Postmodern disorder or social regularities of the advanced and differentiated society. 

by

Lennart Rosenlund, Høgskolen i Stavanger 

I Introduction
This paper addresses the classical problem of social divisions and their consequences in contemporary society. Two opposing strands of thoughts have dominated this area of empirical study in Norway, as they seem to have in others. On the one hand there are approaches leaning on Karl Marx’s analyses of capitalist relations of production, represented for instance on the international scene by the contributions of Wright (1985, 1989). In Norway his analytic approach has been utilized in substantial empirical studies carried out by Colbjørnsen et.el. during the 1980’s. (Colbjørnsen e. al. 1982, 1987). The other tradition is sometimes labelled neo-weberian, which draws on the work of Dahrendorf (1959) Lockwood (1959), and Ericson & Goldhtorpe (1992). With basis in this framework Gooderham & Ringdal (1995) have re-examined the findings of Colbjørnsen et.al. and questioned their main conclusions about Class Society on the Brink; about the fading influence of class and stratification as instances of social differentiation. Contemporary society seems to be undergoing a change process making traditional analytical perspectives less and less effective. Students of social class and stratification are fighting on a sagging front.  
	Other groups of social scientists have made the same observations as the students of class and stratification; that the “explanative power” of traditional background variables has faded. To some of them this is a validation of the postmodernists diagnose of contemporary society as undergoing an “individualisation process” (Beck 1992); about the free-setting of individuals from bonds and loyalties related to the institutions of the modern industrial era, the family, social class, gender, etc. They are re-orienting themselves in search for models that are adapted to such thoughts. One such area of social research, where these ideas are accepted as common knowledge is the research on values. According to Todal Jensen (1998: 482) this is a thriving and growing vein within the social sciences, as opposed to the study of social class and stratification. Presently, many resources are spent on survey undertakings, carried out both by members of the social science community and by market research institutes which aim at describing and analysing value orientations of the citizens and their changes. Common to these efforts are their emphasis on the basic choice of value orientation on the part of the individual as major intakes for analysis and the consequential downgrading of “objective structural factors”. 
In this paper I will present an effort in trying to apply Pierre Bourdieu’s approach and analytic framework, as they are present in Distinction, to a social formation situated away in time and space from its original French context. This book contains Bourdieu’s contribution to the study of the dynamics of social divisions in contemporary society. The book has received massive attention, however, little indeed has been done with regard to applying its extremely generous “analytic tool-box” in systematic empirical research. In doing so I hope that my contribution may help to a revitalisation of an important field of social study which is in great need of new perspectives and ideas. In the exchange of views on the issue of Class Society on the Brink (Gooderham & Ringdal 1995, Birkelund 1996) the opinion was voiced that more research are needed on the issues and that other theoretical and methodological approaches ought to be considered. This contribution is an answer to that call. One of the main aspects where Bourdieu’s conception differs from the mentioned ones is its multi-dimensional character. In his view social divisions and distance are produced and reproduced according to several principles of differentiation. The mentioned traditions above work basically with models based on one-dimensional hierarchies. 
Further I hope that the analyses presented will be able demonstrate the existence of a number of very tangible social regularities where they are supposed to have vanished according to various popular postmodernist diagnoses of contemporary society. Social structures are indeed related to human expressions and are indispensable for their comprehension. Not least are these related to the formation of values that major quarters of the social science community assume are the products of individual choices.  

II Breaking with linear thinking
Distinction is based on an analysis of survey data. However, the treatment of such data and its functions in the construction of the analyses differ radically from the procedures and thinking of mainstream empirical sociology. Throughout the book Bourdieu proceeds on two discursive levels: one substantive where he discusses the issues of the analysis, while on the other he discusses the more technical and methodological problems involved in making sense of the survey findings. In doing so he is adopting the critical position of the historic epistemologists (Bachelard, Canguilhem) and distances himself from and develops an anti-positivistic critique of procedures and ways of thinking which commonly govern the methodology of mainstream empirical quantitative sociology. The traditional methodology of empirical sociology invites an “’intuitive’ half-understanding with which sociologists are generally satisfied” (Bourdieu 1984:18). It may promote the “substantialist mode of thinking” in contrast to a relational, which is the adequate approach in the scientific endeavour.
Bourdieu is by no means alone in this critique. There are several veins of efforts trying to come to terms with the methodological problems intrinsic in the research practice, which Blumer once termed “the sociology of the variable” (Blumer 1956). Bourdieu’s position differs from most of these, however, in that he is actually carrying out analyses of survey data and consequently has to come up with an alternative methodology which does not “throw out the baby with the bathing water”. 
Bourdieu draws the following conclusion (Bourdieu 1984:107): 
“To account for the infinite diversity of practices in a way that is both unitary and specific, one has to break with linear thinking, which only recognises the simple ordinal structures of direct determination, and endeavour to reconstruct the networks of interrelated relationships which are present in each of the factors. The structural causality of a network of factors (my emphasis) is quite irreducible to the cumulated effects of the set of linear relations, of different explanatory force, which the necessities of analysis oblige one to isolate, those which are established between the different factors, taken one by one, and the practice in question; through each of the factors is exerted the efficacy of all the others, and the multiplicity of determinations leads not to indeterminacy but to over-determination.”

