Simulación en mapas aleatorios

“Social class” has therefore perdured in EM/(M)CA texts, overwhelmingly, as a backdoor, token reference, and as an ethnographic or socio-biographical variable. In this sense, it has “haunted” (see Holmes, 2018a) EM/(M)CA as an un-explicated

39 Hypothetically, see also, Schegloff (2004 [1969-1970]: 100, fn. 3). Relatedly, for possible references to co-interlocutors within specific interactions, or in which co-interlocutors are located to have come from, or to have attended “classed” locations, see Sacks (1992, Vol. II:

143), Schegloff (1968: 1090) and Schegloff and Lerner (2009: 95).

40 On this irony, see Antaki (1998: 72), Edwards (1998: 19-20), Weatherall (2000: 286-287) and Stokoe and Smithson (2001: 249). Of course, as C. Goodwin (1981: 36) qualifies, such information is not necessarily enlisted with analytic intent; nor, equally, is it necessarily derived through procedures that are enshrined by EM/(M)CA research (e.g. Jefferson et al., 1977: 27, fn. 1).

resource, and eluded close empirical description. However, there are exceptions in which the concept has been reconfigured as a permissible field of inquiry; that is, as one available for “respecification”. These types of reference will be referred to hereafter as propaedeutic commentaries. In these instances, “social class” does not form the dedicated focus of the EM/(M)CA text but features of the device are, nonetheless, discriminated. These include observations that are made about the concept directly and those mediated through some designedly “higher-order”

conceptual prism, such as “difference” (e.g. West and Fenstermaker, 1995a; 1995b),

“ideology” (e.g. Smith, 1974), “inequality” (e.g. Berard, 2006), “prejudice” (e.g.

Speier, 1973) and “ownership” (e.g. W. Sharrock, 1974). Two observations concerning “social class” directly can be found within the lectures of Harvey Sacks (1992 [1964-1972]). ⁴¹

The first observation pertains to “perspective”. Sacks (1992, Vol. I: 45-46) notes that

“age” and “social class”, as ‘categorisation devices’, in Sacks’ (1972: 32) terms, possess a unique sense of ‘relativity’ (Schegloff, 1992b: xxxiv). For example, if a co-interlocutor is categorised in terms of these devices (e.g. “old”; “middle class”), it leaves that categoriser reflexively inspectable for how they, too, might be categorised using this device.

“If any Member hears another categorize someone else or themselves on one of these items, then the way the Member hearing this decides what category is appropriate, is by themselves categorizing the categorizer according to the same set of categories. So, if you hear B categorize C as ‘old,’ then you would categorize B to decide how you would categorize C. And again, the same procedure works for such a thing as social class.”

(Sacks, 1992, Vol. I: 45, italics in original)

41 To qualify, while Sacks (1992) does not dedicate a lecture to “social class”, exclusively, this is by no means unusual – nor is it necessarily indicative of limited engagement (see Coulter, 1976: 508; Coulter, 1995b: 334). I limit my purview here to two of Sacks’ (1992) perspicacious observations in which “social class” is addressed both explicitly and uniquely.

As Schegloff (1992b: xxxiv) assesses, this is a novel observation regarding the constitution and utility of “classed” categories in talk-in-interaction (although, cf., Gobo, 1995: 457-458). Importantly, this contrasts with other devices, such as ‘race and sex’ (Sacks, 1992, Vol. I: 45), which do not necessarily co-implicate the same pragmatic and/or categorial implications provided their comparatively nominal constitutive logic and form.

Sacks’ (1988/1989: 53; 1992, Vol. I: 742; Vol. II: 122) second observation concerns some recognisable bases of “classed” incumbencies. Anticipating later studies (e.g.

West and Fenstermaker, 1995a: 26-27), concerning optics, “social class” is distinguished, here, as a device that can be treated, by members, to be visibly appreciable – or ‘perceptually available’ (see Jayyusi, 2014 [1984]: 58, italics in original).

“It’s in parallel interesting that some of the things which work for kids’ groups, e.g., to be a hippie you have to have long hair, and things like that, are the sort of things such that you could be an acceptable hippie today and tomorrow an acceptable middle class kid, i.e., you go get a shave and a haircut and some new clothes. This can be compared to those sorts of memberships whose conditions are such as to make it not only work to get in, but work to get out.”

