The Relative Permeability of Class Boundaries to Cross-Class Friendships: A Comparative Study

of the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Norway

Author(s): Erik Olin Wright and Donmoon Cho
Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 85-102
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096146
Accessed: 04-06-2015 20:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY OF
CLASS BOUNDARIES TO CROSS-CLASS FRIENDSHIPS:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
UNITED STATES, CANADA, SWEDEN, AND NORWAY*

ERIKOLINWRIGHT DONMOON CHO

Universityof Wisconsin Universityof Wisconsin

The structuralanalysis of classes can be divided into the analysis of class locations and the
analysis of permeabilityof boundariesseparating those locations. Marxist analysis of class
structurehas been primarily concerned with thefirst of these while Weberianclass analysis
hasfocused on the second. We attemptto combine a Marxist structuralclass concept, which
views class locations in capitalist societies as structuredby exploitation based on property
relations, authorityrelations and expertise, with the Weberianconcern with the ways lives of
individualstraverse the boundaries of that structure.We examinepatterns offriendship ties
across class boundaries infour contemporarycapitalist societies. the United States, Cana-
da, Sweden, and Norway. Three empirical conclusions stand out. (1) The property-based
class boundaryis the least permeable of the three exploitationdimensions; (2) the authority-
based class boundary is significantly more permeable than the expertise-based boundary;
and (3) patterns of inter-classfriendships are largely invariant across thesefour countries.

T he structural analysis of classes can be di- withinclass structures.Theirlives criss-crossthe

vided into two distinctbut interconnected
tasks:specifyinglocationswithinclass relations,
and analyzingthe degree of permeabilityof the
boundariesthatdifferentiatethese locations.
Specifyinglocationswithinthe class structure
constitutesthe core of whatis generallyreferred
to as the analysisof class structure.At a theoret-
ical level, thisinvolveselaboratingthe conceptu-
al foundationsfor the criteriawhichdifferentiate
the various locations within a class structure.
Empirically,this involves studyingthe distribu-
tion of populationsacross the locationsand in-
vestigatinghow such distributionsvary across
time andplace.
People do not, however, simply fill locations
* Direct all correspondenceto Erik Olin Wright,
Departmentof Sociology, Universityof Wisconsin-
Madison,Madison,WI, 53706. We expressourdeep
gratitudeto RobertHauserwho patientlyexplained
the ins and outs of log-linearmobility table analysis,
andto RobertMarewho suggesteda numberof broad
strategiesfor analysingthe data. Marc Westernwas
an early collaboratoron this projectwho contributed
much to the preparationof the data and the initial
forays into the analysis.ASR'scopy editorprovided
extremelyhelpful editorialsuggestionsin the prepa-
rationof the final manuscript.
classstructurein a varietyof differentways.Class
structuresmay differ,not only in the distribution
of peopleacrossthevariouslocationsin thatstruc-
ture, but also in the extent to which people's
lives are bounded by specific class locations.
Analyzing the degree of openness and closure
(Parkin1974, 1979)of class boundaries- what
we call "permeability" - is the second task of
structuralclass analysis.
A familiarexampleof the analysisof the per-
meabilityof class boundariesis the studyof so-
cial mobility,both inter-and intra-generational.
Class mobility, however, is not the only issue
involved in understandingthe permeabilityof
class boundaries.Patternsof intimatesocial in-
teractionamong people such as marriagesand
friendshipsare also relevantaspectsof the per-
meability of such boundaries.The analysis of
family formationwithinclass structureshas re-
centlyreceivedconsiderableattentionin debates
over the properway of analyzingthe class loca-
tion of marriedwomen in the laborforce (Gold-
thorpe1983,1984;Erikson1984;Wright1989a).
Less attentionhas beengiven to thepatterningof
friendshipties across structurallydefined class
locations.Analyzingsuch patternsin four con-
temporarycapitalistsocieties is the centralob-
jective of this paper.

AmericanSociological Review, 1992, Vol. 57 (February:85-102) 85

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86
THEORETICALISSUES
Marxistand WeberianTraditionsof
Class Analysis
The two primarysociologicaltraditionsof class
analysis - Marxist and Weberian - have given
differentprioritiesto class structureand bound-
ary permeability.In a varietyof ways, Marxists
(e.g., Poulantzas1975;Carchedi1977;Szyman-
ski 1983;ResnickandWolfe 1988;Wright1978,
1985, 1990) have generallyput the analysis of
class structure(or a closely relatedconceptlike
"modeof production")at centerstage and have
paidrelativelylittleattentionto the permeability
of class boundaries(foranexceptionsee Bertaux
1977).Incontrast,thepermeability of classbound-
ariesloomslargeintheWeberiantradition,wheth-
er termed"classstructuration" (Giddens1973)or
"closure"(Parkin1974, 1979).This is especially
clear in the analysisof social mobility,which is
largelyinspired(if in a somewhatdiffuseway)by
Weberianconceptionsof class. Weberianstend
to devotemuchless attentionto therigorouselab-
orationof theconceptof class structure.As Burr-
is (1987) and Wright(1990, pp. 313-23) have
argued,sociologistsworkingin theWeberiantra-
ditiontypicallytreatlocationswithinclass struc-
turesas soft categoriesrequiringonly loose defi-
nitionsandrelativelycasualtheoreticaldefense.
Ouranalysiscombinesthe conceptualappara-
tus of the Marxisttraditionwith the substantive
focus of the Weberiantraditionon the intersec-
tion of people's lives with the class structure.
This marriageof Marxistcategorieswith Webe-
rianquestionsis motivatedby a desireto deepen
the micro-analysisof class within the Marxist
tradition.Our assumptionis that the class pat-
terningof friendshipinteractionsis one of the
microprocessesthatshapethewaysin whichpeo-
ple experienceclass structures.Forexample,po-
litical coalitions across specific class bound-
ariesshouldbe facilitatedto theextentthatfriend-
shipties crosstheseboundaries.All thingsbeing
equal,higherlevels of classconsciousnesswould
be expectedin societies in which friendshipties
were overwhelminglywith others in the same
class ratherthandiffusedacrossa varietyof class
locations.
Our focus here is on the class patterningof
friendshipties ratherthan on their possible ef-
fects. We examine the differentialprobabilities
of friendshipscrossing differentkinds of class
boundariesin fourdevelopedindustrialcapitalist
countries:the United States, Canada,Sweden,
andNorway.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
TheConceptof Class Structure
The specificconceptof class structurewe use has
been elaboratedin some detail in earlierworks
by Wright(1985, 1990). In this conceptualiza-
tion, the class structureof capitalistsocieties is
viewed as being defined by the intersectionof
threedimensions:a propertydimension(owner-
ship of the means of production),an authority
dimension(controlover organizationin produc-
tion), anda skill or expertisedimension(owner-
shipof scarceskills).Eachof thesedimensionsis
viewed as generatinga particularformof exploi-
tationin capitalistsociety, whereexploitationis
defined as the ability to appropriatepartof the
socially producedsurplusproduct.Differentlo-
cations in the class structureare determinedby
their relationshipsto differentcombinationsof
theseformsof exploitation.Thus,some locations
in the class structurearesimultaneouslyexploit-
ing and exploitedthroughdifferentmechanisms.
Experts,for example,may be capitalisticallyex-
ploited while being skill exploiters.Such loca-
tions, which Wright (1985, 1990) has termed
"contradictory locationswithinclass relations,"
correspondclosely to whatin everydaylanguage
is calledthe"middleclass."A classstructure, then,
consistsof a set of basic class locationsandcon-
tradictorylocationswithinclass relations.
Throughoutthis discussionwe referto friend-
shipsbetweenexploiterandexploitedon each of
these threedimensionsas crossinga class or ex-
ploitation boundary.A friendshipbetween an
unskilledworkerand an expertmanager,there-
fore,crossestwoboundaries,theexpertisebound-
ary and the authorityboundary,while a friend-
shipbetweenanunskilledworkerandanunskilled
petty bourgeois crosses only one, the property
boundary.Expressionssuchas "authority bound-
ary"are thereforea shorthandfor "classbound-
aryon the authoritydimensionof exploitation."
OrientingHypotheses
Ourresearchwas not initiallylaunchedto test a
series of a priorihypotheses.Becausethe litera-
turein structuralclass analysishas not systemat-
icallyexaminedfriendshipties (andcertainlynot
in a comparativeframework)thereare no well-
establishedhypotheses to test. Our objectives,
therefore,were largelyinductive- to discover
coherentpatternsandto reportourconfidencein
the observations.
Nevertheless,a numberof orientinghypothe-
ses can be derived from class analysis and the
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS
Table 1. Rank Orderingsof Relative Impermeabilityof
Class Boundariesto FriendshipTies in Different
TheoreticalPerspectives
Theoretical Ranking
Perspective Property Authority Expertise
Class interests 1 2 or 3 3 or 2
(Marxianvariant)a
Class interests 2 1 3 wouldpredictthatfriendshipscrossingthe prop-
(Dahrendorfvariant)
Class habitus 2 3
(Bourdieu)
Class as opportunity 1 or 2 3 2 or 1
structureb
a
The Marxianvariantof the class interestperspective
predictsthe propertyboundaryto be the most impermeable,
but providesno clear basis for rankorderingthe authority
and expertiseboundaries.
I The "opportunitystructure"perspective predicts the
authorityboundaryto be the most permeable,but provides
no clear basis for rank orderingthe propertyor expertise
boundaries.
Note: Rankingsare from 1 = most impermeableto 3 =
most permeable.
sociology of friendshipsto guideourexploration
of thesepatterns.Thesehypothesesareorganized
aroundthe rankingsof the three exploitation-
based class boundariesby degree of imperme-
abilityas shown in Table 1. The predictedrank
orderdependsupon theoreticalexpectationsof
how property,authorityand expertisegenerate
various obstacles to the formationof intimate
interpersonal relations.We explorethreeways in
whichtheseexploitationmechanismsmightgen-
eratesuch obstaclesand therebyshape patterns
of friendshipformation:(1) by structuringthe
interestsof actors,(2) by shapingactors' lifes-
tyles;and (3) by creatingdifferentialopportuni-
ties for informalinterpersonalcontact.Each of
these causal processes suggests differentrank-
ings of the three kinds of class boundariesby
relativepermeability.
Classinterests(Marxianvariant).Marxismhas
relatively little to say about interpersonalrela-
tions.Nevertheless,theMarxistapproachto class
analysis would generallypredictthat the more
antagonistictwo peoples' class interestsare,the
less likely it is thatfriendshipswill formbetween
them,i.e., the moreimpermeablewill be the cor-
respondingclass boundaries.This is clearly the
case for friendshipsbetween workersand their
employers,since for these actorsthereis a direct
correspondencebetweentheirconcreteinterper-
sonal relationsand theirgeneralclass interests.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
87
Althoughthese antagonisticinterestsmight not
inherentlyblock friendshipformationbetween
workersand capitalistswho were not in a direct
employmentrelationto each other,Marxisttra-
dition suggests thatsuch friendshipsare unlike-
ly. To the extentthatclass interestsshapevalues
and ideologies, which in turn affect the likeli-
hood and durability of friendships, Marxists
erty boundaryare particularlyunlikely, i.e. the
propertyboundaryshouldbe the most imperme-
able.
Because there is considerabledisagreement
amongMarxistsaboutthe importanceof author-
ity and expertiseas bases of class interestsand
class conflicts,it is unclearhow Marxistswould
rank the relative permeabilityof the authority
andexpertiseboundaries.Insofaras Marxistsre-
gard the interestsof managersas closely inte-
gratedwiththeinterestsof capitalists,theywould
rankthe authorityboundaryas more imperme-
able thanthe expertiseboundary,but this judg-
ment would be temperedby the realizationthat
segmentationof labormarketsby credentialsis a
deep sourceof conflict in contemporarycapital-
ist societies.
Class interests(Dahrendorfvariant).Dahren-
dorf (1959) arguedthatin contemporarysociet-
ies authorityis the fundamentalbasis of class
antagonism.In earlyperiodsof capitalistdevel-
opment,his argumentgoes, authorityand prop-
ertycoincided,andthussocialtheoristslike Marx
mistakenlyidentifiedpropertyas the fundamen-
tal axis of class conflict.In the twentiethcentury,
however, the deepening separationof formal
ownershipof propertyfromsubstantivecommand
meansthatpropertyownershiphas declinedas a
basis for class relations.This perspectivewould
therefore predict that the authorityboundary
shouldbe the most impermeable.To the extent
that propertyownershipstill confers some au-
thority,the propertyboundarywouldbe expect-
ed to have intermediatepermeability.Since ex-
pertisewithoutorganizationalauthorityconfers
littlecapacityto command,the expertisebound-
ary shouldbe the most permeableof the three.
Class habitus(Bourdieu).As virtuallyall re-
searchon friendshipformationhas argued,one
of the primarymechanismsshapingfriendship
patternsis commonvaluesandlifestyles.All other
thingsbeingequal,individualswho sharesalient
aspects of lifestyle are more likely to become
friendsthanindividualswithhighlydisparatelif-
estyles. As Bourdieu(1984, 1985, 1987) has ar-
gued in his analysis of class habitus,a pivotal
88
determinantof lifestyle is culturalcapital.This
suggeststhatthe odds of friendshipties between
expertsandnonexpertsshouldbe particularly low
sincepeopleon eithersideof theexpertisebound-
aryarelikelyto differsharplyin termsof cultural
capital.Thus, class habitustheorieswould pre-
dict the expertisedimensionto be the most im-
permeable.Furthermore, becausewealthandin-
come are generallyviewed as crucial bases of
lifestyle (althoughless importantthan cultural
capital),thepropertyboundarywouldbe expect-
ed to be more impermeablethan the authority
boundary.
Interactionopportunity.Sociologicalanalyses
of friendshipsdecomposethe friendshipforma-
tionprocessintotwoconsecutiveprocesses,meet-
ing andmating.Meetingis the processof strang-
ers being convertedinto acquaintances;mating
is the conversionof acquaintancesinto friends
(Verbrugge1977, pp. 576-77). Althoughmeet-
ing can simplybe a matterof "chance,"typically
it is the resultof people being in situationsthat
systematicallyfacilitatefriendshipformation.In
part,this is a questionof spatialproximity,as in
the importanceof neighborhoodof residenceas
a factorinfluencingfriendshipformation- peo-
ple oftenmakefriendswithneighborsof dissim-
ilar social position (Huckfeldt1983; Nahemow
and Lawton 1975). More significantthansheer
proximityforourpresentpurposes,certain"foci"
of social interaction,to use Feld's (1981) expres-
sion, generatesustainedjoint activities among
peopleandthusenhancetheprobabilitiesof peo-
ple gettingto knoweachotherin ways thatcould
lead to friendship.
Worksitesare an importantinstanceof such
interactionalfoci. Furthermore, many worksites
involve joint activityamongpeople in different
class locations, thus creatingopportunitiesfor
cross-classfriendships,particularly betweenman-
agersandnonmanagers.These opportunitiesare
furtherenhancedby the fact thatmany supervi-
sorsandmanagers,spendsignificantpartsof their
careersas nonmanagerialemployees.Careerau-
thoritymobilityis undoubtedlymuchhigherthan
intracareer mobilityacrosseitherthe propertyor
expertiseboundaries.To the extent that friend-
ships survivepromotions,then, this would also
enhancethepermeabilityof the authoritybound-
ary.The opportunitystructurearguments,there-
fore,wouldsuggestthattheauthorityclassbound-
ary shouldbe the most permeable.The opportu-
nity structureperspective,however, makes no
clearpredictionaboutrelativeimpermeabilityof
the propertyor expertiseboundaries.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
We offer no hypothesesbased explicitly on
predictionsfromthe Weberiantraditionbecause
the Weberiantraditionof class analysis is con-
sistentwithvirtuallyanyranking.Weberianslike
Giddens (1973), who speak with a relatively
Marxianvoice, wouldlikely supportthe Marxist
predictions.Others,like Parkin(1979), who em-
phasize the role of social closure in labormar-
kets, wouldbe likely to predicta rankinglike the
classhabitusperspective.Weberianswho arepre-
occupiedwithstatusgroupsandthe formationof
symboliccommunitieswouldalso sharethe pre-
dictions of class habitustheory. Dahrendorfis
oftenconsidereda theoristin the Weberiantradi-
tion becauseof his emphasison the importance
of bureaucraticorganization,so his variantof
classinteresttheorycouldalsobe consideredcon-
sistentwitha Weberian-inspired approach.Inany
case, the theoreticaltraditionsportrayedin Table
1 arenot meantto be tightdeductionsfrom first
principles,but rathergeneralorientinghypothe-
ses that facilitatethe interpretationof our find-
ings.
Relationto PreviousResearch
Our researchdiffers from previousresearchon
friendshipsandsocialstratification (e.g.,Holling-
shead 1949;Curtis1963;Laumann1966, 1973;
Verbrugge1977, 1979; Jackson 1977) in three
respects. First, previous researchhas revolved
aroundstatusdefinitionsof socioeconomicstrat-
ification, whetheror not the term "class" was
used, whereasour researchis organizedaround
an economic structuraldefinitionof class. Sec-
ond,within-status friendshipshaveoccupiedcen-
ter stage in these earlierstudies. These studies
focusedprimarilyon the extentto which within-
statusfriendshipsare more likely to occur than
cross-statusfriendshipsand on the variabilityof
within-status friendshipsacrosssocialstrata.Less
attentionhas been given to the focus of our re-
search- the extent to which friendshipscross
status boundaries. Finally, when cross-status
friendshipshave been studied,systematicatten-
tion has not been given to the patterningof such
friendshipsacross qualitativelydifferentstatus
boundaries.Previousresearchhasbeenconcerned
primarilywith the relationshipbetween the de-
gree of statusdifferencesand the likelihoodof
friendshipties and with status-asymmetriesin
cross-statusfriendshipchoices, i.e., the tenden-
cy to identifypeople of slightlyhigherstatusas
one's friends (Jackson 1977; Hauser 1981). In
contrast,ourstudyof differentialpermeabilityof
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS 89

RELATIONSHIP TO MEANS OF PRODUCTION

RELATIONSHIP TO
Owner
OwnerWith Without CREDENTIALED
Employees Employees Nonowner of Means of Production EXPERTISE

Manager- ? Professionals Professionals

Experts

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Semi-
l| Professionas Semi-Professionals

Employers | PBourgeois Managers Supervisors Workers Nonexperts

Managers- Non- Managers Supervisors Non-

Supervisors managers managers

RELATIONSHIP TO AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIP TO AUTHORITY

