special issue for lockwood || for david lockwood

For David LockwoodAuthor(s): David RoseSource: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 3, Special Issue for Lockwood (Sep.,1996), pp. 385-396Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/591358 .

Accessed: 28/04/2014 18:54

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 109.129.208.39 on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:54:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschool

http://www.jstor.org/stable/591358?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


David Rose

For David Lockwood

ABSTRACT

David Lockwood's career and key works are briefly reviewed. For Lockwood, the problem of order is the key issue for macro-sociology and the study of social stratification is central to this. Lockwood's distinctive sociological approach is sketched out and the importance of status issues within this approach is discussed.

KEY WORDS: social integration; system integration; status; citizenship

If only for the happy reason that he is still very much an active scholar, the celebration by the British Journal of Sociology of David Lockwood's contribution to sociology is hardly the occasion on which to attempt to view his work as a whole. For this I am thankful because his writing has ranged widely over the discipline and to each of the subjects he has discussed he has contributed something both outstanding and of lasting value. Beyond his contribution as a scholar, he has played a vital role in the establishment of sociology both in the country as a whole and (perhaps more of a challenge) in the University of Cambridge. His cumsulum vitae (with which he kindly supplied me as an aide to writing this paper) is characteristically self- effacing, being onlyjust over three pages in length, yet, for this very reason, it conveys something of those personal qualities by which he has provided exemplary inspiration to successive generations. In his writing there is a finely balanced tension of opposites: on the one hand a gentle scepticism about the achievements of sociology and on the other a quiet enthusiasm for its potentialities; a subtle appreciation and mastery of work that com- bines conceptual discrimination with a stringent regard for evidence; and an understanding that although sociology has a life of its own which it must cherish, it is also liable to academic anaemia if it is not continuously in contact with and refreshed by the practical concerns of the society that harbours it.

David Lockwood, certainly, and many other readers will find these words strangely familiar (as well as more elegant than any I usually manage to

Bnt.Jnl. of Sociology Volume no. 47 Issue no. 3 September 1996 ISSN 0007-1315 @ London School of Economics 1996



386 David Rose

produce). There is a good reason for this: with very minor amendments,

they are David's own words in appreciation of his teacher, T. H. Marshall

(see Lockwood 1974: 363). However, they seem so appropriate to David

himself that I cannot resist reproducing them here. They are also appro-

priate in another sense, for where Tom Marshall pioneered, David Lock-

wood subsequently colonized and expanded, so that in paying tribute to

Lockwood's own career we can simultaneously remember the teacher who

inspired him and whom he so admired. Of course, Lockwood would no

doubt wish to demur from the view that his own generous words on Mar-

shall could possibly apply to himself, still less that he can stand such a

comparison with his teacher; but that would merely confirm for the rest of

us his diffidence in the face of our regard for his devotion to the discipline

and the achievements he has made within it. For the fact is, as all the

reviews of Solidarity and Schism attest (see Frankenberg 1993, Mann 1993,

Mouzelis 1993), David Lockwood is not merely outstanding among British

sociologists, but is ranked among the world's foremost sociologists With-

out wishing to sound like Uriah Heep, I am acutely aware that the following

short appreciation of Lockwood's career to date is all too inadequate in

both detail and quality.

II

From the publication in 1956 of his seminal article on Parsons' work, 'Some

Remarks on The Social System', via The Blacksoated Workur ( 1 958), the essays

on 'The "New Working Class"', 'Affluence and the British Class Structuree

(1963) (written withJohn Goldthorpe), 'Sources of Variation in Working

Class Images of Society' ( 1966), and The AfJluent Workur ( 1 96S9), through

to more recent essays on Marx and Durkheim, and class and gender, to

Solidarzt and Sch?sm (1992), and to his essay on civic stratification in this

volume, David Lockwood has maintained the highest levels of scholarship

thereby simultaneously influencing several generations of sociologists in

the way that they think and write about macrbsociological theory in gen-

eral and social stratification in particular. In this essay I attempt a few

remarks on these works, placed in the context of Lockwood's career at the

London School of Economics, and the Universities of Cambridge and

Essex.

