Comments

INEQUALITY OF ACCESS

This comment is limited to one critical observa- tion regarding Clement’s article (1975).

Clement does not provide, a s he claims to do, conclusive evidence that the Canadian corpo- rate elite was less accessible in 1972 than in 1951 except for those from ‘fairly near the top of the class structure’ (1975:4o, 51). In comparing his data on the Canadian corporate elite for 1972 with Porter‘s data for 1951, Clement tells us that ‘using the same criteria and indicators as Por- ter. the present study replicates as closely as possible both the spirit and methodology used earlier’ (197539). It is rather disappointing that Clement did not see fit to improve on Porter‘s work, particularly in those respects about which Porter himself had reservations and which have become even less tenable with the passage of time.

In the Preface to The Vcrtiuil Moscric, Porter wrote: ‘There are many places in this analysis of class and power where 1 have regretted the inadequacy of the data to give fuller support to the qualified assertions which I have made ... Where appropriate 1 have drawn attention to the tentativeness of the conclusions which must stand as hypotheses for further testing in future investigations’ ( 1965:xii).

Porter made explicit reference to the inade- quacy of his data with regard to the class origins of the corporate elite. First, he set out a model of the kind of data it would be appropriate to have to determine class origins: ‘If we knew the occupations of the fathers of the economic elite we could provide an accurate picture of their class origins and thus of mobility into this group. We could then, after determining the

distribution of these occupations in the general population at the time the fathers were living, discover the over- or under-representation of occupational classes in the economic elite’ (1965:291).

H e then specified what kind of conclusions the deficient data warranted: ‘The data d o per- mit us ... t o say something about the internal recruitment of the elite and the extent to which it is drawn from what must be vaguely defined middle and upper classes. If internal recruit- ment can be shown to exist some support is given for the view that ability found in lower social strata has not been exploited (1965291).

To use data showing origins from ‘what must be vaguely defined middle and upper classes’ as a baseline from which to determine whether, in the period between 1951 and 1972, the corpo- rate elite has become more or less open is to cast prima facie doubt on ichrirevrr- conclusion is reached. The point is not that Clement is neces- sarily wrong when he concludes: ‘The class structure of Canadian society has tightened in terms of gaining access into the corporate elite’ (1975:4o). The point rather is that the misuse of Porter‘s tentatively stated conclusions regard- ing the class origins of the corporate elite in 195 I leaves sociological studies in this area difficult to defend, on substantive .as well as meth- odological grounds.

Porter was explicit about the deficiencies in his data which made it impossible to go beyond a general reference to ‘vaguely defined middle and upper classes’ and to the existence of inter- nal elite recruitment. If we examine the sources of Porter’s data, we find that he did this: he

Rev. canad. SOC. &Anth. /Canad. Rev. SOC. &Anth . 13(3) 1976

Comment/Commentaire / 353

concl uded from biographies such as Crr ritrditr I I

W/io'.s Who that 2 2 per cent of his sample inher- ited their position in the corporate elite. An additional 9 pel- cent came from elite families in other institutional orders. A percentage of 6.8 came from families whose identification as upper class was based o n ownership of substan- tial businesses. A percentage of 12.2 not already accounted for attended a private school, which Porter considel-ed a criterion of at least 'middle class' status. Of a n additional 197 members of the corporate elite. some had fathers in 'middle class' occupations. but for others, nothing was known about the father's occupation. They were included with those from 'middle class' origins becauw they had attended university. regardless of u hether or not they had grad- uated. He]-e i \ what Porter wrote about this last criterion: '1 1 t ] is of course unsatisfactory in many ways. but i t i'r not unlikely that in the period during M hich the present elite went to college that 5uch an experience required that parents have ;I middle class income . . _ [It] is possible that scmic' of low class origin did break through the economic and cultural barriers into university. I f this group of 197 could be consi- dered middle class. the total number coming from the middle class or higher is 503 (or 82 per cent)' (1965:2y2).

Portet-'s conclu5ion is stated in a tentative manner as one among several 'hypotheses for further testing' to which he had made reference in the Preface its cited above. And if Porter regarded sonie university education as a criter- ion of class origins which was 'unsatisfactory in many ways' for the 1951 corporate elite. then the deficiencies associated with its use would

apply a fortiori in determining the class origins of the 1972 corporate elite. And yet Clement does conclude that 26.3 per cent of his sample came from origins 'fairly neat- the top of the class structure' (1975:51) solely on the basis of this criterion. namely. that they had attended university.

Undoubtedly Clement is correct in stressing the importance of class inheritance in severely restricting entry into the corporate elite. How- ever. by using dubious indicators and giving his data a misleading appearance of precision (class origins are presented in percentages drawn to one decimal place), he not only diaws conclu- sions about ~ c c e s s for which he has insufficient evidence (e.g. in 1951, 18 per cent originated in the 'working class.' compared to 5.8 per cent in 1972) but he also provides grounds for criticiz- ing the study of elites and power structures as being ~ r r c ~ , ~ . s t r r i ! \ deficient because of the lack of adequate data. There is much valuable re- search that can be done in this area without making unsupportable claims of complete com- parability and precise measurement.

R E F E R E h C E S

Clement. Wallace 1975 'Inequality of Acceas: characteristics of

the Canadian corporate elite.' Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology I 2: 33-52

Porter. John 1965 The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of

Class and Power in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press