FOR OWNERS FOR EMPLOYEES

Figure 1. Basic Class StructureTypology

Note: Dashed lines indicate distinctionsthat we cannot make in the analysis because of constraintsof sample size.
Among employersand petty bourgeoiswe cannotmake distinctionson the expertisedimension.We thus treatall employ-
ers andpettybourgeoisas if they were nonexperts.Among managerand supervisorexpertswe cannotmakethe distinction
betweenprofessionalsandsemi-professionalsor the distinctionbetweenmanagersandsupervisors.We treatthis combined
categoryas if it were entirelymanager-professionals.

class boundariesconcernsthe patternsof friend- sionals (occupationsgenerallyrequiringan ad-

ships acrossthe threequalitativelydistinctclass vancedacademicdegree),semi-professionals (oc-
boundaries. cupationsgenerallyrequiringa college or techni-
cal degree), and nonexperts.The specific mea-
suresusedto operationalizethesedimensionsare
STRATEGYOF ANALYSIS discussedin the Appendix.
Class locations within the class structureare
The Typologyof Class Structure
determinedby variouscombinationsof catego-
Forthepurposesof thisanalysis,we trichotomize ries on the three exploitationdimensions.Our
each of the threedimensionsof class structure. limited sample permitsus to define eight class
The propertydimensioncomprisesemployers', locations:employers,pettybourgeoisie,manag-
petty bourgeois (self-employedpeople without er-experts,managers,supervisors,professionals,
employees),andemployees;theauthoritydimen- semi-professionals, andworkers.Thedelineation
sion comprisesmanagers(directinvolvementin of these class locationsin termsof the threedi-
organizational decisionmaking), supervisors(con- mensionsis shownin Figure1. Theseclass loca-
trolover subordinatesbut no involvementin or- tions shouldnot strictlybe thoughtof as distinct
ganizationaldecisionmaking),andnonmanagers; "classes,"but as distinct "locations"in a class
and the expertisedimensioncomprisesprofes- structure,since some of thesecategoriesarecon-
tradictorylocationswithinclass relations.
'We will use theterm"employers"ratherthan"cap- Ourinterest,then,is in class boundaryperme-
italists"throughoutthis analysis since most of our abilityto close friendshipsbetweenpeoplehold-
employersown businessesthatare quite small. ingjobs in the laborforce.Throughoutthis anal-

