In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

217 Notes INTRODUCTION 1. New York Times, March 16, 2003; PR Newswire Service, September 18, 2006; New York Times, March 10, 1996. 2. New York Times, November 29, 2000, November 28, 2005; unionfacts.com/ads.cfm, accessed December 16, 2006. 3. Hochschild 1995; Newman 1999; Young 2004; Sandage 2005. 4. Gerteis and Savage 1998; Lamont 2000. 5. Dubofsky 1975; Gutman 1977; Schneirov, Stromquist, and Salvatore 1999. 6. Jacoby 1991; Gerber 1997; Friedman, forthcoming. 7. I regularly refer to these proprietary employers as“businessmen” rather than using gender-neutral terms (such as “business owners”). This is appropriate for two reasons. First, in my archival work, women never appeared as either owners of firms or members of the business organizations that figure prominently in my account. Second, masculinity (“manhood”) was itself a prized attribute of the successful entrepreneur and leading citizen . The gendered label is thus consistent with both the facts and the ethos of the period. 8. United States. Census Office, Eleventh Census (1890), Manufactures, xxxv. For more detailed comparative data on the cities’ industrial profiles, see the introduction to chapter 2 below. 9. Burawoy 1985, 5. 10. For example, qualitative research continues to find cultural differences—in life style, in cultural capital, in cognitive maps of social inequality—between individuals from working-class and middle-class backgrounds (Kefalas 2003; Holt 2000; Lareau 2003; Ortner 2003). Studies of elites show that class background or class networks still can be the basis for social solidarities (Schwartz 1987; Domhoff 2002). And there is ample evidence that class still shapes government policy, and vice versa, as in the funding and effects of public education (Weir 2002; Aronowitz 2003). 11. These hierarchies may be based on market assets (property, skill), as Weber emphasized , or on organizational position, as Wright (1989) and others have added. 12. Treating class formation as an alignment between cultural practices and economic position echoes Bourdieu’s (1993) notion of homologies across fields. One important difference is that I consider these homologies mere possibilities. Cf. Katznelson 1986; Hall 1992. 13. Sklar 1988; Adams 1995; Lipset and Marks 2000. 14. Offe and Wiesenthal 1980. See also Lembcke 1995. 15. Harris 2000; Pearson 2004; Millikan 2001. 16. Hoffecker 1974; Horowitz 1976; Ingham 1978; Couvares 1984; Beckert 2001. 17. Historical studies that answer this description include Jaher (1982); Livingston (1986); Roy (1991); and critics of “corporate liberalism” such as Weinstein (1968); Kolko (1967). Sociologists of the contemporary capitalist class share the same preference: Mintz and Schwartz (1981); Useem (1984); Domhoff (2002). 18. Beckert (2001a) draws the line between the nineteenth-century lower middle class and the “bourgeoisie,” with the latter enjoying greater security and freedom from manual work, as well as larger incomes. The smallest businesses would likely fall below this line, and that social distinction is appropriate for cities like New York, where the firms were bigger and the fortunes larger. My rudimentary distinction between professionals and businessmen on one side and wage earners on the other makes sense for Cincinnati and San Francisco, both characterized by small-to-middling-sized capital. It is also a reasonable starting point because it corresponds to distinctions made by actors at the time. Some taxonomic problems in class analysis (best described by Wright [1989]) are thus of less concern for this study. 19. Surveys include Berlanstein (1993); Joyce (1995); Hall (1997); Lembcke (1995); Portes (2000); Eley and Nield (2000). 20. Katznelson 1981. Keeping an open mind about the content of class discourses means allowing for situations in which workers or businessmen are culturally distinct but do not identify themselves as members of a distinct class—or even,as in Cincinnati,emphatically repudiate such an identity. See Bottero 2004; Savage, Bagnall, and Longhurst 2001. 21. Examples include Sewell (1980); Jones (1982); Rosenzweig (1983); Wilentz (1984); Steinberg (1999). 22. Somers 1997, 88; Steinmetz 1992, 501. 23. Somers 1997; Rose 1997; Steinberg 1996. 24. Recent compilations surveying the state of the art include Aminzade (2001); Meyer, Whittier, and Robnett (2002); Diani and McAdam (2003); Snow, Soule, and Kriesi (2004); Davis et al. (2005). 25. Bettie 2003; Ortner 2003. 26. Melucci 1989; Gamson 1992; Taylor and Whittier 1992; Polletta and Jasper 2001. 27. Snow 1986; Williams and Kubal 1999; Benford and Snow 2000; Snow 2004. 28. The relationship between collective identity and social ranking is addressed less by social movement scholars than by students of inequality, such as Parkin (1979); Bourdieu (1984); Lamont (1992). 29. Theoretical discussions of boundary work include Bourdieu (1984) and Lamont (2000) on class,and Cornell and...

Share