Life-Style Differences among Urban and Suburban Blue-Collar Families

Author(s): Irving Tallman and Ramona Morgner

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Mar., 1970), pp. 334-348
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2574652
Accessed: 02-10-2015 03:22 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

334

SOCIAL FORCES

LIFE-STYLEDIFFERENCESAMONG URBAN
AND SUBURBAN BLUE-COLLARFAMILIES*
RAMONA MORGNER
Syracuse University

IRVING TALLMAN
University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT

Blue-collar couples from a working-class suburb and from a working-class urban district
are compared on a number of life-style variables. Suburban families are more likely than
urban families to adopt life-styles resembling the middle class as indicated by measures of
local intimacy, social isolation, family organization, church activity, orientations to social
mobility and political perspectives. Controls for background variables and social-class identification do not appreciably alter these relationships. The analyses also reveal differential
adaptations by husbands and wives to suburban residence-thus illustrating some of the problems in generalizing from findings that do not systematically account for sex of respondents.
In conjunction with previous research the findings underline a need to reassess the frequently
reported assumption that class values are the prime determinants of life-style regardless of
residence.
O

ne of the significant trends in present primacy of cultural variables maintain that

day American society is the increasing

migration of skilled and semiskilled
manual workers to the urban fringe and into
mass produced suburban developments (Lazerwitz, 1960; Dobriner, 1963 :50-54; Berger,
1960; Woodbury, 1955; Taueber and Taueber,
1964). The extent to which this trend has altered generalizations about suburban life-styles
has been the subject of debate in both popular
and professional literature (Dobriner, 1963;
Berger, 1960; Seligman, 1964).
In its simplest form, the question raised is:
are working-class families who move to the
suburbs substantially different in their lifestyles from those who remain in the city, or
conversely, are the ways of life thought to be
characteristic of suburbs altered by the influx
of working-class people? Underlying this debate is the broader issue of whether life-styles
can be attributed primarily to cultural and
subcultural factors or to ecological and residentical characteristics. Writers stressing the
* This is an expanded and revised version of
a paper read at the annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, 1967. The research reported in this paper was supported by grants
#3038 and 20-33 from the University of Minnesota Experiment Station. We are indebted to
Joel Nelson, Murray Straus, and Joan Aldous for
their reading and criticisms of earlier drafts of
this paper.

style of life derives less from the environs than

from a set of values integral to a particular
social category.1 Those holding the ecologicalresidential orientation emphasize the importance of structural characteristics of the community which contribute to certain forms of
interaction, and channel the flow of communication in such ways that distinctive patterns
of behavior are fostered.2
(1960:13), for example, concludes that
a 'way of life' is a function of such variables
as age, income, occupation, education, rural-urban
background, and so forth, and that this is true for
suburbs as it is for any other kind of modern community." (See also Dobriner, 1963 :23; Ktsanes
and Reissman, 1959-60; Gans, 1967:274-295.)
2 For example, Shevky and Bell (1955), Greer
(1956; 1960), and others argue that a high ratio
of single-family dwellings to multiple dwellings
in a community promote home- and family-centered orientations as well as a similarity of life
routines among the residents. These factors, along
with a greater amount of shared open space, increase casual and informal interaction among
neighbors (Fava, 1958; Dobriner, 1963 :57-58).
This form of interaction contributes to shared interests which, in turn, result in greater social participation both at the neighborhood and community levels (Greer, 1960). Finally, the relative
isolation of the suburb is thought to account for
greater dependence on the immediate nuclear fam1Berger

"

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLUE-COLLAR

LIFE-STYLES

335

It is, of course, an oversimplification to depict either orientation as the singular explanation of life-style differences. There is general
recognition that both locational characteristics
and cultural values interact to produce the observed effects. The critical question, however,
is the relative influence of these variables on
life-styles. Three possibilities exist: either residence or culture has a sufficient independent
effect so that, despite interaction with other
relevant variables, one emerges as the prime
influence on the development of life-styles; or
the two variables in combination produce an
effect fundamentally different from that which
would be expected if either variable could
function independently of the other. The primary concern of this paper is to provide data
bearing on these possible outcomes.

lar tract development outside of San Jose,

California, seems to be the most definitive
work undertaken in the United States to date.
Berger interprets his data as indicating
little change in class identification, upward mobility, church attendance, social participation and political orientation resulting
from migration to the suburbs. Two major
difficulties, however, limit the generalizability
of his findings. First, the sample was composed
of workers who moved en masse when their
plant transferred its operations to the suburbs; this is not representative of the usual
patterns of residential selection.4 Second, no
urban sample was provided for purposes of
comparison ;5 in the absence of established
norms, interpretations of the findings must,
therefore, remain highly speculative.
Two English investigations reach somewhat
different conclusions from those advanced by
RESEARCH
PREVIOUS
Berger. Mogey (1955;1956), in a study of
The empirical studies of suburban life genwho had moved to a housing estate
workers
erally yield certain consistent results. Inhabon the fringe of Oxford, and Willmott and
itants in these areas are more likely than city
Young (1960), in their study of a London
dwellers to be younger, have larger families,
suburb, report changes among working-class
and live in communities which are homogenfamilies in the direction of an increasing nueous in ethnicity and socioeconomic status.3 In
clear family orientation and a tendency toward
addition, they tend to have distinctive patterns
middle-class identification.
of social relationships which are manifest prinResearch designed to test the comparative
cipally by greater intimacy with neighbors,
influence
of residence and social class on lifegreater participation in community organizastyle
has,
with the exception of Berger's study,
tions, and more involvement with their nutended
to
support the ecological-residential
clear families (Greer, 1960). These behaviors
orientation.
Greer (1956), in a study of two
have also been shown to be associated with
in the Los Angeles metropolitan
communities
an urban middle-class style of life (Smith
et at., 1954; Bell and Boat, 1957; Bell and area, reports an inverse relationship between
Force, 1956; Komarovsky, 1946). Since the social participation and urbanization when
middle class has tended to be overrepresented social class and segregation are controlled.
in most suburban research, the relative influ- Unfortunately, class was held constant in this
ence of class and residence is difficult to is- investigation by comparing two middle-class
communities, thus leaving unanswered the
olate.
Parallel studies of working-class suburbs question of possible modification which might
have been limited in scope and quantity. occur within the working class. Tomeh (1964)
Berger's (1960) investigation of a blue-colily, neighbors, and community (Martin, 1956;
Young and Willmott, 1957:131-143).
3 See Duncan and Reiss (1958).
There is some
evidence that as the suburban trend continues
many of the older suburbs are becoming less homogenous (Dobriner, 1963). Whether this tendency is characteristic, however, remains an open
question (for example, Hoover and Vernon, 1959:
esp. chap. 7).