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90
ysis we treatindividualsratherthanfamilies as
the incumbentsof locations within class struc-
tures (see Wright 1989a, 1990). This treatment
of thedatahastwo practicalimplications.First,it
meansthatwe ignorethe complex problemsin-
troducedby two-earnerfamilies. A friendship
betweentwo women workers,one marriedto a
managerandthe otherto a worker,is considered
an exampleof a WORKERIWORKER friendshiptie.
Second,we excludefriendshipsinvolvinghouse-
wives fromthe analysisbecausetheirclass loca-
tion derivesfrom theirhusband'sclass location
ratherthandirectlyfromtheirown jobs.
TheFriendship-TiesMatrix
On the basisof thecategoriesdefinedin Figure1
we can constructan 8 x 8 matrixof friendship
ties. This matrixis analogousto a mobilityma-
trixin whichone axisrepresentsclass originsand
the second axis representsclass destinations.In
the presentcase, one axis representsthe class lo-
cationsof respondentsandthe secondaxis repre-
sents the class locationof respondents'friends.
The cells in the matrixdesignatetypesof friend-
ship ties, not individuals.The diagonalof this
matrixrepresentsfriendshipties withina single
class location; the off-diagonalcells represent
friendshipties thatcross class locations.
Our analyticaltask is similarto that encoun-
teredin the analysisof mobilitymatrices,i.e., we
wantto analyzethe relativelikelihoodof differ-
ent cross-classfriendships.If the likelihoodof
friendshipties linkingan employerwith an em-
ployeeis muchlowerthanthelikelihoodof friend-
shipties linkinga professionalwith a nonexpert,
then we will say that the propertyboundaryis
less permeablethanthe expertiseboundary.The
statisticalstrategyfor modelingdifferentialrela-
tive odds of friendshipties is standardlog-linear
mobilitytableanalysis.
The dataarefromthe ComparativeProjecton
ClassStructureandClassConsciousness(Wright
1989b). While the scope of the samples vary
slightlyacrossthecountries,all arebasicallyran-
dom samplesof adultsin the laborforceranging
in size from 1,145in Swedento 2,577 in Canada.
Respondentswere asked to thinkof the three
people - friendsor relativesbut not immediate
familymembers- to whomtheyfelt "personal-
ly closest."(We referto thesepeopleas "friends"
even though some of them are relatives.) Re-
spondentswere then askeda series of questions
about the jobs of each of these friends. The
friends'class locationswere coded using nearly
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
the same criteriaused for respondents.Friends
who were not in the laborforce were excluded
fromthe analysis.
After all of the friendshad been allocatedto
class locations,we then transformedthe dataso
thatfriendshipties wouldbe the unitof analysis.
In the U.S. sample,for example, 1,363 respon-
dents provideddata on at least one friendfor a
totalof 3,114 friends.Thuswe hada U.S. sample
by
of 3,114 friendshipties, eachtie characterized
two values- the class of the respondentandthe
class of the respondent'sfriend.2
Objectionsto the Structureof the Data
Severalpossibleobjectionscould be madeto the
structureof thedata.First,thedecisionto exclude
friendswho arenot in the laborforce could bias
our resultsif our primaryinterestwere to do a
comprehensivesocialstructural analysisof friend-
shippatterns.However,becauseourinterestis in
certainpropertiesof the class structure- name-
ly, the differentialpermeabilityof class bound-
aries- the relevantdataarefriendshipties that
linkpeopleoccupyinglocationsin thatclassstruc-
ture.In anyevent,ourrespondents'dataarefrom
a laborforce samplein most countriesandintro-
ducing friends from outside the labor force
(housewives,unemployed,retirees)intotheanal-
ysis wouldcreatean asymmetryin the matrices.
Second,restrictingtheanalysisto threefriends
ratherthanto a comprehensivelist of friendsmay
introducedistortionsin the results.Hollandand
Leinhardt(1973) have arguedthat this kind of
fixed-choice procedurefor studyingfriendship
patternsmay introducesevere measurementer-
ror in sociometrybecause it forces people with
morefriendsthanthe fixed numberto arbitrarily
omit some friendsandforces people with fewer
2 We ignore the issue of asymmetriesin friend-
ships, i.e., a friendshipbetween a respondentworker
and a managerfriendis treatedthe same as a friend-
ship between a respondentmanager and a worker
friend. To test whetherthe data roughly fit this as-
sumption,we conducteda test of global asymmetries
aroundthe diagonalof the friendshipmatrixby com-
paringthe goodness-of-fitforthequasi-independence
model (l's on the off-diagonalcells and fully differ-
entiatedcells on the diagonal)with a model thatdif-
ferentiatescells above the diagonalfrom cells below
the diagonal.The model that differentiatedthe off-
diagonal cells in this way did not significantly im-
prove the fit and thus the hypothesis that the data
were roughlysymmetricalabove andbelow the diag-
onal could not be rejected.
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS
thanthefixed numberto arbitrarily includesome
nonfriends.We believe this problemis unlikely
to seriouslydistortourresults.Unlike the socio-
metricworkreportedby HollandandLeinhardt,
we arenotstudyingwithin-group sociogramssuch
as thepatternsof friendshipsamongchildrenin a
classroom.In examiningsocial ties acrossclass
boundarieswe are not interestedin the patterns
of reciprocity,closure,asymmetry,etc., amonga
particulargroupof individuals,butratherthelike-
lihood of close friendshipsamong individuals
withparticularclass attributes.It is not clearthat
the kinds of distortionsHolland and Leinhardt
reportedin the shapeof sociogramsapplyto our
analyticalcontext.3
Finally,it could be objectedthatby lookingat
"close" friends we are ignoring the important
problemof the"strengthof weakties"(Granovet-
ter 1973). It is possible thatcertainclass bound-
ariesaremoreeasily permeatedby casualfriend-
shipsthanby intimateinterpersonal relations.By
restrictingour attentionto close friends,we may
understatetheoverallpermeabilityof boundaries
to interpersonalrelations.However,oursis not a
comprehensiveanalysisof all dimensionsof the
permeabilityof boundaries.Such an analysis
wouldincludemarriagepatterns,mobility,neigh-
borhoodinteractions,andparticipationin volun-
tary associationsas well as casual friendships.
Ouranalysisis a reasonablefirststepdesignedto
examineone particulartype of social interaction
thatcrossesclass boundaries- intimatefriend-
ships. For this examinationit is appropriateto
restrictthe datato the "threepeople with whom
one is personallyclosest."
TheProblemof SampleSize
Obviously,thenumberof friendshiptiesobserved
is considerablylargerthanthenumberof respon-
dents in the originalsample- the totalnumber
of respondentsforwhomwe hadappropriate data
in the four countriesis 4,896, whereasthe num-
ber of friendshipties is 11,782. It is not obvious
whatsamplesize shouldbe used to calculatethe
standarderrorsfor the variouscoefficientsin our
I Furthermore, even in theirown analyticalcontext
Holland and Leinhardt(1973) stated that "a gross
structuralfeaturelikesex-cleavagein children'sgroups
will not be affectedby fixed-choiceerrorsif thereare
morechildrenof bothsexes thanallowedchoices . . ."
(p. 103). Ouranalysisof class boundarypermeability
resemblesan analysisof a gross structuralfeaturelike
sex-cleavagemore thanit resemblesthe fine-grained
analysisof sociometricpatterns.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
91
models.The most conservativechoice wouldbe
to use the numberof originalrespondents.This,
however,treatsthe dataas if we hada sampleof
only one friendperrespondentandwouldthere-
fore understateour confidencein whateverpat-
ternswe observe.The least conservativechoice
wouldbe to treatthe numberof friendshipties as
the samplesize. However,becausethese friend-
ship ties arenot independentof each other,they
arenot a randomsampleof ties. We do notknow
of any definitivestatisticalrationalefor deciding
wherein thisrangewe shouldset oursamplesize.
We thereforereportresultsusingbothsamplesiz-
es. Because thereare slightlydifferentnumbers
of friendsper respondentin differentcountries,
the actualcoefficientsvaryslightlyin the analy-
ses using the two differentsamplesize figures.
AlternativeApproachesto Conceptualizing
Permeability4
Therearetwo waysto conceptualizetheproblem
of "boundarypermeability" in theclass structure.
Thefirststrategysees thisstructureas an arrayof
theeightnominallocationsdefinedin Figure1.A
friendshiptiebetweenanytwodifferentlocations
crosses a specific boundary.Thus, for workers,
therearesevenpossibleboundary-crossing friend-
ships:WorkerlEmployer, WorkerlPettyBourgo-
is, WorkerlManager-Expert, WorkerlProfessional,
WorkerlSemi-Professional, WorkerlManager and
WorkerlSupervisor. Forsupervisorstherearesix
additional boundary-crossingfriendships (the
WorkerlSupervisor boundaryhas alreadybeen
counted).Among the eight class locations,there
arethus 28 boundariesacrosswhich friendships
can be formed.One approachto measuringrela-
tivepermeabilityof boundaries,then,wouldbe to
measuretherelativepermeabilityof eachof these
28 boundariesandrankorderthemfromhighest
to lowest degreeof permeability.
The secondstrategyanalyzesdirectlythethree
underlyingexploitationmechanismsthatgener-
ate the locationsin the class structure:property,
authority,andexpertise.Thesemechanismsmight
be thoughtof as more fundamentalthan class
locationbecausethe conceptof class structureis
constructedby combiningthese mechanismsin
differentways. Dataanalysiswouldtheninvolve
I In the originalversion of this paper,the first of
these strategieswas adopted.One of theASRreview-
ers objected to this approachand suggested some-
thing along the lines of the second. In the end, the
same substantiveconclusionsare supportedby either
strategy.
92
assessingthe relativedensitiesof friendshipsin-
volving exploiterand exploited within each of
these threeunderlyingmechanisms.
We employ both strategies,althoughour em-
phasisis on the second.The substantiveconclu-
sions are supportedby both strategies.The bulk
of the analysisrevolves arounda series of log-
linearmodelsof the relativelikelihoodof friend-
ships across the property,authority,and exper-
tise boundaries.We thenuse the first strategyto
analyzethe boundarypermeabilitybetween the
workingclass andotherclass locations.
ANALYSISAND RESULTS
The dataanalysistests threemodels:
(1) The relativepermeabilityof the threeunder-
lyingexploitationboundariesintheclassstruc-
ture:property,authority,andexpertise.
(2) The relativepermeabilityof boundariesbe-
tweenthe workingclass andotherclass loca-
tions.
(3) Thepresenceof countrydifferencesin theper-
meabilityof thethreeexploitationboundaries.
TheRelativePermeabilityof the Three
ExploitationBoundaries
We constructthreevariablesto test the relative
permeabilityof theboundariesconstitutedby the
threeexploitationmechanismsin the class struc-
ture:PROPERTY (a measureof friendshipsacross
the propertyboundary),AUTHORITY (a measure
of friendshipsacrossthe authorityboundary,and
EXPERTISE (a measureof friendshipsacross the
expertiseboundary).Thesevariablesarepresent-
ed in Figure2. In operationalizingthe conceptof
class structurewe trichotomizedeachof thethree
underlyingdimensionsof classrelations.A friend-
ship tie is treatedas crossing a boundaryon a
particulardimensionof exploitationif it linksthe
extremecategoriesin thesetrichotomies.Forex-
ample,the propertydimensionis trichotomized
intoemployers,pettybourgeois,andemployees.
Onlyfriendshipsbetweenemployeesandemploy-
ers aretreatedas crossingthepropertyboundary.
Friendshipsinvolvingthe pettybourgeoisiewith
eitheremployersor employees are thus treated
as not crossing the propertyboundary.On the
Au-moRfry variable,friendshipsbetweenmanag-
ers and nonmanagersare treatedas crossingthe
authorityboundary,whereasfriendshipsbetween
or
supervisorsandeithermanagers nonmanagers ers andpettybourgeoiswere credentialedprofession-
are not. On the EXPERTISEvariable,friendships als (doctors,dentists,lawyers,accountants).
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
betweenprofessionalsand nonexpertsare treat-
ed as crossing the expertiseboundary,whereas
friendshipsbetween semi-professionalsand ei-
therprofessionalsor nonexpertsare not. In each
case, a boundary-crossing friendshipis thus de-
fined as a friendshipthatcrosses two "levels"of
the relevantdimension.
Because of limits in samplesize, a numberof
decisionshad to be madein operationalizingthe
threeboundary-crossing variables.First,thebroad
"managerexpert"classlocation(whichcombines
manager-professionals, supervisor-professionals,
manager-semiprofessionals, andsupervisor-semi-
professionals)posed a problemin constructing
the EXPERTISE and AUTHORITY variables.We de-
cided treatthis categoryas if it were composed
entirelyof manager-professionals. Thus, friend-
ships betweenworkersandmanager-expertsare
treatedas crossing both the expertiseboundary
andthe authorityboundary.
Second,in the variableAUTHORITY, employers
aretakenas havingfull managerialauthorityand
aretreatedas managers,whereaspettybourgeois
aretreatedas havingno authorityandthusclassi-
fied as nonmanagers.It could be arguedthatthe
petty bourgeoisie makes organizationalpolicy
decisions and should thus be treatedas manag-
ers, but to maintaina sharpconceptualdistinc-
tion betweenthe propertyboundaryand the au-
thorityboundary,we treatthe managervalue on
the authorityvariableas requiringauthorityover
people, notjust things.
Third,the EXPERTISE variableposes problems
for the two self-employedcategoriesbecausewe
distinguishexpertsfromnonexpertsonly among
employees.Althoughemployersandperhapsthe
pettybourgeoisiecould be considered"experts,"
we classifiedall employersandpettybourgeois,
regardlessof credentialsor occupationalactivi-
ties, as nonexperts.In the exploitation-mecha-
nism approachto class analysis, the ownership
of scarceskills is a basis of exploitationinsofar
as it enablesactorswho sell theirlaborpoweron
a labor marketto obtaina "rent"componentin
theirwages. Becauseemployersandpettybour-
geois do not sell theirlaborpowerand,withrare
exceptions,credentialsarenot requiredfor their
positions,expertisein the sense we are using it
becomeslargelyirrelevantfor shapingtheirclass
interests.'Nevertheless,it would have been de-
sirable to distinguishexperts from nonexperts
I In oursample,no morethan4 percentof employ-
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS 93

0 0
0
Ho.
cju
.......... 0~~~~~~~~~
00 > > 0 o

0 0
U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... - >)W

z -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
- o -.....

0- .-.0
0
E

.00.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......

.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
a 32 E44 0 E

c ) 0
c)~c) c) c)c i5$
D

S~~~~~~~; Y
0.0
........... . ..... .....

C OOO O O O O0 0
C,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
0c O OIt 0O O 00
0
O O 4.E
0

D~~~~~~~~~
Ct
CL m X o E -

o - o o o o
0a --
o - -

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW

amongemployersandpettybourgeois,the issue Table 2. Coefficients for Permeabilityof the Three Ex-

is not only how expertise shapes exploitation- ploitationBoundaries:Adultsin the LaborForce
in FourCountries,1980-1982
based interests, but also how it shapes life style
andinformalinteractionopportunities.Oursam- Sample Size Defined as
ple size, however, makes this impossible.The
Numberof Numberof
issue, then,is whetherthe self-employedshould FriendshipTies Respondents
be globallytreatedas "professionals,""semipro-
fessionals,"or "nonexperts"in constructingthe Variable CoefficientAntilog CoefficientAntilog
EXPERTISE variable.On the basis of the occupa- BoundaryPermeabilityCoefficients
tional distinction that we use to define nonex-
PROPERTY -.991* .37 -.980* .38
perts for employees, the large majorityof both (.087) (.135)
employersandpettybourgeoisfall into the non- AUTHORITY -.319* .73 -.296* .74
expertcategory(69.8 percentof employersand (.034) (.052)
81.4 percentof pettybourgeois).We thusdecid- EXPERTISE -.789* .45 -.765* .47
ed to treatall employersand petty bourgeoisas (.044) (.067)
nonexpertsthroughoutthis analysis.6
One othervariable,the standard"quasi-inde- Scaled deviance 370.1 139.0
pendence"matrix(QI) used in mobilitystudies, Degrees of freedom 185 185
is includedin all of the models we explore.This
Differencesin BoundaryPermeabilityCoefficients
variabletreatsall off-diagonalcells (i.e., ties in-
PROPERTY- -.672* -.684*
volving friendshipsthat cross any class bound- (.084)
AUTHORITY (.144)
ary) as a single categorybut distinguishesbe-
EXPERTISE- -.470* -.469*
tween each cell on the diagonal (i.e., the eight AUTHORITY (.043) (.086)
ties representingwithin-classfriendships).While -.202
PROPERTY- -.215
our primaryconcernis not within-classfriend- EXPERTISE (.097) (.151)
ships,properspecificationof theboundary-cross-
ing models requiresthat we include a variable *p < .05 *p <.01 **p <.001

capturingwithin-classfriendships.If all class lo- Note: Numbersin parenthesesare standarderrors.

