted to a different set of social relations.
Spaces and elds of symbolic practices

Moving on to the second main element of Bourdieus class analysis, the most important claim put forward here is that class, understood as similar positions in social space, constitute similar objective social conditions (Bourdieu, 1987c; Weininger, 2002), and creates a class habitus, producing similar dispositions, practices and symbolic positionings (Bourdieu, 1984a). Bourdieu discusses the effects of class in two ways, though (see also Swartz, 1997). At the theoretical level, he argues that classes in social space are classes on paper, that is,
175
probable classes that in order to become groups require symbolic labour, for example by representatives discursively naming the group and thereby constituting groups boundaries (Bourdieu, 1984b, 1987c). However, within empirical analysis, Bourdieu seems to focus on effects of class in the form of lifestyles, which he also denotes as classes misrecognized (Bourdieu, 1984a). Within these types of analyses, class effects are seen as the effects of class habitus on practices, regardless of whether agents are selfconscious of the class character of their practices. This kind of analysis is inherently Weberian, and Bourdieu indeed refers directly to the link between class and the Weberian Stnde (Bourdieu, 1984a: xiiv). Both arguments, however, involve the claim that effects of class are to be found at the level of symbolic practices (ie cultural practices in the broad sense of the word), or what Bourdieu sometimes calls the symbolic space (1998) or the space of lifestyles (1984a), and at other points refers to as elds (1984a, 1987a). Admittedly, the distinction between spaces and elds is somewhat blurred in Bourdieus analyses, as for example in the analysis of political practices which he sometimes refers to as a space (1984a) and sometimes as a eld (2001). Let me therefore go a little further in this discussion. By denition, a eld is a relational conguration of specic resources (capital) and practices, and a eld thus unites agents struggling for the accumulation and denition of this particular form of capital (eg Bourdieu, 2005). Empirically, an endless number of elds exist, for example the religious eld, the cultural eld, the eld of sports, the economic eld and the eld of education. However, to precisely understand the notion of the eld it must be noted that Bourdieu often uses the word eld as synonymous with the word production eld (Broady, 1991: 270). In early discussions of the eld concept, Bourdieu distinguishes between laypeople and experts or professionals interrelated in a eld of struggle for specic forms of power (Bourdieu, 1987b). Also, he distinguishes between consumption elds and production elds (Bourdieu, 1983), but in later analyses he most often uses the word elds when referring to production elds only. Thus to constitute a (production) eld, agents must be united in a common struggle of power and legitimacy of a certain form of capital, and this means that elds are often a rather limited conguration of positions and agents sharing the same illusio (ie the same interest in the struggles) and doxa (ie tacit rules). However, what was earlier denoted as consumption elds, and what Bourdieu later refers to as spaces of symbolic practices, is still of interest. Or to be even more precise: For many production elds there exists a eld or space of consumption practices consisting of lay people or consumers, who are united, not in the struggle on specic forms of capital, but in their consumption of specic products, that is, united around specic forms of practice. Returning to the discussions of classes and class effects, Bourdieu seems to be claiming that there exist an overall (structural and functional) homology between the social space of classes and almost any eld (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). However, as noted by Weininger (2002), the effects of class 176
may vary according to the eld in question, and in some elds class may have no effect at all. Most likely, some elds will tend to be homologous to the social space, whereas others will tend to be structured autonomously by their own principles. But often it will be a matter of degree. Indeed, Bourdieu is not very clear on this point, and more theoretical and empirical work is needed here. This task is beyond the present article, though, and here I will settle for the suggestion that class effects are stronger in consumption spaces of symbolic practices than in production elds. Thus, taking politics as an example, we would expect that the political production eld (consisting of more or less professional politicians) holds a rather high degree of autonomy, that is, that the relational congurations and the history of the eld, as well as eld illusio and doxa, means more in the production of political practices than does the class habitus of the agents. However, this is not the case for the consumption space of political practices, that is, for the political practices of lay people. As political illusio is not very strong here, class habitus and the position in the social space will expectedly co-determine citizens political practice, even though some eld effects may be present. In sum, effects of class should be analysed as homologies of class within spaces or elds of symbolic practices, where we could expects class effects to be strongest in consumption spaces compared to production elds. Consequently, I focus the empirical analyses here on class effects (ie homologies) within the consumption space of political practices (which I, for practical reasons will call the space of political practices). However, before turning to the empirical analyses, further discussions of my research strategy is needed.
Analysing homologies
Unfortunately, the research strategy for studying relationships between class and symbolic practices is poorly explained in connection with the empirical class analyses presented by Bourdieu himself (esp. Bourdieu, 1984a). However, in order to fully understand Bourdieus analyses, one must appreciate the specic relational approach of his work. Thus, no social element is constituted independently from other elements, meaning that we should never consider the independent causal contribution of singular factors, since these factors themselves are constituted in relation to other factors. For example, the effect of a certain level of education is dependent on the total distribution of education in the population, as well as the existence and distribution of other forms of resources competing with cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984a). This feature of the analysis is further closely connected to the method of multiple correspondence analyses, which allows the researcher to empirically determine the main dimensions and relational congurations of individuals and modalities (ie categories of each variable).The empirical construction of social space and classes is consequently done by use of this technique (Rouanet et al., 2000).
177
However, as observed by Weininger, the social space of classes is only a predictive map, and as such not sufcient for understanding the relationship between classes and symbolic practices. Consequently, a second step of the analysis is needed, capturing as Bourdieu calls it structural causality. This rather problematic concept is not explicated much by Bourdieu, even though it condensates his understanding of causality as such, namely that the causal relationship between class and symbolic practices should be seen as a causal relationship between the total social space and the total symbolic space. That is, the causal link is to be found at the level of the elds or spaces.This is further the reason why Bourdieu most often uses the concept of homology, meaning similar structuration. However, to fully appreciate this conception of structural causality, we must again keep in mind the method of correspondence analysis. Thus, in opposition to a widespread understanding (eg Weininger, 2002), multiple correspondence analysis can indeed be used (and is used by Bourdieu) for explanatory purposes. This is done by constructing different spaces and subsequently comparing these two spaces empirically, using both visual inspection and different statistical measures (Lebart et al., 1984; Rouanet et al., 2000; Prieur et al., 2008). I follow this strategy of comparing spaces below. To develop the empirical analyses, however, a more specic conceptualization of the two spaces is needed, that is, the social space and the space of political practices. Taking the last rst, it should be noticed that Bourdieu in his own analyses of the space of political practices (in France) focuses on political attitudes and alignments (Bourdieu, 1984a). However, as shown in these analyses, class effects are also vivid in the basic relationship to politics, resulting in the empirical observation that on difcult questions, working-class respondents have a much higher rate of dont know responses compared to the other classes. This suggests, Bourdieu says, that the precondition for having a particular opinion is having an opinion at all, and that the tendency to form political opinions varies with class. In other words, class affects the ability to participate in politics, and we should therefore expect class differences when it comes to both political resources and political participation practices. This expectation is further supported by the literature. However, despite consistent ndings of social inequality within patterns of political participation, such inequalities are rarely analysed in class terms (eg Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1973, 1978, 1995; Andersen et al., 2000; Andersen, 2004). In light of Bourdieus original ndings on class and politics, and bearing in mind that Bourdieusian analyses of political attitudes and alignments already exist (Harrits et al., 2010), I here focus solely on the homologies of class and political resources and participation practices. Bearing in mind the second meaning of the concept of culture explained above, that is, culture as meaningful symbolic practices, the analysis focuses on the relationship between class and political culture (see also Wedeen, 2002, for a similar conception of political culture). More concretely, the empirical analysis will construct two spaces of politics, that is, a space of political resources and space of participation 178
practices, using different traditional indicators of these two concepts (see below), and compare these two spaces with an empirical construction of the social space.Analyses will be guided by the expectation that political resources and participation practices in Denmark are structured as homologous to the social space of classes, that is, by volume of capital and by composition of capital. However, as mentioned above, there may also prove to be elements of space autonomy, stemming from the political production eld.
Data and method