Thus, Bourdieu’s advice is to replace the linear mode of thinking causality with an idea of “structural causality of a network of factors”. This implies that the analytical groups have to be constructed - which are the social classes and class fractions in a space, given a prime function in his analytical scheme - which are as homogenous as possible with regard to all pertinent properties, both primary and secondary. These analytical groups are constituted and defined by their specific structure of determinants, constructed on the basis of specific values of the “independent” variables - or, rather categories derived from them. For one particular class fraction, one particular variable - or category - (within this network of factors) can be the one that socially “creates” the fraction, whereas the same variable can be of subordinate significance in relation to another fraction.  Each group must be assumed to be defined by its own specific structure of social determinants.  The construction of this structure of “independent” but related “background variables” means actually that we try to reconstruct the social genesis of the classes and class fractions; their social history and their present and past relationships in a multidimensional space of social divisions, and domination and subordination. 
The analyses developed throughout Bourdieu’s book gravitate around two interconnected space constructions: the social space or the space of social positions and the space of lifestyles. These two spaces are conceptualising the two “orders” of social reality, which according to Bourdieu, have to be accounted for (Waqcant 1992:7 ff.). On the one hand there is an “objective” social structure – the social space - in which the social agents are positioned and which is defining their mutual relationships (the “objectivity of the first order”). On the other hand there is the “subjective” aspect of social reality which the space of lifestyles has been designed to account for. This is the symbolic world that is shaped by the habitus and which is structuring the perceptions of these social relations, and which may have a direct effect on them (the “objectivity of the second order”). The two space constructs serve as “key elements” in this alternative methodology to overcome the inherent problems of “the sociology of the variable”. The two spaces must be treated as autonomous in the analysis and interpretation, in that they are representing different aspects of the social reality. However, they are interdependent as structures, where the space of social positions tends to “command” the space of lifestyles in periods of equilibrium. 
To be able to replace linear mode of perceiving causality in the analysis of survey data with “structural causality of a network of factors” the main bulk of statistical techniques is clearly inadequate. These techniques have been developed with purposes to solve other problems than the present one. We need methods which are descriptive in nature, multivariate - the task of constructing the analytical groups (social classes and class fractions in a space) presupposes the handling of a multiplicity of variables - and they must be aimed at analysing categorical data, i.e. breaking with linear conceptions and presuppositions right at the outset. Multiple correspondence analysis is a technique, which satisfies these requirements. This technique will be used in the forthcoming two analyses where its explanative potentials are exploited. 

III Constructing social structures – first movement
The social space claims to represent an “objective” system of social positions, or a system of social relations. It entails the basic mechanisms of social differentiation in contemporary society. Let us have a closer look at how Bourdieu does it: The construction is based on an analysis of the two forms of capital, which are so important in Bourdieu’s work: economic and cultural capital. Economic capital explains itself and is hardly original with Bourdieu. It consists of access to economic values, money or other assets that may be transposed into money; real estate, bonds, shares, valuables etc., i.e. common indicators on economic level.
Cultural capital, on the other hand, is Bourdieu’s own conception and theoretical invention, which is of strategic importance in all his research work. The most important way of acquiring this form of capital is by socialisation within the family. The school and the educational system are also important agents in procuring cultural capital. Cultural capital exist in different forms, each of which may be divided into sub types, all according to the kind of social field that is under scrutiny.
When discussing Bourdieu’s concepts of capital is it of great importance to insist on their relational character. Even if we in the forthcoming pages are going to “measure” them, to operationalize them, to use them as characteristics of individuals, they still denote social relations. Those who are bestowed with a certain form of capital are related to those who are not, in certain specific patterns, depending upon the form of capital in question and in which social field the relationship is inscribed. In the forthcoming pages education of the respondents is used as a “measure” of cultural capital. This is one main type of this form of capital. The educational certificate is the objectified, materialized form of cultural capital, which can be invested and which may return profits on a (labour) market, or a given social field, or as in our case: in the local social space.
Let us consider the present case, the city community of Stavanger. In the forthcoming pages two independently constructed versions of the two space-concepts - the local space of social positions and the local space of lifestyles – will be examined. The first versions of these are found in Figure 2. The elements belonging to the space of lifestyles is, so to say, put on top of the social space, as two transparencies. The elements belonging to the social space are written in ordinary letters (in frames), while the elements belonging to the space of lifestyles are written in italics. The building blocks for the construction have been collected from a survey of lifestyles carried out in the greater urban area of the city. All in all, 905 persons in the age range 16-68 years answered 137 questions dealing with lifestyles in the wide sense of the word. 
Altogether nine variables were chosen based the “advises” given by Bourdieu when constructing his social space in Distinction (Bourdieu 1984:126 – 131); they are different indicators of the two forms of capital. These variables represent all in all 80 variable values, or modalities as they are named in the French statistical vocabulary. The variables were the following: educational level and discipline (cultural capital), educational level of the father (inherited cultural capital), occupational group, occupational group of father (indicator of social trajectory) family income, value of car, value of boat/yacht and ownership of a summer/winter house (indicators of economic capital). Finally the geographical background of the respondents was also included in the analysis.
A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was carried out on these 80 different variable values, or modalities, derived from the nine mentioned variables.  The correspondence analysis constructs a space with few dimensions (one dimension = a line, two dimensions = a plane, three dimensions = a physical space) which optimally “fits” the dispersion among the analysed properties. The first dimension “explains” the greatest part of the total variance, the second dimension explains a somewhat smaller amount, the third still an additional amount etc. These amounts of explained variance by the dimensions might be calculated as percentages of the total. The analysis gave the result that the first two dimensions, to which attention is devoted in the following pages, explain all together 49 % (36,5 + 12,3) of the total.
I am not going to explain the statistical “machinery” of the MCA, only describe its functioning by the help of a simple metaphor. Figure 1 contains the two first principal axes produced by a MCA of the data. In this “map” all the respondents have been projected according to their co-ordinates on the two first dimensions.

Figure 1. Graph from a MCA of 9 «independent» variables, first a second dimension. Respondents projected (Farmers marked by a filled triangle).

