ABSTRACT
In this chapter we arrive at the most important and most contentious issue in sociological research, that of empirical adjudication. Can one really say with certainty that social theory X is to be preferred to social theory Y on the basis of empirical evidence? Thinking of the substantive area that has preoccupied us here, it has been noted over and again that class analysis is almost overwhelmed by a variety of contending theories which produce a remarkable array of definitions of class boundaries, fractions, locations etc. After years of disputation we still have Marxists who perceive the increasing antagonism between capital and labour, and we still have Weberians witnessing the declining grip of the historical classes as exploitation is replaced by the ebb and flow of the competition for market closure. For that matter, we now have Marxists observing and explaining the intrusion of the middle classes into monopoly capitalism and Weberians studying the proletarianization of formerly middleclass strongholds. Thus it is all very much business as usual for class analysis, though one must note the growth of another school of thought which reckons that class analysis is a residual sociological memory, completely unsuited to explain the conflicts of advanced society. Against this background can we look to empirical evidence to evaluate this overabundance of class theory, or do we always end up with data that are constructed on the ‘sweet-shop’ principle of picking and choosing the empirical goodies which happen to suit our theoretical tastes?