4 On the other hand, the fact that Berger's

(1960) subjects were forced to move provides a
control for selective migration; a confounding factor in most attempts to assess the independent influence of location.
5Berger (1960) does present data based on his
respondents' retrospective experiences prior to their
move to the suburbs. Aside from the issue of reliability, these data are not systematically used as
a basis of comparison.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

336

SOCIAL FORCES

reports similar results for informal group

contacts. Controlling for social class and a
variety of demographic variables, she found
that local intimacy was more pronounced in
suburban communities when compared with
the inner city. Her measure of social class
however, seems less than adequate for our
purposes. Subjects in her sample with at least
a high school education were defined as middle
class and those with less than a high school
education as working class. Since sizeable
proportions of manual workers are also high
school graduates, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the results would have been different if occupation or some multiple indicator
of class had been used.6
Two other problems occur in attempting to
generalize from the previous research. First,
although most of the studies introduced controls for demographic variables, none controlled for subjective orientations such as selfascribed social class and mobility -aspirations.
If the cultural explanation is correct, these
subjective orientations may be critical in accounting for residential differences in lifestyle. The second problem concerns the type
of variables used as indicators of life-styleusually neighboring and various forms of social participation. The question raised by critics of this research is whether these variables
provide sufficient evidence for making generalizations about fundamental life-style patterns. Dobriner (1963 :58-59) claims that, although urban-suburban differences may occur
in social relationships and home-centered activity, "as to political conversion, religious reawakenings, status climbing, attitudes toward
education and basic family structure there is
no evidence that the suburban situation in
any way significantly modifies basic class patterns."
In brief, although previous research has
provided evidence linking residence to formal and informal social participation, it has
not conclusively accounted for other significant aspects of life-style. In addition, although
there is considerable data on white-collar sub-

urbs, the relationship between residence and

working-class behavioral patterns has not been
sufficiently examined. The research reported
here was designed, in part, to provide some
clarification of these issues.
Specifically, we shall seek answers to the
following questions: First, do differences exist
in life-styles between blue-collar families residing in the suburbs and comparable families
living in the central city? Second, if such differences exist, are they primarily attributable
to location as opposed to such cultural factors as social class identification, rural-urban
upbringing, education, and mobility orientations? Third, if suburban-urban differences are
found, to what extent are the life-style patterns (in blue-collar suburbs) comparable to
those reported in white-collar suburban studies? Answers to these questions can not only
provide an estimate of the primacy of residence
or culture, but in addition should allow us to
estimate whether blue-collar suburbs develop
a unique style of life attributable to the joint
effects of the two independent variables.
RESEARCH

METHODS

The study was conducted by means of a

structured and standardized interview with 51
couples living in a virtually homogeneous working-class tract north of the Twin Cities and
53 couples living in a central district of Minneapolis. The two areas were chosen because
of their relative comparability in income, occupational status, segregation, and geographical mobility rates. Each of these variables
has been found in previous research to affect
residence selection and would, therefore, represent confounding sources of variation in this
research.7

7 See Rossi (1955:esp. chap. 4) for a discussion

of the influence of mobility rates. Also, Greer
(1962:125-136) for a discussion of social rank and
segregation as factors in residence selection. The
decision to use a single urban and a single suburban tract matched on the variables described above
was made to optimize analytic precision. This decision, of course, was made at the cost of having
a representative sample. However, since the pri6 For problems in overgeneralizing from the
mary purpose of this research was to test the efrelation between education and occupationsee Blau fects of the two critical variables, and since such
and Duncan (1967:196). See also pp. 144-145 a test requires controlling for the variables menand Figure 4.3 for evidence pertaining to occu- tioned above, the sampling procedure used seemed
the most practical. A probability sample which
pational variance for high school graduates.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLUE-COLLAR
To hold constant the effects of length of residence, only families living in their homes
from 9 to 18 months were accepted. Water
department records and local, agency publications were used to determine length of residence. Comparability in family life cycle was
approximated by further restricting the sample
to those families with at least one child in an
elementary school. This was determined by
comparing the previous list of names against
the district school records. Participating families were then randomly selected from the
remaining list of names. The refusal rate was
approximately 15 percent for both groups. Separate interviews were conducted with each
spouse, all of whom were native born Caucasians. Upon completion of the interviewing we
found that the heads of 7 suburban families and
2 urban families held white-collar jobs. These
families were eliminated from the analyses.
The suburban and city samples were comparable in occupational prestige, income, and
parqnts' occupational status. The suburban
sample was relatively younger, had larger
families, fewer working wives, a somewhat
higher proportion of home ownership and had
a higher frequency of moves since marriage.
In addition, suburban husbands had slightly
higher educations and were more likely to
have been raised in a rural environment.8 Each
of these variables with the exception of the last,
has generally been reported as characteristic
of suburban populations (Duncan and Reiss,
1958; Dobriner, 1963:19-20).
would allow us to control for all variables would
have to be extremely large and beyond the resources available to us.
8 The relevant statistics for these differences are
as follows: The median age for suburban men was
32.3, for urban men 38.0; for suburban women it
was 30.0 as compared to 34.75 for urban women.
The median number of children for surburbanites
was 3.8 as compared to 3.0 for city dwellers. Sixteen percent of the suburban wives were employed
whereas 33 percent of the city women held jobs.
The median number of moves since marriage was
5.42 for suburbanites and 3.72 for urbanites.
Eighty-two percent of the suburbanites were home
owners as compared to 66 percent of those who
lived in the city. Finally, 60 percent of the suburban men had a high school education or better
whereas only 38 percent of the city men advanced
to high school or beyond.