III

Born in Holmfirth, Yorkshire, in 1929, Lockwood was a scholarship boy at

Honley Grammar School. When he left school, he worked for a time as a

trainee in a textile mill, before doing his National SeIvice in the Intelli-

gence Corps, mainly based in Austria. After demobilization, he entered the

LSE in 1949, gaining First Class Honours in 1952 and being awarded the

Hobhouse Memorial Prize.



387 For David Lockwood

The sociologists at LSE of this period have been vividly described by Halsey (1985). Lockwood was one of a group of a dozen or so talented students who were to become so influential in the subsequent development of British sociology. Later they were to be famously accused by Raymond Aron of using their sociology in order to attempt to make intellectual sense of the political problems of the Labour Party, but, as Halsey also obseIves, this was perhaps understandable for people of their background and experience, concerned as they were with the issue of social inequality. Certainly this was a pertinent factor for Lockwood. For him, as for his LSE contemporaries, sociology was the place to look for a theoretical answer to their politics of progress, but equally their commitment to empirical research arose from the same source. Hence, throughout his career Lockwood has combined theory and empirical research in two ways. First, his empirical research has been informed by careful and original theoriz- ing; and, second, his theoretical work has been based on a thorough foundation of empirical sociological and historical research.

Within a year of receiving his B.Sc. (Econ. ) Lockwood was appointed to an AssistantLectureship atthe LSE. Simultaneouslyhewasundertakingresearch for his Ph.D. on clerical workers as a critical case for examining the Marxist problematic of class consciousness. Lockwoodwas also getting to gripswith the workofanotherLSE alumnus, TalcottParsons,who had recentlyproduced his account of The Social System (1951).1 Lockwood's 'Some Remarks on The Social System' (1956) represents his first published inteIvention in the area which was to dominate his theoretical work for the next four decades. Along with his LSE contemporaries (and in typical Anglo-Saxon fashion), Lockwood rejected the grand theories not only of Parsons, but also of Marx. Neither Parson's consensus nor Marx's contradictions had real appeal. Rather, in Halsey's phrase, the tendency was to seek to combine the former's abstractions of value with the latter's abstractions of material circumstances. It was in this context that Lockwood's essay on Parsons was so influential. In that paper he not only established both Marx and Parsons as theorists of social order in a line going back to Hobbes, but he refused to accept either formulation of the fundamental problems and definition of sociology, preferring to regard the two schemes as complementary. This insight (for such it was, as Halsey affirms) reaches its fullest form in Soli- darzty and Schism, to which I shall return.

IV

In 1958, shortly before Lockwood temporarily left the LSE to take up a Rockefeller Fellowship at Berkeley, his Ph.D. thesis, The Blacksoated Worker, was published. Here was Lockwood assailing the Marxist redoubt by demonstrating why it might be that predictions of emerging proletarian consciousness among the clerical workforce exhibited (to use a felicitous phrase of John Goldthorpe's) wishful rather than critical thinking. In



388 David Rose

arriving at this conclusion, Lockwood erected an impressively original conceptual and theoretical apparatus combining elements of Marxist and Weberian sociology with painstaking historical and statistical research, all now recognizable as among the hallmarks of the Lockwood approach.

Of course, The Blacksoated Workur has had a lasting impact on British research into social stratification, so much so that, in the wake of the debates on proletarianization in the 1970s and 1980s, Oxford University Press commissioned a second edition containing an important postscript. In particular, it is the analysis of class position and class consciousness in terms of work situation, market situation and status situation which is so original and fruitful and which, therefore, other sociologists found so useful in their own empirical and theoretical research (see, for example, the work of Howard Newby, Lockwood's Essex colleague: Newby 1977, Newby et al. 1978; and consider the provenance of the original theoretical basis toJohn Goldthorpe's class schema in Goldthorpe (with Llewellyn) 1980).2

