Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The inequality of security: Winners and losers in the risk society

Marianne Cooper

Department of Sociology of the University of California, Berkeley, coops{at}berkeley.edu

Current analyses of the changing nature of risk provide a`top-down' perspective that fails to consider variation among the individuals that these changes act upon. Drawing on a qualitative study of 89 workers who are members of 50 socioeconomically diverse families in Silicon Valley, California, this article explores the variability among workers by examining how an individual's social class background influences both their level of exposure to risk and their ability to navigate through the `risk society'. By employing Bourdieu's framework, the study finds that the attributes now expected of the ideal risk society subject are in actuality reflective of economic, social and cultural capitals most commonly held by the highly educated, middle and upper-middle classes. Consequently, in the current political environment where individuals are viewed as enterprising consumers responsible for their own welfare, those who possess the `right' capitals are advantaged, while those who do not are disadvantaged. This article employs life history case studies of two workers in different structural locations to highlight the different `capitals' workers have at their disposal, and shows how structural positions and cultural dispositions interact over time influencing future levels of inequality. In doing so, the article illustrates how the removal of public safety nets exacerbates existing disparities and causes the disadvantaged to fall even further behind. These disparities among workers constitute an inequality of security that engenders winners and losers in the risk society.

Key Words: cultural capital • economic capital • increasing inequality • new economy • risk • social capital

Human Relations, Vol. 61, No. 9, 1229-1258 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726708094911


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
E. Appelbaum and J. Schmitt
Review article: Low-wage work in high-income countries: Labor-market institutions and business strategy in the US and Europe
Human Relations, December 1, 2009; 62(12): 1907 - 1934.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
C. McLeod, S. O'Donohoe, and B. Townley
The elephant in the room? Class and creative careers in British advertising agencies
Human Relations, July 1, 2009; 62(7): 1011 - 1039.
[Abstract] [PDF]