LIFE-STYLES

337

It should be noted that the area from which

the. city. sample was selected has relatively
more single-family dwellings than "supercities" such as Boston, Chicago and New York;
nevertheless, the suburban-urban differences
in density are still sizeable. According to 1960
Census data, 97 percent of the homes in the
suburb studied were single-family dwellings
as compared to 19 percent in the central city
area.9 Since class and segregation are controlled, the research may be viewed as a partial
replication of Greer's (1956) earlier investigation of two tracts in Los Angeles, except
that the sample consists of representatives of
the working class rather than of the middle
class.
CHOICE

OF LIFE-STYLE

VARIABLES

The lack of constituent meaning for a concept such as "life-style" makes any set of indicators vulnerable to the criticism that they
are not appropriate measures and do not tap
"significant" aspects of the phenomenon. We
view life-style as a broad rubric under which
a number of behavioral activities and orientations can be included, each of which requires
a distinctive investment of the individuals' resources of time, energy, affect or money. The
behaviors investigated are not exhaustive of
all possibilities but are representative of the
concerns of many social scientists interested
in the relationship between behavioral modes
and community types.
We used the following behaviors and orientations as our indicators of life-style: (a) local
intimacy, (b) social participation in voluntary
organizations, (c) church participation, (d)
family organization, (e) subjective class identification, (f) mobility orientation, and (g)
political orientation.
RESULTS

Whenever residential differences for a given

life-style variable were statistically significant,
test variables were introduced to check for
spuriousness, possible intervening variables,
9 U.S. Bureau of the Census (1962). The overrepresentation in our sample of city dwellers who
are home owners is probably a result of controlling
for family life cycle. That is, intact families with
at least one child in school will more likely be
home owners.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

338

SOCIAL FORCES

and specification.10 All of the background and

demographic variables which yield suburbanurban differences were introduced as test factors.11 Although none of the original relationships was seriously attenuated by introducing the test variable, some controls did
specify conditions under which certain relationships were operable. These specifications
will be discussed at appropriate points in the
analyses which follow.
Local Intimacy and Social Participation
Higher rates of local intimacy and voluntary
social participation have been found to be
associated with both suburban residence and
membership in the middle class (Greer, 1960;
Smith et al., 1954; Bell and Boat, 1957; Bell
and Force, 1956; Komarovsky, 1946). Using
these variables as a basis for comparing bluecollar families living in the suburbs with similar families living in the central city should,
therefore, provide one test of the relative influence of residence and social class.
1. Local intimacy. Two types of indicators
were used to measure local intimacy-the extent and degree of neighboring and the perception of shared interest with neighbors. The
results are presented in Table 1. It can be
seen that consistent and generally significant
differences exist, with greater neighboring occurring in the suburbs. Similar findings occur
for the indicators of shared interest although
here the differences are more pronounced for
husbands than for wives. Not only were the
suburbanites more likely to see themselves as
sharing the same interests as their neighbors
but they also were more inclined to see themselves as having similar income and education.
In addition, they appeared to be more sensitized
to their neighbors' work and church activities.
Con versely, a significantly higher proportion
10 In order to conserve space the partials will
not be presented in this paper. The interested
reader may obtain copies of all the partial tables
for the test factors as well as comparisons based
on standardizations of the test factors and the interview schedule by writing to the A.S.I.S.-National Auxiliary Publication Service, Library of
Congress, Washingto-n 25, D.C., for document
number NAPS 00764.
11 Other "subjective" variables which were introduced as test factors will be discussed later in
this paper.

of city men responded to the items by claiming they had no knowledge of their neighbors'
activities, income, or education. These data
appear to be in accord with the classic position
of Simmel (1950) and Wirth (1938) that population density and close proximity produces a
reserve in interpersonal contacts.12 However,
the findings probably also reflect the lack of
importance of neighbors in the lives of the
city men. Most of these men appeared to
maintain close friendship ties in other sectors
of the city and were, therefore, less dependent
on immediate neighbors to meet their social
needs (Smith et al., 1954).
2. Social participation. No significant differences were found in the initial analysis on
indicators of social participation. Approximately 50 percent of both groups reported no
organizational ties. This would tend to confirm other data indicating low social participation among blue-collar workers (Hausknecht,
1964; for a more general review see Scott,
1957). However, since social participation
may also be a function of familiarity with the
community and available voluntary groups,
the findings were reexamined by dividing the
suburban sample into those who had previously lived in another suburb and those who
had moved from the central city. Two-fifths
of the suburban sample had moved from the
central city while the remaining families in
the sample had moved from other suburbs or
the suburban fringe. The urban sample was
composed only of people with previous residence in the central city. Table 2 presents
social participation comparisons for the three
groups. It can be seen that women with previous suburban residence attended meetings of
service organizations and participated in group
recreational activities more frequently than did
either of the other two groups, although the
only statistically significant differences were
with women who had previously lived in the
city. Women who previously lived in the
12 It is possible that this generalization holds
only within metropolitan areas. Reiss (1954), for
example, reports greater interpersonal contact in
urban as compared to rural areas. Martin (1956)
suggests that the choice of suburban residence is
based, in part, on the opportunities provided for
social contacts while maintaining the amenities of
urban life.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLUE-COLLAR
TABLE

1.

RESIDENCE

DIFFERENCES

339

LIFE-STYLES

ON INDICATORS

OF LOCAL INTIMACY

(PERCENT)

Men

Women

Suburban
(N = 45)

Urban
(N = 51)

Suburban
(N = 45)

Urban
(N = 51)

69

39*

52

44

78
60

53*
43*

89
75
42
49

72*
51*
25*
24*

Shared Interest Items

Similarity of education
About the same .......................................
Don't know ...........................................

71
0

56
22*

63
11

62
16

Similarity of income
About the same .......................................
Don't know ...........................................

69
7

55
28*

70
20

55
20

Similarity of interests
About the same .......................................
Don't know ...........................................

67
18

35*
41*

63
17

38*
38*

Type of work neighbors do

Don't know ...........................................

21

24*

Frequency that neighbors go to church

Don't know .............................

22

42*

24

42*

Neighboring Items
Visit immediate neighbors at least once a month ............
Know more than one neighbor well enough to call him by
first name ......................................
Know more than one neighbor well enough to visit regularly..
Wife often visits other housewives
Other housewives often visit wife

*Indicatcs signiificantresidential differences by sex at beyond the 5 percent level (X2 3.81, df=1).

suburbs were also significantly more likely than

the other groups to consider themselves frequent participators in their previous location.
For men, the only significant differences were
on participation in recreational group activities. Here men with previous suburban residence were the most frequent participators.
The evidence indicating greater social participation of suburban women as compared to
their husbands is consonant with previous research in white-collar suburbs (Martin, 1956).
Since the relative isolation of the suburb with
its lack of rapid public transportation and toll
free telephone calls tends to weaken the traditional ties of working-class women to relatives and old friends, it may make them
somewhat more amenable to organizational activity. The suburban wives' greater participation in service organizations offers some
confirmation for Greer's (1960) hypothesis that
similarity in households creates bonds of mutual dependence as well as shared perception
of common problems. This, in turn, contributes to a stronger community orientation. Inasmuch as community problems are probably

more visible to wives, it is not surprising that

they become more active participants.13
Chutrch Participation
Research pertaining to the relationship between residence and church participation has
produced inconsistent results and conflicting
interpretations (Winter, 1961; Gans, 1967:264266, suggest an increase in church attendance
in suburbia; Zimmer and Hawley, 1959, present contrary evidence). The findings with regard to the influence of social class are somewhat more consistent, indicating greater
church participation in the middle class than
the working class (Schneider, 1964). Advocates of the cultural explanation for lifestyle differences have maintained that residence
does not appreciably influence this aspect of
social behavior and have used data pertaining
to church activities as one of the bulwarks in
13 Unfortunately, the small number of cases resulting from dividing the suburban sample into
two groups made the introduction of test variables
impractical.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340

SOCIAL FORCES
TABLE

2.