cations behaved the same way, then we could
have createda simple variable(1's for all cells
on the diagonal,0's elsewhere).However,previ- (9 categories), PROPERTY
is the friendships that
ous researchsuggests this to be an implausible cross two levels of the propertyboundary(2 cat-
assumption(Hollingshead1949,Laumann1966, egories), AUTHORITY
is the friendships that cross
Verbrugge1977). two levels of the authorityboundary(2 catego-
Using conventionallog-lineartechniques,we ries), and EXPERTISE
is the friendships that cross
estimateModel 1 by: two levels of the expertboundary(2 categories).
We includecountryinteractionswiththerowand
R + F + N + R*N + F*N + QI + PROPERTY+ columnmarginals(R andF) so thatcountrydif-
AUTHORITY + EXPERTISE, ferences in marginaldistributionsdo not affect
ourresults.
whereR is therespondent'sclass location(8 cat- Ourcentralinterestin Model 1 is in the coeffi-
egories), F is the friend'sclass location(8 cate- cients for the threeboundary-crossing variables
gories),N is nation(U.S., Sweden,Canada,Nor- - the smallerthe coefficient,the less permeable
way),R*N is theinteractionof respondent'sclass the class boundary.Thus,we interpretdifferenc-
withnation,F*N is theinteraction of friend'sclass es between these coefficients as reflecting the
withnation,QI is the quasi-independence matrix differentialpermeabilityof the class boundaries.
6Toseeif thisdecisionthreatened therobustnessof
ouranalysis,we mergedthedatafor thefourcoun- Resultsfor Analysisof ThreeExploitation
triesintoa singlematrixandwerethusableto make Boundaries
thefull set of distinctions
in theexpertisedimension
amongemployersandpettybourgeois.Thedistinc- Table 2 presentsthe core substantiveresultsfor
tiondidnotimprovethegoodness-of-fit of themod- Model 1. All threeboundaries,regardlessof how
els andso we feel reasonably confidentthattreating samplesize is defined,have statisticallysignifi-
thesecategoriesas nonexperts didnot seriouslyun- cant negative coefficients indicatingthat these
dermineourresults. boundariesdo in fact constituteobstaclesto the

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIES TO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS
formationof friendships.The negative coeffi-
cientsfor the propertyandexpertboundariesare
significantlygreaterthanthose for the authority
boundary.The authorityboundaryis thus more
permeable than the property or the expertise
boundary.Takingtheantilogof thesecoefficients,
the odds of a friendship across the authority
boundaryarenearly 100 percentgreaterthanthe
odds of a friendshipacrossthe propertybound-
aryand60 percentgreaterthana friendshipacross
the expertiseboundary.
Thecomparisonof thepermeabilityof theprop-
erty and expertiseboundariesis less clear. Cal-
culatedusing the numberof respondentsas the
sample size, the propertyboundarycoefficient
does not differ significantlyfrom the expertise
boundarycoefficient. When sample size is the
full numberof friendshipties, however,the coef-
ficient of the propertyboundaryis significantly
differentfrom that of the expertise boundary.
Takingthe antilogof these coefficientsindicates
thatthe odds of friendshipscrossing the exper-
tise boundaryare about20 percentgreaterthan
the odds of friendshipscrossing the property
boundary.
TheRelativePermeabilityof Boundaries
BetweenWorkingClass and NonworkingClass
Locations
Model 1 indicates the relative permeabilityof
boundarieswithinthe threeexploitationdimen-
sions - property,authority,and expertise.An
alternativeanalyticalstrategyis to examine di-
rectlythe relativepermeabilityof the boundaries
between class locations of the class structure.
Ratherthanconsideringall 28 boundariesin the
friendship-tiesmatrix,we focus on rankingthe
permeabilityof class boundariesbetween the
workingclass (the categorythatis exploitedon
all three dimensions)and other class locations,
becausethese boundariesareparticularlysalient
in Marxisttheory.
Estimatesof theoverallpermeabilityof bound-
aries between the working class and the other
class locationsareestimatedfrom Model 2:
MODEL I+ WORKER,
whereWORKERis a set of dummyvariablesiden-
tifyingties betweenworkersandeach of the oth-
er seven class locations(see Figure2). If none of
thecoefficientsfor thesedummyvariablesis sig-
nificant, the likelihood of friendshipsbetween
workersandotherclasslocationsis simplya func-
tion of the overall additive effects of crossing
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
95
various combinationsof the three exploitation
boundarieswe areconsidering.7
A significantimprovementin fit of Model 2
over Model 1 impliesthatthe differentialperme-
abilityof boundariesbetweenthe workingclass
andthe otherclass locationsis not fully captured
by the additive effects of the three underlying
exploitation variables, i.e., interactioneffects
across specific class locations are also present.
The WORKERvariable also enables us to con-
structan overall rankingof the permeabilityof
the boundariesbetween the working class and
the other class locations by adding for each
WorkeriNonworker friendship-tiematrixthecor-
respondingcoefficients for the PROPERTY,Au-
THORITY, EXPERTISE, andWORKERvariablesas in-
dicatedin Table4. The individualcoefficientsin
the equationfor Model 2 arelogs of odds ratios.
The anti-logof the sum of the coefficientscorre-
spondingto eachcell thusgives the relativeodds
of a friendshiptie occurringin thatcell, given the
constraintsof Model 2.
Resultsfor Analysisof WorkingClass
BoundaryPermeability
Table 3 gives estimates of the coefficients for
Model 2 for the threeadditiveexploitationvari-
ables and the seven cross-class friendshipties
involvingthe workingclass. Thegoodness-of-fit
'One technicalcomplicationwith theWORKERvari-
ableshouldbe noted.Becausethe quasi-independence
matrixperfectlyidentifiesevery cell on the diagonal
of the friendshipties matrixwhen the quasi-indepen-
dence variableis includedin Model 2, it is then im-
possibleto estimateall seven of the coefficientsin the
Workervariable.One will be mathematicallyredun-
dant because it is a linear combinationof the other
Workercoefficients and the workerdiagonalcell in
the quasi-independencematrix.Because we are not
specifically interested in the coefficients for the
WorkerlWorker diagonal cell, and because we want
to have an explicit coefficient for every boundary
betweenthe workingclass andotherclass locationsin
Model2, we useda modifiedquasi-independence vari-
able in Model 2 in which the WorkerlWorker diago-
nal cell (category 8 on the original QI variable in
Figure2) is assignedto level 0 and thus mergedwith
all of theoff-diagonalcells. This modifiedQI variable
has no effect on the goodness-of-fitof Model 2 or on
the values of the additivetermsin thatmodel; it also
has no effect on the relativemagnitudeof the coeffi-
cients for the Workervariableand thus had no effect
on the rankingof the permeabilityof boundariesbe-
tween the working class and other class locations.
However, the modified QI variable does make the
discussionof the coefficientsmore straightforward.
96 AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW

Table 3. Coefficients for WORKERINONWORKER Boundary boundaryis more permeablerelative to other