Subsequent development of these ideas in essays such as 'The "New Working Class"' (1960), 'Affluence and the British Class Structure' (Lockwood and Goldthorpe 1963) and 'Sources of Variation in Working Class Images of Society' (1966) were equally influential both in his own classic studies of The Affluent Worker (1968) (written with Goldthorpe, Bechhofer and Platt, and on which both Rosemary Crompton and Michael Rose worked as research assistants) and on the work of many others (see, for example, Bulmer 1975) . 'Sources of Variation' (1966) was perhaps especially important. Drawing on findings from British community studies and Arnerican, French and German research on the working class of the 1950s, and adding community situation to work situation as an important factor in the development of societal images, Lockwood identified three types of workers - the traditional proletarian, the traditional deferential and the privatized - each with a different image of society deriving from their different work and community experiences.

All of this work on class following The Blacksoated Workerwas undertaken at Cambridge where Lockwood was a University Lecturer in the Faculty of Economics and Politics and Fellow of StJohn's College from 1960-68. This was at a time, of course, when sociology in Cambridge was taught as an optional part of the Economics Tripos. The struggle to have sociology formally recognized and accepted by the University as a proper academic subject with its own Faculty Board and Tripos was one in which Lockwood was actively involved, but which did not see even partial fruition until 1969 (when a Social and Political Sciences Committee - not Faculty Board - and a Part II Tripos - not full degree scheme - were inaugurated). By this time Lockwood had departed the scene for Essex, and the first University of Cambridge Chair in Sociology went to the eminent Cambridge-educated anthropologist, J. A. Barnes.3




v

Lockwood thus arrived at Essex in 1968, having spent 1966/67 as Visiting Professor in the Graduate Faculty of Columbia University, New York. Apart from a little local Essex difficulty, the year of his appointment to the Essex Chair also marked the publication of the first two AfJluent Workervolumes, one of the genuine classics of theoretically-informed British empirical sociology. The final, and most important of the AfJluent Workervolumes was published in 1969.

During the early years at Essex, and again more recently, Lockwood had administrative responsibilities inside and outside the University. He was Head of Department and Dean, and from 1972-75 he served as Chair of the Sociology and Social Policy Committee, and as a Council member, of the Social Science Research Council. In 1976 he was elected Fellow of the British Academy and in 1989 a Member of the Academia Europea. He has also been a Visiting Professor in Delhi (1974), Stockholm (1989) and Canberra (1993). Immediately before his retirement, he was Pr*Vice- Chancellor (Academic) for three years until 1992. Currently he is chairing the ESRC's Review of Government Social Classifications.

VI

A consistent theme in Lockwood's work while at Essex, and one deriving from his interpretation not only of sociology's classic triumvirate but also of Parsons and of his own mentor, Tom Marshall, is the importance he atta- ches to the concepts of citizenship and status. Of course, this line is evident in previous work, too, but from the mid-1970s it appears to assume a greater prominence. Appropriately it begins with his short paper 'For T. H. Mar- shall' (1974) which marked the latter's 80th birthday and in which Lock- wood acknowledges the importance of Marshall's Citizenship and Social Class (1950), a work which he placed 'in a direct line of succession to those classic texts which mark the origins of modern sociology' (Lockwood 1974: 363).

For Lockwood, Marshall's work brought the legal character of status group stratification back to prominence and rescued the concept of status from its trivialization at the hands of American writers on prestige. This latter group had taken note of only the conventional aspects of status, the status superstructure, but had ignored its legal basis in modern societies in the institutions of citizenship. Citizenship emphasized equality of condi- tion and thus stood in direct opposition to class and market forces. In -ty-pie;al rasnion this short essay, in praising Marshall's work, seeks to hide Lockwood's own subtle development of these ideas in linking them to Durkheim's work on organic solidarity and Weber's on status. It thereby reveals another distinctive feature of Lockwood's sociology. Not content with understanding and using what the classical sociologists said,



390 David Rose

Lockwood seeks to tease out what they left unsaid, to make explicit what their writings leave either implicit or vague. One almost suspects that this is where Lockwood finds his own 'quiet enthusiasm' in the potentialities of sociology.4 Suffice to say that, with Marshall, Lockwood finds the structure and ideology of citizenship to be the principal source of solidarity in modern societies, an amelioration of Durkheim's forced division of labour and a means by which class conflict is institutionalized, but never entirely tamed.