The data used here is from the survey Democracy from Below conducted by Jrgen Goul Andersen and others in 1998. The survey was conducted among a representative sample of the Danish population at the age of 18 years and above (N = 1385), supplementing with a small oversampling of three local areas (N = 197, 202 and 248).2 The survey was conducted as structured faceto-face interviews, with a response rate of 65 per cent (Andersen et al., 2000). In the analysis, only citizens from 21 to 70 years of age are included. The use of existing survey data (see below) has made the choice of indicators for political resources and political practices, and especially the choice of indicators for economic and cultural capital somewhat difcult. As can be seen in Table 1, it has been possible to include a number of different indicators of political participation and political resources. The indicators of political participation include a number of different political activities, and the indicators chosen for measuring political resources are traditional indicators of internal and external political efcacy (eg Verba et al., 1995; Andersen, 2004), that is, indicators of political knowledge and capacities for action. Also, a few indicators of general political trust are included. Although all indicators are constructed on the basis of traditional conceptions of political participation and efcacy, they are to the best of my judgement well suited for a Bourdieusian analysis of the political consumption space, since they represent a wide range of different practices and further are well tested in many different surveys. The empirical construction of social space follows the Bourdieusian tradition rather closely, especially in its Scandinavian applications (esp. Prieur et al., 2008; Rosenlund, 2000). This means that I construct a social space of individuals, using indicators for economic as well as cultural capital. Unfortunately, the choice of indicators here is slightly problematic, compared to theoretical denitions and more traditional measuring (eg Prieur et al., 2008). However, the indicators chosen reect the pragmatic possibilities within the limits of the survey data. In the nal selection of indicators, several indicators of both cultural and economic capital were included, and especially regarding cultural capital, priority was given to nding indicators not only of scholastic capital (ie education). This proved rather difcult, though, resulting in the inclusion of two indicators of cultural resources (memberships of a cultural
179
180
% Question / Variable Categories/ Modalities % 13.5 86.5 12.9 87.1 know* 14.4 85.6 know* 14.5 85.5 know* 15.2 84.8 know* People differ regarding problems of interest to them. I will now mention different political problems, and ask you to tell me how interested you are in these questions. Questions of local politics Danish national politics Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low** Dont know** Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low** Dont know** 23.2 46.4 25.8 4.6 No, not any of the above 44.1 Yes, active as a grass root 6.7 Have you previously been active in a political party, active in political organizations or active as a grass root Yes active in a political party Yes, active in a political organization 15.9 52.2 3.2 96.8 30.0 46.4 19.5 4.1
Table 1 Variables used in the construction of the space of political practices
Indicators of political practices
Question / Variable
Categories/ Modalities
Within the last 12 months, have you participated in any of these activities? Political meetings regarding questions of local politics? A voters meeting during last years local election campaign
Yes No* Dont know*
Political meetings regarding local politics in one of the organizations of which you are a member Political meetings regarding local politics in a public institution
Signed a petition regarding local politics
Yes No* Dont Yes No* Dont Yes No* Dont Yes No* Dont
Participated in a demonstration regarding local politics
Yes No* Dont know*
Contacted the press or written a letter to the editor regarding local questions
Yes No* Dont know*
8.1 91.9
Politics in the EU and the relationship between the EU and Denmark
17.1 38.0 34.4 10.5 16.1 37.9 34.1 12.0 26.4 49.4 21.4 2.8 28.2 41.4 23.1 7.6 35.5 43.3 17.5 3.7
Held a position of trust in local politics
Yes No* Dont know*
11.5 88.5
Other questions of foreign policy
Contacted a local civil servant or a local politician
Yes No* Dont know*
22.6 77.4
In general, how interested are you in politics
Did you vote at last years local election (1997)
Yes 89.7 No 8.6 Dont remember** 1.7 Dont know** 13.2
How often do you discuss questions of local politics with others
Are you a member of or associated to any political party or the youth organization of a political party
Yes
How often do you discuss politics with others
Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low** Dont know** Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low** Dont know** Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low** Dont know** Often Sometimes Rarely Never** Dont know** Often Sometimes Rarely Never
181
182 Table 1 Continued

