Critique Of Class Research Articles

“It Ain’T Necessarily So” DavidBedggood, Rich and Poor in New Zealand: A Critique of Class, Politics and Ideology, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1980, 178 pp., NZ$8.95.

Pacific ViewpointVolume 22, Issue 1 p. 94-96 Book ReviewFree Access “It Ain’T Necessarily So” David Bedggood, Rich and Poor in New Zealand: A Critique of Class, Politics and Ideology, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1980, 178 pp., NZ$8.95. Mary K. Watson, Mary K. Watson Victoria University of WellingtonSearch for more papers by this author Mary K. Watson, Mary K. Watson Victoria University of WellingtonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 May 1981 https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.221011AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume22, Issue1May 1981Pages 94-96 RelatedInformation

Critique of Class as Related to Social Stratification

Regardless of how much people in a given society are proclaimed to be equal, careful study will always reveal differences in rights, authority, privileges, responsibilities, and prestige. Differential treatment will be accorded normal individuals in most situations, to say nothing of the treatment of such abnormal individuals as feebleminded, insane, and the outlaws. Factors Related to Stratification and Its Obviousness.' If the student of social stratification confines his attention to one concrete social system such as a rural consolidated school, a bombing crew, a football team, a rural cooperative, or a small factory, it is not as difficult to determine the basis members use in ranking one another as it is to determine how people are ranked in society at large, taking into consideration their standings in all the groups in which they participate. If the system being studied, although large enough to require division of labor, is small enough that one individual can know every other individual personally, and if the units of interaction which compose the system are few, one member can and does compare himself with the other members. Thus, in college athletic teams, players may turn in their suits if a coach continually underrates them and overrates others in playing ability. In social systems such as athletic teams the most important basis for ranking usually is playing ability or what in other systems might be called technical competence. For some games, such as baseball, definite indices of achievement (batting average, etc.) or failure to perform (errors) according to set standards are available. The ease with which one can place or rank people in a system is not alone dependent upon the size of the system. If the objectives or goals of the system are specific such as those in the athletic team, it is much easier for one to compare his qualities or playing ability and sportmanship with those of others than when objectives are less specific such as those in an Old Order Amish community.2 In the latter case, the value orientation of