Commentaar op W. C. Ultee's 'Over sociale ongelijkheid'

Samenvatting

Presented are comments on W. C. Ultee's arguments (see SA 29:1/81L2252). In Is dat nou kritisch-rationalistisch ondersoek? (Is This a Critical-Rationalistic Investigation?) J. Dronkers (Netherlands University, Amsterdam) argues that the eighteen hypotheses Ultee ascribes to revisionist historical-materialism are poorly founded empirically. Some of his hypotheses are more characteristic of Christian democrats, liberals, or enlightened conservatives than of social democrats. Ultee's refutation of some of these hypotheses falls short of its goal. In particular he makes the empirical difficulties faced by the social democrat hypotheses seem exaggerated. Also, Ultee does not have an adequate instrument for measuring progress in postwar socialist thinking. J. Tinbergen argues that more research is necessary on possible national differences & on the limits on social equality due to heredity. He points out several phenomena neglected by Ultee & some unfortunate formulas, eg, degree devaluation. Underutilized instruments of socioeconomic policy are mentioned. H. M. Veld-Langeveld defends Ultee's report. Its goal was not to analyze postwar revisionist socialism. It has contributed at least two major insights by emphasizing: (1) the overlapping of various aspects of unequal distribution from which the existence of a strongly institutionalized social stratification derives, & (2) the importance of the existing division of labor for social inequality. The problem of status inconsistency is briefly discussed. A. Orianne.