% Question / Variable Categories/ Modalities % 34.7 40.0 17.8 4.8 2.7 36.4 44.5 13.3 3.2 2.6 How do you look upon your own opportunities for speaking To civil servants at city hall To local politicians Approach a politician in EU Approach a national politician 23.7 30.1 22.2 10.0 14.0 1.19 18.5 25.2 25.6 18.8 26.8 53.0 14.7 5.5 13.8 43.6 25.3 27.6 36.3 22.2 8.5 5.5 20.3 29.6 27.2 18.8 4.2 16.7 45.1 28.6 5.6 3.9 To national politicians Condence very high** Condence high** Condence low Condence very low No condence at all Dont know* Condence very high** Condence high** Condence low Condence very low No condence at all Dont know* Very good Good Few** Very few** Dont know* Very good Good Few** Very few** Dont know* Very good Good Few Very few Dont know* 17.3 4.4 21.4 34.5 15.9 24.1
Indicators of political resources
Question / Variable
How easy or difcult would it be for you to . . . Write a letter to the local authorities if you wanted to make a complaint
Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know*
Find out where to send such a complaint
Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know*
Write a letter to the editor for a local newspaper
Speak at a public meeting
How easy or difcult do you nd it to Follow local politics
Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know* Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know* Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know*
Follow national politics
Follow politics in EU
15.1 44.5 29.8 8.5 2.0 5.6 18.7 37.4 36.0 2.3 21.3 22.7 22.2 32.6 Sometimes I nd politics so complicated that people like me do not really understand what is going on Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree
How do you see citizens opportunities in general for speaking in public when it comes to Questions of local politics Questions of national politics
Very good Good Few Very few Dont know* Very good Good Few Very few Dont know* Agree**
9.1 55.2 24.2 4.0 7.5 3.3 28.7 42.7 11.1 14.2 28.7 37.4 21.3 12.6
Would you say that you have sufcient knowledge to be able to decide upon questions of Local politics
National politics 25.6 24.9 32.6 1.7
1.1 15.1
In general I do not nd it hard to decide on political questions
Dont know** Agree Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree** Dont know**
20.7 39.2 28.9 11.2
Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know* Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know* Very high level of knowledge High level of knowledge Low level of knowledge Very low level of knowledge Dont know* Very high level of knowledge High level of knowledge Low level of knowledge Very low level of knowledge Dont know*
183
184 Table 1 Continued

% Question / Variable Categories/ Modalities Agree** % 5.1 I know so little about the EU that I have given up following what is going on 25.8 33.6 26.8 12.9 16.0 33.3 31.7 19.0 9.2 21.4 61.2 3.2 9.2 44.6 27.6 13.1 5.2 When politicians discuss economic policy, I understand very little of what they are talking about 6.9 39.6 29.8 1.2 11.6 Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree Dont know** Agree** Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree Dont know**
Indicators of political resources
Question / Variable
EU politics
How condent are you, that people will listen to you if you Approach City Hall or a local ofce with a question regarding you or your family Approach a local politician
Very high level of knowledge High level of knowledge Low level of knowledge Very low level of knowledge Dont know* Condence very high Condence high Condence low Condence very low** No condence at all** Dont know* Condence very high Condence high Condence low Condence very low** No condence at all** Dont know*
Note: Modalities marked with an asterisk (*) have been included in the model only as supplementary points. Modalities marked with two asterisks (**) have been merged.
organization and reading a newspaper3), as well as an indicator of parents cultural capital (discussions of politics when growing up). It should be taken into consideration, however, when reading the analysis, that the construction of the social space could have had a more solid empirical base. The use of existing survey data may also result in a limited generalizability. In other words, the use of survey data from Denmark possibly means that conclusions will be limited to the Danish context. However, the Danish case can be seen as a least likely case when it comes to the continuing relevance of class for late modern societies. First, being a rich country with high levels of education, an industrial structure with many service-sector and hightechnology companies, and an expanded welfare state, Denmark can be considered a society in the stage of late modernity or post-industrialism. Thus, according to most end-of-class arguments, we should expect a high degree of individualization, and within the area of political practices, a high degree of equality and autonomy of politics. Finding a strong homology between classes and political practices in this country case, then, will support the expectations that such homologies will exist more broadly in Western societies. Analyses are conducted as multiple correspondence analyses (Blasius, 2001; Greenacre, 1993; Greenacre and Blasius, 1994; Le Roux and Rouanet, 2004) of the three different spaces (ie the space of political participation, the space of political resources and the social space). This technique provides graphical charts showing the structure of data, including the main dimensions and positions of individuals as well as variable categories. Hence, looking at the graphical maps, similarities and differences between categories will be visible as geometric distances in the chart. Categories that are similar, that is, present among the same individuals, will be shown close together in the same part of the map, whereas categories that are different will be shown with a large distance. The maps thus present a nuanced and complex graphical description of the relational conguration and main dimensions of a dataset. Further, supplementing the visual analysis, a numerical output provides the opportunity of closer inspection of the strength of the relationships in the data. Also, since the method of multiple correspondence analysis is sensitive to categories with only a small number of cases, a few categories have been merged (indicated in Tables 1 and 2). Further, since I use here multiple correspondence analysis, I have consistently deployed the rescaling technique as suggested by Benzecri, adjusting for the fact that the explained variation in the data is otherwise severely underestimated (Blasius, 2001). As argued above, to test the hypothesis of homology, the categories from one space must be compared to the other spaces, or more precisely, the categories from the two political spaces must be compared to the social space. This is done by constructing the spaces (ie the maps) separately, identifying the main structuring dimensions, and then in a second step, including the categories of the social space as supplementary points into the two political spaces. When categories are included as supplementary points, the structure of
185
Table 2 Variables used in the construction of the social space

Question / Variable Indicators of economic capital Household income What is the total annual income of the household (before taxes)? Do not know / refuse to answer <99.999 DKr 100149.999 DKr 150199.999 DKr 200249.999 DKr 250299.999 DKr 300349.999 DKr 350399.999 DKr 400449.999 DKr 450499.999 DKr 500599.999 DKr >600.000 DKr Rented Cooperatively owned Privately owned 13.4 6.1 8.7 7.6 7.3 6.5 8.4 7.4 10.1 8.4 8.3 7.6 26.5 9.3 64.2 Categories/ modalities %
Type of residence What type of residence do you live in? Indicators of cultural capital Education. Constructed on the basis of two questions: What is your educational background? What is your vocational background or higher education?
How often do you follow political issues in the newspapers
Are you a member of a cultural association? Did your parents discuss politics when you were growing up?
7 years Elementary School 810 years Elementary School GCE A level + short or no other education 79 years Elementary School + vocational training (basic) 10 years Elementary School + vocational training (basic) 79 years Elementary School + vocational training (advanced) 10 years Elementary School + vocational training (advanced) 79 years Elementary School + short education 79 years Elementary School + BA/MA GCE A level + BA GCE A level + MA] (Please note that respondents lacking information on education have been omitted from the analysis) Often Sometimes Rarely** Never** Dont know** Yes No** Dont know** Often Sometimes Rarely Never** Dont know**
6.9 8.5 14.9 5.0 6.8 12.0 15.1 6.0 7.5 9.2 7.9
64.7 24.0 11.2
18.1 81.9 24.6 35.1 27.4 12.9
Note: Modalities marked with an asterisk (*) have been included in the model only as supplementary points. Modalities marked with two asterisks (**) have been merged.
186
Table 3 Explained variance

l (Eigenvalue) l Rescaled Explained variance (%) Accumulated explained variance (%)
Space of political participation practices 1. 2. 3. 4. dim. dim dim dim 0.2721 0.1359 0.0968 0.0868 0.0563 0.0090 0.0029 0.0019 79.11 12.60 4.06 2.64 79.11 91.71 95.77 98.40
Space of political resources 1. 2. 3. 4. dim. dim dim dim 0.3240 0.1866 0.1280 0.0982 0.0860 0.0224 0.0078 0.0033 Social space 1. 2. 3. 4. dim. dim dim dim 0.2948 0.2719 0.2037 0.1949 0.0236 0.0159 0.0020 0.0011 51.92 35.01 4.34 2.52 51.92 86.94 91.27 93.80 52.87 13.76 4.80 2.01 52.87 66.63 71.43 73.44
the original space is not altered, and it becomes possible to inspect the conguration of the social categories within the political spaces. When also comparing to the original conguration of the social, it can thereby be concluded, whether the two congurations are homologous or not. This method has also been called visualized regression (Lebart et al., 1984: 102).
Constructing spaces of class and political practices