Permeability: Adults in the Labor Force in Four boundariesthan it is for the class structureas a
Countries, 1980-1982
whole.
Sample Size Defined as The results in Table 3 point to an important
Number of Number of
conceptualimplicationfor class structureanaly-
Friendship Ties Respondents sis. The presenceof significanttie-specificinter-
actionssupportsthe view thatthe class structure
Variable Coefficient Coefficient
cannot be understoodsimply as a sum of the
PROPERTY -.954* -.960* threeunderlyingexploitationdimensions.If there
(.105) (.163) were no tie-specific interactions,then the con-
AUTHORITY -.399* -.341' ceptof "classstructure," formedthroughthecom-
(.057) (.087) binationof the three "primitiveterms,"would
EXPERTISE -.715* -.666* simplybe a heuristicconvenience.Nothingwould
(.063) (.097) be lost by simply talking serially about the ef-
Tiesa
Worker/Nonwor-ker fects of propertyownership,the effects of exper-
-.167
(1) WORKERIEMPLOYER -.202 tise, andthe effectsof authority,andignoringthe
(.077) (.118) effects of specificlocationsin the class structure.
(2) WORKERIPETTY -.301 -.261 "Location"gets its analyticalbite from the syn-
BOURGEOIS (.072) (.112) ergetic consequencesof the specific combina-
-. 182*
(3) WORKERIMANAGER- -.228' tions of dimensionsthat generatea given loca-
EXPERT (.071) (.109) tion. To use a cliche, "thewhole is greaterthan
(4) WORKERIMANAGER .058 -.061 the sum of the parts"8and the presence of tie-
(.082) (.126) specific interactionscapturesthis.
.060
(5) WORKERISUPERVISOR .067 The additiveandinteractivetermsin Model 2
(.056) (.086) generatethe rankingof the likelihoodof the var-
(6) WORKERI -.356" -0.381
ious WorkerlNonworker friendshipspresentedin
PROFESSIONAL (.106) (.164) Table 4. Of the seven boundaries, the Wor-
(7) WORKERISEMI- -.308" -0.332*
kerlEmployerboundaryis the least permeable,
PROFESSIONAL (.057) (.089) whiletheWorkerlSupervisor boundaryis themost
permeable:Workersare nearlyfive times more
Scaled deviance 337.2 126.11 likely to have a friendshipwith a supervisorthan
Degrees of freedom 179 179 with an employer.The secondandthirdranksin
impermeabilityare the WorkerlManager-Expert
Improvement of scaled 32.0'** 12.89'
andWorkerlProfessional boundaries.As defined
deviance over Model 1
6 6
in Model2, bothof theseties crosstwo "levels"of
Degrees of freedom
the expertisedimension.The next threebound-
*p <.05 **p <.01 *p <.001 aries- WorkerlManager, WorkerlSemi-Profes-
a
These coefficients indicate the difference between a sional, and WorkerlPettyBourgeois - are of
given category of WorkerlNonworker ties and all friend- roughly equal permeability.In the structureof
ships that do not cross the worker boundary (i.e., Model2, thelasttwo of thesecrossonly one "lev-
WorkerlWorker and NonworkerlNonworker ties)
el" of theirrespectiveexploitationdimension
Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.
WorkerlSemi-Professional friendshipscross one
level on expertiseand no levels on propertyor
of Model 2 is a significantimprovementover authority;WorkerlPettyBourgeois crosses one
Model 1 indicatingsignificantfriendship-tie-spe- level on propertyand no levels on authorityor
cific interactionsbetweenthe workingclass and expertise. Thus, WorkerlManagerfriendships,
other class locations. With the exception of whichcrosstwolevels of theauthoritydimension
WorkerlManager andWorkerlSupervisor friend- (butcross no levels on the propertyor expertise
ships,friendshipsbetweenworkersandnonwork- dimensions),areaboutas likelyasfriendshipsthat
ers aresignificantlyless likelythanwouldbe pre- cross only one level of the expertiseor property
dicted by the additivemodel. Furthermore,the
coefficients for the WorkerlManager and IThesamepointcanbe madeabouttheclaimthat
WorkerlSupervisor asa wholehaseffectsthatcannot
boundariesare both signifi- the"classstructure"
cantly greaterthan those for any other catego- be reducedto theseparateadditiveeffectsof thedi-
ries, indicating that for workers the authority mensionsthatconstitute
it.

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS 97

Table 4. Rank Order of Boundary Impermeability for Friendship Ties Between Workers and Other Class Locations

Odds of
Friend-
Antilog ship Ties
of Sum Relative
Coefficients Added to of Coeffi- to
FriendshipTie EstimateOverallPermeability Sum of Coefficients cients Employers

WORKERIEMPLOYER PROPERTY + AUTHORITY + WORKER (1) -.954 -.399 -.167 = -1.520 .219 1.00

WORKERIMANAGER- AUTHORITY + EXPERT + WORKER (3) -.399 -.715 -.182 = -1.296 .274 1.25
EXPERT

WORKERIPROFESSIONAL EXPERT + WORKER (6) -.715 -.356 = -1.071 .343 1.57

WORKERIMANAGER AUTHORITY + WORKER (3) -.399 + .058 = -.341 .711 3.24

WORKERISEMI- WORKER (7) -.308 = -.308 .735 3.36

PROFESSIONAL

WORKERIPETTY WORKER (2) -.301 = -.301 .740 3.38

BOURGEOIS

WORKERISUPERVISOR WORKER (4) .060 = +.060 1.062 4.85

Note: Sample size is number of friendship ties.

boundary.Thisaffirmstherelativelyhighperme- A statisticallysignificantimprovementof Model

abilityof the authorityboundary.The resultsfor 3b over Model3a suggeststherearecountrydif-
theWorkerlPetty Bourgeoisboundaryindicatethat ferencesin permeability.It is possible,however,
the salientissue for the propertyboundaryis not thatalthoughthereareno globalcountryinterac-
self-employmentas such, but capitalistproperty tions, there may be significantdifferences be-
relations.The odds of friendshipties between tween specificpairsof countriesfor specific co-
workersandpettybourgeoisareover threetimes efficients in Model 1. We thereforealso look at
greaterthanthosebetweenworkersandemploy- the differencesin the coefficientsfor eachpairof
ers.9 countries.
We areinterestedin countrydifferencesin per-
meabilityfor two reasons.First, in an explora-
CountryInteractions
tory analysisit is useful to know how generaliz-
Models 1 and 2 assumethatthe relativeperme- able the findings are. If the patternsare funda-
abilitiesof boundariesarethe samein eachof the mentally the same in various countries with
fourcountries.We test for the presenceof inter- roughlysimilarclass structures,thissuggeststhat
countrydifferences'0in thecoefficientsin Model the patternsaregenerateddirectlyby underlying
1 by comparingthe goodness-of-fitof the fol- class processesratherthanby contextuallyvari-
lowing two models: able historical,cultural,or politicalfactors.Sec-
ond, part of the motivationfor studying class
Model 3a = Model 1 + QI*N boundarypermeabilityis thatpermeabilitymay
Model 3b = Model 1 + QI*N + PROPERTY*N have a bearingon class formation,class allianc-
es, andclass struggle.Knowingwhetherperme-
+ AUTHORITY*N+ EXPERTISE*N
abilityvaries significantlyacrosscountrieswith
differentorganizedclass forces,can set the stage
9 Arguably, the relative permeability of the
for future explorationsof the possible linkage
WorkerlPetty Bourgeoisboundaryhas historicallyfa- between class boundarypermeabilityand class
cilitatedvariousformsof populism,which frequently
formation.
involve political and ideological alliances between
workersand small propertyowners, e.g., in the U.S.
in the late nineteenthcentury. in-class friendshippatterns.Nevertheless,the QI*N
10Because we are concernedwith class boundary interactionsmustbe includedin the equationstesting
permeability,we do not explicitlyexaminethe QI*N country differences in the three boundary-crossing
interactions,i.e., differencesacrosscountriesin with- coefficients.

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98
ResultsforCountryInteractions
Resultsin Table5 indicatethatthereis littleevi-
dencethatourcentralconclusionsfromModel 1
varysignificantlyacrossthefourcountriesin our
sample.In the globaltestfor countryinteractions
in Model 3b, thereis no statisticallysignificant
improvementin fit over Model 3a, even when
we use the numberof friendshipties as the sam-
ple size when calculatingstandarderrors."Fur-
thenrmore, a pairwiseexaminationof all possible
differencesacrosscountriesin boundarycoeffi-
cients (a total of 18 pairwisetests), revealedno
significantdifferences.
However,in spiteof the absenceof statistical-
ly significantdifferences,there is an apparent
differencein thepatternsof resultsfromthecoun-
try-levelanalysis.Thebasicrankorderof bound-
ary impermeability- PROPERTY first, then Ex-
PERTISE and AUTHORITY - holds for the U.S.,
Norway, and Canada.In Sweden, however,the
expertise boundaryis less permeablethan the
propertyboundary(thecoefficientsare-.81 and-
.67 respectively),althoughthedifferencebetween
these coefficients is not statisticallysignificant.
Witha largersamplesize, the Swedishpatternof
cross-classfriendshipsmay be shown to be dif-
ferent from the other three countries.With the
presentdata, however, none of the differences
betweenSwedenandtheothercountriesis statis-
tically significant.
On the basis of the presentanalysis,therefore,
we cannot reject the hypothesisthat, for these
fourcountries,thepatternsof classboundaryper-
meabilityto theformationof friendshipsarenear-
ly invariant.
CONCLUSION
Ouranalysissupportstwo mainconclusions.First,
resultsfor the relativeimpermeabilityof the ex-
ploitationboundariesindicatethat the property
boundaryis the most impermeable,followed by
theexpertiseboundary,withtheauthoritybound-
arybeing the most permeable.This rankorderis
mostsharplyinconsistentwithperspectivesbased
on class interests,such as Dahrendorf's,which
" There is also no improvementin the fit of the
models if we dropthe QI*NtermsfromModel 3b and
compareit directly with Model 1. However, Model
3a is a significantimprovementin fit over Model 1,
indicatingthattherearesignificantQI*N interactions.
While class boundarypermeabilitydoes not varysig-
nificantlyacross countries,the likelihood of within-
class friendshipsdoes.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
Table 5. Coefficient for Permeability of Exploitation
Boundaries,by Country:Adults in the Labor
Force, 1980-1982
U.S. Sweden Norway Canada
PROPERTY -1.11 -.67 -1.03 -1.06
AUTHORITY -.28 -.30 -.35 -.33
EXPERTISE -.72 -.81 -.80 -.89
Note: Samplesize is numberof friendshipties. Improve-
ment of scaled deviance in Model 3b over 3a is 4.8 with 9
d.f. (n.s.). No coefficients differ significantlyacrosscoun-
tries.
are built exclusively aroundthe authorityaxis.
Not only is authoritythe most permeableof the
threeboundariesin relativeterms,it is also quite
permeablein absoluteterms.
Whataboutthethreeothertheoreticalperspec-
tives? Marxisttheorypredictsthat the property
boundaryshouldbe the most impermeable;this
predictionis supportedby our analysis.The re-
sults for the expertiseand authorityboundaries,
however, are not entirely what most Marxists
wouldexpect:Theexpertiseboundaryis less per-
meableand the authorityboundaryis moreper-
meablethanwouldbe expectedon the basis of a
theory of exploitation and common interests.
While the Marxistconcernwithexploitationand
class interestsmaybe consistentwiththefinding
thattheexpertiseboundaryis less permeablethan
the authorityboundary,Marxistclass analysis
wouldnot expectthe relativemagnitudeof these
two permeabilitycoefficients to be so sharply
different.
Thefindingsfortheexpertandauthoritybound-
aries, therefore,seem more consistentwith the
class habitusand opportunitystructureperspec-
tives. On theone hand,the relativelyhighimper-
meabilityof the expertiseboundaryis consistent
withtheoriesof culturalcapital,even if suchthe-
oriestendto minimizethecontinuingimportance
of propertyas a basis for structuringclass prac-
tices. On the otherhand,the high relativeperme-
abilityof the authorityboundaryis best predict-
ed by the opportunitystructureperspectiveon
friendships.In many workplacesthere are di-
verse opportunitiesfor informalinteractionbe-
tweenworkersandsupervisors,andevenbetween
workersand managers.This density of interac-
tionalpossibilities,combinedwithrelativelyhigh
levels of careermobilityacrossauthoritybound-
aries comparedto across propertyand expert
boundaries,may accountfor the relativelyhigh
permeabilityof the authorityboundary.
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS
Theanalysisthussuggeststhatthecausalmech-
anismsidentifiedby theoriesof class interests(at
least the Marxistvariant),class habitus,and op-
portunitystructureprobablyall operateto create
obstaclesandopportunitiesfor friendshipforma-
tion across class boundaries.The result of the
jointoperationof thesethreeclustersof causesis
thatthe boundaryMarxistswould predictto be
the least permeableis indeed the least perme-
able. This mightimply thatthe property-exploi-
tation-interestmechanism is a more powerful
structuringmechanismthanarethe class habitus
or opportunitymechanisms.Such a conclusion,
however, is vulnerable to criticism on two
counts.12First,claims aboutthe relativepotency
of causalprocessesarealwaysvulnerableto mea-
surementcriticisms.Our conclusion about the
relatively high permeability of the authority
boundarymight change if we adopteda more
restrictivedefinitionof authority,e.g., limiting
"managers" to high-levelexecutives.Also, if we
distinguishedamongprofessionalsbetweenhigh-
ly credentialedprofessionalsand other profes-
sionals (e.g., surgeonsvs. engineers),the exper-
tise boundarymight become the "least"perme-
able. While such conjecturedresultscould po-
tentiallybe counteredwitha comparablerespeci-
ficationof theproperty-boundary, thiswouldonly
reaffirmthe sensitivityof claims aboutrelative
causalpotencyto measurementchoices.13
Second,even if a morefine-grainedinspection
revealedthatourcore resultswere robustacross
alternative specificationsof theseboundaries,
there
is stilltheproblemof ascribingthisimpermeabil-
ity to "exploitationinterests"ratherthan class
habitusor opportunitystructure.Employerscer-
tainlylive differentlifestylesfrommostnonprop-
erty owners, and the physical opportunitiesfor
informalinteractionbetweenmostemployeesand
employersarefew. Therefore,while ourdataare
consistentwith the claim thatproperty-basedin-
terestshavestrongereffectson friendshipforma-
tionthaneitheropportunitystructureorclasshab-
itus,theycannoteffectivelyrefutecounterclaims.
The secondmajorconclusionfromour analy-
sis is thatpatternsof friendshipformationacross
class boundariesare relativelyinvariantacross
12 Fora generalphilosophicaldiscussionof theprob-
lem of assessingthe relativecausalpotencyof differ- macropolitical outcomes.Theseresultsforfriend-
ent causes in a multicausalprocess, see Wright,Le- shipsarequitesimilarto resultsforcross-national
vine, and Sober (1992).
13In a separateanalysis of employers with more
than 10 employees (not reportedhere) we found that
the likelihoodof these employershaving friendships
withemployeeswas significantlylowerthanforsmall-
er employers.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
99
the fourcountriesexamined.Thesecountriesare
all highly developedcapitalistcountries,but in
otherrespectsthey arequitedifferent.The Unit-
ed Statesis ethnicallyand raciallyrelativelydi-
verse; the two Scandinaviancountriesare rela-
tively homogeneous.Laborunionsare strongin
Scandinavia,and in Sweden even include most
managersand professionals;they are notorious-
ly weak (anddeclining)in theUnitedStates.The
state is a majorcounterweightto the capitalist
organizationof productionin Sweden, employ-
ing well over40 percentof the laborforce.In the
U.S. the figureis less than20 percent,with Can-
adaandNorwayfallingin between.Sweden,and
to a lesserextentNorway,have long traditionsof
powerfulsocialdemocraticpoliticsin whichclass
issues are often at the forefrontof politicalcon-
sciousness,whereasin Canadaandespeciallythe
U.S., radicalworking-classpolitics are at best a
marginaltradition.
One mightexpectthis level of diversityin cul-
turalandpoliticalpracticesto be associatedwith
significant variationsin patternsof friendship
formationwithinclass structures.Thereis little
evidence to supportsuch an expectation- the
patternof permeabilityof threeboundariesis re-
markablysimilarin the fourcountries.This sug-
geststhatalthoughthemicrocultural factorstalked
aboutin theoriesof class habitusmaybe relevant
for understandingfriendshipformation,cross-
nationalculturalvariationseems largely irrele-
vant.
Initiallywe hoped to deepen the Marxistun-
derstandingof structurallydefined locations with-
in class structuresthroughan investigationof the
ways in whichpeople's lives areorganizedwith-
in those structures.Classboundarypermeability
to friendshipformationis one aspectof thisprob-
lem. We assumedthatsuch processeswould be
important forunderstanding variationsintheover-
all processby which structurallydefinedclasses
becomecollectivelyorganizedas politicalforces.
Ouranalysisundermines thisassumption.Because
classboundarypermeability tofriendshipsis large-
ly invariantacrosscountriesthatdiffer substan-
tially in patternsof organizedclass formation,it
seems unlikely that this aspect of permeability
will contributemuch to explainingvariationsin
research on occupational mobility, which also do
not find dramaticdifferencesacrosscountries."4
Of course, the common patterns of class bound-
14Despite some challenges, the intercountrysimi-
larityin occupationalmobilityis broadlysupportedin
100 AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW

arypermeabilityin developedcapitalistcountries pertisedimensionwas constructedusing only occupational

may still be importantin helping to understand codes. Occupationsin each nationalsample were initially
coded using that country's occupational-classification
the emergenceof commonkindsof class forma- scheme. These occupations were then aggregated into a
tions in thesecountries,such as the tendencyfor common 27-categoryoccupationvariable.For the present
populistmovementsto involvealliancesbetween analysis, "experts"were defined as anyone occupying a
the workingclass and the pettybourgeoisie.But professional,technical,or managerialoccupation.(A man-
agerialoccupationis not the same as a a managerialposition
differentialpermeabilityis unlikely to explain as definedbelow). Among experts,we thendistinguishpro-
variationsin such tendenciesacrosscountries. fessionals from semi-professionalsin a conventionalman-
ner by restrictingprofessionalsto those occupationswhich
ERIK OLIN WRIGHT is C. WrightMills Professor of requirepost-undergraduate educationalcredentials.Individ-
Sociology at the Universityof Wisconsin,Madison. uals in all otheroccupationswere defined as "nonexperts."
His research has focused primarilyon comparative 3. Authority.The authoritydimension of class relations
class analysisandproblemsin rethinkingthefounda- posed a problem because we had more refined data for
tions of contemporaryMarxisttheory.WithAndrew respondentsthanwe hadfor theirfriends.Respondentswere
LevineandElliottSoberhe has recentlypublishedRe- asked, "Whichof the following best describesthe position
constructingMarxism:Essayson Explanationandthe whichyou hold withinthe businessor organizaitonin which
Theoryof History(Verso, 1992). you work?Would it be a managerialposition,a supervisory
position, or a nonmanagementposition?"Those in a non-
DONMOONCHO is a graduatestudentat the University managementposition were classified as "nonmanagers."
of Wisconsin,Madison.He is completinga disserta- To distinguishmanagersfromsupervisors,we used detailed
tion on the labor movementand the state in South informationaboutparticipationin decision makingand su-
Korea and Mexico. pervisoryresponsibilitiesas well as formal position in the
managerialhierarchy.A respondentwas definedas a "man-
ager" if he/she participateddirectly in making workplace
Appendix. Definitions of Categoriesin the Class Structure
policy decisions and was either in a position that was for-
Typology
mally called a "managerial"position (as opposed to a su-
pervisoryposition)or hadthe powerto impose sanctionson
This analysis is based on a survey of the relationalaspects
subordinates.All others who said they were in managerial
of each respondent'sjob, including detailed questions on
or supervisorypositions were classified as "supervisors."
participationin workplacedecisions, formalposition in hi-
erarchies,work autonomy,and supervisorypower. There
were also detailedquestionson propertyownership,occu- The Class Str-uctur-e Typologyfor Friends
pation,andeducationalcredentials.Thus, it was possible to For friends, respondentswere asked, "Does [this friend]
construct a highly "nuanced"map of class locations for occupy a managementor supervisorposition at the place
respondentsin the sample (see Wright 1985, appendix2). where he/she works?"A "No" response was classified as
The datafor the respondents'friends,however, were much "nonmanager."Unfortunately,the data on friends lacked
thinner.To preservesymmetryin the analysisof friendship the informationneeded to distinguish managersfrom su-
patterns,therefore,the criteriaavailablefor the friendswere pervisors. Because the classification of individuals along
generallyadoptedfor respondentsas well. these three dimensions was used to create the eight class
locations for the subsequentfriendship-tiesmatrixand be-
The Class StiuctutreTypologyfor Respondents cause we wanteda symmetrical8 x 8 matrix,we needed a
We have constructedthe class structuretypology around strategyto estimate the numberof managersand supervi-
threedimensions: sors among friends. Since in the friendship-tiemodels we
did not differentiatemanagersfrom supervisorsamong ex-
1. Property (relationshipto the means of production). perts for either respondentsor friends (because of sample
Respondentswere asked whetherthey were self-employed. size constraints),we only had to make these estimates for
If self-employed, they were asked if they had any employ- nonexpertfriends.
ees. Self-employed respondentswith any employees were
The estimationprocedurewe adoptedassumedthat the
defined as employers; self-employed respondentswithout
friendship-tiematrixis roughlysymmetricalaroundthe di-
employees were defined as petty bourgeois; and respon-
agonal.Foreach class locationof friends,we knew the ratio
dents who were not self-employedwere definedas employ-
of nonexpert-managers to nonexpert-supervisors amongre-
ees. The questionsfor friendswere identical.
spondents. Each such ratio was then used for the corre-
2. Expertise.Because informationon the educationalcre- spondingrespondentclass location to divide the undiffer-
dentials of respondents'friends was not available,the ex- entiatednonexpertmanagersandsupervisorsamongfriends
into separatecomponents.That is, the ratio of nonexpert-
the literature.Overcomingthe methodologicalcrude- managers to nonexpert-supervisorsamong friends of re-
spondentworkers,for example,was assumedto be the same
ness of early advocates(Lipsetand Zetterberg1959; as the known ratio of nonexpert-managersto nonexpert-
Erickson, Goldthorpe,and Portocarero1979), con- supervisorsamong respondentswith workerfriends. The
temporaryproponents(Erickson 1982; Featherman, known ratioof managersto supervisorswithin the "Undif-
Jones, and Hauser 1975; Gruskyand Hauser 1984; ferentiated-ManagerlWorker" cell was then applied to the
HauserandGrusky1988)haverefinedanalyticalstrat- "WorkerlUndifferentiated-Manager" cell. In this way the
egies considerably and convincingly defended the full 8 x 8 friendship-tiematrixwas constructed.
propositionthat countriesdo not vary much in pat- The operationalizationof the class structurevariableis
ternsof structuraloccupationalmobility. summarizedin AppendixTable A.

