IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/statpp/v4y2013i1p70-81n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charles Murray’s Coming Apart and the measurement of social and political divisions

Author

Listed:
  • Gelman Andrew

    (Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University, NY, USA)

Abstract

This article examines some claims made in a recent popular book of political sociology, with the intent not being to debunk any claims but rather to connect some important social and policy positions to statistical data on income, social class, and political attitudes. The thesis of Charles Murray’s book is that America’s upper and lower classes have become increasingly separate, with elites living more disciplined, orderly lives (characterized by marriage, work, and stable families) while being largely unaware of the lifestyles of the majority of Americans. I argue that some of Murray’s conclusions are sensitive to particular choices of whom to label as elite or upper-class. From my analysis of survey data, I see the big culture war occurring within the upper class, whereas Murray focuses on differences in attitudes and lifestyles comparing rich to poor. Coming Apart is a lively contribution to current debates and complements more statistical analyses of political and social polarization.

Suggested Citation

  • Gelman Andrew, 2013. "Charles Murray’s Coming Apart and the measurement of social and political divisions," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 70-81, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:4:y:2013:i:1:p:70-81:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/spp-2012-0004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2012-0004
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/spp-2012-0004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:4:y:2013:i:1:p:70-81:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.