RESIDENTIAL

COMPARISONS

ON INDICATORS

OF SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

Women

Men

Item

(PERCENT)

Suburban

Urban

Suburban

Urban

City to Suburbto
Suburb Suburb
(N = 19) (N = 25)

City to
City
(N = 51)

City to Suburbto
Suburb Suburb
(N = 17) (N = 27)

City to
City
(N = 50)

Averagetime spent attendingservice

organizationsand meetings(suchas
P.T.A., etc.). Oncea month or more
Averagetime spent in socialgroup
activities (cardclubs, bowling,etc.)
in presentlocation.One eveninga
week or more
Often attend meetingsin old location

32

38

39

35

70t?

54

26
11

56
20

12
18

361
524?

Attend churchmore often sincemove

Importanceof churchsince move

SuburbanMen
(N = 44)
20
30

22*
33
Urban
Men
(N = 51)
4t
9t

28
22t
Urban
Women
(N=51)
24
23?

SuburbanWomen
= 45)
(AN
34
29

*Signifies
significantdifferencesbetweencentralcity sampleand suburbanto suburbangroupby sex (p<. 05 with chi-squaret2st).
tSignifiessignificantdifferencesby residenceandsex (p< .05 with chi-squaretest).
tSignifiessignificantdifferencesbetweensuburbanmigrationgroupsby sex (p<.05 with chi-squaretest).
?Signifiessignificantdifferencesbetweenmenand womenwithingroups(p< .O5 with chi-squaretest).

their argument for the primacy of class and

other cultural factors (Berger, 1968).
Our findings, reported in Table 2, however,
indicate that residence is associated with differential rates of church activity for workingclass men. A significantly higher proportion
of suburban men than urban men believed that
church had become more important to them
and indicated that their church attendance had
increased since their move.
When urban-rural background was controlled, the residential differences held only
for those men who came from a farm background. Since persons with farm backgrounds
usually attend church more regularly, it may
be that the greater visibility of daily activities
which occurs in the suburbs is experienced as
added pressure to behave in a manner previously defined as appropriate (Zimmer and
Hawley, 1959, for evidence pertaining to greater
church participation of farm migrants; Dobriner, 1963 :9-11, for discussion of visibility
in suburbia). Alternatively, men with urban
backgrounds may not have internalized the
norm of church attendance as completely and,
therefore, need not interpret visibility as a
pressure to behave in this particular manner.
No significant differences occurred for women on these items.

Family Organization
The single characteristic most commonly
used to describe the suburban community is
the centrality of the nuclear family (Bell, 1958;
Dewey, 1948; Jaco and Belknap, 1953; Greer,
1956). Suburbs have been depicted as familycentered in activities and family-oriented in
values. Once again these characteristics are
more frequently found in white-collar families
than in blue-collar families (Cavan, 1964;
Rainwater et al., 1959). In fact, several studies have suggested that the urban blue-collar
family displays a high degree of role segmentation and a tendency for spouses to cling
to close-knit networks of same-sex friends
and relatives (Gans, 1962; Rainwater et al.,
1959; Miller and Riessman, 1964). Our data
on family organization seem consonant with
the above findings.
Briefly the findings, which are presented in
Table 3, show that urban blue-collar women
were more involved with close friends and
relatives than were suburban women, and perhaps as a consequence of this involvement,
there was greater role segmentation in urban
families.14 The findings pertaining to involveFor discussions of role segmentation in bluecollar families see Komarovsky (1962) and Rainwater et al. (1959). See also Bott (1957:esp.
14

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

341

BLUE-COLLAR LIFE-STYLES
TABLE

3.

RESIDENTIAL

DIFFERENCES

IN FAMILY

ORIENTATION

(PERCENT)

Urban

Suburban
Men
(N = 45)
Differences in Movement Toward Relatives
Item:
Live closer to husband's relatives in new location .22
Live closer to wife's relatives in new location .16

Women
(N = 45)

Men
(N = 51)

Women
(N = 51)

26
24

41 *
34*

43
44*

Residential and Sex Comparisons on Sources of Communication

When Marital Problems Occur
Whom talked to:
Spouse.................................................
Friends and relatives .....................................
Outsiders ...............................................
No one .................................................

.13
.33
16
.38

4
39
17
39

12
17
29
41

2
56*t
22
20*t

Sources of Communication over 9 ProblematicSituations

Whom talked to:
........................................
Spouse .5
Friends and relatives .....................................
Outsiders ...............................................
No one .................................................

.53
13
.17
18

64
14
9
13

44
7
26
22

64t
17t
lit
8t

*Signifies
significantresidentialdifferencesby sex (p < .05 with chi-squaretest).
tSignificantdifferences(betweenspouses)withincommunitiescomputedby correlated"+" for dependentsamples(p < .05 with two-tailedtest).

ment with friends and kin show a significantly

higher proportion of urban as compared to
suburban couples who felt that their move
brought them closer to their relatives. In
addition, the urban women were more likely
to discuss their marital difficulties with close
friends and relatives, whereas a higher proportion of suburban women reported that they
had no one with whom to discuss these problems. These results were modified to some
extent when age and working wives were controlled. As might be expected, the results held
only for nonworking wives. With regard to
age, the original residence differences remained constant for women under thirty; the
older women in both communities were less
likely to utilize kin and close friends to discuss
marital problems. At the same time, the older
suburban women represented the largest group
which stated it had no one to talk with when
marital problems occurred. The implications
of these findings will be discussed in a later
section; suffice it to say at this point, that, despite some qualifications, the introduction of
test variables did not attenuate the original
residence differences.
In order to test for role segmentation, we
compared husbands and wives in the two comchap. 3) for a discussion of linkage between social
networks and role segmentation.

munities on their sources of confidants for

nine problematic situations.15 As indicated in
Table 3, urban husbands differed significantly
from their wives on the resources they relied
upon when common family difficulties occurred.
Although the differences in the suburban sample were in the same direction, they were not
as pronounced and were not statistically significant.
When education was controlled, husband-wife
differences in the urban sample held only for
families in which the men had less than a high
school education; this control did not alter the
results in the suburban sample. This is in
keeping with Komarovsky's (1962:155-159)
findings that the less-educated urban workingclass men tend to be unable to make use of
15 Subjects were asked with whom they talked
in the following situations: (1) bad moods, (2)
marital problems, (3) difficulty with neighbors,
(4) difficulty with in-laws, (5) need for house repairs, (6) problems at work, or, for wives, problems at home, (7) difficulty with children, (8)
financial problems, and (9) personal illness. Responses were coded into four categories based on
whether they talked with: (1) their spouse, (2)
close friends and relatives, (3) an outsider (this
included neighbors, fellow workers, or professionals such as doctors, teachers, ministers, social
workers, etc.), or (4) no one.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

342

SOCIAL FORCES

confidants. While the exact temporal sequence

cannot be determined from our data, it appears
as if residence has a similar effect to that of
education in mitigating role segmentation,
probably because both variables contribute to
greater spousal communication. In the case
of residence this may be a consequence of
isolation from friends and relatives; in the
case of education it is indicative of a greater
commonality of interests between spouses.
The fact that the suburban families were
less apt to evidence close involvement with
old friends and relatives or conjugal role
segmentation suggests a shift away from the
traditional working-class system of relationships, and toward a more nuclear type of
family organization.16
Social Mobility
The popular image of suburbia as inhabited
by upwardly mobile strivers has been challenged by several studies (Bell, 1958; Dewey,
1948; Jaco and Belknap, 1953; Greer, 1956).
Our data, however, yield significant residential
differences for men on indicators of mobility.
Although the majority of our respondents in
both communities identify themselves as members of the working class, a greater proportion
of male suburbanites as compared to city
dwellers assume middle-class status. These
data are shown in Table 4. Also, as indicated
in Table 4, suburban men are more likely to
consider their chances of getting ahead in their
present job as very good and to view themselves as moving up in the world. Urban men,
alternatively, tend to place a higher value on
working-class identity as exemplified by their
preference for working-class status and the
tendency to want their sons to remain within
this stratum.
When background variables were controlled
only husband's age affected the relationships.
16 The prototype of popular books fostering this
image is Whyte's The Organi2ation Mani (1957).
Bell (1958) has reported that in his middle-class
sample, child and family orientations rather than
career considerations were the prime motives for
moving to the suburbs. Riesman (1957) considered an emphasis on pleasant environs and the
good life more important to suburbanites than upward mobility. A similar position is taken by Berger (1968:esp. chap. 2) in his report of a working-class suburb.

Residence differences were attenuated for those

under the age of thirty-five, but were not appreciably altered for the older group. The
young men in both communities tended to view
themselves as working class while, at the same
time, they stated they had a good chance of
moving up in the world-suggesting that they
may anticipate entering the middle class at
some future time. We can infer from these data
that with increasing age urban men experience
a gradual process of disillusionment concerning
their life chances. Considering the limited
mobility opportunities which exist for manual
workers this disillusionment is understan(iable
(Blau and Duncan, 1967). What is of interest
is that this process does not occur for the suburban group. The differences cannot be attributed to greater job mobility among the suburbanites since the samples are comparable in
occupational status and income, and controlling
for education does not modify the results. One
possible explanation for these findings may lie
in Chinoy's (1952; 1955 :83-85,123-34) observation that older manual workers adopt certain
types of material acquisitions as symbolic representations of success in order to allay the
anxiety resulting from their lack of job imobility. In this case the popular image of suburbia
may be used to represent upward mobility and
the attainment of middle-class status. The fact
that the younger men in the suburbs are less
likely to consider themselves as middle class
suggests that they still hope to attain this status
by means of job mobility.
Political Orientation
Our final criterion of life-style was political
orientation. The results of previous research
on the relationship between residence and political beliefs are not sufficiently consistent to
allow for easy interpretations or unambiguous
generalizations (Wood, 1958: chap. 5, for a review of research on suburban political behavior). What is apparent, however is that the
popular view of the suburb as a stronghold of
Republicanism and conservatism is not supported by the data. On the other hand, the commonly held view of the traditional affiliation of
the working class with the Democratic party
appears to be a firmly established fact of American political life (Alford, 1963:94-122).
The findings presented in Table 5 were in

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLUE-COLLAR
TABLE

4.

RESIDENTIAL

DIFFERENCES

343

LIFE-STYLES

ON MEASURES

OF UPWARD

SOCIAL MOBILITY

(PERCENT)

Men
Item
Self-ascribed social class upper or middle .....................
Good chance of getting ahead in present job ..................
Belong to group going up in world...........................
Desired social class upper or middle ..........................

Women

Suburban
(N=45)

Urban
(NI=51)

Suburban
(N=45)

42
50
61
89

22*
20*
30*
65*

32
39
63
84

Urban
(N=51)
24
26
38*
75

*Indicates significant statistical residential differences by sex at beyond the 5 percent level.
TABLE

5.

RESIDENCE

COMPARISONS

OF POLITICAL ORIENTATION

(PERCENT)

Men
Item

Party Affiliation

Suburban
(N=44)

Women

Urban
(N=49)

Suburban
(N = 45)

Urban
(N = 50)

Democrat... ...........................................

47

72*

71

63

Middle-of-the-road ..

62

38*

61

70

PoliticalOrientation

...................................

*Indicatessignificantstatisticalresidentialdifferencesby sex at beyondthe 5 percentlevel.

accord with previous data on urban workingclass political orientations. Responses among
the suburbanites, however, appeared to be more
in keeping with the popular view of suburban
politics and did not reflect some of the previous
empirical findings.
We used two measures to assess political
orientation; one was respondents' party affiliation, the other was their self-categorization
as liberal, conservative or middle-of-the-road.
Again our data indicate residence differences
for men but not women. Almost three-quarters
of the urban men considered themselves as Democrats as compared to less than half of the suburban men. In addition, the suburban men were
significantly more likely to consider themselves
middle-of-the-road, whereas the urbanites were
inclined to take a less ambiguous political stance
by adopting the label of either liberal or conservative. When background variables were
controlled the residence differences held only
for those who had at least a high school education, who were over the age of thirty-five, and
whose wives were not working. Again it appears that although education, age, and working
wives do not account for the residential differences, they specify conditions under which the
relationship between residence and political
views is operative.