All respondents, represented here as points in the plane, are characterized by a profile of attributes corresponding to their values on each of the 9 chosen variables. On the basis of these values – the profiles of attributes - the co-ordinates of the respondents have been calculated. The plane has been constructed in such a way that the maximum “difference” or “contrast” has been created, with regard to attribute profiles, between those respondents situated on the right-hand side of the plane and those on the left-hand side. This is the first dimension, the horizontal one. Similarly, the second largest “difference” with regard to attribute profile, which is possible to create, is represented by the “difference” or “contrast” between those respondent who are situated in the top part of the plane, and those at the bottom. This second dimension, the vertical one, represents this difference.
It is now possible to imagine oneself literally moving around in the plane - as on a football pitch - and in whichever section of the plane one is present the surrounding respondents will resemble each other; they have similar profiles of attributes. All regions and segments of the plane are characterized by homogeneity of attributes among the respondents.  The distribution of these attributes can now be summarized and established simply by asking, for instance, those who have 9 years of formal education to raise their hands. One then finds the centre of gravity among this group. This is a point that is located in the middle of the configuration of raised hands. Then those respondents who have high school education are asked to raise their hands, and then the centre of gravity is established for this new group of respondents with this attribute in common. In this way we may go through the whole list of attributes - all 80 modalities - and establish their positions in the plane. Then the patterns of the points describing the statistical relationships between the attributes can be contemplated . This is what we are going to do on the following pages, analysing the characteristics of the social space.   
  When the space of social positions, with its main dimensions has been constructed, this can be used as a “predictive map” (Lebart et al 1984:108 ff.) to show characteristic traits with regard to other attributes than those which have been used to construct it. Such attributes  - variables and variable values - are projected onto the map as so-called supplementary or illustrative points. This technique has been used in constructing the space of lifestyles. 
This technique of developing the analysis can metaphorically be described as if we were to invite our respondents to take their old positions in the football pitch. When this has been done new questions may be posed (collected from the questionnaire). For instance, we ask those of our respondents who wear dress and tie at work to raise their hands. The configuration of hands is observed where after the centre of gravity for this attribute is established. Then those who use jeans are asked to do the same in order to find their centre of gravity. In this way it is possible to go on using all the gathered data. 
The results from correspondence analysis come in the form of graphs and tables. In this paper we are devoting ourselves exclusively to the graphical output. The numerical results can be obtained from the author directly, or in Rosenlund (2000).
Two forms of social differentiation
The characteristics of the construction of the local social space (Stavanger 1994) corresponds well with Bourdieu’s representation of the social structure of France in the 1970’s. Both may be summarized by the same two major dimensions: volume of capital and composition of capital, or capital structure. The two dimensions should be interpreted as two different and independent principles of social differentiation. Social inequalities and social distances are produced and reproduced according to both mechanisms simultaneously. This means that distances in the constructed map may be interpreted as social and cultural distances “in the real world”. Groups that are situated far from each other in the map are socially and culturally different, while those that are situated close to each other are similar.
	The first dimension of the space is found along the horizontal axis (in Bourdieu’s graph this dimension is drawn as the vertical one (see Bourdieu 1984:128-9)). This is an indicator of volume of capital. The more to the left a social group has been situated, the “larger” is its volume of capital. In this part of the map we find points representing high values on both forms of capital: family income, value of car(s), value of yacht(s), level of education of the respondents, fathers’ level of education. The “richest” class fractions, both in terms of economic and cultural capital, are consequently to be found in the left part of the graph. The “poorest” fractions are found in the right part of the map. Here we find points representing low values of both forms of capital. The dimension of volume of capital “sorts” respondents into different social classes.
	The second dimension is found along the vertical axis, which indicates the composition of capital or capital structure. (In Bourdieu’s graph this dimensions is accordingly drawn as the horizontal one). Social groups which are situated close to the horizontal axis have a capital structure which is symmetrical, implying that economic and cultural capital are present in approximately equal “amounts”. Those groups that are situated in the upper part of the graph have a capital structure that is dominated by economic capital. Accordingly have those groups which are situated in the bottom part a capital structure where the cultural capital component is the larger.
	The points representing the occupational groups in the local social space are forming a pattern, which is quite similar to Bourdieu’s construction of the French class structure. What is different, though, compared to the French original, is the two dichotomies which have been inserted in the mid-section of the map (large letters) along the vertical axis, the capital composition dimension: private versus public employment, and male versus female. A closer examination of the space - by using supplementary points - reveals that the capital composition dimension, is coinciding with the two mentioned dichotomies. Positions that are characterized by a capital composition where economic capital is dominant - the upper part of the map - are more often occupied by respondents who are employed in private enterprises and who are men. Accordingly, positions where the capital balance is dominated by cultural capital – the bottom part of the map - are more often linked to employment in the public sector, and are more often occupied by women than by men.
Rich and poor, dominant and dominated
The social space has the character of a system concept, and so has the space of lifestyles. The social space systematizes the diversity and divisions of the social conditions of existence, as the two forms of capital express them. They are described in terms of positions, which form a system. A given position in this system - which may be described in terms of a given configuration of social characteristics - is only comprehensible in relation to other positions, characterized by other configurations of social attributes.
The space of lifestyles has the same system character. It refers to a context which comprises of an infinite number of activities, habits, interests, preferences, values, modes of interpretations, ways of perceptions, etc. etc. and is therefore impossible to represent in full. The space of lifestyles is a system of distinctive signs. These have no meaning in themselves, neither in relation to a particular position in the social space, i.e. a certain class fraction. Instead, a certain configuration of lifestyle must be examined in relation to other lifestyles, in the space of lifestyles. Such relational analyses are indispensable in revealing their secrets and their hidden meanings.
Let us try to find some of the “relational patterns” in the constructed space of lifestyles. The elements belonging to this space are written in italics. To the left of the map we find lifestyle components which require large amounts of capital. Jans mat og vinhus favourite restaurant (listed in Guide Michelen), read economic review once a week, read Dagens næringsliv (a daily business paper), suit and tie at work, read foreign papers occasionally, go to symphony concerts or art exhibitions three times a year or more often, listen often to Kritikertorget (a literary radio program) - all these are preferences and habits which presuppose accumulation of large amounts of cultural or economic capital.

Figure 2: The local social space and the local space of lifestyles. Components belonging to the social space are written in ordinary letters in frames. Components belonging to the space of lifestyles are written in Italics. Indicated lifestyle components have either  (LEFT PART)

The figure has been drawn on the basis of two graphs from correspondence analyses. The first has given the  positions of the elements belonging to the social space, the second the positions of the elements belonging to the space of lifestyles (supplementary points). In order to improve the view of the latter their co-ordinates have been  magnified by a factor of  1,5-2,0. 
Legend: Father’s education 1 = less than 9 years, Father’s education 2 = 9 years, Father’s education 3 = high school, Father’s education 4 = university, no MA, Father’s education  5 = university, MA.

