Skip to main content

Class Structure and Class Mobility

  • Chapter
  • 40 Accesses

Part of the book series: St Antony’s/Macmillan Series ((STANTS))

Abstract

The major focus in this chapter is on class, defined in terms of the social relations of production and marketable skills. The Japanese Marxist economists have long been concerned with the analysis of the class structure of modern Japanese society (e.g., Ohashi, 1971) and the development of Japanese capitalism (e.g., Noro, 1930; Yamada, 1934; Hirano, 1967). Several important studies attempted to estimate the class composition of modern and contemporary Japanese society using the Census and survey data (Hara, 1979; Ohashi, 1971; Shoji, 1977, 1982; Steven, 1983). However, none of these studies on class composition discussed the pattern of class mobility; the nature of the data did not allow investigation of the movement of people within the class structure. Furthermore, the study of mobility was often considered ‘bourgeois science’, since mobility is generally viewed by Marxists as a factor which weakens class consciousness and collective action among the working class.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Erik Olin Wright (1985, p. 150) who was the principal investigator of the CSCC survey, claimed that the questions on the number of employees were not clear. An unknown proportion of the respondents who stated that they had one employee really had none (by counting themselves as an employee). I therefore followed Wright’s suggestion of defining the petty bourgeoisie as having no more than one employee. The CSCC survey did not have a category of ‘work without pay’ in the father’s (or the family head’s) employment status question. These fathers (or the family heads) are classified as either ‘self-employed’ or ‘worked for someone else’ in the American data.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wright et al. (1982, p. 715) have shown a close fit between formal hierarchical positions and the measure of authority (sanctioning and task authority). Non-managerial positions are almost entirely excluded from the exercise of sanctioning and task authority. It seems unlikely that employees in non-managerial positions can supervise and control other people’s labour without having any formal titles.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The term ‘reproduction’ here refers to the process through which the relative position of individuals in the class structure is maintained between the two generations. Our usage does not refer to the process through which the structure of classes (i.e., marginal distributions of the mobility table) is maintained between the generations, regardless of individuals who occupy the positions (cf. Poulantzas, 1975, p. 33).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1993 Hiroshi Ishida

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ishida, H. (1993). Class Structure and Class Mobility. In: Social Mobility in Contemporary Japan. St Antony’s/Macmillan Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13867-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics