Abstract
In this thesis I aim to study the economic fraction of the upper class’ (EUC) relationship to politics. Politics and class are often conceptualized as being entwined – different social groups have different interests, but also has differing relationships to politics: differing competence, and possibilities in projecting their interests into the field of politics. A recurring observation by political scientists and sociologists is that there is a strong correlation between socio-economic status and political engagement, with educational level as the strongest mediator. I aim to contribute to this field by two theoretical innovations: 1) Bourdieu’s theory of social class and social practice, and its political-sociological elaboration in the works of Daniel Gaxie. While recent research in the Nordic context has been successful in applying Bourdieu’s theories to account for class-voting, they have to lesser extent grappled with the question of politics as a form of symbolic practice, which mastery depends on unequally distributed resources. Gaxie thus speaks of unequal levels of politicization – the degree to which actors pay attention to events in the political field and judge by a specifically political logic. Politicization depends on a twofold competence: a cognitive/technical competence which increases by educational level, and statutory competence - a feeling of entitlement to speak politically, which increases by position in the division of labour, thus in a hierarchy of social status. Politics, a form of legitimate culture, appears to come easier for the privileged, a theory which gains support by a simple glance at voter turnouts in the affluent districts of Vestre Aker and Ullern in Oslo, Norway (where most of my interviewees reside). 2) Contemporary research has drawn attention to how only a minority of actors appear to be homogenously invested in “legitimate” culture, also among the upper-class. Post-Bourdieusan sociologist Bernard Lahire holds that most actors may be characterized by dissonant dispositions for practice. Such dissonance reveals themselves through the study of intra-individual variations of dispositions, between different contexts of practice (between fields or in the same field). I draw attention to contemporary developments in the French field of political sociology, which through applications of qualitative methods have argued for the ambivalent politicization of the EUC. While highly mobilized as voters (overwhelmingly for the right wing), they often appear less invested in politics in ordinary contexts, may display scepticism towards political objects, avoid conflicting political discussion et cetera. I thus highlight the meta-question of “legitimism” in cultural class research – the tendency to caricature social classes as homogenously dominant and dominated in cultural practice. While not disproving socially differentiated relationships to politics, such reflections may allow social science to more precisely describe how the dominant dominate politically. The analysis is based on semi-structured interviews on relationships to politics among 12 individuals of EUC-position. Interviewees are questioned on varied contexts of their relationship to politics, among others, interest through the life course, everyday practices of political talk, judgements of agents, and voting behaviour. Additionally, I utilize drawing exercises on (on a left-right scale), and photo elicitation techniques, where interviewees are presented pictures of prominent political agents. I argue that the EUC may be characterized by a strong statutory competence – a feeling of entitlement to talk about and interest oneself in politics. However, the picture appears to be more nuanced. Interviewees are found to show clear weaknesses of cognitive competence, for example by failing to name prominent politicians. Certain actors, while highly mobilized towards their political interests, are found to be sceptical of professionalized politics and political solutions. While handling political topics as a natural object of talk, many interviewees seem to downplay elements of struggle when talking about politics among friends. Thus, while these actors often appear to be political competent, this competence and investment is not without its reservations. Following Lahire, one may argue that their political dispositions are dissonant, as legitimate and illegitimate behaviour coincides in EUC-actors. I argue that there may be a pattern to such dissonance. Actors of high volume and a more balanced composition of capital appear to be more homogenously invested in politics. Among those with a preponderance of economic capital and business school educational capital, the dissonance appears to be stronger. While the most affluent business alumni may be characterized by a form of “relaxed investment” in politics (where a strong mobilization, f.i. putting money into politics, coexists with a sceptical take on politics), the least economically endowed appear to gravitate towards a more homogenous disinvestment and a weaker sense of competence. Concludingly, most actors of EUC position appear to conceive themselves into politics with ease, often with a “natural” inclination towards the political right wing: a class vote not easily disturbed. But, researchers should be vary of too generalizing use of concepts such as “competence” and “participation” when describing the behaviour of social groups, as investment and disinvestment coexists among the EUC.