Practice question · Multiple choice
Erik Olin Wright analyses classes through exploitation and contradictory locations, whilst John Goldthorpe bases his schema on employment contracts. How does this theoretical divergence affect how each sociologist conceptualises a corporate manager?
Hints
- Consider which structural mechanism each theorist uses to explain why managers do not neatly fit into a simple binary.
- How does contract design differ from the extraction of surplus value when classifying supervisory staff?
Show the answer
A. Wright sees an exploiter-dominated position; Goldthorpe sees a distinct contract
Why
Wright focuses on how managers balance authority and exploitation between capital and labour, whereas Goldthorpe identifies a service relationship governed by trust, autonomy, and long-term career prospects rather than monitoring.
Practise Class, Mobility and Its Myths
The app has 6 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Sociology I is free to start.
More questions on Class, Mobility and Its Myths
- After 1945 a far larger share of people in western Europe ended up in a higher class than their fathers. Why…
- Weber divided stratification into class, status and party. Which claims about that scheme are correct?
- Erikson and Goldthorpe found in The Constant Flux that relative mobility rates were broadly similar across…
- Complete the vocabulary of mobility analysis.
- Arrange the steps of reading a mobility table properly, in order.
- In the mobility table in this lesson, 150 of the 500 men of working-class origin reached the service class.…
- An odds ratio is the standard measure of relative mobility. How does it strip out the effect of a changing…
- Because the service class expanded so much after 1945, sons of working-class fathers came to face the same…