Interstrata Differences in attitudes

 

Our next question is: to what extent do persons sharing similar objective positions have common attitudes and ideas and to what extent do those in dissimilar positions differ in their interests, beliefs, and values? The broad answer to this question is that on a wide variety of political and economic issues and topics the culture-orientations of individuals are definitely associated with their occupational position and/or their income level, although the latter are not adequate to predict an exact pattern of ideology. Whether or not one wishes to consider objectively defined income and occupational strata as “classes,” it remains true that different aggregates of persons classified in these terms do show large differences in beliefs or attitudes. The findings of one of the most comprehensive studies of opinion data, analyzed by Centers, may be summarized in support of this contention. The main conclusions of this study included the following:

1. Characteristics of various strata: persons who identify themselves as “upper class” make up 3 to 4 per cent of the population; they think of the “upper stratum as being composed largely of big business owners and executives and certain “higher professional groups”. Those persons who claim to be middle class (some 40 per cent of the population) think of the middle class as made up principally of business and managerial occupations. The occupational groups most frequently identifying themselves as middle class were business owners and managers, professional persons, white-collar workers, and farm owners and managers; however, substantial numbers of urban manual workers and farm tenants and laborers also claim to be middle class (rather than “working class’).Persons identifying with the middle class tended to say that the most important criterion of class membership, after occupation, is a person’s attitudes – how he “believes and feels about certain things.” Individuals who said that they themselves belonged to the working class defined the stratum mainly in terms of factory workers, laborers; farmers, service workers, and servants. Somewhat less than one half of those claiming working-class affiliation were office workers. The most important criterion for the working class designation was the fact of “working for a living” – either at manual work or as an employee rather than a proprietor or free professional. Finally, the small proportion of the population identifying itself as lower class did so largely by the criterion of poverty.

2. Sociopolitical attitudes: In general, the more “conservative” opinions were held by persons from occupations popularly judged to be in the upper levels of an occupational hierarchy. The “higher” occupational groups were less likely than working-class people to approve strong labour unions and an extension of the role of government in economic affairs. Both “objective” occupational position and expressed class-affiliation worked in the same direction. The general findings in this study have been supported and qualified by several other important investigations.

Kornhauser’s summary of data from occupational groupings and income strata are evident on questions dealing with the distribution of wealth, the role of government in economic affairs, the place of labour unions, and with political views. At the same time, persons in the lower income levels “cling devotedly to the American belief in individual opportunity. They expect either themselves or their children to ‘get ahead.’ Thus important contrasts in class attitudes on deep-cutting questions of public policy exist side by side with rather general rejection by individuals of any feeling that they are permanent members of a ‘class.’” On questions presumed to index personal feelings of satisfaction or adjustment (“opportunity,” “fairness,” “liking your work,” and the like), the proportion of “well-satisfied” responses is rather closely correlated with occupation and income. Expressions of discontent and frustration are increasingly frequent at the lower income and occupational status; and persons at the higher – income levels who express personal dissatisfaction are far more likely than others of the same income to express political and economic views of a “liberal” or “radical” nature.

The data assembled in Kornhauser’s work indicate that between the ideological extremes represented by the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals on the one hand and the disaffected among manual workers on the other, there is a large number of divers grouping characterized by “moderate” attitudes. The entire range of “classes” (that is, income and occupational levels) represents a continuous gradation of attitudes, with no sharply defined cleavages at any one point, and with great overlapping of opinions as between any two adjacent income levels. Middle-income groupings are heterogeneous in occupational composition and in attitudes; ideologically they constitute no definite class, but stand rather a diffuse “cushion” between the wealthy top strata and the more militant sections of the wage-earning worker populations. The closest approach to a definable gap in political and economic attitudes occurs between the small segment of high-income people (roughly, the top 10 per cent) and the remainder of the population. At every income level, however, the connection between attitudes and objective economic position is attenuated and complicated by the influence of ethnic background, “racial” category, regional culture, religion, education, and a variety of other cultural and “personal” factors.

We may infer from the information reviewed thus far that:

1. There are large and consistent differences in “attitudes” or “ideology” between persons different in income and occupation.

2. The attitudes of these various groupings nevertheless overlap, and a common value-system seems to extend quite widely through disparate economic levels.

 

I Vocabulary

 

1. contention – спор

2. designation – указание

3. manual work – ручная работа

4. discontent – недовольный

5. frustration – расстройство

6. cleavage – расщепление, разделение

7. adjacent – соседний, близкий, смежный

8. to extend – расширять(ся)

9. to assemble – собирать

10. to infer – делать заключение

11. to presume – предполагать

12. overlap – совпадать

 

II Comprehension check

 

1. Do people of the same “strata” have similar ideas? What about people of different “strata”?
2. What professions compose the “upper class”?
3. What professions compose the middle class”?
4. What professions compose the “working class”?
5. By what criterion did people identify themselves as lower class?
6. What groups tend to have the more “conservative” opinions?
7. What groups tend to be frustrated?
8. What groups have “moderate” attitudes?
9. Are there any differences in “attitudes” or “ideology” between persons different in income and occupation?