These ideas suffuse a number of Lockwood's essays in the last fifteen years - 'The Weakest Link in the Chain?' (1981: 435-81), 'Class, Status and Gender' (1986: 10-22), 'On the Incongruity of Power and Status' (1986), 'Schichtung in der Staatsbuergesellschaft' (1987: 31-49) and now in the essay on civic stratification for this volume. Above all, it is a major theme in Solidarzty and Schism (1992). One might suggest that it is no accident that the first of these 'status essays' carries the title 'For T. H. Marshall', echoing that of Louis Althusser's For Marx (1968). The fact is that it was partly through his development of Marshall's insights on the relationship between citizenship and social class that Lockwood was to produce his penetrating critiques of the structural Marxism which Althusser (and Poulantzas) pioneered. In so doing he continued the work he had initiated in The Blacksoated Worker and which had begun to undermine Marxist theories of the base/superstructure relationship, the relation between class structure and class consciousness, and the class-in-itself/class-for-itself (an sich, fur sich) incantation. By establishing the importance to working-class movements of the struggle for citizenship and the effects this had on working-class politics, and by recognizing the importance of what Parsons termed 'ultimate values', Lockwood demonstrated that interweaving of historically-informed, empirically-based macrbsociological scholarship for which he is renowned. And, in opposing certain Marxist theorists, Lock- wood was operating from a position which combined a variety of intellectual influences: his own brand of ethical socialism; a philosophical approach influenced by Popper and by Weber's essays on science and politics as vocations, but above all by his unique synthesis and expansion of the work of Durkheim, Weber, T. H. Marshall, Parsons and Marx. Thus, to suggest without qualification that Lockwood is 'neo-Weberian' is to miss many of the important influences upon him, not least those of Marx, Durkheim and Parsons.

VII

Solidarzty and Schism can be seen as the ultimate expression of these influences and leads naturally to a comment on what has so far been an egre- gious absence in this paper's detailed references to Lockwood's work, his 1964 essay 'Social Integration and System Integration'. Here, as in his first major essay on Parsons, we see Lockwood reflecting on the key issue of



F * X r w X

or twavza Locrwooa 391

macro-sociology and all its philosophical and theological precursors, the problem of order. What makes the work of Parsons, Durkheim and Maix so crucial for Lockwood is that they all recognized that sociology is ultimately about the problem of order. 'Social Integration and System Integration' tackles this central issue in particularly important ways and thereby shows that a synthesis of both fol-llls of integration is fundamental to an adequate theory of social change.

The terms social integration and system integration were employed in order to indicate some fundamental problems in both the normative functionalist theory of Parsons and what Lockwood labelled as the 'conflict theories' of writers such as Dahrendorf (1959) and Rex (1964), each of whom set out to criticize Parsons' approach for failing to explore the interplay between norms and power. Social integration refers to the prin- ciples by which individuals or actors are related to one another in a society. System integration refers to the relationships between parts of a society or social system. Despite the use of the term 'integration', there is no assumption that the relationships described are harmonious. Social integration and system integration can embrace both order and conflict.

The major source of social integration which sociologists have identified in advanced capitalist societies is the class system: class is the principal means of social integration. However, in feudal societies the status system of estates played an equivalent role. In general (and following Weber's precepts about social stratification) status-based societies are likely to lead to harmonious fol-llls of social integration and class societies to conflictful forms of social integration. System integration, on the other hand, is a reference to the way in which different parts of a social system (their institutions) inter-relate. Any adequate macro-sociological theory of change must attempt to link social integration with system integration.

However, in 'Social Integration and System Integration' Lockwood notes how Dahrendorf and Rex emphasize the conflict between groups of actors (social integration) as the basic motor of social change, while Parsons downplays the role of actors and seeks to emphasize the (functional or dysfunctional) relationships between the institutions of society (system integration). For Lockwood neither approach is adequate precisely because each deals with only one side of the agency/structure problem. The task of sociological theory is to overcome this dualism. Beyond this, Lockwood's distinction points to those crucial features which need to be examined in any theory of social change. As an illustration, he notes how Maxx's theory of capitalist society refers to growing class antagonisms (social integration) which are related to the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production (system integration). That is, for A{arx, syste, cnntradictions are linkecl to the actions of groups who respond to the contradictions by seeking to change or preserve the existing society. It is contradictions at the system level which lead to social (class) conflict- system integration is related to social integration.

Lockwood's critiques of both consensus and conflict theories of social



392 David Rose

order, and of the Maxxist alternative, form the basis of all his subsequent theoretical work, culminating in Solidarity and Schism. Despite the attempt to link system contradictions and social contradictions, Marx's theory is shown to be saddled with an essentially utilitarian theory of action, and one therefore lacking an explanation of the source of rationality because it has no conception of values. Maxx fails, therefore, to take account of non- rational action, or more precisely the extent to which actors behave in ways which relate to ultimate values. By failing to make any distinction between irrational action (arising from ignorance or error) and non-rational action (arising from value commitments) Maxxism effectively ignores the insti- tutionalization of values, with serious consequences for the theory as a whole. Hence, for example, Lockwood demonstrates how trade union consciousness is not irrational but rather an example of how the legal order of citizenship inhibited class action. Workers had to struggle to obtain trade union rights, i.e. to obtain a legal status; but once they gained a status within the legal order they were less likely to challenge it. Trade unions became committed to the moral order intrinsically as well as instrumen- tally.

Thus, from his earliest work such as The Blactcoated Worker, through to Solidarzty and Schism, and in the essay in this volume, Lockwood has con- sistently argued for the crucial role of the status order within any theory of social integration. Action is not only a matter of objective situation; it also has normative detel-lllinants. Sociological theory must address both material circumstances and values. Conflict theory is thus seen by Lockwood as an over-reaction to the problems of normative functionalism, while attempts to synthesize the two theories are shown to be unconvincing. However, what these attempts at synthesis do reveal is the idea of the incongruity between power and status, between the material and the moral and between the 'two sociologies' of action and structure. These are the problems which grand theory has failed to resolve, but for good and respectable reasons: partly because the theories are inseparable from their proponents' philosophical, moral and political beliefs, but also because they are empirically difficult to adjudicate. It is not even, Lockwood argues, a question of the lack of evidence, since grand theories are insufficiently defined to be falsified.

Do these somewhat pessimistic sounding conclusions of Solidarity and Schism imply, as some reviewers suggest, that sociology (or at least this kind of sociology) is doomed to fail because the problems it addresses are dated and must give way to post-modern theories for a post-industrial world? Each will have their own answer. For myself, I agree with what a distinguished reviewer of Solidarzty and Schism has said of Lockwood's real disadvantages in the stakes of contemporary sociology: that he understands that 'the complexity of society compels . . . powerfully simple theoretical premises . . . that he writes with great clarity . . . (and that) he has also put his theories to the test of use in action' (Frankenberg 1993) . Few sociologists can match Lockwood in having contributed so much to both theoretical and




empirical sociology; fewer still have the courage to lay bare the problems of their discipline and not flinch from the unpalatable conclusions which sometimes result. As Mouzelis has obsesed, Lockwood's work is

an excellent example of what sociological theoxy is or should be about: not an amateur excursus into ontological or epistemological issues, not an uncritical adopiion of whatever happens to be fashionable in lin- guistics, literaxy criticism or psychoanalysis - but the construction of interrelated conceptual tools that can prepare the ground for empirical sociological work by dispelling misconceptions, overcoming theoretical dilemmas and raising interesting questions about the constitution, reproduction and transformation of social arrangements. (1993: 582)

As for relevance to contemporaxy concerns, intellectual fashions may come and go; the problems of order (and disorder), integration (and disintegration) remain. Plus nca change. . .

I therefore end as I began by paraphrasing Lockwood's own words for T. H. Marshall: it is with deep respect and affection that we celebrate our colleague and friend with this Special Issue of the BritishJournal of Sociolo.

David Rose ESRC Research Centre on Micro-social Change

University of Essex

NOTES

1. Against the advice of the LSE Sociology professors of the time, Parsons was invited to the School by the group of graduate students discussed by Halsey.Joe Banks tells the stoxy of this first con- frontation with Parsons in the flesh. They listened to him give a paper on the social system. It was full of Parsonian poly- syllables and manifested all the other aspects of Parsons' tortured syntax. Banks confessed to his supetvisor his own com- plete mystification in the face of this lin- guistic style and enquired whether Parsons was equally impenetrable in con- versation over the dinner table. 'Oh! yes', said the supexvisor, 'When he wanted me to pass him the salt what he actually said W'dS "Would you please orient the sodium chloride in my direction?'s. Of course, David Lockwood was among the first to penetrate the Parsons style and so reveal what was of interest and value in the suS stance.

2. The importance of The Blacksoated

Worker was immediately obvious from reviews, although reviewers did not always tend to see the strengths in the work which we recognize today. For example, G. D. H. Cole (1959), in the BntishJournal of Sociologa, commended the book as less to be regarded 'because of any particular thesis it sets out to advance than as a most useful and objective gathering together of much scattered material on a subject that has not been at all widely studied'. Both Cole and the anonymous reviewer in the Times Litera?y Supplement wrote approv- ingly of Lockwood's debunking of the alleged snobbishness of clerks, thereby revealing a vew English concern. Mean- while American reviewers could not rid themselves of their own 1950s fixations. Writing in the Ameracan Joutnal of Sociolo, August B. Hollingshead ( 1959) was alarmed by Lockwood's over-familiarity with the work of Marx, noting that 'the central chapters of the book explore (its) theme in Marxian terms . . . However, a



394 David Rose

chapter on the 'Status Situation' reflects familiarity with Max Weber's thinking. In spite of this dtuiation, the book is an attempt to apply Marxian concepts . . . Lockwood in his conclusion points out that the sociologist cannot ignore empirical facts that run counter to theoxy. He does not take the necessaxy next step that appears warranted by the data, namely, to reject the Marxian framework as inadequate to explain it'. However, even if it was a close shave, all was not lost, as Hollingshead conceded: 'Lockwood should be a suc- cessful diplomat: he satisfied his committee; he received his doctorate; and he convinced me that he is a sociologist even though he worked in the shadow of Marx's doctrinaire position' (1959: 115, emphasis added). We might add that, despite his familiarity with Marx's writings, Lockwood still managed to obtain a visa for his sojourn in Berkeley. Delbert Miller, in the American Sociologzcal Review, showed a different American sociological trait of the 1950s: the inability to recognize the difference between theory and description to the extent that the defini- tions of each became reversed. Less concerned that Lockwood might be a fellow traveller, Miller stated that 'this research is entirely descriptive. It explores not the occupational life of the clerk but his class position and class consciousness'. And, in a further comment on the lack of a reference by Lockwood to C. Wright Mills' White Collar, Miller made the pained obsentation that 'it seems incredible that the Atlantic Ocean can still isolate our British colleagues from our writings in the USA. Of course, this is not completely fair because Dr Lockwood cites such Amer- icans as Centers, Bendix, Lipset and Veblen' (1959: 744). In overlooking the fact that at least two of these four were not American by birth, we can nevertheless note that Miller had obviously remained isolated from Lockwood's work on Par- sons. I am grateful to Terly Tostevin for tracing these reviews and for other assis- tance he has rendered in the production of this paper.

3. For an interesting and informative account of the history of sociology at Cambridge, from the time of Sidgwick and Alfred Marshall see J. A. Barnes

( 1970) . Interestingly, from the viewpoint of Barnes' antecedents and Lockwood's intellectual concerns, the former makes no mention of the influence on the development of sociology in Cambridge of either T. H. Marshall or Talcott Par- sons, both of whom gave Alfred Marshall lectures in Cambridge in the hope of stimulating acceptance of the discipline. It is related (and it may have been David Lockwood who told me this) that Parsons put back progress towards sociology's recognition at Cambridge for well over a decade when he told the economists that they were dealing with a mere sub-system of society, thereby leaving them with the impression that sociology still sought to be the queen of the social sciences. Accord- ing to Barnes, Alfred Marshall's own inaugural lecture did admit the possibility of economics finding shelter under the wing of a unified social science, if not sociology. These days are long gone, even to the extent that the Social Science Research Council had to lose all reference to science while being forced to rede- scribe itself as being Economic as well as Social, thereby revealing (at best) the continued inability of British economists to distinguish be-tween the adjectives 'social' and 'sociological'.

4. An even better example of this trait in Lockwood's work (also noted by Mann, 1993: 170) is his treatment of Durkheim's little-known fourth type of suicide, fatal- istic suicide. From this apparently un- promising beginning, Durkheim's sketchy comments on fatalism are raised to a prominent role in the explanation of social order. See Lockwood (1982); and cf. Solidarzty and Schism, Chapter 3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Althusser, L. 1968 For Marx, Harmonds- worth: Penguin. Bawnes, J. AF 1970 Sociologzy in Cambndge An Inaugural Lecture, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Bulmer, M. (ed.) 1975 Working Class Images of Society, London: Routledge. Cole, G. D. H. 1959 Review of The Black-



For David Lockwood 395

coated Worker in the Bntish Journal of Sociologa 10(1): 71-3. Dahrendorf, R 1959 Class and Class Con- JZict in an Industrial Society, London: Rou- tledge and Kegan Paul. Frankenberg, R 1993 Review of Solidarity and Schism in Sociology 27(3): 561-2. Goldthorlpe, J. H. (with C. Llewellyn) 1980 Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Bntain, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Halsey, Ae H. 1985 'Provincials and pro- fessionals: the British post-war sociologists' in M. Bulmer, (ed.) Essays on the Histoty of Bntish Sociological Research, Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hollingshead, Ae 1959 Review of The Blacksoated Worker in the Amencan Journal of Soczology65(1): 115. Lockwood, D. Please see separate publication list. Mann, M. 1993 Review of Solidanty and Schism in the Bntish Journal of Sociololy, 44(1): 169-71. Marshall, T. H. 1950 Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, D. 1959 Review of The Blacksoated Worker in the American Sociological Review, 24(5): 744-5. Mouzelis, N. 1993 Review of Solidanty and Schism in The Sociological Review, 41(3): 572-82 Newby, H. 1977 The Deferential Worker, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Newby, H., Bell, C., Rose, D. and Saun- ders, P. 1978 Property, Paternalism and Power, London: Hutchinson. Parsons, T. 1951 The Social System, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rex, J. 1964 Key Problems in Sociological Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

DAVID LOCKWOOD'S PUBLICATION LIST 1995-1996

Lockwood, D. 1955 'Arbitration and Industrial Conflict', Bntish Journal of Sociologa 6(4): 33547.

1956 'Some Remarks on the Social System', Bntish Journal of Sociololy 7(2): 13G46. - 1958 The Blacksoated Worker: A Study

in Class Consciousness. London: Allen & Unwin. Reprinted in 1966. Translated into Spanish and Japanese. Second edition, (1989) Oxford: Clarendon Press. 'A Postscript' (pp. 217-66) added to original text.

1960 'Social Mobility' in A. T. Wel- ford, M. Argyle, D. V. Glass and J. N. Morris (eds) Society: Problerns and Methods of Study. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

1960 'The "New Working Class"', EuropeanJournal of Sociololy 2(2): 248-59.

Circa 1961 'Der Angestellte: ein international vergleichende Darstellung', in H. Bayer (ed.) Der Angestellte zwischen Arbeiterschacft und Management, Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.

1961 Articles on 'Sanction', 'Ideal Type' and 'White collar workers', in Gould and Kolb (eds) The UNESCO Dic- tionaty of Sociololy, UNESCO: Paris.

1964 'The Distribution of Power in Industrial Society', The Development of Industnal Society, Sociological Review Monograph No. 8: 35-41.

1964 'Social Integration and System Integration', in G. K Zollschan and W. Hirsch (eds) Explorations in Social Change, Houghton and Mifflin: NewYork. - 1966 'Sources of Variation in Work- ingUlass Images of Society', Sociologzcal Review, 14(2): 249-67. - 1968 The AfJZuent Worker: Industnal Attitudes and Behaviour, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. - 1968 The AfJZuent Worker: Political Attitudes and Behaviour, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. - 1969 The AfJZuent Worker in the Class Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. - 1970 'Preface' in David Lane The End of Inequality, London: Penguin Books. - 1970 'Race, Conflict and Plural Society', in S. Zubaida (ed.) Race and Racism, London: Tavistock.

1972 'Social Mobility', in P. Barker (ed.) OneforSorrow, OneforJoy: Ten Years of New Society, Allen and Unwin, London.

1974 'For T. H. Marshall', Sociololy 8(3): 36>7.

1975a 'In search of the traditional worker', in M. Bulmer (ed.) Working



396 David Rose

Class Images of Society, London: Rout- ledge.

1975b 'The radical worker: a postscript' in M. Bulmer (ed.) Working Class Images of Society, London: Routledge.

1981 The Weakest Link in the Chain? Some comments on the Marxist Theory of Action, in Simpson and Simp- son (eds) The Sociology of Work, Vol 1, New York: JAI Press.

1982 'The Ethics of Fatalism: Durk- heim's Hidden Theoxy of Order', in A. Giddens and G. Mackenzie (eds) Class and the Division of Labour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 1986 'Class, Status and Gender', in R. Crompton and M. Mann (eds) Gender and Stratification, Cambridge: Polity Press. - 1986 'On the Incongruity of Power and Status', in R. W. Hodge and H. Strasser (eds) Status Inconsistency in Modern Societies, Duisberg: Verlag der Sozialwissenschaftlichen Kooperative.

1987 'Schichtung in der Staatsbuer- gergesellschaft', in B. Giesen and H. Haferkamp (eds) Soziologie der Sozialien Ungleichheit, Geissen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

1992 Solidarity and Schism: The 'ProS lem of Disorder' in Durkheimian and Marxist Sociology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

1993 'Class and Stratification', Work, Employment and Society 7(3): 49>98.

1993 'Status incongruity in industrial society', in R. Hodge and H. Strasser (eds) Change and Strain in Social Hier- archies: Theory and Method in the Study of Status Inconsistency, Delhi: Ajanta Books, [revised version of same title, 1986 above] .

1994 'Keeping Order', Contemporaty Sociololy (American Sociological Associa- tion ReviewJournal) 23(5): 757-8.

1995 'Marking Out the Middle Clas- ses', in M. Savage and T. Butler (eds) The Middle Classes and Social Change, London: UCL Press. - 1996 'Krise der Klassenanalyse? (A Crisis in Class Analysis?)', in Martin Kohli and Wolfgang Zapf (eds) Gesell- shaften ohn Klassen 2: Enstehung, Verlager- ung und AuJZoesung von Klassenmilieus, Opladen: Leske and Budlich. Lockwood, D. and Goldthorpe, J. 1963 'Affluence and the British Class Structure', Sociological Review 11(2): 13S 63. Lockwood, D., Goldthorpe, J. H., Bech- hofer, F. and Platt, J. 1967 'The Affluent Worker and the thesis of embourgeoise- ment', Sociololy 8 (3): 11-31.



special issue for lockwood || for david lockwood

Documents