EFFECTS OF RESIDENCE AND CLASS

We can conclude from the data reported

above that residence is associated with fundamental differences in life-styles for the working-class families in this study. Further, the results fail to support the interpretations of Berger, Gans, and Dobriner that the pervasiveness
of working-class values renders residential factors virtually insignificant. The fact that none
of the background or demographic variables
when used as test factors appreciably altered
the original relationships lends credence to
these conclusions.'7 This is not to say that
residence had a totally independent affect on
the dependent variables. Rather, the specifica17 In order to determine more precisely the extent to which the test factors influenced the relationship between residence and the life-style variables, we standardized the effects of these variables and compared the original relationships with
those resulting from the standardizations. These
data are not presented here in order to conserve
space; they are, however, available for the interested reader (see footnote 12). In only 3 of
the 153 comparisons were the original findings
reduced by as much as a third. There were no
consistent reductions for any of the life-style categories standardized on a given test factor. For
a description of the standardized procedure used
see Rosenberg (1962).

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

344

SOCIAL FORCES

tions resulting from the introduction of the test

variables suggest that class and class-related
cultural factors interact with residence to influence some of the life-style patterns. For example, the residential differences in church interest and activity were accounted for primarily by suburban men who came from rural
backgrounds. Similarly the data indicating
that previous residence influenced the rate of
social participation of suburban women suggests that the integration of working-class
women into suburban patterns of social participation may be somewhat slower than we
might expect for middle-class women.
The findings pertaining to family organization indicate a somewhat more complicated pattern. It appears that suburban residence has an
effect similar to increasing age for women and
better education for men in modifying traditional working-class family patterns in the direction of a more companionate-nuclear type of
family organization. The greater tendency of
suburban wives to express feelings of isola*tion, however, suggests that family nuclearization in the suburbs may be the result of the
need to substitute spousal companionship for
previous forms of emotional support.'8 Data
reported elsewhere indicating greater couple
role tension among blue-collar suburban families provide indirect support for the interpretation that this kind of forced nuclearization increases intrafamilial stress (Tallman, 1969).
Apparently the greater neighboring and social
participation of suburban women does not provide them with an adequate substitute for close
ties with friends and relatives.
Thus, although the data from our blue-collar
suburb approximate those of previous studies
of white-collar suburbs with regard to neighboring, participation in voluntary associations, and
family organization, there are indications that
those behaviors may be qualitatively different
in the two types of suburbs. These differences
become even more evident when we compare

our findings on mobility and political orientations with previous reports of white-collar suburbs. What seems most striking in our data
is the extent to which the suburban sample approximates the popular image of suburbia as
inhabited by middle class, upwardly mobile
strivers who adapt a middle-of-the-road political
stance (Whyte, 1957). Paradoxically, it is just
these mobility orientations which most clearly
set apart our blue-collar suburb from whitecollar suburbs, the latter having frequently
been described as inhabited by persons with
high familism and nonmobility orientations
(Bell, 1958; Mowrer, 1958).
The similarity between the life-styles evidenced by the suburban men and the popular
image of suburban life raises the possibility
that those blue-collar men who wish to identify themselves as middle class will move to the
suburbs as verification of having achieved middle-class status.19 If this interpretation is valid
then it is conceivable that many of the residential differences reported above can be accounted for by the greater mobility orientation
of the suburban men. To test this possibility
we reanalyzed the data controlling for class
identification and perception of upward mobility. Again results did not attenuate the
original residential differences on any of the
life-style indicators.20
Controlling for social-class identification,
however, did yield specifications for perceived
similarity of neighbors' income and education
and self-identification as liberal, conservative,
or middle-of-the-road. On these three items
the residential differences attentuate for men
who identify themselves as middle class but remain constant for those who consider themselves working class. Apparently men with
middle-class orientations were sensitized to the
status attributes of their neighbors regardless
of residence. A similar sensitivity to the characteristics of neighbors was found for suburban residents (see Table 1)-with the important distinction that suburbanites did not restrict their interests to just questions of income
and education but included perceptions of shared

18 The finding that the older suburban women

,experiencedthe greatest sense of isolation is somewhat harder to account for. It may be that despite
19 Chinoy (1952) suggests this is a motivating
a tendency to move toward a more companionate
orientation with increasing age urban women still factor among automobile workers.
20 The differences for women were weaker in
have old patterns of relationships to fall back on
in emergencies, whereas these resources are not the original relationships and the results using
available for suburban women.
these controls were relatively inconsistent.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLUE-COLLAR
interest and knowledge of the neighbors' work
and church activities. This broader area of
involvement suggests that the suburbanite is as
concerned with his potential integration in the
community as he is with status characteristics
of his neighbors.
The fact that suburban-urban differences on
political orientations cannot be explained by the
greater middle-class identification of the suburban men suggests that residential factors
play a role in the development of these views.
It may be that the same factors which create
greater neighboring and common interests in
the suburbs also foster proximate and pragmatic political concerns, thereby mitigating the
development of more absolute political orientations.21
Although these findings do not rule out the
possibility that upwardly mobile manual workers may selectively choose to live in the suburbs,
they do suggest that the life-style differences
we found cannot be explained by this aspect of
selective migration.22
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The pervasive influence of residence on the

variables depicting life-style suggests that the
ecology of the community has a significant,
though not totally independent, effect on critical modes of behavior. Such characteristics as
the ratio of single to multiple dwellings, the
amount of shared common space, and relative
isolation from the city appear to have as much
influence on the working-class family as they
do on the middle class. In fact, the isolation of
the suburb may be particularly salient in the
working class since it breaks up traditional pat21 This interpretation is not unlike Greer's
(1960) notion that the basis of political participation in suburbsis shared life space and interests.
See also his discussion in The Emerging City
(1962 :esp. chap. 4). Another factor which may
play a role in the lack of partisanship as well as
the lack of strong commitment is the non-partisan
nature of most suburban elections (Wood, 1958;
Greer, 1962:141).
220ur efforts to discover a basis for selective
migration in this study did not yield sizeable
residential differences. The reasons given for moving in the two communities were remarkably similar. Approximately 45 percent of the men and
women in both communities stated they moved to
obtain better liousing or living conditions.

LIFE-STYLES

345

terns of close relationships with relatives and

peers. This is probably more true for women
than it is for men since working-class women
seem to be more tied to kin than are their husbands (Rainwater et al., 1959; Komarovsky,
1962; Young and Willmott, 1957; Adams, 1968:
169).
The ecological explanation does not appear to
adequately account for all of the findings, however. For example, location per se does not
explain the greater middle class and upwardly
mobile orientation of the suburbanites. It may
be that upwardly mobile workers tend to select
suburban residences because they symbolize
middle-class status. At the same time, our data
show that mobility orientations do not significantly modify the residential differences in other aspects of life-style reported in this paper.
What seems most likely is that the interaction
between suburban location and upwardly mobile
persons with working-class backgrounds results
in a life-style which is different from that characteristic of white-collar suburbs or workingclass urban areas. Should our findings be supported by more representative studies, we would
expect that the blue-collar suburb, unlike its
white-collar counterpart, would represent a
status-conscious community with a moderately
conservative bent, a moderate level of social
participation, greater church attendance, and
a relatively high degree of marital tension.
Even where our data approximate those of
white-collar suburbs (e.g., neighboring, local
intimacy, social participation, and nuclear family orientations) it seems reasonable to infer
that more intensive study would yield qualitative differences.
The differential effect of residence on men
and women has been the subject of considerable discussion in the literature. The suburb
has been described as the central domain of
women, and suburban life is viewed as uniquely
satisfying to their values and expressive orientations (Mowrer, 1958:162-163; Martin, 1956).
Most of the findings reported in this paper, with
the exception of those referring to social participation, indicate greater residence differences for men than for women. The implications of these differences have been reported in
some detail elsewhere (Tallman, 1969). Suffice
it to say, the data indicate that the suburbs did
not provide greater satisfaction for women; if

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

346

SOCIAL FORCES

434-444 in Sylvia F. Fava (ed.), Urbanism in World Perspective. New York:

Crowell.
Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan
1967 The American Occupational Structure.
New York: Wiley.
Bott, Elizabeth
1957 Family and Social Network. London:
Tavistock.
Cavan, Ruth S.
1964 "Sub-Cultural Variation and Mobility."
Pp. 535-581 in Harold Christensen (ed.),
Handbook of Marriage and the Family.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chinoy, Ely
1952 "The Tradition of Opportunity and the
Aspirations of Automobile Workers."
American Journal of Sociology 57(May)
453-459.
1955 Automobile Workers and the American
Dream. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dewey, Richard
1948 "Peripheral Expansion in Milwaukee
County." AmericcanJourncalof Sociology
53(May) :414-422.
Dobriner, William M.
1963 Class in Subutrbia. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Dun-can,Otis Dudley, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.
23 For example, 42 percent of our suburbansam1958 "Suburbs and Urban Fringe." Pp. 45-66
ple defined themselves as middle class as compared
in William M. Dobriner (ed.), The Subto 41 percent in Berger's study (1968:119).
urban Comnmunity.New York: Putnam's.
Fava, Sylvia F.
REFERENCES
1958 "Contrasts in Neighboring: New York
Adams, Bert N.
City and Suburban County." Pp. 122-131
1968 Kinship in an Urban Setting. Chicago:
in William M. Dobriner (ed.), The SubMarkham.
urban Community. New York: Putnam's.
Alford, Robert R.
Gans, Herbert J.
1963 Party and Society. Chicago: Rand Mc1962 The Urban Villagers. New York: Free
Nally.
Press.
Bell, Wendell
1967 The Levittowners. New York: Pantheon
1958 "Social Choice, Life Styles, and SuburBooks.
ban Residence." Pp. 225-247 in William Greer, Scott
M. Dobriner (ed)., The SuburbcanCorn1956 "Urbanism Reconsidered: A Comparative
munnity.New York: Putnam's.
Study of Local Areas in a Metropolis."
Bell, Wendell, and Marion D. Boat
American Sociological Review 21 (Febru1957 "Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Soary) :19-25.
cial Relations." AmtericanJournal of So1960 "The Social Structure and Political Prociology 62(January) :391-398.
cess of Suburbia." American SociologBell, Wendell, and Maryanne T. Force
ical Review 25 (August) :514-526.
1956 "Urban Neighborhood Types and Partic1962 The Emerging City. New York: Free
ipation in Formal Association." Ainerican
Press.
Sociological Review 21 (February) :25-34. Hausknecht, Murray
Berger, Bennett M.
1964 "The Blue Collar Joiner." Pp. 207-214
in Arthur B. Shostak and William Gom1960 Working Class Suburb. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
berg (eds.), Blue Collar World. Engle1968 "Suburbiaand the American Dream." Pp.
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

anything, suburban life was viewed more positively by men. In general, the findings illustrate the importance of using both spouses in
studies of this type and the dangers of assuming that a single respondent adequately represents the household.
The suburb reported here is relatively recent
in origin and virtually homogeneous in class
composition. In this sense it is comparable to
Berger's (1968) suburb, but unlike Dobriner's
(1963) description of Levittown.23 The generalizations that can be drawn from this study
are also limited by the fact that it represents
only one midwest community. A definitive
study of suburban life in the United States will
have to provide a representative sample of
communities as well as populations. Given the
problems extant in defining communities it
would appear that any attempt at representative
sampling must be preceded by a more careful
delineation of ecological and residential factors than has been characteristic of such research in the past. Our data strongly suggest
that an adequate typology of communities can
make a major contribution in explaining the
development of divergent life-styles.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLUE-COLLAR LIFE-STYLES
Hoover, Edgar M., and Raymond Vernon
1959 Anatomy

of a Metropolis.

New

Rossi, Peter H.
York:

Anchor Books.
Jaco, E. Gartley, and Ivan Belknap
1953 "Is a New Family Form Emerging in the
Urban Fringe ?" Amnerican Sociological
Review 18(October) :551-557.

Komarovsky, Mirra
1946 "The Voluntary Associations of Urban
Dwellers."

Amnerican Sociological

Review

11(December) :686-698.
1962 Blue Collar Marriage.

New York: Ran-

dom House.
Ktsanes, Thomas, and Leonard Reissman
1959-1960 "Suburbia-New Homes for
Values."

Social

Problems

Old

7(Winter)

187-195.
Lazerwitz, Bernard
1960 "Metropolitan Residential Belts." AmerReview

Sociological

25(April)

347

1955

Why

Families

Move.

Glencoe:

Free

Press.
Schneider, Louis
1964 "Problems in the Sociology of Religion."
Pp. 770-807 in Robert E. L. Faris (ed.),
Handbook of Modern Sociology.

Chicago:

Rand McNally.
Scott, J. C.
1957 "Membershipand Participation in Voluntary Associations."
American
ical Review 21 (June) :315-326.

Sociolog-

Seligman, Daniel
1964 "The New Masses." Pp. 151-161 in
Frederick J. Tietze and James E. McKeown (eds.),

The Chan,gintg Metropolis.

Boston: Houghton Miffin.

Shevky, Eshrev, and Wendell Bell
1955 Social

Area

Analysis.

Stanford:

Stan-

:245-252.

ford University Press.

Martin, Walter
Simmel, Georg
1956 "The Structuring of Social Relationships
1950 "The Metropolis and Mental Life." Pp.
Engendered by Suburban Residence."
409-424 in Kurt H. Wolff (trans. and
American

Sociological

Review

21 (Au-

gust) :446-452.
Miller, S. M., and Frank Riessman
1964 "The Working-Class Sub-Culture: A
New View." Pp. 24-36 in Arthur B.
Shostak and William Gomberg (eds.),
Blue

Collar

World.

Englewood

Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall.
Mogey, J. M.
1955 "Chlangesin Family Life Expericnced by
English Workers Moving From Slums to
Estates."

Marriage antd Family

Housing
Livintg 17(May) :123-129.
1956 Famtily and Neighborliood.

London: Ox-

ed.),

The Sociology

of Geory Simmel.

Glencoe: Free Press.

Smith, Joel, William H. Form, and Gregory P.
Stone
1954 "Local Intimacy in a Middle-Sized City."
American

Joutrntal of Sociology

60(No-

vember) :276-284.
Tallman, Irving
1969 "Working-Class Wife in Suburbia: Fulfillment or Crisis." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 31(February) :65-72.

Taueber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taueber

1964 "White Migration and Social-Economic
Differences Between Cities and Suburbs."

ford University Press.

American Sociological Review 29 (OctoMowrer, Ernest R.
ber) :718-729.
1958 "The Family in Suburbia." Pp. 147-164
in William M. Dobriner (ed.), The Sub- Tomeh, Aida K.
1964 "Informal Group Participation and Resurban Comntiunity. Ncw York: Putnam's.
idential Patterns." American Journal of
Rainwater, Lee, R. P. Coleman,and Gerald Handel
Sociology 70(July) :28-35.
1959 WVorkin,igmian's
WVife. New York: Oceana.
U.S. Bureau of the Census
Reiss, Albert J., Jr.
1962 U.S. Centsus of Populationts antd Housin,g:
1954 "Rural-Urban and Status Differences in
1960 Centsuts Tracts. Final Report PHC
Interpersonal Contacts." American Jour(1) -93, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota,
ntal of Sociology 65(September) :182-195.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Riesman, David
Printing Office.
1957 "The Suburban Dislocation." Annals of
the Amiiericant Academy of Political antd Whyte, William H.
Social Science 314 :123-146.
1957 7he Organtizationt Man1. New York: Anchor Books.
Rosenberg, Morris
1962 "Test Factor Standardlizationas a Meth- Willmott, Peter, and Michael Young
od of Interprctation." Social Forces
1960 Famiiily antd Class in a London Subturb.
41 (October) :53-61.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL FORCES

348

Winter, G.
Woodbury, Coleman
1955 "Suburbanizationand Suburbia." Amer1961 The Suburban Captivity of the Church.
ican Journal of Public Health 45:1-10.
New York: Doubleday.
Wirth, Louis
1938 "Urbanism as a Way of Life." American
Journal of Sociology 44(July) :1-24.
Wood, Robert C.
1958 Suburbia, Its People and Their Politics.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Young, Michael, and Peter Willmott

1957 Family and Kinship in East London. Bal-

timore: Penguin Books.

Zimmer, Basil, and Amos Hawley
1959 "Suburbanization and Church Participation." Social Forces 37(May) :348-354.

SUBJECTIVESOCIAL CLASS IN AMERICA: 1945-68*

G. T. NYGREEN

E. M. SCHREIBER
Princeton University
ABSTRACT

Evidence from a series of national samples shows no decline in working-class identification

in the United States since 1945. The disagreement between these results and those of Tucker
for 1963 appears to be the consequenceof different question wordings and an implicitly different conceptualizationof "class." The Tucker question prompted the modal respondent to rank
himself in terms of an evaluative dimension rather than to identify himself with a group.
The 1963 study probably gives a minimum estimate of "working-class consciousness"; this
interpretationis more consistent with evidence from the other studies.

It

recentlywas claimed,with supportingev-

idence, that there has been "a reduction in

the use of the working-class label for fulltime employed men in the U.S. from 1945 to
1963" (Tucker, 1968:513). Specifically, Tucker
(1968:510) reported that the percentage of men
choosing the "working-class" label in response
to a question on subjective social class has
dropped from the 51 percent found by Centers
(1949) in 1945 to 31 percent in 1963. In contrast, Lane (1965:886) cited data that led him
to conclude that "men appear to be as willing
today as they were about twenty years ago to
see themselves as members of 'the working
class.' "1
* The data in this paper were processed using
facilities provided by the Computer Center and by
the Office for Survey Research and Statistical
Studies, Princeton University. The authors are
indebted to Stephen L. Klineberg for his comments on earlier versions of this paper.
1 Lane and Tucker both used the 1945 study of
Richard Centers (1949) as the base point for their
comparisons. Tucker, however, compared 1945
only with his own 1963 study. In contrast, Lane
compared 1945 with published tables using data
from studies done in 1946, 1952, and 1956 as well
as with the marginal distributions in the code-

Similarly divergent results have occurred for

white-collar workers: Hamilton (1966a :193;
1966b) reported that 52 percent of the clerical
and sales workers identified themselves as working class in 1956 and that in 1964, "roughly
half" of this group made a similar choice.
In contrast, Tucker (1966) found that only 16
percent of the full-time employed male clerical
and sales workers selected the working-class or
lower-class label in 1963. Hamilton (1966b)
suggested that "Tucker's finding is not indicative of a trend, but is rather attributable to the
changed question wording, i.e., the choice
among six alternatives." Tucker (1966 :856;
1968:511) argued that merely increasing the
number of response alternatives does not seem
an adequate explanation for the different results. He thus concluded that the contrast between the results of his study with those of
Centers indicated a real shift from working to
middle in the modal class identification.
The problem seems to lie with the operational
books for the Survey Research Center Election
Studies of 1952, 1956, 1960, and 1964. The 1946 data
were taken from Centers (1949:77) ; the data for
1952 and 1956 were taken from Converse (1958:
390).

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions