Whatever happened to social class? An examination of the neglect of working class cultures in the sociology of death
Whatever happened to social class? An examination of the neglect of working class cultures in the sociology of death
复制标题
DOI：
10.5172/hesr.2007.16.5.425
复制
发表时间：
2007-12-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Howarth, Glennys
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Howarth, Glennys
本文探讨了死亡社会学的发展历程。它首先追溯了社会学中一些更普遍的主要趋势，这些趋势影响了对死亡的社会影响的理解。然后提出了一个问题，为什么死亡社会学家到目前为止在很大程度上没有研究工人阶级的死亡文化。在简要讨论了一些关于工人阶级做法的文献之后，对这种相对的忽视提供了一些解释：社会阶层在后现代社会中不再相关；作为社会学专业的死亡研究的创建将学术与主流社会学的概念关切隔离开来；在这一领域工作的中产阶级学者的个人政治议程塑造了研究人员的关注点。通过将关于死亡的工作与身体和情感的社会学联系起来，对这些解释中的最后一个进行了更深入的探索。为了考察一些关键的社会阶级差异，工人阶级斯多葛主义的断言与中产阶级享有语言交流的特权形成了对比。文章最后呼吁死亡社会学家恢复社会阶层，以此作为理解死亡的社会本质的一个重要因素。
This paper explores the development of the sociology of death. It begins by tracing some of the major trends in sociology more generally that have influenced understandings of the social impact of mortality. The question is then raised as to why sociologists of death have hitherto largely failed to research into working-class cultures of death. Following a brief discussion of some of the literature that has considered working-class practices, a number of explanations are offered for this relative neglect: that social class is no longer relevant in postmodern societies; that the creation of death studies as a specialism in sociology has isolated academics from the conceptual concerns of mainstream sociology; that the personal-political agendas of middle-class academics working in this field have shaped the preoccupations of researchers. The last of these explanations is explored in greater depth by linking work on death to the sociology of the body and that of the emotions. To examine some key social class distinctions, the assertion of working-class stoicism is contrasted with a middle-class privileging of verbal communication. The paper concludes with an appeal to sociologists of death to reinstate social class as a significant factor in understandings of the social nature of mortality.