种族如何影响精英阶层对再分配的看法。

IF 3.3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Chana Teeger, Livio Silva-Muller, Graziella Moraes Silva
{"title":"种族如何影响精英阶层对再分配的看法。","authors":"Chana Teeger, Livio Silva-Muller, Graziella Moraes Silva","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.70012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Elites are increasingly visible in academic and political discourse owing to their disproportionate power in shaping policy. For the most part, however, elites have been viewed in race-blind terms. In this paper, we advance a racialized perspective on elite studies by highlighting three salient ways that race matters for elite views on inequality and redistribution. First, we focus on elites as racialized actors whose racial identities impact their perspectives on social policies. Second, we examine the effect of holding a historical perspective of racialized inequality on elites' redistributive preferences. Third, we highlight the importance of attending to the racialization of social policies, distinguishing between redistributive measures framed in race-neutral and race-conscious terms. We demonstrate the utility of a racialized approach to elite studies by analyzing survey data collected from political, economic, and civil service elites in South Africa. Findings show that elites' racialized identities shape their redistributive preferences, as do their historical understandings of racialized inequality, but these effects vary depending on whether elites are evaluating race-conscious or race-neutral policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Race Matters for Elites' Views on Redistribution.\",\"authors\":\"Chana Teeger, Livio Silva-Muller, Graziella Moraes Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-4446.70012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Elites are increasingly visible in academic and political discourse owing to their disproportionate power in shaping policy. For the most part, however, elites have been viewed in race-blind terms. In this paper, we advance a racialized perspective on elite studies by highlighting three salient ways that race matters for elite views on inequality and redistribution. First, we focus on elites as racialized actors whose racial identities impact their perspectives on social policies. Second, we examine the effect of holding a historical perspective of racialized inequality on elites' redistributive preferences. Third, we highlight the importance of attending to the racialization of social policies, distinguishing between redistributive measures framed in race-neutral and race-conscious terms. We demonstrate the utility of a racialized approach to elite studies by analyzing survey data collected from political, economic, and civil service elites in South Africa. Findings show that elites' racialized identities shape their redistributive preferences, as do their historical understandings of racialized inequality, but these effects vary depending on whether elites are evaluating race-conscious or race-neutral policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Sociology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.70012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.70012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精英在学术和政治话语中越来越明显,因为他们在制定政策方面拥有不成比例的权力。然而,在很大程度上,精英一直被视为种族歧视。在本文中,我们通过强调种族对精英对不平等和再分配的看法的影响的三种显著方式,提出了精英研究的种族化视角。首先,我们关注精英作为种族化的演员,他们的种族身份影响他们对社会政策的看法。其次,我们考察了持有种族化不平等的历史视角对精英再分配偏好的影响。第三,我们强调注意社会政策的种族化的重要性,区分在种族中立和种族意识条件下制定的再分配措施。我们通过分析从南非政治、经济和公务员精英中收集的调查数据,展示了种族化方法在精英研究中的实用性。研究结果表明,精英阶层的种族化身份塑造了他们的再分配偏好,以及他们对种族化不平等的历史理解,但这些影响取决于精英阶层评估的是种族意识政策还是种族中立政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Race Matters for Elites' Views on Redistribution.

Elites are increasingly visible in academic and political discourse owing to their disproportionate power in shaping policy. For the most part, however, elites have been viewed in race-blind terms. In this paper, we advance a racialized perspective on elite studies by highlighting three salient ways that race matters for elite views on inequality and redistribution. First, we focus on elites as racialized actors whose racial identities impact their perspectives on social policies. Second, we examine the effect of holding a historical perspective of racialized inequality on elites' redistributive preferences. Third, we highlight the importance of attending to the racialization of social policies, distinguishing between redistributive measures framed in race-neutral and race-conscious terms. We demonstrate the utility of a racialized approach to elite studies by analyzing survey data collected from political, economic, and civil service elites in South Africa. Findings show that elites' racialized identities shape their redistributive preferences, as do their historical understandings of racialized inequality, but these effects vary depending on whether elites are evaluating race-conscious or race-neutral policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: British Journal of Sociology is published on behalf of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) is unique in the United Kingdom in its concentration on teaching and research across the full range of the social, political and economic sciences. Founded in 1895 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, the LSE is one of the largest colleges within the University of London and has an outstanding reputation for academic excellence nationally and internationally. Mission Statement: • To be a leading sociology journal in terms of academic substance, scholarly reputation , with relevance to and impact on the social and democratic questions of our times • To publish papers demonstrating the highest standards of scholarship in sociology from authors worldwide; • To carry papers from across the full range of sociological research and knowledge • To lead debate on key methodological and theoretical questions and controversies in contemporary sociology, for example through the annual lecture special issue • To highlight new areas of sociological research, new developments in sociological theory, and new methodological innovations, for example through timely special sections and special issues • To react quickly to major publishing and/or world events by producing special issues and/or sections • To publish the best work from scholars in new and emerging regions where sociology is developing • To encourage new and aspiring sociologists to submit papers to the journal, and to spotlight their work through the early career prize • To engage with the sociological community – academics as well as students – in the UK and abroad, through social media, and a journal blog.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信