As already mentioned, the rst step of the analysis is to construct the three spaces, that is, the space of political participation, the space of political resources and the social space. And the rst step in this construction is to explore how many dimensions, these spaces contain. Table 3 shows the eigenvalues of the rst four dimensions in each of the three spaces, as well as the amount of explained variance. However, it should be noted that the second axes in both political spaces are difcult to interpret, since they differentiate between respondents answering consistently with neutral answers or dont know and respondents giving a clearly positive or negative answer to the questions. This could suggest a conrmation of Bourdieus
187

Space of political participation in Denmark
1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 -0,5 -1,0 0,5 1,0 1,5
Space of political resources in Denmark

1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 2,0 -0,5 -1,0 -1,5
Social space in Denmark
1,0 0,5 0,0 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 -0,5 -1,0 -1,5 -2,0
Figure 1 The space of individuals ndings regarding the class structuring of the dont know responses. However, it could also be related to the fact that the survey has used many questions of the same format. Further, since some of the dont know categories have been merged with other categories (avoiding categories being too small), there is no way to be certain that the second dimension is in any way substantial. Thus, in the remaining parts of the analysis, I disregard the statistical second axes in both political spaces, and treat the statistical third axis of the multiple correspondence analyses as the substantial second axis of the two spaces. Admittedly, the amount of variance summarized by the now second axes in the political spaces (l3 = 0.10 and l3 = 0.13) is limited. This is due to the fact that especially the space of political participation practices is highly structured by the rst dimension, whereas the space of political resources might contain even more interesting dimensions. However, for analytical purposes here, analysis of the rst and second substantial axes for both spaces should be sufcient. Figure 1 shows the space of individuals for the three spaces respectively, whereas Figures 24 shows the spaces of variable categories. Let us now move to a sociological interpretation of the three spaces. Since the two political spaces are highly homologous (analysis not shown, cf. Harrits, 2005), I will discuss them jointly as the space of political practices. In the presentation of the maps, I refer consistently to the northern, southern, eastern and western part of the map, indicating of course the upper, lower, right-hand and left-hand parts of the charts. The rst dimension in the space of political practices seems to be a dimension of volume of political participation and resources. In the eastern parts, we nd individuals feeling competent and empowered, indicated for example by the categories very high condence in relation to local, national and EU politicians, and very easy to follow in relation to local, national and EU politics. Also individuals in the eastern parts are very active, participating in traditional activities and discussing politics to a high extent. Comparatively, the western parts are inhabited by individuals with very low condence, nding it difcult to follow politics and being very passive when it comes to different forms of participation. Although the second dimension is weaker in terms of explained variance, it also seems to differentiate rather clearly between different types of political 188
1,5
1,0 Held position of trust Citzens meeting
Contacted media Local group meeting Interest foreign pol. L Interest EU pol L 0,5 Contacted politician Signed a petition Participated in demonstration Rarely discusses local pol. Interest in national pol H Interest local pol. L Member of pol. party Voters meeting
Interest national pol. L
Gen. Pol. Interest L Rarely discusses pol.
1=0,27
1,0 2,0 Active in political party 1,5 Interest local pol. Vh Often discusses local pol.
-2,0 Interest in foreign pol. H
-1,5
-1,0
Interest foreign pol. Vl Interest EU pol Vl No, never -0,5 been active
Sometimes dicusses pol. Gen. Pol. Interest H Interest in local pol. H Aktive in voluntary org. Voted 0,0 Sometimes discusses local pol. 0,0 0,5 Interest in foreign pol. H
Never discusses local pol.
Never discusses pol. -0,5
Often discusses pol.
Iinterest national pol. Vl
Interest local pol. Vl
Active in social movement Gen. Pol. Interest very high Interest national pol. Vh
Gen. Pol. Interest Vl
-1,0 Interest foreign pol. Vh Interest EU pol. Vh
Modalities in bold are well correlated with axis. Modalities in grey are weakly correlated with axis
-1,5
2=0,10
189
Figure 2 Space of political participation in Denmark
1,5
190
Speak national pol. VG 1,0 Confid. Local pol. Vh Cit. Speak national public Vg Speak local pol. Vg Cit. Speak local public Vg Confid. City Hall Vh -1,0 Knowledge EU Vh -1,5
Letter to the editor Vd Write a complaint Vd Political choice Vd
Follow national pol. Vd
-1,5
Speak City Hall Vg Confid. EU Vh/H Totally given up on EU pol. 0,5 Speak in public Vd Confid. National pol. Vh/H Follow EU pol. Vd Cit. speak national public G Economic policy Vd Follow national pol. D Knowledge national pol. Vl Knowledge national pol L Confid. local pol. H Politics very complicated Confid. City Hall H Knowledge EU Vl Write a complaint D Speak national pol. G Political choice D Letter to the editor D Partly given up on EU pol. Send public complaint Ve Cit. Speak local public G Economic policy D Speak local pol G Knowledge local pol. Vl Follow local pol. Ve Politics complicated Knowledge local pol H Follow local pol. D Send a complaint Vd Follow EU pol. D 1=0,32 Send a complaint D Speak in public D Write public complint Ve Follow local pol. E 0,0 Speak City Hall G Confid. EU L Speak in publiv Ve E Knowledge local pol. L Political choice -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Economic policy E Letter to the editor Ve Confid. National pol. L Follow local pol. Vd Confid EU Vl Knowledge EU L Send complaint E Speak in public E Knowledge, local pol. Vh Speak national pol. F Follow national pol E Write complaint E Confid. EU Nat Politics not complicates Follow national pol. Ve Not given up on EU pol. Cit. Speak national public F Knowledge national pol. H Confid local pol. L Letter to the editor E Confid. National pol Nat Confid national pol. Vl Political choice Ve Confid. City -0,5 Hall L Speak national pol. Vf Follow EU pol E Follow EU pol. Ve Economic policy Ve Confid. City Hall Vl Cit. Speak local public F Politics not at all complicated Conf. Local pol. Vl Knowledge national pol. Vh Cit. Speak national public Vf Knowledge EU H Cit. Speak local public Vf Speak local pol. F/Vf Not at all given up on EU pol.
Speak City Hall F/Vf
2=0,13
Figure 3 Space of political resources in Denmark

