Abstract
The concept of opportunity is widely used in sociology to explain unequal attainments. In this approach the actor is seen as controlled by structures of opportunity, rather than by culture or personality. This model is nearly identical withhomo economicus. However, social order is conceived more sociologically. Opportunity is portrayed as controlled by competing groups. But the problem of collective action makes these concepts incompatible because rational maximizers are not ordinarily able to achieve cooperation. This contradiction is resolved by modelingthe dominated as economically rational whilethe dominant are seen as driven by extra-economic motives. The main motive for adopting these contradictory models is a program of egalitarian social engineering.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beck, E.M., Patrick Horan and Charles Tolbert. 1978. Stratification in a Dual Economy: A Sectoral Model of Earnings Data.American Sociological Review 43 (Oct.): 704–20.
Becker, Gary. 1976.The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1979. “Economic Analysis and Human Behavior.” InSociological Economics, ed. Louis Levy-Garbona. London: Sage.
———. 1981.A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1969.Four Essays on Liberty. NY: Oxford University Press.
Bibb, Robert, and William Form, 1977. “The Effects of Industrial, Occupational, and Sexual Stratification on Wages in Blue Collar Markets.”Social Forces 55 (4): 974–96.
Boudon, Raymond. 1974.Educational Opportunity and Social Inequality. NY: John Wiley.
Camic, Charles. 1979. “The Utilitarians Revisited.”American Journal of Sociology 85 (Nov.): 516–49.
Cloward, Richard, and Lloyd Ohlin. 1960.Delinquency and Opportunity. NY: Free Press.
Currie, Elliot. 1985.Confronting Crime. NY: Pantheon.
Felson, Richard B. “Blame Analysis: Accounting for the Behavior of Protected Groups.”The American Sociologist 22(1): 5–23.
Gans, Herbert. 1968. “Culture and Class in the Study of Poverty: An Approach to Anti-Poverty Research.” InOn Understanding Poverty: Perspectives from the Social Sciences, ed. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. NY: Basic Books.
Gerson, Kathleen. 1985.Hard Choices. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hechter, Michael. 1990. “The Emergence of Cooperative Social Institutions.” InSocial Institutions: Their Emergence, Maintenance, and Effects, ed. Michael Hechter, Karl-Dieter Opp, and Reinhard Wippler. NY: Aldine.
Horan, Patrick, E.M. Beck, and Charles Tolbert. 1980. “The Market Homogeneity Assumption: On the Theoretical Foundations of Empirical Knowledge.”Social Science Quarterly 61 (2): 278–92 (September).
Kantor, Rosabeth. 1977.Men and Women of the Corporation. NY: Basic Books.
Kerckhoff, Alan. 1984. “The Current State of Social Mobility Research.”Sociological Quarterly 25 (Spring): 139–53.
Latsis, Spiro, ed. 1976.Method and Appraisan in Economics. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lieberson, Stanley. 1980.A Piece of the Pie. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lindenberg, Siegwart. 1985. “An Assessment of the New Political Economy: Its Potential for the Social Sciences and for Sociology in Particular’.Sociological Theory 3 (1): 99–114.
Locke, John.Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Edited by John W. Yolton, Clarenden Press, Oxford, 1989.
Marini, Margaret Mooney. 1989. “Sex Differences in Earnings in the United States.”Annual Review of Sociology 15: 343–80.
McPherson, Michael. 1984. “Limits on Self-Seeking.” InNeoclassical Political Economy, ed. David Colander. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.”American Sociological Review 3 (October): 672–82.
Mickelson, Roslyn. 1990. “The Attitude-Achievement Paradox Among Black Adolescents.”Sociology of Education 63 (January): 44–61
Olson, Mancur. 1968.The Collective Action. NY: Schocken.
Popper, Karl. 1950.The its Enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porpora, Douglas. 1987.The Concept of Social Structure. NY: Greenwood Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1977. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.”Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (Summer): 316–45.
Simon, Herbert. 1987. “Rationality in Psychology and Economics.” InRational Choice, ed. Robin Hogarth and Melvin Reder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, Michael. 1990. “What is New in ‘New Structuralist’ Analysis of Earnings?”American Sociological Review 55 (December): 827–41.
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1986. “Economic Sociology: Rationality and Subjectivity in Sociology.” InSociology: From Crisis to Science? ed. Ulf Himmelstrand. London: Sage.
Szymanski, Albert. 1976. “Racial Discrimination and White Gain.”American Sociological Review 41 (3): 403–13.
Valentine, Charles. 1968.Culture and Poverty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valenzuela, Samuel, and Arturo Valenzuela. 1984. “Modernization and Dependency.” InThe Gap Between the Rich and the Poor, ed. Mitchell Seligson. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Wilson, William Julius. 1986.The New Republic. October 6.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987.The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, William Julius, and Katherine O’Sullivan. 1988. “Race and Ethnicity.” InHandbook of Sociology, ed Neil J. Smelser. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
His main interests are the philosophy of social science and political philosophy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rubinstein, D. Structural explanation in sociology: The egalitarian imperative. Am Soc 23, 5–19 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02691904
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02691904