Danish University Colleges
Class, Culture and Politics
on the Relevance of a Bourdieusian Concept of Class in Political Sociology Harrits, Gitte Sommer
Published in:
Sociological Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12009
Publication date:
2013
Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication
Citation for pulished version (APA):
Harrits, G. S. (2013). Class, Culture and Politics: on the Relevance of a Bourdieusian Concept of Class in Political Sociology. Sociological Review, 61(1), 172-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12009
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Download policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 13. Oct. 2022
1
Class, Culture and Politics:
On the Relevance of a Bourdieusian Concept of Class in Political Sociology
Gitte Sommer Harrits, Ph D, Associate Professor
Department of Political Science and Government, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Telephone, +45 8716 5579 E-mail: gitte@ps.au.dk
Web: http://person.au.dk/en/gitte@ps.au.dk
Acknowledgement:
I would like to thank Jørgen 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.
2
Class, Culture and Politics:
On the Relevance of a Bourdieusian Concept of Class in Political Sociology
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, ie 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.
I light of this, the article suggest 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 Danish survey, demonstrating how class and political practices are indeed homologous. However, the analysis also points at several elements of field autonomy, and the concluding discussion therefore suggest the need for further studies.
Keywords:
Class, cultural capital, political participation, Bourdieu, multiple correspondence
analyses
3 1. Death and Rise of the Class Debate
Many scholars have claimed the death of class (Pakulski & Waters, 1996a, 1996b), and especially in political sociology, analyses of class seems to have lost their former strength (Lipset & Clark 1991, 2004; Lipset, Clark & Rempel, 1993. See also Goldthorpe 1999, 2004;
Manza & Brooks 1999; Hout, Brooks & Manza 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 &
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 practices. This goes for studies of cultural practices in the narrow sense of the word, ie 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, Crozier and James 2011; Reay, Crozier and Clayton 2010, 2009). 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, ie 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
4
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, 1997). Especially Bourdieu’s understanding of symbolic power and politics as a field has inspired recent contributions to political sociology (eg Wacquant 2005, 2009, Swartz 2006, 2003, Christin 2005, Liddle and Micielsens 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 field and as practice. More precisely, I introduce the notion of a consumption field or consumption space of political practices as the key to analyzing 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 high degree of social and political equality and individualization.
2. Bourdieusian Analysis of Class and Culture
In my reading, Bourdieu’s class analysis is a strong analytical tool containing two main elements. The first is the conceptualization of social relations, and the specific analysis of modern society that it entails, and the second is the strategy for analyzing the relationship between class and practice. The first element introduces concepts such as capital, social space and class; whereas the second element points towards concepts such as field, symbolic space, and practice. Both elements contain an understanding of culture, although in two different (but interrelated) meanings. Within the first context, culture is capital, ie a structurally founded
5
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, ie contributing to the structure of social relations.
These two understandings of culture, ie culture as capital and culture as symbolic practices, is further supplemented by a third meaning of the word, namely culture as a specific field of practices, including art, food, music, literature etc. Bourdieu contributed to
understanding the field 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 fields of cultural production (eg Bourdieu 1993, 1996a). However, it would be a mistake to restrict Bourdieu’s understanding of class and culture to his analyses of cultural fields 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 field. Thus, as Bourdieu argues, fields are always both fields of forces and fields of struggle (Bourdieu 2005 30, 43), meaning that to understand any social practice we must understand both it’s structural underpinnings as well as the symbolic context. I return to the discussion of symbolic practices and fields below, as I first 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 defining element of capital is that it can be accumulated, stored and used as a resource at a future point in time (Lareau & 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 fields (Bourdieu 1986; Swartz 1997: 79).
Although Bourdieu seldom explicates this, I would argue that his conception of capital is based on a specific understanding of modern society, equivalent to the Marxian conception of
6
political economy. However, Marxian theory is inadequate, Bourdieu argues, because it reduces
‘the social world to the economic field 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-à-vis economic capital. Hence, we must recognize how cultural capital develops concurrently with the cultural or informational fields (esp. the field of cultural production, the field of education and the field 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 field, where a monetary economy develops,
facilitating the accumulation of wealth and the constitution of economic capital (Bourdieu 1990:
123-125).