1,0
10 yrs. elemen.school + vocational training (adv.) 7-9 yrs. Elemen.school + vocational training (adv.) Parents never 450-500.000 D.kr. discussed politics 7-10 yrs elemen. school + Owns house 7-10 yrs. Elemen.school + vocational training 0,5 (basic) 400-450.000 D.kr. BA/MA 7 yrs. Elemen.school 51-60 yrs Parents rarely 500-600.000 D.kr. discussed politics 350-400.000 kr. Never reads newspaper 7-10 yrs. Elemen.school + 300-350.000 D.kr. short education 10 yrs. Elemen.school + 61-70 yrs41-50 yrs 9-10 yrs. Elemen.school vocational training (basic) Sometimes 0,0 reads newspaper Woman -0,5 0,0 Man 31-40 yrs. Parents sometimes Often 0,5 1,0 discussed politics reads newspaper 250-300.000 D.kr. 200-250.000 D.kr. Meber of cultural org. 150-200.000 D.kr.
1=0,29 1,5
>600.000 D.kr.
-1,5
-1,0
2,0
-0,5
Rents a house/apartm. 100-150.000 D.kr. 21-30 yrs Parents often discussed politics G.C.E: a level + BA
-1,0 A level+ short or no G.C.E. other education
G.C.E., A level + MA
-1,5
House cooperatively owned <100.000 D.kr.
2=0,27 -2,0
Figure 4 Social Space in Denmark practices and resources. In the northern part, and especially the north-eastern parts, the feeling of condence with regard to being heard and the ease with which one feels able to contact a politician dominate. This stands in opposition to (in the south-eastern part of the chart) a high degree of knowledge about politics and ease in following political topics. Equivalently, traditional political activities stand in opposition to a political practice dominated by political interest and participation in political discussions. To the west that is, among the disempowered and passive individuals a generally alienated group (to the north) opposes a group (to the south) critical of their possibilities of being heard and recognized by the political system. These differences suggest that the political space of practices could be differentiated by two different conceptions or principles of politics: one that is primarily orientated towards resources of action and traditional political activities, and one that is primarily orientated towards knowledge resources and a practice dominated by political discussions. Further, these two dimensions could mirror two different principles found in the political production eld, namely a conception of politics as
191
a struggle for power and a conception of politics as ideas and ideologies (Bourdieu, 2001). However, further studies would be needed to conrm this second dimension. In sum, the space of political practices displays a rst dimension of volume of practices and resources, and a possible second dimension differentiating between two different forms of political practices, one focused on traditional activities and one focused on knowledge and discussions. Moving on to the construction of the social space (see Figure 4) we nd here two dimensions of capital volume and capital composition. In the eastern part of the space we nd positions indicating a high amount of capital (either cultural or economic), whereas indicators of a low amount of capital are concentrated in the western parts. Further, indicators of high cultural capital are found primarily in the southern parts, whereas indicators of high economic capital are found primarily in the northern parts of the chart. It is worth noticing, though, that the indication of the highest amount of economic capital (>600.000 Dkr) is placed in the middle of the space furthest to the east. This indicates that the individuals with the highest amount of economic capital most likely also hold some cultural capital, and thus have a balanced capital composition. However, constructing these three spaces says nothing about the possible homologies between them, and in order to explore the thesis of homology, we must compare the spaces thoroughly. To do this, I construct nine empirical class fractions that can be projected as supplementary points into the two political spaces, allowing for an evaluation of homology. The nine fractions are constructed simply by allocating respondents to one of nine class fractions on the basis of their exact position in social space (Prieur et al., 2008; Rosenlund, 2000). When choosing the exact lines of demarcation, the main concern has been to construct class fractions of almost equal size (Table 4).
Homologies of class and political practices

We are now ready to explore the main empirical claim of the article, namely that the spaces of political practices are homologous to the social space. Figure 5 and 6 display the social categories in the two political spaces, meaning that the dimensions of the spaces are the same as Figures 2 and 3, but here we see a social description of the individuals in the political spaces. Looking rst at the categories of class fractions (ie the variable constructed on the basis of positions in social space) we see a strong homology to social space. In the north-eastern parts of the space, we nd the economic and balanced fractions of the upper class, and in the south-eastern parts we nd the cultural upper class and (only a small distance to the west) the cultural middle class. In the north-western parts we nd the economic and balanced fractions of the lower class, and in the south-western parts we nd the cultural fraction of the lower class. 192
Table 4 Values demarcating class fractions in social space

Middle class Cultural fraction (-0.35)0.35 <(-0.25) 212 (-0.35)0.35 (-0.25)0.25 207 (-0.35)0.35 >0.25 419 Middle class Balanced fraction Middle class Economic fraction Lower class Cultural fraction <(-0.35) <(-0.25) 159 Lower class Balanced fraction <(-0.35) (-0.25)0.25 156 Lower class Balanced fraction <(-0.35) >0.25 148
Upper class Cultural fraction
Upper class Balanced fraction
Upper class Economic fraction
1. axis 2. axis N
>0.35 <(-0.25) 122
>0.35 (-0.25)0.25 204
>0.35 >0.25 129
193
0,5
194
7-10 yrs. Elemen.school + short education
Meber of cultural org.
-0,4 -0,2
450-500.000 D.kr. Middle class Sometimes Parents rarely Economic fraction 10 yrs. elemen.school reads newspaper discussed politics + vocational training (adv.) Never 200-250.000 D.kr. 7-9 yrs elemen. School 7 yrs. Elemen.school reads 400-450.000 D.kr. Lower class + vocational training (basic) Parents never newspaper Balanced fraction 10 yrs. Elemen.school Owns house 8-10FS IAdiscussed politics + vocational training (basic)
Lower class Economic fraction
-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
350-400.000 D.kr. 7-9 yrs. Elemen.school + vocational training (adv.) Parents sometimes 0,0 discussed politics 300-350.0000,0 D.kr. 250-300.000 D.kr. 0,2 Middle class >600.000 D.kr. Balanced fraction 100-150.000 D.kr. Often Rents a house/apartm. G.C.E. A level+ short or noreads other newspaper 7-10 yrs. Elemen.school + BA/MA education 150-200.000 D.kr.
Upper class Balanced fraction Upper class G.C.E: a level + BAEconomic fraction 0,4 500-600.000 D.kr. 0,6 0,8
Lower class Cultural fraction Parents often discussed politics
<100.000 D.kr.
-0,5
House cooperatively owned Middle class Cultural fraction
-1,0
Figure 5 Positions of social space within the space of political practices
0,8
7 yrs. Elemen.school
0,6
Lower class Economic class

0,4
Lower class Balanced fraction
Parents never discussed politics
7-9 yrs. Elemen.school + vocational training (adv.)
Never reads newspaper
-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
Middle class 0,2 Member of Economic fraction cultural org. Owns house Upper class Sometimes Parents rarely Upper class 10 yrs. elemen.school + vocational training (adv.) Balanced fraction reads newspape discussed politics Economic fraction 7-10 yrs elemen. school + vocational training 7-10 yrs. Elemen.school + short education 9-10 yrs. Elemen.school (basic) 10 yrs. Elemen.school + vocational training (basic) Not member 0,0 of Middle class Often 0,4 500-600.000 D.kr. 0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,8 cultural org. Balanced fraction reads newspaper 7-10 yrs. Elemen.school + BA/MA Parents sometimes G.C.E: a level + BA discussed politics Parents often >600.000 D.kr. Rents a house/apartm. discussed politics
-0,2
1,0
Lower class Cultural fraction

-0,4
G.C.E. A level+ short or no other education Middle class Cultural fraction House cooperatively owned
<100.000 D.kr.
-0,6
Figure 6 Positions of social space within the space of political resources
195
Inspecting indicators of capital supports this interpretation. Along the rst axis, total amount of capital runs parallel to the total amount of political participation and political resources. And along the second axis, composition of capital runs parallel to the dimension differentiating between the two possible principles of politics. However, looking at the charts, we should also notice some reconguration of positions in the space of political practices compared to the structure of the social space. First, the positions of the class fractions are not as dispersed as the positions of political capital or political practice. This is not evident in the charts, though, since the original positions of political participation and resources are not shown. Further, positions of the fractions in the middle class are weakly correlated with the structure of spaces of political practice, which is indicated here by the non-bold characters. This suggests that although the political space of practices is homologous to social space it also shows some degree of autonomy. Further, especially in the conguration of political practices, a group of very active individuals (in the north-eastern part of the chart) are not described very well in terms of social class positions and indicators of capital.This suggests that with regard to political participation, especially in the form of action as opposed to discussions, class has a weaker structuring effect. On the other hand, a high amount of political participation in the form of political discussion seems to be correspondent to a position in the cultural upper and middle classes. Finally, the cultural fraction of the middle class is placed in a high position on the rst dimension close to the cultural upper class, whereas the economic fraction of the middle class is placed close to the passive and dominated positions of the lower classes. This indicates a reconguring effect of the political eld and suggests that cultural capital has a higher value in the political consumption space than economic capital. In sum, there are indeed several indicators supporting the claim of homology between the space of social classes and the space of political practices. Interestingly, this goes for both dimensions of social space, that is, for both volume and composition of capital, thus supporting a Bourdieusian, multidimensional conception of class. However, there also seems to be something else going on, since some positions among the very active individuals, and in the middle of the political spaces, are nor very well described by social categories. Especially with regard to the very active individuals, this could suggest that doxa and illusio of the political production eld also might have effects on the way citizens (in the space of consumption) engage in politics. However, this result is preliminary and rather sketchy and calls for more theoretical as well as empirical work.
Concluding discussion and suggestions for further studies

In this article I have argued that although contemporary scholars of class have managed to revitalize the class debate, pointing towards a multidimensional 196
understanding of class, and including dimensions of culture understood as both capital and symbolic practices, the merits of this approach has not yet been sufciently exploited within political sociology. Paradoxically, then, there seems to be very few discussions of class within political sociology, although classic discussions of class were indeed carried out within this eld. Instead, most empirical analysis using new and multidimensional conceptions of class focus on cultural consumption practices and practices of education. However, the merits of a Bourdieusian approach, and a multidimensional conception of class and culture, are not limited to cultural and education sociology. Therefore, I have presented a comprehensive theoretical understanding of a Bourdieusian concept of class, underlining two main elements: rst the concept of capital and a two-dimensional social space, and second, the concept of a symbolic space of practices, or culture in the broadest sense of the word. Also, I have suggested the distinction between production elds and spaces of consumption as a precise demarcation of different types of expected class effects, or rather, as an indication of when to expect strong homologies of class, and when to expect more eld autonomy. Finally, I have explored the homologies between class and the consumption space of political practices in the case of Denmark. First, using multiple correspondence analysis, I constructed three empirical spaces, and in a second step compared the social space to the two political spaces, demonstrating homology both with regard to capital volume and to capital composition. In sum, the analysis suggests that political practices or what might also be called political culture are indeed connected to class understood as a multidimensional space constituted by both economic and cultural resources. Indeed, this is a rst and preliminary analysis, though, and several questions are raised. First, it must be questioned why especially highly active individuals are so poorly explained by the space of social structures. This could, as is suggested above, be a result of autonomous principles within the political space, also resulting in the disproportional efciency of cultural capital compared to economic capital. These results suggest that further work needs to be done exploring the variations of homology across different elds, and especially between production elds and spaces of consumption. Second, the analysis also displayed some autonomy with regard to middleclass positions. Again, this could be related to eld autonomy, but it seems also to be a more consistent nding in these types of analyses (eg Bourdieu, 1984a; Prieur et al., 2008), and it may be related to what Savage (2000) has suggested to be the individualized cultural practices of the middle classes. Thus, it might be the fact that some social positions have a higher degree of autonomy and weaker social dispositions compared to others. Again, this calls for more elaboration. Thirdly, these elements of eld autonomy could be related to a specic construction of the social space presented, which may not fully capture the most important dimensions of social space in contemporary society. In other words, perhaps economic and cultural capital are not the only important
197
forms of capital in contemporary society, and perhaps studies exploring the importance of social capital or symbolic capital, for example, could bring us closer to understanding possible transformations of contemporary social and class relations. Finally, it should be remembered that the analysis presented here is only a snapshot of the structures and practices of society. Thus, underlying these structures are processes of social struggles (or what Bourdieu calls modus operandi), and to fully understand the relationship between class and political practices, these mechanisms should be further explored. Here, we must return to the problem of class formation, and especially to the workings of habitus as suggested by Bourdieu. A further test of the model presented here would thus expect differences between groups upholding symbolic political boundaries towards each other, or at least between groups holding different perceptions and values of politics, including the perceptions and classications of other agents (see Harrits, 2011). Hopefully, discussions and analyses in this article have contributed to acknowledging the relevance of a Bourdieusian conception of class also within political sociology, and to moving forward innovative analyses of class and culture, not only in the narrow sense of the term (ie as cultural consumption), but also as political culture and practice.
University of Aarhus Received 8 January 2010 Finally accepted 2 February 2012
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Jrgen Goul Andersen for kindly providing the survey data for the analysis in the present article. Further I wish to thank David Schwartz and Erik Neveu for comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Notes
1 To some degree, this line of reasoning is similar to that which in an American context is presented under the heading symbolic boundaries (Lamont and Fournier, 1992; Lamont, 1992, 2000). Further, post-Marxist discussions of discursive articulation of hegemonic alliances of class could also be seen as compatible with the arguments put forward by Savage, Devine, Skeggs and others (for example Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). 2 The reason for oversampling was given in the research question and design in the original study. For technical reasons no weighing procedure was used, however this small oversampling should not disturb the results. Further, analyses were also conducted using a different dataset (see Andersen, 2004), where oversampling did not occur. The results from this second analysis fully support the results presented, but they are excluded for obvious reasons of limitations of space. Analysis of the 2000 dataset can be found in Danish (Harrits, 2005) and can be obtained by sending an e-mail to the author, gitte@ps.au.dk. 3 The concrete wording of the question is following the political news in the newspapers. Unfortunately this wording makes the indicator closer to the practices of politics than what is
198
Class, culture and politics optimal when measuring cultural capital. However, since the reading of newspapers normally is considered a good measure of cultural capital (Prieur et al., 2008), it was chosen to include it here.
References
Andersen, J.G., (2004), Et ganske levende demokrati, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Andersen, J.G., Torpe, L. and Andersen, J., (2000), Hvad folket magter, Copenhagen: Jurist- og konomforbundets Forlag. Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M. and Wright, D., (2009), Culture, Class, Distinction, London: Routledge. Blasius, J., (2001), Korrespondenzanalyse, Munich: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH. Bourdieu, P., (1983), The eld of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed, in Poetics, 12 (45): 311356. Bourdieu, P., (1984a), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P., (1984b), The social space and the genesis of groups, in Theory and Society, 14 (6): 723744. Bourdieu, P., (1986), The forms of capital, in Richardson, J.G. (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, 241260, New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P., (1987a), The force of law: towards a sociology of the juridical eld, Hastings Law Journal, 38: 814853. Bourdieu, P., (1987b), Legitimation and structured interests in Webers sociology of religion, in Whimster, S. and Lash, S. (eds), Rationality and Modernity, 119136, London: Allen & Unwin. Bourdieu, P., (1987c), What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32: 117. Bourdieu, P., (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P., (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., (1993), The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., (1996a), The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., (1996b), The State Nobility, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., (1998), Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P., (2001), Das Politische Feld. Zur Kritik der politischen Vernunft, Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Bourdieu, P., (2005), The political eld, the social science eld and the journalistic eld, in Benson, R. and Neveu, E. (eds.), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, 2947, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., (2012), Sur ltat. Cours au Collge de France (19891992), Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D., (1992), An Invitation to Reexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press. Broady, D., (1991), Sociologi og Epistemologi. Om Pierre Bourdieus frfatterskap och den historiske epistemologin, Stockholm: HLS Frlag. Brubaker, R., (1985), Rethinking classical theory: the sociological vision of Pierre Bourdieu, Theory and Society, 14: 723744. Christin, O., (2005), Ancien regime ballots: a double historization of electoral practices, in Wacquant, L. (ed.), Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics, 91110, Cambridge: Polity Press. Crompton, R., (2008), Class and Stratication (3rd edn), Cambridge: Polity Press. Eyal, G., (2005), The making and breaking of the Czechoslovak political eld, in Wacquant, L. (ed.), Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. Devine, F., Savage, M., Scott, J. and Crompton, R. (eds), (2005), Rethinking Class: Culture, Identities and Lifestyle, London: Palgrave.
199
Gitte Sommer Harrits Gaxie, D., (2007), Cultural capital and political selection: educational backgrounds of parliamentarians, in Best, H. and Cotta, M. (eds), Parliamentary Representatives in Europe 18482000, Vol. 2, 106135, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldthorpe, J.H., (1996), Class analysis and the reorientation of class theory: the case of persisting differentials in educational attainment, British Journal of Sociology, 47 (3): 481 505. Goldthorpe, J.H., (1999), Modelling the pattern of class voting in British elections, 19641992, in Evans, G. (ed.), The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context, 5982, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldthorpe, J.H., (2000), On Sociology. Narratives, Numbers and the Integrations of Research and Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldthorpe, J.H., (2004), Class and politics in advanced industrial societies, in Lipset, S.M. and Clark, T.N. (eds), The Breakdown of Class Politics: A Debate on Post-industrial Stratiction, 102120, Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Greenacre, M., (1993), Correspondence Analysis in Practice, London: Academic Press. Greenacre, M. and Blasius, J. (eds), (1994), Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences. Recent Developments and Applications, London: Academic Press. Harrits, G., (2005). Hvad betyder klasse? En rekonstruktion af klassebegrebet med henblik p en analyse af sammenhngen mellem klasser og politisk deltagelse i Danmark. [The meaning and importance of class. Reconstructing the class concept and analysing the relationships between class and political participation], rhus: Forlaget Politica. Harrits, G.S., (2011), Political power as symbolic capital and symbolic violence, Journal of Political Power, 4 (2): 237258. Harrits, G.S., Prieur, A., Skjott-Larsen, J. and Rosenlund, L., (2010), Class and politics in Denmark: are both old and new politics structured by class?, Scandinavian Political Studies, 33 (1): 127. Hout, M., Brooks, C. and Manza, J., (1993), The persistence of classes in post-industrial societies, International Sociology, 8 (3): 259277. Hout, M., Brooks, C. and Manza, J., (1995), The democratic class struggle in the United States 19481992, American Sociological Review, 60 (6): 805828. Hout, M., Brooks, C. and Manza, J., (1999),Classes, unions, and the realignment of US presidential voting, 19521992, in Evans, G. (ed.), The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context, 8396, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Houtman, D., Achtenberg, P. and Derks, A., (2008), Farewell to the Leftist Working Class, London: Transaction. Kauppi, N., (2004), Bourdieus political sociology and the politics of European integration, in Swartz, D.L. and Zolberg, V.L., After Bourdieu: Inuence, Critique, Elaboration, 317332, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C., (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London: Verso. Lamont, M., (1992), Money, Morals and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-middle Class, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamont, M., (2000), The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class and Immigration, New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Lamont, M. and Fournier, M., (1992), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequalities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lareau, A., (2002), invisible inequality: social class and childrearing in black families and white families, American Sociological Review, 67 (October): 747776. Lareau, A., (2003), Unequal Childhoods Class, Race, and Family Life, Berkeley: University of California Press. Lareau, A. and Weininger, E.B., (2003), Cultural capital in educational research: a critical assessment, Theory and Society, 32 (56): 567606. Lareau, A. and Conley, D. (eds), (2008), Social Class: How Does it Work?, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
200
Class, culture and politics Lebart, L., Morineau, A. and Warwick, K.M., (1984), Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis, John Wiley & Sons. Le Roux, B. and Rouanet, H., (2004), Geometric Data Analysis: From Correspondence Analysis to Structured Data Analysis, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Liddle, J. and Michielsens, E., (2007), NQOC: social identity and representation in British politics, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9 (4): 670695. Lipset, S.M. and Clark, T.N., (1991), Are social classes dying? International Sociology, 6 (4): 397410. Lipset, S.M. and Clark, T.N., (2004), The Breakdown of Class Politics: A Debate on Post-industrial Stratication, Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Lipset, S.M., Clark, T.N. and Rempel, M., (1993), The declining political signicance of social class, International Sociology, 8 (3): 293316. Manza, J. and Brooks, C., (1999), Social Cleavages and Political Change: Voter Alignments and U.S. Party Coalitions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pakulski, J. and Waters, M., (1996a), The Death of Class, London: Sage. Pakulski, J. and Waters, M., (1996b), The reshaping and dissolution of social class in advanced societies, Theory and Society, 25 (5): 667691. Prieur, A., Rosenlund, L. and Skjott-Larsen, J., (2008), Cultural capital today: a case study from Denmark, Poetics, 36 (1): 4571. Reay, D., Crozier, G. and Clayton, J., (2009), Strangers in paradise: working class students in elite universities, Sociology, 43 (6): 11031121. Reay, D., Crozier, G. and Clayton, J., (2010), Fitting in or standing out: working-class students in UK higher education, British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1): 119. Reay, D., Crozier, G. and James, D., (2011), White Middle Class Identities and Urban Schooling, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Rosenlund, L., (2000), Social Structures and Change: Applying Pierre Bourdieus Approach and Analytical Framework, Stavanger: Stavanger University Press. Rouanet, H., Ackerman, W. and Le Roux, B., (2000), The geometric analysis of questionaires: the lesson of Bourdieus La Distinction, Bulletin de Mthodologie Sociolgique, 65: 515. Savage, M., (2000), Class Analysis and Social Transformation, London: Open University Press. Skeggs, B., (1997), Formations of Class and Gender, London: Sage. Skeggs, B., (2004), Class, Self and Culture, London: Routledge. Swartz, D., (1997), Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Swartz, D., (2003), Pierre Bourdieus political sociology and governance perspectives, in Bang, H. (ed.), Governance as Social and political Communication, 140158, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Swartz, D., (2006), Pierre Bourdieu and North America political sociology: why he doesnt t in but should, French Politics, 4: 8499. van der Waal, J., Achtenberg, P. and Houtman, D., (2007), Class is not dead it has been buried alive: class voting and cultural voting in postwar western societies (19561990), Politics and Society, 35 (3): 403426. Verba, S. and Nie, N.H., (1972), Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, New York: Harper & Row. Verba, S., Nie, N.H., Barbic, A., Irwin, G., Molleman, H., and Shabad, G., (1973), The modes of participation: continuities in research, Comparative Political Studies, 6 (2): 235250. Verba, S., Nie, N.H. and Kim, J-O., (1978), Participation and Political Equality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H.E., (1995), Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wacquant, L. (ed.), (2005), Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. Wacquant, L., (2009), Punishing the Poor: Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
201
Gitte Sommer Harrits Weakliem, D.L., (2004),Social class and voting: the case against decline, in Lipset, S.M. and Clark, T.N. (eds), The Breakdown of Class Politics: A Debate on Post-industrial Stratication, 197224, Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Wedeen, L., (2002), Conceptualizing culture: possibilities for political science, American Political Science Review, 96 (4): 713728. Weininger, E.B., (2002), Class and causation in Bourdieu, Current Perspectives in Social Theory: Bringing Capitalism Back for Critique by Social Theory, 21: 49114. Wood, H. and Skeggs, B., (2008), Reality television, individualization and the remaking of the working class, in Hesmondhalgh, D. and Toynbee, J. (eds), The Media and Social theory, 177193, London: Routledge. Wright, E.O., (1985), Classes, London: Verso. Wright, E.O., (1997), Class Counts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, E.O., (2005), Approaches to Class Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
202

