McKersie, R. B. (2018). A Field in Flux: Sixty Years of Industrial Relations

IF 4.4 2区 社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Work and Occupations Pub Date : 2021-04-04 DOI:10.1177/07308884211008208
J. Lamare
{"title":"McKersie, R. B. (2018). A Field in Flux: Sixty Years of Industrial Relations","authors":"J. Lamare","doi":"10.1177/07308884211008208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"tional pathways for corporate occupations in order to strengthen their control of corporate leadership. And education became “the chief public policy to address problems of work and employment” (p. 180). Groeger’s book provides a fascinating historical lens into understanding America’s current educational/occupational structure. Groeger comes from a background in history, and her scholarly criticisms are mainly levied against economists. As a sociologist, I believe her critique could have benefited from a deeper knowledge of sociological scholarship. While Groeger regularly critiques the human capital model, an explicit discussion of cultural capital is noticeably absent. Despite mentions of particular forms of cultural capital— e.g. “flawless and perfectly accented English, tact, sociability, neatness, appropriate dress, trustworthiness, and character” (p. 7)—the terms “cultural capital” or “social capital” are never used in the book. There is a long tradition of sociological critique emphasizing the role of formal education in legitimizing and reproducing class structures (most notably, Bourdieu and Passeron; Lamont and Lareau) that might have added another layer of depth to Groeger’s critique of the human capital and credentialist models. Though she does not make the connection to cultural capital herself, for contemporary followers of the Bourdieusian tradition, Groeger’s rigorously collected data can provide useful insights into the history of the legitimation of the “great equalizer” ideology and contemporary class structure in American society.","PeriodicalId":47716,"journal":{"name":"Work and Occupations","volume":"48 1","pages":"502 - 504"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/07308884211008208","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work and Occupations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884211008208","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

tional pathways for corporate occupations in order to strengthen their control of corporate leadership. And education became “the chief public policy to address problems of work and employment” (p. 180). Groeger’s book provides a fascinating historical lens into understanding America’s current educational/occupational structure. Groeger comes from a background in history, and her scholarly criticisms are mainly levied against economists. As a sociologist, I believe her critique could have benefited from a deeper knowledge of sociological scholarship. While Groeger regularly critiques the human capital model, an explicit discussion of cultural capital is noticeably absent. Despite mentions of particular forms of cultural capital— e.g. “flawless and perfectly accented English, tact, sociability, neatness, appropriate dress, trustworthiness, and character” (p. 7)—the terms “cultural capital” or “social capital” are never used in the book. There is a long tradition of sociological critique emphasizing the role of formal education in legitimizing and reproducing class structures (most notably, Bourdieu and Passeron; Lamont and Lareau) that might have added another layer of depth to Groeger’s critique of the human capital and credentialist models. Though she does not make the connection to cultural capital herself, for contemporary followers of the Bourdieusian tradition, Groeger’s rigorously collected data can provide useful insights into the history of the legitimation of the “great equalizer” ideology and contemporary class structure in American society.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麦克西,r.b.(2018)。一个变化的领域:六十年的劳资关系
企业职业的国家途径,以加强他们对企业领导层的控制。教育成为“解决工作和就业问题的主要公共政策”(第180页)。Groeger的书为理解美国当前的教育/职业结构提供了一个引人入胜的历史视角。格罗格有着历史背景,她的学术批评主要针对经济学家。作为一名社会学家,我相信她的批评本可以得益于对社会学学术的更深入了解。虽然Groeger经常批评人力资本模型,但明显缺乏对文化资本的明确讨论。尽管提到了特定形式的文化资本——例如“完美无瑕、口音完美的英语、机智、社交能力、整洁、得体的着装、可信度和性格”(第7页)——但书中从未使用“文化资本”或“社会资本”一词。长期以来,社会学批评一直强调正规教育在使阶级结构合法化和再生产中的作用(最著名的是布迪厄和帕塞伦;拉蒙特和拉罗),这可能为格罗格对人力资本和证书主义模式的批评增加了另一层深度。尽管她自己并没有将文化资本与之联系起来,但对于布迪厄传统的当代追随者来说,Groeger严格收集的数据可以为美国社会中“伟大均衡器”意识形态和当代阶级结构合法化的历史提供有用的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
24.10%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: For over 30 years, Work and Occupations has published rigorous social science research on the human dynamics of the workplace, employment, and society from an international, interdisciplinary perspective. Work and Occupations provides you with a broad perspective on the workplace, examining international approaches to work-related issues as well as insights from scholars in a variety of fields, including: anthropology, demography, education, government administration, history, industrial relations, labour economics, management, psychology, and sociology. In addition to regular features including research notes, review essays, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Exit, Voice, and Solidarity: Contesting Precarity in the US and European Telecommunications Industries by Doellgast, Virginia More Than a Match: “Fit” as a Tool in Hiring Decisions The Gender Wage Gap, Between-Firm Inequality, and Devaluation: Testing a New Hypothesis in the Service Sector. Living to Work (from Home): Overwork, Remote Work, and Gendered Dual Devotion to Work and Family Disability and the State Production of Precarity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1