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PERMEABILITYOF CLASS BOUNDARIESTO CROSS-CLASSFRIENDSHIPS 101

AppendixTable A. Operationalizationof Class Structure

PropertyDimension AuthorityDimension ExpertiseDimension

Has Managerial
Decision-Making
Responsibilities
Occupies and Is Eitherin a
Managerial FormalManagerial
or Positionor Has
Class Self- Has Supervisory StrongSanctioning
Location Employed Employees Position Powers Over Subordinates Occupation

Employers Yes Yes Any occupation

Petty bourgeois Yes No Any occupation
Manager-experts No Yes Yes Professional,managerial
technicalor semi-professional
Managers No Yes Yes Nonexpert
Supervisors No Yes No Nonexpert
Professionals No No No Professionaloccupations
requiringpost-undergraduate
degree
Semi-professionals No No No Technical,managerialor semi-
professionaloccupationsnot
requiringpost-undergraduate
degrees
Workers No No No Nonexpert

REFERENCES
Bertaux,Daniel. 1977. Destins Personnels et Struc- Journalof Sociology 33:1-34.
ture de Class (PersonalDestiny and Class Struc- . 1984. "Social Class of Men, Women and
ture).Paris:PressesUniversitairede France Families."Sociology 18:500-514
Bordieu,Pierre. 1984. Distinction.Cambridge:Har- Featherman,D. L., F. L. Jones, and R. M. Hauser.
vardUniversityPress. 1975. "Assumptionsof Social Mobility Research
_ . 1985. "The Social Space and the Genesis in the U.S.: The Case of OccupationalStatus."So-
of Groups."Theoryand Society 14:723-44. cial Science Research4:329-60.
_ . 1987. "What Makes a Social Class?: On Feld, Scott L. 1981. "'TheFocused Organizationof
theTheoreticalandPracticalExistenceof Groups." Social Ties." American Journal of Sociology
BerkeleyJournalof Sociology 32:1-17. 86:1015-35.
Burris, Val. 1987. "The Neo-Marxist Synthesis of Giddens,Anthony. 1973. The Class Structureof the
MarxandWeberon Class."Pp.67-90 in TheMarx- AdvancedSocieties. New York:HarperandRow.
WeberDebate, editedby N. Wiley. London:Sage Goldthorpe,John. 1983. "Womenand Class Analy-
Publications. sis: In Defense of the ConventionalView."Sociol-
Carchedi,G. 1977. The Economic Identificationof ogy 17:465-88.
Social Classes. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. . 1984. "Women and Class Analysis: A
Curtis,J. 1963."DifferentialAssociationandtheStrat- Reply to the Replies."Sociology 18:491-99.
ificationof the UrbanCommunity."Social Forces Granovetter,MarkS. 1973. "The Strengthof Weak
42:68-77. Ties." AmericanJournal of Sociology 78:1360-
Dahrendorf,Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflictin 80.
IndustrialSociety. London:Routledgeand Kegan Grusky,DavidB. andRobertM. Hauser.1984."Com-
Paul. parativeSocial MobilityRevisited:Modelsof Con-
Erickson,Robert,John H. Golthorpe,and L. Porto- vergenceandDivergencein 16 Countries."Ameri-
carero.1979. "Intergenerational Class Mobility in can Sociological Review49:19-38.
ThreeWesternEuropeanSocieties:England,France Hauser, Robert M. 1981. "The Structureof Social
andSweden."BritishJournalof Sociology30:415- Relationships:Cross-classificationsof Mobility,
441. Kinship,andFriendship."IHS-Journal5:1-5 1.
Erickson,Robert.1982. "SocialFluidityin Industrial Hauser,RobertM. andDavidB. Grusky.1988."Cross-
Nations: England, France and Sweden." British national Variationin OccupationalDistributions,

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW

Relative Mobility Chances,and Intergenerational nal of Personalityand Social Psychology 32:205-

Shiftsin OccupationalDistributions."American So- 213.
ciological Review53:723-41. Parkin,Frank.1974. "Strategiesof Social Closurein
Holland,Paul W. and SamuelLeinhardt.1973. "The Class Formation."Pp. 1-18 in TheSocial Analysis
StructuralImplicationsof MeasurementErrorin of the Class Structure,edited by F. Parkin.Lon-
Sociometry."Journal of MathematicalSociology don:Tavistock.
3:85-111. . 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bour-
Hollingshead,August B. 1949. Elmstown's Youth. geoisie Critique.New York:ColombiaUniversity
New York:JohnWiley. Press
Huckfeldt,R. R. 1983. "SocialContexts,Social Net- Poulantzas,Nicos. 1975. Classes in Contemporary
works,and UrbanNeighborhoods:Environmental Capitalism.London:New Left Books.
Constraintson FriendshipChoice."AmericanJour- Resnick,S. andR. Wolfe. 1988.KnowledgeandClass.
nal of Sociology 89:651-69. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Jackson,R. M. 1977. "SocialStructureandProcessin Szymanski,Albert. 1983. Class Structure:A Critical
FriendshipChoice." Pp. 59-78 in Networks and Perspective.New York:Praeger.
Places: Social Relationsin the UrbanSetting,edit- Verbrugge, L. M. 1977. "The Structureof Adult
ed by C. S. Fischer,R. M. Jackson,C. A. Stueve, FriendshipChoices."Social Forces 56:576-97.
K. Gerson,L. M. Jones, and M. Baldassare.New . 1979. "Multiplexity in Adult Friendships."
York:Free Press. Social Forces 57:1286-1309.
Laumann,Edward0. 1966.Prestige andAssociation Wright,ErikOlin. 1978. Class, Crisis and the State.
in an UrbanCommunity.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Mer- London:New Left Books.
rill Company. . 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
_ . 1973. Bonds of Pluralism. The Form and . 1989a. "Women in the Class Structure."
Substanceof UrbanSocial Networks.New York: Politics and Society 17:35-66.
JohnWiley and Sons. . 1989b. "The Comparative Project on Class
Lipset,S. M. andH. Zetterberg.1959. "SocialMobil- StructureandClassConsciousness:An Overview."
ity in IndustrialSocieties." Pp. 11-75 in Social Acta Sociologica 32:3-22.
Mobilityin IndustrialSociety,editedby S. M. Lip- . 1990. The Debate on Classes. Lon-
set andR. H. Bendix. Berkeley:Universityof Cal-don: Verso.
ifornia. Wright,ErikOlin, AndrewLevine, andElliottSober.
Nahemow, L. and M. P. Lawton. 1975. "Similarity 1992. ReconstructingMarxism.Essays on Expla-
and Propinquityin FriendshipFormation."Jour- nationand the Theoryof History.London:Verso.

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.71 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:18:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions