>
>If Alan Wolfe says that what he is doing is to report on typical views
>held by affluent white married people who live in American suburbs, i.e.,
>a minority of Americans, no one here will object to his claim, but his
>claim concerns what most Americans think, as his book title advertises.
>
>Yoshie
firstly, as i recall, the title refers not to a claim that the nation is united as one nation after all in any sort of substantive agreement on issues. nor even that these people are to be understood as statistically representative. he, rather, follows those (like ehrenreich) who note that these are the people who shape US ideology in extremely important ways, albeit in very ordinary everyday ways in the act of reproduction as what was gramsci term for people who shape hegemonic ideologies?
i am going to write a book called, Buying and Selling the American Dream. it will be a sociology of the low income real estate market. will my study of two different real estate markets here, the 8 families, their agents, the agencies and loan officers and assorted oddlot professional who help/hinder their goal--will it be "representative". no. but, i will argue, that it can say something about how real estate markets work, how low income home buying programs work, etc. entitling it as i do will suggest that i'm talking about everyone in the US, but i'm not. beat me. whip me. spank me. please. i beg you!
furthermore, it is a reference to an old tune sung in studies of this type. see the book for that literature which suggests that, paradoxically, what unites "us" is that probably 90% of USers are liberal individualists who believe strongly in tolerance. we might not agree substantively on much, but i'll bet you'll have a hard time finding any data whatsoever to support the notion that USers don't value liberal individualism and liberal tolerance.
and I contend at the moment that i will be able to show how doug's complaint about morality is misguided. but i'll happily eat crow or anything else anyone would like. HA! wolfe's research question, in broad out line, is in that first chp m.p. posted. anyone pluck it out yet and ponder? you might not like his research question, but that is what a scholar is supposed to be judged on first and foremost. you ask: did they achieve the goal they set out for themselves. i am reminded of having to teach undergraduates how to read sociology. and annalee newitz once told me lit majors were supposed to do that for me. gosh a golly!