SOCIOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE
299
ing dominoes, but underneath his opaque style there is a firm,
though cautious, commitment to the notion that there must be
some
sense in the social order, and that possibly Weber had the
clue to it. This kills two birds with one stone, for Weber had a
theory of society in which social status is almost as important
as economics. To quote his own formulation (as cited by Reiss–
man, p. 67) :
With some simplification, one might say that "classes" are strat–
ified according to their relations to the production and acquisition
of goods; whereas "status groups" are stratified according to the
principles of
consumption
of goods, as represented by special "styles
of life."
"As has been intimated throughout," Reissman observes
(p. 69), "Weber's analytical distinctions offer the most meaningful
framework for interpreting and understanding stratification in a
modern industrial society. The theory is broad, ranges far, and in–
cludes a variety of different manifestations of stratification under
one explanatory roof."
It
is also incompatible with some cherished
academic foibles, among which Reissman lists the custom of con–
ducting empirical "research" on the assumption that "class" simply
means "occupation group" (p. 161). However, his own nomencla–
ture displays considerable uncertainty over whether any and every
considerable "status group" that comes along may be described as
a "class"; and so we get the familiar game of trying to establish
how many "classes" there are in "Hometown," R eissman's ideal–
typical small town. "The number of classes that is recognized varies,
depending on the number of social differences that Hometowners
can detect and agree upon," he says gravely (p. 182), as though
such differences were not, in principle, numberless. (In practice it
turns out that there are just three classes: those at the top, those at
the bottom-the manual workers-and,
in
between, the socially
active and church-going middle class, which sets the tone and in
particular informs all comers that "We don't have classes in our
town." )
Notwithstanding his academic caution and his tendency to
describe a spade as an agricultural implement, Reissman is basically
disposed to admit that things are not invariably what they seem.
