Relational Studies of Inequality Author(s): Charles Tilly Reviewed work(s): Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 6 (Nov.

, 2000), pp. 782-785 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2654085 . Accessed: 29/02/2012 06:36
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 Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

782 Symposium

Relational

Studies of Inequality CHARLES TILLY

Columbia Universit)"

Let us begin with a perverse,manifestlyfalse, assumption:that every argumentin my 1998 book, DurableInequality, correct. This brief is paper will then draw inferencesfrom such an absurdhypothesisfor twenty-first-century studies of inequality.The absurdityoffers several advantages: keepsme honest, requiring to It me spellout the book'simplications futurework. for It forbidsmy devotingpreciouspagesto repairs of the book'smistakes.Finally,it allows me to show that the next generation of researchers facesvivid challenges.If theoristsand investigatorstakethe book'steachingsseriously, they will change the direction of their inquiries into
.

lnequa

lty.

Durable Inequality sketchesa set of explanations for persistentsocial inequalitywhenever and wherever it occurs. Its stipulations and explanations as follows: run * Inequality a relationbetweenpersons is or sets of personsin which interaction generates greater advantages one than for for another(e.g., a landowner out lets plots to multiple sharecroppers, who yield half of their hard-won productto the landlord). * Inequality resultsfromunequalcontrol over value-producing resources (e.g., somewildcatters strikeoil, while others drilldrywells). * Paired unequal and categories, consisting of asymmetrical relations across sociala ly recognized (and usuallyincomplete) boundarybetween interpersonalnetworks,recurin a wide varietyof situations,withthe usual effectbeingunequal exclusion eachnetwork of fromresources controlled by the other (e.g., under apartheid manyof SouthAfrica's Asians madetheirlivingsbyrunning retailshops in blacksettlements wherethey had no rightto reside). * An inequality-generating mechanism we maycall exploitation occurs whenpersons whocontrol resource enlistthe effort a a) of othersin production valuebymeans of of that resource, b) excludethe othbut ers from the full value addedby their effort(e.g.,before1848,citizens severof

al Swiss cantons drew substantial revenuesin rentsandtaxesfromnoncitizen residents adjacent of tributary territories who produced agriculturaland craft goodsunder controlof the cantons' landlordsandmerchants). Another inequality-generating mechanism we may call opportunity hoarding consistsof confininguse of a value-producing resource to members of an ingroup (e.g.,Southeast Asianspicemerchantsfroma particular ethnic-religious category dominatethe distribution and saleof theirproduct). Both exploitation and opportunity hoardinggenerallyincorporatepaired and unequal categoriesat boundaries betweengreater and lesserbeneficiaries of value addedby effortcommittedto controlled resources (e.g.,the distinction between professionals and nonprofessionals registered nursesand aides,scientists and laboratory assistants, optometrists and optical clerks, architects and architectural drawers, so and on oftenmarks suchboundaries). just Neither exploitation nor opportunity hoarding requires self-conscious efforts to subordinate excluded parties explicitly or formulated beliefs in the inferiority of excludedparties (e.g., mutual recruitment of migrants froma given originto connected sets of jobs creates ethnic nicheswithinfirms). Emulation (transfer existingorganizaof tionalformsand practices fromone setting to another) generally lowers transactioncosts of exploitation and opportunity hoardingwhen the transferred formsand practices installpaired, unequal categoriesat the boundaries betweengreater lesserbenefits(e.g., and a merchant settingupa newdelicatessen adoptsthe gender,age, and ethnic division of labor and of corresponding rewards already prevailing in other delicatessens). Adaptation (invention of procedures that ease day-to-dayinteraction,and elaborationof valued social relations

Symposium 783
around existingdivisions)usually stabilizescategorical inequality (e.g., enlisted menbuildvaluedfriendships the presin ence of mistreatment danger,thus and committing themselves to the army despitetheir sharedresentment offiof cers'privileges). Local categorical distinctions gain strength operate lowercost when and at matchedwith widely availablepaired, unequal categories (e.g.,hiringwomenas workersand men as bosses reinforces organizational hierarchywith gender hierarchy). Whenmanyand/or veryinfluential organizations adoptthe samecategorical distinctions, those distinctions become morepervasive decisivein sociallife and outside thoseorganizations in min(e.g., 1ngtowns,dlstlnctlons among eng1neers, hewers, haulers and pervade widerange a of sociallife). Experience withincategorically differentiatedsettingsgivesparticipants systematically different unequal and preparation for performance new settings (e.g., in police who treat people differently according race and ethnicitypredisto pose those peopletoward different relations with authoritieselsewhere and later). Mostof whatobservers ordinarily interpretas inequality-creating individual differences are actually consequencesof categorical organization gender (e.g., differences in school performance result largely fromcumulative effectsof differentialtreatment malesandfemales of by parents, teachers, peers). and For these reasons,inequalities race, by gender,ethnicity,class,age, citizenship, educational level, and other apparently contradictory principlesof differentiation formthrough similar socialprocesses and are to an important degree organizationally interchangeable in (e.g., differenthospitalsof the same country and perioddivisionsof laborresemble each other, but which social categories predominate amongphysicians, nurses, technicians, cooks, cleaners,and clerks varies greatly fromlocaleto locale). Mistaken beliefsaboutcategorical differencesplaylittle partin the generation of inequality, indeedtend to emergeafter
1 .

thefactasjustificationsinequality of and to change a consequence shiftsin as of theforms exploitation opportunity of or hoardingas well as in the parties involved when (e.g., substantial numbers of women enterpreviously male-dominated trades, beliefs practices and generally change rapidly a result that as of entry rather preceding causing than and thatentry). * Changingunwarranted beliefs about categorical differences little impact has on degrees directions inequality, and of while organizational changealtering exploitation and/or opportunity hoarding has a largeimpact(e.g., a given investment energy sensitivity of in training generally muchless influence has over organizational inequality than a comparable investment energyin of recruitment previously from excluded categories) . Of course, took a wholebookto clarify, it amplify, illustrate, connectthis argument. and Thebookitselfapplies different elements the of argument example to afterexample. Examples occupying pageor moreincludestatures a of English youths around 1800,disputes generated by Herrnstein Murray's Curve,moneand Bell tarytransfers the twentieth-century in United States, family feeding patterns, stigmatization of paupers late medieval in Europe, ethnic relaS tionsin SouthAfrican mines,categorical divisions among the nineteenth-century Tshidi, South African apartheid itstransformations, and Rosabeth Kanter's Indsco, treatment female of cadets at the Citadel, Italian migrantsto Mamaroneck, migration my mother's of family to the United States, European nationalism since 1559, professionalization American of medicinesince 1850, oppression African of Americans, CatholicEmancipation Great in Britain (1688-1829),anddevelopment citiS of zenship western in countries. Dozens more occupylessthana page. Eventhe schematic summary offered here, however, suffices showthat the book's to argumentdepends a dynamic, on relational account of inequality-generating mechanisms. differs It from prevailing accounts inequality, which of in powerfulagents or institutions employers, rulers, schools, market, soon sortindithe and viduals whoseattributes performances and vary significantly positions into whoserewards differ

784 Symposium

greatly. suchstandard In accounts, sorting prin- Controllers valuable of resources arepursuwho ciplesvaryamong merit, marginal product, per- ing exploitation opportunity or hoarding comsonalcontlection, symbolic value,and agents' monly invent or borrowcategoricalpairs, prej udices But they all operate through installing . themat dividing between lines greater individual-by-individual Suchindividual- and lesserbeneficiaries products those triage. from of isticaccounts havedoneus the greatservice of resources. Explanation inequalityand its of specifyingwhat analystsof inequalitymust changes musttherefore concentrate identifyon explain, especially whenit comes waged to work ingcombinations sequences causal and of mechin capitalist firms. Theyhavenot, however, so anisms notably exploitation, opportunity faryieldedcompelling explanations, especially hoarding, emulation, and adaptationwithin with regard otherformsof inequality to than episodes socialinteraction. of wages, othersettings and thancapitalist firms. This accountof social inequality has also Staticindividualism serious sets limitsto their implications studies socialmobility. for of We explanatory power. should imagine not mobility taking as placein My counterargumentnot only dynamic anabstract is two-dimensional withtheverspace, and relational,but also weakly functional. tical axis representing hierarchies income, of (Strongfunctional arguments that social wealth, say power, prestige, and/or being,and well arrangements because serve exist they overarch- the horizontal representing locations axis social ingsystems. Weak functional arguments that at various say distances eachother. from Instead, we socialarrangements because exist theysimulta- shouldbe following analogy migration the of neouslyserve particular actors and produce streams, specific with flowsof persons fromsite effects in turnreproduce social that the arrange- to s1te,eac stream n havlnga dlstlnctlve strucments.)Exploiters, the counterargument, runs ture and modifying continuously a conseas expend someof the gainsfromexploitation on quence bothof its internal dynamics of its and reproducing command the structure main- lnteractlon n envlronments orlgln clesthat Wlt at ancl tainsthe exploiters' positions. Similarly, oppor- tination. If we constructorigin-destination tunityhoarders invest someof theirgainsin matrices, should we recognize eachcell of that maintaining boundaries separate from sucha matrix that them contains distinctive of causal a set otherpersons lackaccess the opportuni- processes lifehistories. who to and tiesin question. Neither exploiters opportunor Whatagenda follows twenty-first-century for nity hoarders need extractgainsor reproduce studies inequality? *1S continue absurof Let the theirstructural advantages self-consciously. Nor dity,assuming onlythatthe arguments not just needtheyhate,condemn, persecute dis- reviewed true, alsothattheyamount a or the are but to advantaged. the argument All requires differ- comprehensive is explanation all inequalities of ential gains from productionby means of everywhere. What shouldfuturestudentsof controlled resources, feedback plus reinforcing inequality Without do? fillingin all the necesthe controlsystem. Bothcan occurthrough sary a connections, melayouttheprogram a let as taken-for-granted divisionof laboras well as serles ot lnJunctlons: through deliberate design.Through Conduct emulation separate studies different of combinaandadaptation, indeed, exploited excluded tions and among mechanisms, settings, categories. and persons often collaborate in reproducing Forexample, examine emulation transfer how lnequa lty. of existingorganizational formsand practices Hereis thesortof causal story account this of from one setting to another operateswith inequalityimplies. Broad similaritiesexist respect gender to relations whenthe settings are between inequality-generating processesand religious congregations, retail stores,military conversation: Parties interact repeatedly, trans- units,andcollegedormitories. Makethe same ferring resources bothdirections, in in bargaining comparisons distincttimesandplaces.Both out provisional agreements contingently similarities differences specify and and will whatwe shared definitions whattheyaredoing. of That have to explainand clarifyto what extent interaction responds partly available to scripts, exploitation opportunity and hoarding plaucan butinteraction modifies scripts figure ourexplanations. in the themselves, sibly andonlyworks allbecause at With similar participants improcontrols, examine variation the in vise incessantly. Nevertheless, available scripts operationmechanismsscale social of by of relations. cruciallyinclude paired,unequalcategories. Forexample, whether relations emuask the of
. . .. . . . . . . r . .

Symposium 785 lationandadaptation exploitation to workdif- gious categories homogenizes a) experiences, ferently whenallparties intimately are connect- propensities, capacities, governs and b) inequaled to one another(as withinhouseholds) or ity-generating interactions members othwith of when mostdo not even knowthe others(as er categories, c) thereby and affects subsequent withintransnational firms). performance rewards performance and for in Conduct mobility studies tracing by site-to-site ostensibly competitions. open channels their and social operation. example, For Traceinterdependencies political between sysexamine how specific of households sets place temsand nonpolitical inequalities. example, For theirchildren particular in schools,then how study howmuchmaterial inequality compatiis thoseschools channel theirgraduates various ble with maintenance democratic to of institueconomic niches. tions,under whatconditions, why. and Within organizations, compare mobility systems Integrate studies inequality of political of and and their barriers dailysocialrelations. with For contention. example, For compare contrast and example, determine whatextent sociability the forms bargaining occurwithinrelato of that clusters withinjob ladders, how the pres- tions of exploitation and with those that occurin ence of mobility barriers among interacting co- legislatures. workers (e.g., mobility barriers betweennurses Crack problem historical-cultural the of particuand doctors) itselfaffectsthe quality social larism. example, of For establish whether distincrelations among them. tive mechanisms processes and generate racial Forhierarchies a priori, posited substitute matri- inequality a function variation racial as of in catcesofrelations among positions derived empir- egories' from previous histories embedded or beliefs, ical observation. example,studymobility, For and socialinteraction, flowsof resources and among representations, practices. Informed readers immediately will complain jobsto identify closely connected structurally or that this program doesn't lookverynew that equivalent Letasymmetriestheseregards jobs. in students inequality beenpursuing or of have one measure 1nequa among Ds. 1tles Jo another theseconcerns morethana cenof for Movestudies inequality fromwages of away to The other varieties advantage disadvantage. tury.They will be both rightandwrong. of and For program actually returns major to concerns of example, document explaininequality and in suchold-time greats Adam as SmLith, Marx, Karl nonmonetary perquisites, health, information, security, nutrition, material possessions, land, GeorgSimmel,and MaxWeber,all of whom at in and politicalinfluence, financial and wealth.Then looked inequality categorical relational terms.In that sense, the program reacis investigate causalconnections both direc(in tionary. reactsto the staticindividualism It of tions)between theseadvantages wages. and and for Study creation transformation and of boundariesmorerecentworkon inequality, yearns relational thinking. us Let andcategories directly. example, For investigate long-lostdynamic, That body howeffective boundaries among racial eth- takeit dialectically: earlier of thought and as of niccategories changing different are in republics serves ourthesis,the individualism recent investigations ourantithesis, renewed as a relaof the former SovietUnion. as Searching just for Clarify causal relationships between individual tionalrealism oursynthesis. students inequality move of can and categorical variation performances in and suchsyntheses, into the twenty-first advantages. example, For inquire whatdegree much more confidently to andhowmembership distinctive in ethnic-reli- century.
. .

Inequality in Social Capital

NAN LIN
Duke University

Recently, socialscientists haveusednotionsof capital (e.g.,human capital, cultural capital, and socialcapital) organizing as concepts underto stand mechanisms affect chances the that life of individuals the well-being communities and of

(Schultz1961; Becker[1964] 1993; Bourdieu 1980; Lin 1982; Coleman1988; Burt 1992; Portes 1998).Thile the basicdefinition capof italemployed thesetheories consistent in is with that in Marx's "classic" analysis (Marx1867),