On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> To define a concept it is important to enumerate its connotations, its
> designates, as well as its contrasting notions. The concept 'working class'
> - at least as it is used in the US - connotes an unmistakable
> anti-intellectualism that some argue (cf. Hofstadter) permeates the US
> culture. It is contrasted with the 'cultured' and the 'educated' which in
> popular discourse is often associated with elites, urbanism, and mental
> work. Therefore, a Latino janitor - or for that matter Black drug dealer -
> is a member of the working class, but an Indian or Russian software engineer
> is not by the virtue of their education and an connection to culture (work
> with their heads rather than their hands).
As an analytic term, "working class" does not need to be consistent with everyday usage; it just needs to be part of a coherent theory well supported by data. The way a scientist (including a social scientist!) uses a term is not limited by common sense understanding. For instance, psychologists' use of the term punishment differs significantly from the common-sense idea of punishment.
There are two things (at least) going on here:
1. We can study how people self-identify as working class or middle class; for this, we need to respect the common sense distinctions people make.
2. We can create a theory to analyze social classes in the U. S.; for this, common sense distinctions are irrelevant.
Miles