Lecturer

strong left-wing attitude, economic policies

 (wear a moustache)  prefer period                                                     	                furniture or       .                                 copies
          live in detached house
person helping Kosovo Albanians  in church asylum not possible friend
           (influential politician                      
           possible friend)
(person who gives a substatial part of income to charities not posssible friend)

    like «Firebird Suite»
 read foreign papers occasionally

strong sense of control over own situation/sense of power

Yacht value 4

Car value 6

summer/winter house

Manager health/social

member art’s association of  firm

«Sjenkestuen» favourite pub

Manager public administration

prefer «classic» home

Physician, lawyer, dentist

Manager, olie

have a video camera

Manager other ind., other prod.

Self-empl..>5 employees

liberal

                 PRI

             have a mobile telephone

strong rigth-wing attitude, economic policies

University social sc.

University humanities

University economy, tech.

   MA

        WO
          PUB

                                          prefer to read poetry

«Jans mat og vinhus» favorite restaurant

go to symf. 
conserts >= 3 a year

symf. concert
1-2 a year

                     like «4 seasons»

                dislike Bjøro Håland
             (would like to live on Storhaug)

dislike «Swedish dance music»

	interested in the art’s 
                  pages in the papers
successful businessman not possible friend
  very interested in cultural matters 
      prefer «imaginative»  home
                      like modern jazz

(Rogaland Theatre >=3 a year) 

home expensively equipped 

 would like to live on Stokka 

go to art exhibitions             >=3 a year

dislike Country and Western

like Radka Toneff

listen often to «Kritikertorget»

know of 10-12 pieces of music/composers

read Dagens Næringsliv regularly 

suit and tie at work

read economic reviews once a week

3

4

5

3

4

Father’s  ed. 5

2

Office worker, health/social

Teacher

Skilled worker, oil 

Office worker, oil

Family income 10

6

7

8

9

received relative contributions (Cor-values) above 0,12 from the first principle(horizontal) axis, or received relative contributions above 0,095  from the second principle (vertical) axis (written in bold Italics).							(RIGHT PART)

N
VATE

MAN
LIC

Skilled worker, public sector

Father’s ed. 1

like  Country
 and Western

2

successful businessman possible friend  

Uskilled worker, other prod.

5

Office worker,, helth/social

no car

2

3

Family income 4

6

a person of wide culture not a possible friend   

like Bjøro Håland   

never visit art exhibition

listen to P4 regularly

Unskilled worker, other ind.

Uskilled wokrer, public sector

Skilled worker, helth/social

live in a block of flats

»

             

mislik                        (somewhat «untidy» home)                                     innfly                            influential politician
                                     not a possible friend

 	            interested in the art’s pages                avis  s                   in the papers
                              kultursider   
                                foretrekker «fantasifullt»                                                                                                                                                         
                                hjemmeinteriør 
                    liker moderne jazz

wear a          prefer                                                     moustache	    period furn.
                     or copies
        live in detached house
clean and tidy home
(influential politician
 possible friend)

Farmer

dislike Beethowen’s 5th («Skjebnesymfonien»)   

like accordion music

High school, vocational 

Skilled worker, oil 

Skilled worker, other ind.

know<= 2 pieces of music/composers

Education 9 years

Skilled worker, other prod.

     would not like to
      live on Stokka
(prefer to read love stories)
                     fatalisme
                    anti-liberal

no yacht

unskilled worker, oil

(person who gives a substantial part of income to charities possible friend)

person who helped Kosovo Albanians in church asulym possible friend

home inexpensively equipped

High school, health/social

Family income 4 = 160-200.000 kr., Family income  5 =  200-300.000 kr., Family income 6 = 300-400.000kr., Family income  7 = 400-500.000 kr., Family income 8 = 500-600.000 kr., Family income 9 = 600-700.000 kr., Family income 10 = >700.000 kr.
Car value 2 = <75.000 kr., Car value 3 = 75 - 150.000 kr., Car value 4 = 150 - 225.000 kr., Car value 5 = 225 - 300.000 kr., Car value 6 => 300.000 kr.
Yacht value 2=<75.000 kr., Yacht value 3 = 75 - 150.000 kr., Yacht value 4 => 150.000 kr.

On the right-hand side of the map in the working class area their opposites are found; lifestyle components which require little of their practitioners: like Country and Western, like accordion music, like Bjøro Håland (a Norwegian singer copying the late Jimmy Reeves), prefer to read love stories. In this area of the map there are signs of estrangement and even distancing towards lifestyles that are common in the left part of the map: a person of wide culture not a possible friend, never visit art exhibition or symphony concert. There are even indications of evasion of the physical territories that “belong” to the dominant class: would not like to live in Stokka (the high status area par excellence of the city). 
In a corresponding way we find clear signs of down classing and aversion within the dominant class towards lifestyle expressions which are common in the popular classes. It is the rules and values of the dominant class that prevail: Country and Western, Swedish dance music and Bjøro Håland are examples of vulgar and bad music that accordingly are detested.
The difference between right and left in the map is also catching important differences and contrasts with regard to political orientations. Two pairs of points represent the extreme positions on two attitude scales constructed by the help of factor analysis (principal component). The basis for these was a battery of questions relating to a long range of political and ethical issues. The points: liberal and anti-liberal represent each one sixth of the respondents who strongest voice liberal attitudes and anti-liberal respectively. In a corresponding way the points fatalism and strong sense of control over own situation/sense of power represent opposing views with regard to such issues. We find the point anti-liberal and fatalism to the right of the map within the working class domain, while strong liberal views are found to the left in the bottom part of the map (in the cultural élite) while those who express a strong sense of control over own situation/sense of power are mostly situated in the upper-left part of the map (in the economic élite).
Bourdieu has labelled the fraction in the upper-left part of the map the dominant fraction of the dominant class. It occupies a dominant position and it has power in its capacities as being bestowed with an abundance of economic capital. The analysis reveals a correspondence between these objective positions of power (in the social space) and subjective experiences and perceptions of them. The economic élite knows its power and tends to disagree strongly with statements such as people like me can very well vote, but influence politics in other ways is impossible. They regard themselves as being in a position to influence, of possessing power. Further, they do not think that politics is often too complicated that common people cannot grasp what it is all about. They regard themselves as fully politically competent. 
The members of the working class on the other hand are objectively in a dominated position. On a subjective level this expresses itself in sentiments of powerlessness. They hold the opinion that their potentials to affect both their own situations and circumstances and the political life are limited indeed. On the whole the results indicate that there is a correspondence between objective positions of powers (in the social space) and subjective perceptions of them (in the space of lifestyles).