Bourdieau Sociology

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bourdieau Sociology

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

bs_bs_banner

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Death and rise of the class debate

Class, culture and politics

Bourdieusian analysis of class and culture

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Class, culture and politics

Spaces and elds of symbolic practices

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Class, culture and politics

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Class, culture and politics

Data and method

Table 1 Variables used in the construction of the space of political practices

Indicators of political practices

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Yes No* Dont know*

Signed a petition regarding local politics

Participated in a demonstration regarding local politics

Yes No* Dont know*

Yes No* Dont know*

Politics in the EU and the relationship between the EU and Denmark

Held a position of trust in local politics

Yes No* Dont know*

Other questions of foreign policy

Contacted a local civil servant or a local politician

Yes No* Dont know*

In general, how interested are you in politics

Did you vote at last years local election (1997)

Yes 89.7 No 8.6 Dont remember** 1.7 Dont know** 13.2

How often do you discuss questions of local politics with others

How often do you discuss politics with others

Class, culture and politics

182 Table 1 Continued

Indicators of political resources

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know*

Find out where to send such a complaint

Very easy Easy Difcult Very difcult Dont know*

Write a letter to the editor for a local newspaper

Speak at a public meeting

How easy or difcult do you nd it to Follow local politics

Follow national politics

National politics 25.6 24.9 32.6 1.7

In general I do not nd it hard to decide on political questions

20.7 39.2 28.9 11.2

Class, culture and politics

184 Table 1 Continued

Indicators of political resources

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Class, culture and politics

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Table 2 Variables used in the construction of the social space

How often do you follow political issues in the newspapers

64.7 24.0 11.2

18.1 81.9 24.6 35.1 27.4 12.9

Class, culture and politics

Table 3 Explained variance

Constructing spaces of class and political practices

Gitte Sommer Harrits

Space of political resources in Denmark

Social space in Denmark

1,0 Held position of trust Citzens meeting

Yes 89.7 No 8.6 Dont remember 1.7 Dont know 13.2