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: 6; 1987c: 4). 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 defined 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: 114). Some scholars suggest that Bourdieu defines 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, ie the volume and composition of capital (Bourdieu
7
1987c: 4, Rouanet, Ackerman & Le Roux 2000), and occupations are thus an operational feature and not a defining element of class.In sum, Bourdieu’s 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.
3. Spaces and fields of symbolic practices
Moving on to the second main element of Bourdieu’s 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: 6; Weininger 2002), and creates a class habitus, producing similar dispositions, practices and symbolic positionings (Bourdieu 1984a: 167-225).
Bourdieu discusses the effects of class in two ways, though (see also Swartz 1997: 144-153). At the theoretical level, he argues that classes in social space are ‘classes on paper’, ie 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 self-conscious 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 ‘Stände’ (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
8
in the broad sense of the word), or what Bourdieu sometimes calls the symbolic space (1998: 8- 9) or the space of lifestyles (1984a: 167), and at other points refers to as fields (1984a: 226, 1987a). Admittedly, the distinction between spaces and fields is somewhat blurred in
Bourdieu’s analyses, as for example in the analysis of political practices which he sometimes refers to as a space (1984a: 452) and sometimes as a field (2001). Let me therefore go a little further in this discussion.
By definition, a field is a relational configuration of specific resources (capital) and practices, and a field thus unites agents struggling for the accumulation and definition of this particular form of capital (eg Bourdieu 2005). Empirically, an endless number of fields exist, eg the religious field, the cultural field, the field of sports, the economic field and the field of education. However, to precisely understand the notion of the field it must be noted that Bourdieu often uses the word ‘field’ as synonymous with the word ‘production field’ (Broady 1991: 270). In early discussions of the field concept, Bourdieu distinguishes between laypeople and experts or professionals interrelated in a field of struggle for specific forms of power (Bourdieu 1987b). Also, he distinguishes between consumption fields and production fields (Bourdieu 1983: 326), but in later analyses he most often uses the word fields when referring to production fields only.
Thus to constitute a (production) field, agents must be united in a common struggle of power and legitimacy of a certain form of capital, and this means that fields are often a rather limited configuration 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 fields, and what Bourdieu later refers to as spaces of symbolic practices, is still of interest. Or to be even more precise: For many production fields there exists a field or space of consumption practices consisting of lay people or consumers, who are united, not in the struggle on specific forms of capital, but in their consumption of specific ‘products’, that is united around specific forms of practice.
9
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 field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 105-106). However, as noted by Weininger, the effects of class may vary according to the field in question (Weininger 2002:71), and in some fields class may have no effect at all. Most likely, some fields 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 fields. Thus, taking politics as an example, we would expect that the political production field (consisting of more or less professional politicians) holds a rather high degree of autonomy, ie that the relational configurations and the history of the field, as well as field 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, ie 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 citizen’s political practice, even though some field effects may be present.
In sum, effects of class should be analyzed as homologies of class within spaces or fields of symbolic practices, where we could expects class effects to be strongest in
consumption spaces compared to production fields. 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.
10
4. Analyzing homologies
Unfortunately, the research strategy for studying relationships between class and symbolic practices is poorly explained in connection to the empirical class analyses presented by Bourdieu himself (esp. Bourdieu, 1984a). However, in order to fully understand Bourdieus analyses, one must appreciate the specific 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: 103).
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 configurations 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, Ackerman & Le Roux 2000).
However, as observed by Weininger, the social space of classes is only a predictive map, and as such not sufficient 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 fields 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: 73), multiple correspondence
11
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, Morineau & Warwick 1984:100-108; Rouanet, Ackerman & Le Roux 2000; Prieur, Rosenlund & Skjott-Larsen 2008). I follow this strategy of comparing spaces below.
To develop the empirical analyses, however, a more specific conceptualization of the two spaces is needed, ie the social space and the space of political practices. Taking the last first, it should be noticed that Bourdieu in his own analyses of the space of political practices (in France) (Bourdieu 1984a: 397-465) focuses on political attitudes and alignments. However, as shown in these analyses, class effects are also vivid in the basic relationship to politics, resulting in the empirical observation that on difficult questions, working class respondents have a much higher rate of don’t 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 findings of social inequality within patterns of political participation, such inequalities are rarely analyzed in class terms (e.g Verba & Nie 1972; Verba et al 1973; Verba, Nie & Kim 1978; Verba, Schlozman & Brady 1995; Andersen, Torpe and Andersen 2000; Andersen 2004).
In light of Bourdieu’s original findings 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, ie 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, ie a space of political
12
resources and space of participation 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, ie 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 field.
5. Data and method
The data used here is from the survey ‘Democracy from Below’ conducted by Jørgen 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 face-to-face interviews, with a response rate of 65% (Andersen, Torpe & Andersen 2000: 21-24). 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 difficult. As can be seen in table 1 below, it has been possible to include a number of different indicators of political participation and political resources.
[Table 1 about here]
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 efficacy (eg Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995; Andersen 2004), ie 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 efficacy, they are – to the best of my judgement – well suited for a
13
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 it’s 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 definitions and more traditional measuring (eg Prieur et al. 2008).
[Table 2 about here]
However, the indicators chosen reflect the pragmatic possibilities within the limits of the survey data. In the final selection of indicators, several indicators of both cultural and economic capital were included, and especially regarding cultural capital, priority was given to finding indicators not only of scholastic capital (ie education). This proved rather difficult, though, resulting in the inclusion of two indicators of cultural resources (memberships of a cultural organization and reading a newspaper 3)
)
, as well as an indicator of parent’s 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 high-technology- 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
14
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 & Blasius 1994; Le Roux & 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, ie 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 configuration 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 table 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: 161).
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 the original space is not altered, and it becomes possible to inspect the configuration of the social categories within the political
15
spaces. When also comparing to the original configuration of the social, it can thereby beconcluded, whether the two configurations are homologous or not. This method has also been called ‘visualized regression’ (Lebart, Morineau & Warwick 1984: 102).
6. Constructing spaces of class and political practices
As already mentioned, the first step of the analysis is to construct the three spaces, ie the space of political participation, the space of political resources and the social space. And the first step in this construction is to explore how many dimensions, these spaces contain.
[Table 3 about here]
Table 3 shows the eigenvalues of the first four dimensions I 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 difficult to interpret, since they differentiate between respondents answering consistently with neutral answers or ‘don’t know’ and respondents giving a clearly positive or negative answer to the questions. This could suggest a confirmation of Bourdieu’s findings regarding the class structuring of the ‘don’t 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 ‘don’t know’-categories has 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 (λ3=0,10 and λ3=0,13) is limited. This is due to the fact that especially the space of political participation practices is highly structured by the first dimension, whereas the space of political resources might contain even more interesting dimensions. However, for analytical
16
purposes here, analysis of the first and second substantial axes for both spaces should be sufficient. Figure 1 below shows the space of individuals for the three spaces respectively, whereas figure 2-4 shows the spaces of variable categories.
[Figure 1 about here]
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.
[Figure 2 and 3 about here]
The first dimension in the space of political practices seems to be a dimension of volume of political participation and resources. In the eastern parts, we find individuals feeling competent and empowered, indicated for example by the categories ‘very high confidence’ in relation to eg 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 confidence, finding it difficult 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 practices and resources. In the northern part, and especially the north-eastern parts, the feeling of confidence 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
17
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 – ie 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 field, namely a conception of politics as a struggle for power and a conception of politics as ideas and ideologies (Bourdieu 2001). However, further studies would be needed to confirm this second dimension.
In sum, the space of political practices displays a first 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 find here two dimensions of capital volume and capital composition. In the eastern part of the space we find 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 (>600.00Dkr.) 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 holds some cultural capital, and thus have a balanced capital composition.
[Figure 4 about here]
18
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 about here]
7. 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 below display the social categories in the two political spaces, meaning that the dimensions of the spaces are the same as figure 2 and 3, but here we see a social description of the individuals in the political spaces.
Looking first, 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 find the economic and balanced fractions of the upper class, and in the south- eastern parts we find the cultural upper class and (only a small distance to the west) the cultural middle class. In the north-western parts we find the economic and balanced fractions of the lower class, and in the south-western parts we find the cultural fraction of the lower class.
[Figure 5 and 6 about here]
Inspecting indicators of capital supports this interpretation. Along the first axis, total amount of capital runs parallel to the total amount of political participation and political resources. And
19
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 reconfiguration 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 configuration 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 first 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
reconfiguring effect of the political field 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, ie for both volume and composition of capital, thus supporting a Bourdieusian, multi-dimensional 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
20
regard to the very active individuals, this could suggest that doxa and illusio of the political production field 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.
8. Concluding discussion and suggestions for further studies
In this article I have argued that although contemporary scholars of class has managed to revitalize the class debate, pointing towards a multidimensional understanding of class, and including dimensions of culture understood as both capital and symbolic practices, the merits of this approach has not yet been sufficiently 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 field. In stead, 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: first 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 fields 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 field 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
21
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 spaceconstituted by both economic and cultural resources.
Indeed, this is a first 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 efficiency of cultural capital compared to economic capital. These results suggest that further work needs to be done exploring the variations of homology across different field, and especially between production fields and spaces of consumption.
Second, the analysis also displayed some autonomy with regard to middle class positions. Again, this could be related to field autonomy, but it seems also to be a more
consistent finding in these types of analyses (eg Bourdieu 1984a, Prieur et al. 2008), and it may be related to what Savage has suggested to be the ‘individualized’ cultural practices of the middle classes (Savage 2000: 101-120). 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 field autonomy could be related to specific construction of 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 forms of capital in contemporary society, and perhaps studies exploring eg the importance of social capital or symbolic capital could bring us closer to understanding possible transformations of contemporary social and class relations.
Finally, it should be remembered, that the analyses 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 call modus operandi), and to fully understand the relationship between class and political practices, these mechanisms should be further explored. Here, we
22
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 classifications 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.
23 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 & Fournier 1992; Lamont 1992, 2000). Further, also post-Marxist discussions of discursive articulation of hegemonic alliances of class could be seen as compatible with the arguments put forward by Savage, Devine, Skeggs and others (for example Laclau & Mouffe 1985).
2) The reason for oversampling was given in the research question and design in the original study. For technical reason 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 optimal when measuring cultural capital. However, since the reading of newspapers normally is considered a good measure of cultural capital (Prieur, Rosenlund & Skjott-Larsen 2008), it was chosen to include it here.
24
References
Andersen, J. G. (2004), Et ganske levende demokrati, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Andersen, J. G., Torpe, L. and Andersen, J. (2000). Hvad folket magter, København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Benett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E. Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M and Wright, D. (2009), Culture, Class, Distinction, London: Routledge.
Blasius, J. (2001), Korrespondenzanalyse, München: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH.
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): 723-744.
Bourdieu, P. (1986), ‘The Forms of Capital’, pp. 241-260 in Richardson, J.G., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1987a), ‘The Force of Law: Towards a Sociology of the Juridical Field’, Hastings Law Journal 38: 814-853.
Bourdieu,P. (1987b), ‘Legitimation and Structured Interests in Weber's Sociology of Religion’, pp. 119-136 in Whimster, S. and Lash, S. (eds), Rationality and Modernity, London: Allen &
Unwim.
Bourdieu, P. (1987c), ‘What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups’, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32: 1-17.
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford: 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 Litterature, 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: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2001), Das Politische Feld. Zur Kritik der politischen Vernunft, Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
Bourdieu, P. (2005), ‘The Political field, the Social Science Field and the Journalistic Field’, pp.
29-47 in Benson, R. and Neveu, E. (eds.), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Broady, D. (1991), Sociologi og Epistemologi. Om Pierre Bourdieus författerskap och den historiske epistemologin, Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Brubaker, R. (1985), ‘Rethinking Classical Theory. The Sociological Vision of Pierre Bourdieu’
in Theory and Society 14: 723-744.
Christin, O. (2005), ‘Ancien Regime Ballots: A Double Historization of Electoral Practices’, pp.
91-110 in Wacquant, L. (ed). Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crompton, R. (2008), Class and Stratification (3. ed.), Cambirdge: Polity press.
Eyal, G. (2005), ‘The Making and Breaking of the Czechoslovak Political Field’, in Wacquant, L. (ed). Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Devine, F., Savage, M., Scott, J., Crompton, R. (eds) (2005), Rethinking Class. Culture, Identities and Lifestyle, London: Palgrave.
Gaxie, D. (2007), ‘Cultural Capital and Political Selection : Educational Backgrounds of Parliamentarians’, pp- 106-135 in Best, H. and Cotta, M. (eds.), Parliamentary representatives in Europe 1848-2000, vol 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25
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, 1964- 1992’, pp. 59-82 in Evans, G. (ed.), The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context, 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’, pp. 102-120 in Lipset, S.M. and Clark, T.N. (eds.), The Breakdown of Class Politics. A Debate on Post- industrial Stratifiction. 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 på en analyse af sammenhængen 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], Århus: Forlaget Politica.
Harrits, G.S., (2011), 'Political power as symbolic capital and symbolic violence', Journal of Political Power, 4(2): 237-258.
Harrits, G.S., Prieur, A., Skjott-Larsen, J. & Rosenlund, L., (2010), 'Class and politics in Denmark: Are both old and new politics structured by class?', Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(1): 1-27.
Hout, M., Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (1993), ‘The Persistence of Classes in Post-industrial Societies’, International Sociology 8(3): 259-277.
Hout, M., Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (1995), ‘The Democratic Class Struggle in the United States 1948-1992.’, American Sociological Review 60(6): 805-828.
Hout, M., Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (1999), ‘Classes, Unions, and the Realignment of US Presidential Voting, 1952-1992’, pp. 83-96 in Evans, G. (ed.), The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Houtman, D, Achtenberg, P and Derks, A (2008), Farewell to the Leftist Working Class, London: Transaction Publishers.
Kauppi, N. (2004), ‘Bourdieu’s political sociology and the politics of European integration’ pp.
317-332 in Swartz, D.L. and Zolberg, V.L., After Bourdieu. Influence, Critique, Elaboration, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C., (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London: Verso.
Lamont, M. and Fournier, M. (1992), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequalities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Lareau, A. (2002) ‘Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families,’ American Sociological Review, 67 (October): 747-776.
Laureau, 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(5-6): 567-606.
Lareau, A. and Conley, D. (eds.) (2008), Social Class. How does it work?, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Lebart, L., Morineau, A. and Warwick, K.M. (1984), Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis, John Wiley & Sons.
26
Le Roux, B. and Rouanet, H. (2004), Geometric Data Analysis. From Correspondence Analysis to Structured Data Analysis, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Liddle, J. and Michielsens, E., 2007. ‘‘NQOC’: Social Identity and Representation in British Politics’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(4): 670-695.
Lipset, S. M. and Clark, T.N. (1991), ‘Are Social Classes Dying?’ International Sociology 6(4):
397-410.
Lipset, S. M. and Clark, T. N. (2004), The Breakdown of Class Politics. A Debate on Post- industrial Stratifiction, Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Lipset, S. M., Clark, T.N. and Rempel, M. (1993), ‘The Declining Political Significance of Social Class’, International Sociology 8(3): 293-316.
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): 667-691.
Prieur, A., Rosenlund, L. and Jakob Skjott-Larsen (2008), ‘Cultural capital today. A Case study from Denmark’, Poetics 36(1): 45-71.
Reay, D, Crozier, G. and James, D. (2011), White Middle Class Identities and Urban Schooling, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Reay, D, Crozier, G and J Clayton (2010), ‘ ’Fitting in’ or ‘standing out’: working-class students in UK higher education, British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 1-19.
Reay, D, Crozier, G and J Clayton (2009), ‘ ‘Strangers in Paradise: Working class students in elite universities’, Sociology 43(6), 1103-1121.
Rosenlund, L. (2000), Social Structures and Change: Applying Pierre Bourdieu's 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 Bourdieu’s La Distinction’, in Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociolgique 65: 5-15.
Savage, M. (2000). Class Analysis and Social Transformation, London: Open University Press.
Skeggs, B. (2004), Class, Self & Culture, London: Routledge Skeggs, B. (1997), Formations of Class & Gender, London: SAGE.
Swartz, D. (1997), Culture & Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swartz, D. (2003), ‘Pierre Bourdieu’s political sociology and governance perspectives, p- 140- 158 in Bang, H. (ed.), Governance as social and political communication, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Swartz, D. (2006), ‘Pierre Bourdieu and North America Political Sociology: Why He Doesn’t Fit In But Should’, French Politics, 4, 84-99.
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 (1956-1990).
Politics & Society 35(3): 403-426.
Verba, S. and Nie, N.H. (1972), Participation in America. Political Democracy and Social Equality, New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
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): 235-250.
Verba, S., Nie, N.H. and Kim, J-O. (1978), Participation and Political Equality, Cambirdge:
Cambridge University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H.E. (1995), Voice and Equality. Civic Coluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge Massachusetts: 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: Duke University Press.
