Abstract
Atkinson's mission within this publication is to remind us about the importance of social class within contemporary society. The book begins with a short history of class analysis, discussing the damaging effects that Zweig's (1961) embourgeoisement thesis had on the field of class analysis and the, according to Atkinson, almost heroic work Goldthorpe et al. produced through the Affluent Worker (1968). Atkinson argues that the new ‘threat’ to class analysis and class theorists is that of reflexive modernization. He posits that authors such as Beck (1992), Bauman (2000), Giddens (1991) and Archer (2007) understand workers in contemporary society to be not affluent workers, eventually merging into one general middle class, but rather reflexive workers existing in an environment characterized by choice and individuality. Atkinson understands his study to be the first to provide a substantial and critical assessment of these reflexive concepts. His strategy is to apply empirical research in search of the reflexive worker, or the lack thereof.
His monograph is essentially divided into two sections; the first is a literature review and extended theoretical discussion. Chapter 1 offers a comprehensive history of class analysis within the UK. Chapters 2 and 3 are certainly the theoretical meat of the publication. Chapter 2 is dedicated to a discussion of the reflexivity theorists; he offers a short discussion concerning each of their positions in regard to reflexive/late modernity and to reflexivity. Atkinson discusses the reactions of the ‘cultural turn’ class analysts to the reflexive ‘school’ of thought. He argues that they, citing a general Bourdieusian influence, have provided a stunted or stuttered theoretical critique that cannot be supported by empirical research. In Chapter 3, Atkinson offers his own position on Bourdieusian social theory; Bourdieu is a central influence upon Atkinson's thesis as he adopts the habitus as an anchor to the supposed reflexive individual suggested by Beck et al. Atkinson argues that previous class theorists (Skeggs, 1997; Reay, 1998; Crompton and Scott, 2005) have applied a limited version of Bourdieu within their research. His stance is that, to use Bourdieu effectively, you must use him ‘in toto’ (p. 45). Atkinson can be seen as a “thorough going Bourdieusian”, insisting on using the whole toolbox. Following this assertion is a comprehensive discussion of Bourdieu's theoretical position. Atkinson introduces what he describes as three critical interludes, essentially ‘additions’ to the toolbox Atkinson sees as necessary for an effective use of Bourdieu's considerable theoretical impact. It is within these interludes that we see Atkinson's individual position or application of Bourdieu's social theory. A central facet of this is to (re)introduce phenomenology to a Bourdieusian position. Atkinson fuses the habitus with Schütz's (Schütz, 1970; Schütz and Luckmann, 1973) ‘stocks of knowledge’ in order to offer a conscious element to the habitus and applies the ‘life-world’ to those parts of social reality where Bourdieu's field could not reach or where he did not see it as significant. Atkinson concludes with a critique of the reflexive ‘school’ through his phenomeno-Bourdieusian position.
The remainder of Atkinson's publication, Chapters 4–7, is concerned with his empirical research. In search of a reflexive individual, Atkinson conducted life history interviews with both working and middle-class respondents. Chapter 4 charts his respondents' educational attitudes and trajectories, discussing the patterns and themes of his respondents' educational ‘choices’. Chapter 5 similarly charts their attitudes and trajectories in the context of the labour market. Leaving trajectories behind, the remaining two chapters examine what Atkinson terms ‘the symbolic realm’. Beginning with a discussion of lifestyles and practices, he questions whether these can still be understood or traced via their position within social space or whether practices have become individualized within reflexive modernity. He follows this by discussing whether individuals use the term ‘class’ to understand themselves and others or whether lifestyles, as Giddens would suggest, have transcended classed discourses. Atkinson found quite strong classed patterns within his research on trajectories, attitudes and lifestyles, suggesting a more subtle and reactive class analysis in the context of contemporary society.
This publication does offer a number of considerable strengths. The scope and depth that Atkinson is able to provide in what is a relatively short book is quite impressive. He provides a concise and accurate account of the progression of class analysis. Additionally, he is able to offer a balanced account of the reflexive authors before providing his critique of their position. I welcome his inclusion of Margaret Archer within this school; her morphogenetic model, coupled with her position in Making our Way through the World (2007), can clearly be placed alongside Beck or Bauman. A central strength – or, simply, the central strength – within this publication is his, at times, radical comments on Bourdieusian social theory. His fusion of Bourdieu and Schütz's phenomenology provides protection against critiques of the limitations of field (Lahire, 2003) and also provides a reflective or conscious element to the habitus while retaining its classed influence and structural character.
However, while Atkinson's position on Bourdieusian social theory is a key strength of his work, I feel it is also a central weakness within his argument. Atkinson, at times, appears to rely too much on Bourdieu. His Bourdieu ‘in toto’ position requires him to be almost too Bourdieusian in his approach to social theory; it appears that the only acceptable progression of Bourdieu is to mine his previous influences, such as phenomenology. Whilst this is a workable and, perhaps, in a strictly Bourdieusian sense, correct approach, it closes as many avenues as it opens, such as Skeggs' (2004) application of Bourdieu within a feminist context or Reay's (1998) extension of the habitus to an institutional level. I am sure this is a position that will develop as the author continues his work and will attract a continued and increased form of discussion and debate – a debate that can only be healthy for the Bourdieusian ‘school’.
An additional issue, I would suggest, is the apparent demarcation between the two halves of the publication. While there was a considerable and constant theoretical discussion offered with his empirical results, the discussion appeared to be more Bourdieusian than Atkinson's own brand of phenomeno-Bourdieusian theory. His discussion focused primarily on habitus and capital without the nuances of the conscious level found within stocks of knowledge. Similarly, when Atkinson discussed field, there was little extension to the life-world or how this was used to extend the reach of field.
This is a confident, authoritative and, at times, humorous book that I think is more typical of a seasoned academic's text than a first major publication. Atkinson has managed to condense a great deal of information and reflective critique into a relatively short amount of space. His progression of or additions to the Bourdieusian toolbox may be understood as somewhat deterministic; however, the debate is welcome. Atkinson's purpose was to illustrate the continuing influence of social class within educational and occupational attitudes and trajectories and lifestyle practices. Through a thorough discussion of his empirical research, he succeeded. This is an important publication that should be read by doctoral candidates or academics interested in class analysis, reflexivity, phenomenology and, obviously, Bourdieusian social theory.