(Sacks, 1992, Vol. II: 122) ⁴²

In these sections, Sacks (1988/1989: 53; 1992, Vol. I: 742; Vol. II: 122) does not take the concept of “social class” for granted, as an ethnographic or socio-demographic variable, but explicates the social organisation of “classed” incumbencies.

42 On the “two-set” (here, see Sacks, 1992, Vol. I: 47-48) formulation of “hippies”/“freaks”

and the “middle class”, more generally, see Zimmerman and Wieder (1971: Ch. 1). Note, however, that “social class” is missing from Sacks’ (1992, Vol. I: 47) discussion of ‘two-set classes’. Sacks (1992, Vol. I: 48) does, however, recognise this practice to have been one used by ‘Marx’ (see §1.2.1), and subsequent explanations of this device have included the bifurcation of ‘proletarian/bourgeois’ (i.e. Drew, 1989: 113-114, fn. 8; see also, Atkinson, 1984a: 130, 154-157). For a linguistically “classed” example of this practice, see Extract 31 (e.g. l. 75). For further discussion, see §7.3.3.

Observations made in a similar faculty can also be derived from a diverse set of EM/(M)CA texts. Five notable accomplishments of these commentaries can be itemised as follows:

(1) Identity: “Social class” is situated in terms of the EM/(M)CA approach to

“social identity” (e.g. Mehan and Wood, 1975a: 521-522; H. Garfinkel, 1990 [1963]: 3-4; West and Fenstermaker, 1995a; 1995b), as introduced above (§2.2.1). Again, as West and Fenstermaker (1995a: 30) write, social identities are to be treated as an ‘ongoing, methodical, and situated accomplishments’.

The potential “omnirelevance” (see, e.g., Sacks, 1992, Vol. I: 515-522) of

“classed” identities has also been proposed (see Schegloff, 1992c: xxxi;

Heritage, 2005a: 111; G. Raymond and Heritage, 2006: 680). “Classed”

identities are positioned, in this sense, as devices with an ever-present referential availability. Finally, the relevance of such identities has also been recognised through forms of “oppression” that are analysable through EM/(M)CA research (e.g. West and Fenstermaker, 1995b: 508; Kitzinger, 2005a: 479-480).

(2) Second-order phenomenon: The existence of “social class” is not necessarily contested in EM/(M)CA research (e.g. Hilbert, 1990: 796; Schegloff, 1991:

48, 51; 1992a: 106, 109; Coulter, 1995a: 168-169; Maynard, 2003: 71-72; J.

Lee, 2016: 535). It is simply construed, instead, as an emergent product of members’ work (e.g. Dingwall, 1975: 495; Benson and Hughes, 1983: 15;

Wilson, 1991: 26-27; G. Watson, 1992: xx; Eglin and Hester, 1999: 197; W.

Sharrock and Coleman, 1999: 22-23). As Mehan and Wood (1975a: 519) write: ‘There are no things in the sensuous world like “bourgeois consciousness” or “class” or “the capitalist system,” there are only people doing their lives in a succession of here-and-nows.’. ⁴³

(3) Ordinary-language concept: “Social class” is (re-)conceptualised as a device that is derived from ordinary-language use (e.g. Coulter, 1982: 36-38, 41; R.

Watson, 1992b: 257, 260; Hester and Eglin, 2017: 301-310). The concept is understood as one that is employed by members in their everyday lives (e.g.

43 See also, mutatis mutandis, Mehan and Wood (1975b: 216).

Speier, 1973: 185-186; Coulter, 1971: 314-315; 1996: 340-341; Berard 2006:

244-245; G. Raymond and Heritage, 2006: 680) and which possess meanings and/or functions that are comparatively primordial to the “technical”

denotations that it has since been endowed professionally (e.g. Rose, 1960:

197, Table 2; differently, see also, Ossowski, 1963: 124; Gobo, 1993: 475-483).

(4) Constitution: Analysts have envisaged the warrantable bases for ascribing

“classed” categories (e.g. Speier, 1973: 185-186), in addition to their corresponding forms (e.g. Jackson, 2011b: 45). Coulter (1996: 341, italics in original), for instance, distinguishes “social class” as a ‘non-self membershipping’ device; that is, ‘membership itself is not such as to require or presuppose any actual self-conscious “self organisation” such as characterises the various self-membershipping collectivities’. Jayyusi (2014 [1984]: 52), similarly, identifies the Marxist conceptualisation of “social classes” as ‘morally organized’ vis-à-vis ideation. ⁴⁴ The category of ‘the ruling class’ is also identified as classification potentially implicated by the obligations of other categories – such as the ‘police’ (Jayyusi, 2014 [1984]:

131). EM/(M)CA research has also positioned “social class” as a device that can be gauged visibly, or through behavioural manifestations; that is, as

‘perceptually’ or ‘behviourally available’, to borrow Jayyusi’s (2014 [1984]:

58, italics in original, 74, respectively) terms. “Classed” inferences have been drawn from occupational (e.g. West and Fenstermaker, 1995a: 26-27), institutional (e.g. Wieder, 1974b: 167, fn. 11) and domestic attire (e.g. H.

Garfinkel, 1967: 119), signs of homelessness (e.g. Duneier and Molotch, 1999:

1291; Pascale, 2007: 80), names (e.g. Schegloff, 1972a: 91; 1972b: 111) and possessions (e.g. M. H. Goodwin, 2006: 184-186). Specialised forms of interactional work have also been discriminated through their “classed”

interpretability. Sudnow (1965: 266), for example, in his investigation of public defenders (hereafter, P.D.s), identifies ‘putting in a request to see the P.D.’ as an activity oriented to by P.D.s such that it indicates a defendant’s

44 On the Marxian position, see §1.2.1. On the EM/(M)CA analysis of “classed” collectives, see §7.3.

‘lower position in the class structure of the community’. Hester and Eglin (2017: 304-307), citing Sudnow (1965) and Maynard (1984), also discriminate

‘the public defenders’ pitch for a reduced sentence’ (ibid.: 304) as a further exposition of “class” status. ⁴⁵

(5) Procedure: Approaches to researching “social class” by using EM/(M)CA have been outlined. W. Sharrock (1974: 51) and R. Watson (1974: 93), for example, have indicated how the notion of “owning knowledge” could be applied to “classed” membership categories (see also, Jayyusi, 2014 [1984]:

54-55; §7.4.1). Similarly, Hester and Eglin (1997b: 162) note how “social class” could be respecified through the MCA tools of ‘[c]ategory’ (see also, Coulter, 1982: 36 in Hester and Eglin, 1997c: 3) and ‘predicate’.

Methodologically, Travers (1999: 6.1-11.9), developing Speier (1973), has proposed the use of ethnographies (ibid.: 11.4-11.6) and auto-ethnographies (ibid.: 11.3) as candidate approaches, and highlights the topics of “social mobility” (ibid.: 11.7-11.8), “industrial disputes” (ibid. 11.4, fn. 11) and

“professions” (ibid.: 11.9) as possible heuristics. ⁴⁶ In a further synthesis of existing EM/(M)CA research, Berard (2006: 247-252) has also indicated the availability of “social class” as an (in)explicit resource in talk-in-interaction.

Lastly, Jackson (2011b: 45) has anticipated the production of “social class”

through the resources of ‘person reference’ and ‘membership category devices’.

“Social class” has therefore been addressed in EM/(M)CA texts recurrently as a non-focal subject in the form of propaedeutic commentaries on the subject. These commentaries extend beyond the references introduced above, insofar as they do not

45 The two editions of this text differently interpret Maynard’s (1984) analysis. In the first edition, Hester and Eglin (1992: 218-222) omit reference to “social class” save a single ethnographic, locational allusion (ibid.: 219). In the second edition, however, and in a new chapter on “social class” (Hester and Eglin, 2017: Ch. 7), “classed” identities are, comparatively, foregrounded.

46 Relatedly, see Cicourel (1981: 72-76) on potential research on “social mobility”. This research may co-implicate an investigation of “social class” implicitly by virtue of how Cicourel (1981: e.g. 71) construes the subject.

merely state the eligibility of “social class” for EM/(M)CA research (cf. §2.3.2), nor broach the subject in ways that are distinctive (even contradictory) of underlying EM/(M)CA tenets (cf. §2.3.3). These commentaries instead adumbrate how “social class” could (and/or should) be researched empirically. Such research has, in effect, laid the foundation, therefore, from which concentrated, empirical EM/(M)CA research can commence. Thus, it is to this literature that we now turn.