27
Weakliem, D. L. (2004), ‘Social Class and Voting: The Case against Decline’, pp. 197-224 in Lipset, S.M. and Clark, T.N. (eds.), The Breakdown of Class Politics. A Debate on Post- industrial Stratifiction, Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Wedeen, L. (2002), ‘Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science’, American Political Science Review, 96(4), 713-728.
Weininger, E.B. (2002), ‘Class and Causation in Bourdieu’, Current Perspectives in Social Theory: Bringing Capitalism Back for Critique by Social Theory, 21: 49-114.
Wood, H. and Skeggs, B. (2008). ‘ ‘Reality’ television, individualization and the remaking of the working class’, pp. 177-193 in Hesmondhalgh, David and Jason Toynbee (eds.), the media and social theory, 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.
28
Table 1: Variables used in the construction of the space of political practices.
Note: Modalities marked *) have been included in the model only as supplementary points. Modalities marked **) have been merged.
Indicators of political practices
Question / Variable Categories/
Modalities
% Question / Variable Categories/
Modalities
% Within the last 12 months, have you participated in
any of these activities?
Political meetings regarding questions of local politics?
Yes No *
Don’t know *
13,5
86,5 Have you previously been active in a political party, active in political organisations or active as a “grass roots
Yes active in a political party 15,9
A voters meeting during last years local election campaign
Yes No *
Don’t know *
12,9 87,1
Yes, active in a political organisation 52,2
Political meetings regarding local politics in one of
the organisations, of which you are a member Yes No *
Don’t know *
14,4
85,6 Yes, active as a grass root 6,7
Political meetings regarding local politics in an
public institution Yes
No *
Don’t know *
14,5
85,5 No, not any of the above 44,1
Signed a petition regarding local politics Yes No *
Don’t know *
15,2
84,8 People differ regarding problems of interest to them. I will know mention different political problems, and ask you to tell me how interested you are in these questions Questions of local politics
Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low**
Don’t know**
23,2 46,4 25,8 4,6 Participated in a demonstration regarding local
politics Yes
No *
Don’t know *
3,2
96,8 Danish national politics Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low**
Don’t know**
30,0 46,4 19,5 4,1 Contacted the press or written a letter to the editor
regarding local questions Yes
No *
Don’t know *
8,1
91,9 Politics in EU and the relationship between
EU and Denmark Interest very high
Interest high Interest low Interest very low**
Don’t know**
17,1 38,0 34,4 10,5 Held a position of trust in local politics Yes
No *
Don’t know *
11,5
88,5 Other questions of foreign policy Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low**
Don’t know**
16,1 37,9 34,1 12,0
29
Contacted a local civil servant or a local politician Yes No *
Don’t know *
22,6
77,4 In general, how interested are you in politics Interest very high Interest high Interest low Interest very low**
Don’t know**
26,4 49,4 21,4 2,8 Did you vote at last years local election (1997) Yes
No
Don’t remember
**
Don’t know **
89,7 8,6 1,7
How often do you discuss questions of local politics with others
Often Sometimes Rarely Never**
Don’t know**
28,2 41,4 23,1 7,6 Are you a member of or associated to any political
party or the youth organization of a political party
Yes 13,2 How often do you discuss politics with others Often Sometimes Rarely Never
35,5 43,3 17,5 3,7
30
Indicators of political resources Question / Variable Categories/
Modalities % Question / Variable Categories/
Modalities %
How easy or difficult would it be for you to …
Write a letter to the local authorities if you wanted to make a complaint
Very easy Easy Difficult Very difficult Don’t know*
34,7 40,0 17,8 4,8 2,7
Approach a national politician Confidence very high **
Confidence high **
Confidence low Confidence very low No confidence at all Don’t know*
23,7 30,1 22,2 10,0 14,0 Find out where to send such a
complaint
Very easy Easy Difficult Very difficult Don’t know*
36,4 44,5 13,3 3,2 2,6
Approach a politician in EU Confidence very high **
Confidence high **
Confidence low Confidence very low No confidence at all Don’t know*
1,19 18,5 25,2 25,6 18,8 Write a letter to the editor for a local
newspaper Very easy
Easy Difficult Very difficult Don’t know*
27,6 36,3 22,2 8,5 5,5
How do you look upon your own opportunities for speaking To civil servants at city hall
Very good Good Few**
Very few**
Don’t know*
26,8 53,0 14,7 5,5 Speak at a public meeting Very easy
Easy Difficult Very difficult Don’t know*
20,3 29,6 27,2 18,8 4,2
To local politicians Very good
Good Few**
Very few**
Don’t know*
13,8 43,6 25,3 17,3 How easy or difficult do you find it
to
Follow local politics
Very easy Easy Difficult Very difficult Don’t know*
16,7 45,1 28,6 5,6 3,9
To national politicians Very good Good Few Very few Don’t know*
4,4 21,4 34,5 15,9 24,1 Follow national politics Very easy
Easy Difficult Very difficult Don’t know*
15,1 44,5 29,8 8,5 2,0
How do you see citizens opportunities in general for
speaking in public when it comes to Questions of local politics
Very good Good Few Very few Don’t know*
9,1 55,2 24,2 4,0 7,5 Follow politics in EU Very easy
Easy Difficult
5,6 18,7 37,4
Questions of national politics Very good Good Few
3,3 28,7 42,7
31
Very difficult Don’t know*
36,0 2,3
Very few Don’t know*
11,1 14,2 Would you say that you have
sufficient knowledge to be able to decide upon questions of Local politics
Very high level of knowledge High level of knowledge Low level of knowledge Very low level of knowledge Don’t know*
21,3 22,7 22,2 32,6 1,1
Sometimes I find politics so complicated that people like me do not really understand what is going on
Agree**
Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree Don’t’ know**
28,7 37,4 21,3 12,6 National politics Very high level of knowledge
High level of knowledge Low level of knowledge Very low level of knowledge Don’t know*
15,1 25,6 24,9 32,6 1,7
In general I do not find it hard to
decide on political questions Agree Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree**
Don’t’ know**
20,7 39,2 28,9 11,2
EU politics Very high level of knowledge
High level of knowledge Low level of knowledge Very low level of knowledge Don’t know*
5,1 9,2 21,4 61,2 3,2
I know so little about EU that I have given up following what is going on
Agree**
Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree Don’t’ know**
25,8 33,6 26,8 12,9 How confident are you, that people
will listen to you if you
Approach City Hall or a local office with a question regarding you or your family
Confidence very high Confidence high Confidence low Confidence very low**
No confidence at all**
Don’t know*
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
Agree**
Partly agree Partly disagree Disagree Don’t’ know**
16,0 33,3 31,7 19,0
Approach a local politician Confidence very high Confidence high Confidence low Confidence very low**
No confidence at all**
Don’t know*
6,9 39,6 29,8 1,2 11,6
32
Table 2: Variables used in the construction of the social space
Note: Modalities marked *) have been included in the model only as supplementary points. Modalities marked **) have been merged.
Question / Variable Categories/ modalities %
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 D.kr.
100-149.999 D.kr.
150-199.999 D.kr.
200-249.999 D.kr.
250-299.999 D.kr.
300-349.999 D.kr.
350-399.999 D.kr.
400-449.999 D.kr.
450-499.999 D.kr.
500-599.999 D.kr.
> 600.000 D.kr.
13,4 6,1 8,7 7,6 7,3 6,5 8,4 7,4 10,1 8,4 8,3 7,6 Type of residence
What type of residence do you live in?
Rented
Co-operatively owned Privately owned
26,5 9,3 64,2 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?
7 years Elementary School 8-10 years Elementary School
G.C.E A level + short or no other education
7-9 years Elementary School + vocational training (basic) 10 years Elementary School + vocational training (basic) 7-9 years Elementary School + vocational training (advanced) 10 years Elementary School + vocational training (advanced) 7-9 years Elementary School + short education
7-9 years Elementary School + BA/MA G.C.E. A level + BA
G.C.E. A level + MA]
(Please note that respondent lacking information on education have been omitted from the analysis)
6,9 8,5 14,9 5,0 6,8 12,0 15,1 6,0 7,5 9,2 7,9
How often do you follow political issues in the newspapers
Often Sometimes Rarely **
Never **
Don’t know **
64,7 24,0 11,2
Are you a member of a cultural
association?
Yes No **
Don’t know **
18,1 81,9
Did your parents discuss politics when you were growing up?
Often Sometimes Rarely Never **
Don’t know **
24,6 35,1 27,4 12,9