What is it that has a value
When comparing the lifestyle components found in the upper part of the map with those found in the bottom, strong contrasts and oppositions are also found. Themes of conflict along the second dimension  - composition of capital - seem to be related to the value one ascribes to the two forms of capital. What is economic capital worth and what is culture worth? On a superficial level these basic orientations are manifesting themselves in different focuses of interest. In the upper-left part of the map there is a conspicuous interest in money and economy (people are reading about it and one keeps informed) and one uses it on expensively equipped house and expensive cars and yachts. In the bottom left part of the map one uses one’s time and attention on culture. Visits to art galleries and symphony concerts are rather frequent and one is knowledgeable in this area (know 10-12 pieces of music/composers).
	But the divisions between the “cultural” and the “economic” fractions are even more deep-rooted: they touch fundamental principles of how one perceives and apprehend the social world. They are strongly related to political inclinations and ethical dispositions. The capital composition dimension “explains” very well indeed diametrically contrasting attitudes with regard to principles of how economic wealth ought to be distributed. Up in the left quadrant, in the “economic élite”, most of those who express strong right-wing views on these matters are found. Strong sentiments and attitudes are expressed which accept greater differences in wages in order to promote incentives for efforts, which do not favour a tax reform which put pressure on firms and persons with high income, and which do not favour a development where economic wealth is distributed in a more equal way, etc. In the bottom part of the map - in the “cultural” domain of the space - we find most of those who are holding strong views of the strictly opposite nature. This division is most conspicuous within the dominant class in the left part of the map and the statistical relationships are strong indeed.  The “values” held by the respondents are not free of choice!  
	This fundamental division in the way of relating to the social and political world is closely linked to ethical dispositions. In order to trace such the respondents were asked to choose three person types (from a list of eight) which they could think of as close friends, and three that they could not think of as such. A couple of the most conspicuous person-types presented to the respondents are situated on each side of the horizontal axis. In the upper part of the map we find those who can think of becoming friends with a successful businessman who started with two empty hands, and an influential politician belonging to a party one sympathizes with. The former has money, the latter has influence and power, two attributes that are linked as the two sides of a coin. 
Emphasis on money and power is a prominent feature of the ethical dispositions that are common in this domain of the space. This makes them liable to reject the idea of becoming friends with a person who gives a substantial share of his income to charities and a person who made solid contribution in helping Kosovo Albanians in church asylum. These two person types are in practice denying the value of the assets that underpinning the positions of the businessman and the politician. The first one is giving away the money which is the fundament of the position of the businessman. The second is breaking the rules the established order, which gives the politician his position.
	In the bottom part of the map we come across the same person types, but sympathies have now changed to antipathies and vice versa. 
	Common wisdom is often ascribing aesthetical expressions of everyday life to the domain of the “free choice of the individual”. On such a background is it perhaps surprising to find conspicuous contrasts with regard to such cursory phenomena along the capital composition dimension. Members of the “cultural” fractions are inclined to say that their homes look somewhat untidy and that they prefer imaginative home interior, while those whose capital asset is dominated by economic capital prefer to have their homes clean and tidy and they prefer period furniture or copies. Among these fractions detached houses are by far the most common type of habitation, while flats (in a block), semi-detached houses or two-family houses are much more frequent among fractions whose capital composition is dominated by cultural capital. Further: two thirds of the men within the “economic élite” say that they have their hair cut short, while only one third of the men within the “cultural élite” say so. There is a similar difference among the women.   Among the economic élite one forth of the men wear a moustache, fifteen % have a beard or both a beard and a moustache. Within the cultural élite the distribution between the two forms of male embellishment are reversed. To wear a moustache is one of many lifestyle components, which the economic élite has in common with the other fractions with an asymmetrical capital composition in favour of economic capital. 

IV Constructing social structures – second movement
One phase of the construction of the two space constructs has now been completed. Large amounts of data describing various lifestyle components have been examined, and their relationships with the dimensions of social space have been established. The data analysed has been chosen from a wide area of social life. This section will provide the final stage of the construction process; a new multiple correspondence analysis will be presented which will provide a basis for the claim of analytic autonomy which was made on behalf of the two spaces in Section II of this paper. 
To recapitulate the logic of analysis so far: The construction of the local social space and its characteristics was presented in Section III. This was built on a multiple correspondence analysis of indicators of economic and cultural capital related to the respondents, basically “independent variables”. The result was a space whose two dimensions was interpreted as the volume and composition of capital. This space construct was used as an analytic frame to establish the distributional properties of the various lifestyle components, basically “dependent” variables. The statistical relationships between these lifestyle components and the two dimensions of the social space have been demonstrated. Presently, the space of lifestyle therefore consists of a (large) assembly of such statistical relationships, where the distribution of the lifestyle components are dependent of the two dimensions of the social space. The patterns of lifestyles are derived from and are dependent of the social space. 
The logic of analysis utilised certainly invites a “mechanistic reading”, an interpretation of the relationships between the two space constructs, where the space of lifestyle is more or less reducible to the other, the social space. It is not so. In Section II it was claimed that the two constructs are situated at different analytic levels and that they should be treated as autonomous, but homologous entities. They are structured according to the same principles. 
The social space is designed to bring order in the diversity of social conditions, creating a “space of social positions” to which the social agents are attached. It is a “network of interrelated statistical relationships” between indicators describing and systematising the main divisions of objective social conditions prevailing in society. The space of lifestyle, on the other hand, is constructed aiming at bringing order and to make comprehensible the ways and means by which the social agents are participating in the social world, how they think about it and how they perceive it. It is a space of “position takings”, i.e. it consists of the divers, but systematic expressions of the habitus, in various areas of “stylistic possibles”. In the presented analyses these are represented by the various lifestyle components. The space of lifestyles should have the same character as the social space, becoming a “network of interrelated statistical relationships” between various lifestyle components. At this stage of the presentation this has not yet been accomplished, strictly speaking. Presently, it is a collection of statistical relationships between (bundles of) single lifestyle components and the dimensions of the social space. In spite of this, the reader may have established this network character in his/her “synthesising reading” for which there are good reasons. 
The aim of this section is to provide a sound analytic basis for such a synthesis and to establish the analytical autonomy, which has been claimed on behalf of the two spaces. The analysis presented in the following pages is also a multiple correspondence analysis, this time however, based on the “reciprocal approach” (Lebart et. al. 1984:107). The previous analyses are repeated in the “reversed” analytic order. In this analysis the descriptors of the various lifestyle components are themselves used as the “raw material” and the starting point. The analysis is performed with the aim of establishing a space of lifestyles, which truly is displaying the statistical relationships between the various lifestyle components. 
For this purpose nineteen of the previously analysed “dependent” variables were selected. These have been chosen basically among the statistically “strong” ones. All in all 68 categories were analysed. Thus, sympathies and antipathies towards four person types in our gallery of personalities were chosen (the person who is cultured and well informed in many areas, the hard working man who provides for his family, the person who spent a lot of time in helping Kosovo Albanians in church asylum, the successful businessman who started with two empty hands (altogether 8 categories); expressed interest in cultural matters (four categories); how the respondents dress at work (six categories); the number of books at home (five categories); whether or not the respondents could think of living in six different named residential areas (12 categories); preferred style of furniture (six categories); the respondents estimates with regard to amounts of ornaments in the home (five categories); estimates of clean- and tidiness of home (five categories); estimates with regard to expensive-cheaply equipped home (five categories). Finally two of the analysed political attitude scales were brought into the analysis: left versus right inclination with regard to economic policy, and fatalism versus sense of power. As we remember these were based on a factor analysis of a large battery of questions. Both variables consist of six categories. 
The calculation of principle inertia and their recalculation according to the formula of Benzécri gave the following results  : 

Table 1: Principle inertia values and proportions of explained variance.
Dimension		% of total variance	Accumulated  % of total variance	Recalculated  princ. inertia according to Benzécri	% of total variance	Accumulated % of variance	
1	0,1738	5,0	5,0	0,0163	29,9	29,9	
2	0,1633	4,7	9,7	0,0136	25,0	54,9	
3	0,1136	3,3	13,0	0,0041	7,6	62,5	
4	0,1071	3,1	16,1	0,0033	6,1	68,6	

Worth noting is the similarity in size of the two first dimension of the low-dimensional optimal space. Together they explain 55 percent of the total variance of the data. Analysing subsequent dimensions – which will not be performed – would reveal little new insight in the relationships between the categories. 
The following graph contains a display of the respondents according to the two first principle axes.
Figure 3: The space of lifestyles. First and second dimensions. Respondents projected. 

The map may be interpreted in a similar metaphorical fashion as the social space was subjected to earlier (page 5). All respondents are represented here as points in the plane. Their positions have been calculated on the basis of their profile of lifestyles, corresponding to their values on each and all of the nineteen chosen variables. The plane has been constructed in such a way that the maximum difference or contrast has been created, with regard to profiles of lifestyles, between those respondents situated to the right side of the plane compared to those on the left-hand side. The first dimension, the horizontal one, represents this division, which account for 30 percent of the total inertia (or variance). Similarly, the second largest difference with regard to profile of lifestyles, which is possible to create, is represented by the difference or contrast between the respondent who are situated in the top part of the plane, compared to those at the bottom. The second dimension, the vertical one, represents this difference and it accounts for 25 percent of the total inertia (or variance).
It is now possible to imagine oneself literally to move around on the plane and wherever one finds oneself, one is surrounded by respondents who resemble each other; they have similar tastes. They tend to reassemble each other with regard to their “position-takings” on all 19 variables.  The distribution of these attributes can now be summarised and established simply by asking, for instance, those who say that a person who spent much time in helping Kosovo Albanians in church asylum is a possible friend to raise their hand. We then find the centre of gravity for this attribute. This is a point that is located in the middle of the group raising their hands. Then we go on and ask those respondents which could think of having a successful businessman who started with two empty hands as a possible friend to raise their hands, and in the same way we find the centre of gravity for this new group of respondents, having this attribute in common. In this way we may go through the whole list of attributes - all 68 categories- and establish their positions in the plane, and then we can contemplate the pattern of the points. 
The following figure displays the explicative points related to the two main dimensions and those points, which are particularly well explained by them. 

Figure 4: The space of lifestyles. Explicative points and points representing categories which have received qlt-values larger than 0,10 projected

There are two types of points displayed in the map. Firstly, there is a small number of points  representing various nominal categories, i.e. preferred types of furniture and dressing style at work. All the rest represent either the extreme categories of variables which are ordinal in kind (left-wing attitudes economic policies and fatalism versus strong sense of power (six categories), estimates of tidiness of the home, the number of books, the number of ornaments in the home and the estimates of the expensiveness the house equipment (all have five categories) or they are the two categories of variables of dichotomised nature (would like, or would not like to live in Stokka, Eiganes, Madla, Storhaug, Tananger, the person types liable (+) for friendship, or not liable for friendship (-)). 
An inspection of the graph reveals that the points representing these “opposing” categories are positioned on each side of origo. Some of these opposing categories have been joined by lines to help the reader to orient him/herself . Thus the point totally uninterested in culture is situated to the far left close to the x-axis. By following the line connecting it a small distance in the right direction we find the point rather uninterested in culture and to the far right, on the other side of origo, the point very interested in culture. Similarly, the point less than 50 books at home is situated to the left side of origo. By following the connecting line in the right direction we find the point 200-400 books at home and, further down on the right hand side, the point more than 400 books at home. The first principle axis of the solution obviously has much to do with accumulated cultural capital. The mentioned points are all contributing substantially to the inertia of the first dimension.  
Similarly, contemplating explicative points in relation to the second axis give rise to a hunch that this dimension is related to the accumulated amount of economic capital. At the bottom of the graph we find points indicating formal dressing at work; suit and tie at work and jacket and trousers at work, which we know from previous analyses are particularly common in the economic elite. Further, the extreme values of the two dimensions of political attitudes are situated in this region of the space: strong sense of power (Fatalism (1)) and strong right-wing attitudes, economic policy (1) and home expensively equipped (1). These attributes were also prominent traits among the economic elite. 
Moving left-upwards (from the bottom of the map) several of the lifestyle elements characterising the affluent intermediates are encountered: prefer period furniture or copies; many ornaments at home (5); clean and tidy at home (5). Further indications on the ethical orientations of this fraction are also found: the pleasing idea of having a successful businessman who started with two empty hands as a possible friend, and the repelling idea of becoming friends with a person who spent a lot of time helping Kosovo Albanians in church asylum. The “opposing” categories – the dislike of the former and the liking of the latter, which were characterising the cultural intermediates in previous analyses - are placed in opposite positions - across origo - at the top-right of the map. Thus, the points indicating a reluctance of becoming friends with a successful businessman who started with two empty hands and the willingness of considering a person who spent a lot of time helping Kosovo Albanians in church asylum as a possible friend, are situated in this area. Further, in this area two points indicating strong left-wing attitudes economic policy, categories (5) and (6), and the points indicating a somewhat untidy home (4 and 5) and few ornaments at home (5). These were also aspects of the lifestyles of the cultural inclined fractions in the previous analyses.
At the top-left we find a number of points which, in the previous analyses, were located in the working class area: working clothes at work, do not entertain the idea of becoming friends with a person who is cultured and well informed in many areas. Further, we find home inexpensively equipped, fatalism (5) and (6) and we find those who say that they prefer IKEA furniture style. Further, the points indicating aversion against the idea of living in any of the city’s high status areas: Eiganes, Stokka and Madla. When memorising the patterns of displayed points in their positions in previous analyses, the presence of the social space become more and more pungent.      
In order to cut short the interpretation the following map is displayed. It contains the two dimension of the previous analysis displayed in a similar scale. Now, however, the active points are omitted. Instead the class fractions of the respondents, as they have been defined by their positions in the social space, the value of car (six categories) and the education of the fathers’ (five categories) have been inserted as supplementary points. The class fractions have been joined by dotted lines. 

Figure 5: The space of lifestyles. Class fractions, value of car and fathers’ education projected as supplementary points

	

(

(Legend: Value of car 6: >300.000 NOK, 5: 225-300.000 NOK, 4: 150-225.000 NOK, 3: 75-150.000 NOK, 2: 
<75.000 NOK, 1: no car. Fathers’ education 5: Masters’ level, 4: some university, 3: high school, 2: 9-10 years                   1:  =< 8 years ) 

Table 2: The space of lifestyles. Category parameters of projected supplementary points 
		Axis: 1	Axis: 1	Axis: 2	Axis: 2	
	Qlt	Coord	Cor	Coord	Cor	
Fathers’ education =< 8 years	0.204	-0.219	0.107	0.208	0.097	
                “                  9 -  10 years	0.044	-0.123	0.030	0.084	0.014	
                “                   high school    	0.070	0.136	0.067	-0.031	0.003	
                “                  some university	0.196	0.282	0.131	-0.199	0.065	
                “                  Maters’ degree	0.137	0.527	0.086	-0.405	0.051	
No car	0.295	-0.041	0.003	0.403	0.292	
Car <75.000 NOK	0.165	0.069	0.012	0.240	0.152	
Car 75 – 150.000 NOK	0.008	0.030	0.002	-0.060	0.007	
Car 150 – 225.000 NOK	0.098	-0.050	0.003	-0.260	0.095	
Car 225 – 300.000 NOK	0.116	-0.028	0.001	-0.401	0.116	
Car >= 300.000 NOK	0.323	-0.198	0.015	-0.913	0.308	
Economic elite	0.368	0.053	0.001	-0.873	0.366	
Dominant class, balanced capital composition	0.319	0.292	0.084	-0.489	0.235	
Cultural elite	0.378	0.742	0.377	-0.018	0.000	
Affluent intermediate class	0.181	-0.392	0.161	-0.136	0.019	
Intermediate class, , balanced capital composition	0.005	-0.019	0.001	0.048	0.004	
Cultural elite	0.328	0.454	0.182	0.406	0.146	
Affluent working class	0.267	-0.752	0.226	0.322	0.041	
Working class,  balanced capital composition	0.299	-0.454	0.156	0.434	0.143	
Cultural working class	0.244	0.074	0.002	0.858	0.242	

The contents of the map and table can leave no one in doubt. The constructed space of lifestyle bears the previously constructed social space as a very heavy imprint. By analysing profiles of lifestyle components of the respondents we first have got a very similar distribution of the various lifestyle components as the previous analysis has revealed. Secondly, an almost perfect representation of the social space is unveiled when elements belonging to the social space are inserted as supplementary points. The reader should note the extremely high squared correlation values (Cor). The supplementary points are indeed well explained by the dimensions of the space of lifestyles. The two dimensions of the constructed space have caught the diagonals of the social space as its main dimensions. The first dimension is clearly related to the cultural capital diagonal of the social space, reflecting the amount of accumulated cultural capital. Fathers’ educational level, an indicator of inherited cultural capital, is best explained by this dimension. It puts the cultural elite in the opposite position to the affluent working class. Similarly, the second dimension clearly reflects the amount of accumulated economic capital. The amount of money spent on car(s) is extremely well explained by this axis. This dimension counterpoises the “cultural working class” - the fraction least bestowed with economic capital – and the economic elite which is the most affluent fraction.
The structure of the social space appears clearly if one fixes the system of relations between the various lifestyle components in Figure 5 and rotate the axis system approximately 45 degree, as it is indicated. Then the first axis becomes identical with the capital volume dimension of the social space and the second axis becomes the capital composition dimension. Such a procedure is commonly used in factor analysis. It does not change the total amount of explained variance by the two principle axis, but it changes the amount explained by each of them, something which is rarely noted when factor analysis is used.
Bourdieu’s own approach to demonstrate the autonomy of the space of lifestyle is more “partial” in kind. He presents two solutions (Bourdieu, 1984, page 262, and 340), one describing lifestyle differentiation within the dominant class, the other the same phenomenon within the intermediate class. In both solutions fractions whose capital assets is dominated by economic capital are counterpoised to those whose capital is predominantly of the cultural kind, i.e. the capital composition is the main principle of differentiation among lifestyles within both classes. The second one is related to age, which Bourdieu interpret as seniority within respective classes. By analysing the two classes separately the effect of the volume of capital, as the main differentiating mechanism is neutralized, since all analysed respondents are approximately equally positioned on this variable. Undertaking correspondence analysis of lifestyle components in the present data-set based on sub-samples which are “homogenised” with regard to class, or volume of capital, gives consistently similar results as the one presented by Bourdieu. 
The presented solution was one in a whole series of analyses, which has given very similar results. In the course of this venture it was noted that it was possible to let the representation of the social space – the configuration of class fractions consisting of supplementary points - turn arbitrarily around by manipulating the active variables. The orientation of it is determined by the construction of the analysis, i.e. by the choice of variables that are analysed. What seems to be consistent, however, is the apparent permanent presence of the social space. When projecting the class fractions representing it into any constructed spaces consisting of lifestyles components, the social space appears in configurations similar to the one above, it seems. After having analysed seven or eight different constructions of the space of lifestyles, based on different selections of active variables, I have come to the conclusion that when the analysed lifestyle components are chosen randomly from a variety of lifestyle areas, the social space invariably reveals itself by the projection of the class fractions as supplementary points! The presented solution is in other words a typical one indicating a general validity of volume and composition of capital as the main principles of differentiation when it comes to understanding lifestyle patterns.  
V Conclusions: social structures and mental structures
The last presented solution demonstrates the analytic autonomy of the constructed space of lifestyles. It has been constructed completely independent of the construction of the social space in “the first movement” (Section III). It is based on divisions of lifestyle patterns among the respondents. Profiles of lifestyles consisting of nineteen different “dependent variables” were analysed and the resulting space could be thought of as a “space of position takings”. This is the objectified, systematic representation of regularities, affinities and divisions of practices, habits, thoughts, considerations etc. among the social agents and this space is structured by the same principles as the space of social position: volume and composition of capital.
When the respondents are projected into this space we know that respondents who are positioned close to each other have similar profiles of lifestyles. They agree with regard to basic political orientations (the two attitude scales); they are equipped with similar schemes of perception and classification when it comes to judging the four mentioned person types as possible friends, implying similar ethical orientation; they agree in their judgement of possible and impossible residential areas in the city; their homes are described in similar ways and probably they also look similar, both their homes and they themselves (they dress alike at work and they agree when it comes to preferred type of furniture). All regions and segments of the plane are characterised by homogeneity of lifestyle profiles among the respondents. Most likely this similarity goes far beyond the nineteen variables analysed. 
This similarity of profiles of lifestyle components – habits, attitudes, perceptions, practices – have a common denominator, a common ground. They reflect similarities and resemblance with regard to the mental structures; the dispositions that are generating the various lifestyle patterns. Closeness in the space may be assumed to imply a similarity in their habitus’. Social agents localised close to each other are equipped mentally in similar ways, have similar habitus’ which make them think similarly, perceive similarly and behave similarly. This imply that it is meaningful to think of a space of habitus as a third theoretical space construct situated in between the space of lifestyles and the space of social positions (Bourdieu 1984: 126). This space gives the principles of distribution of the mental structures, the different dispositions towards practices: i.e. habitus’, which may be assumed to follow the same two principles of social differentiation. 
Furthermore, the projections of the points representing the various class fractions – “imported” from the construction of the space of lifestyles - disclose that the distribution of these lifestyle components and the concurring habitus’ correspond to the distribution of the main forms of capital; they follow also the two principles of the social space, volume and composition of capital. Thus, the social space and the space of lifestyle are two constructs which have been constructed independently of each other, the former being the space of social positions which is “independent of the consciousness and desires of agents .. which  .. is capable of guiding or constraining their practices and representations” (Bourdieu 1990:123), the latter being an objectified, systematic representation of “the practises and representations”, the way and means by which the social agents participate, think of and perceive the lived social world. They are structured according to the same principles, volume and composition of capital.
At this stage we may conclude that the conceptual framework which Bourdieu is offering in Distinction and the methods he is using are fruitful points of departure for studies of other social formation than the French in the 1970’s. By applying them to the urban community of Stavanger in the mid 1990’s it has been possible to construct a local social space and a space of lifestyles which seem adequate and fruitful in unveiling its hidden traits and which in a broad sense are commensurable with Bourdieu’s analyses of the French society. Volume of capital and composition of capital seem to be two independent principles of social differentiation, which are valid also when describing the Norwegian society. They are indispensable in order to understand the fabrics of the social structures and they are indeed helpful when one is trying to get to grips with the dynamics of lifestyles in the space of lifestyles. 
In particular the contrasts, tensions and oppositions that are disclosed by the help of the second principles, i.e. the capital composition dimension are to be emphasized. The inclusion of the dimension of composition of capital makes the model capable of shedding light on a great number of phenomena that are not related to hierarchical principles. Many aspects of the aesthetics of everyday life such as style of clothing at work, hair style, facial hair (beard or moustache) among men, make-up among women, preferred style of home interior, ornaments and family pictures in the home, type of dwelling etc.
However, even more deep-rooted aspects of the personality are related to this principle of differentiation. Values, ethical dispositions and perceptions of the social world where money, success and powers are basic classifying principles are dominant in the economic domain of the space, among all fractions whose capital assets are dominated by economic capital. In the cultural domain these values and schemes of perception have been turned into their opposites. The mode of thinking dominating among the cultural fractions is contesting the social value of money and challenging the dominating social and political order. Further, basic attitudes related to economic policies (lefts and right) are strongly related to this principle of social differentiation. The lifestyle divisions along the capital composition dimension are as important and as numerous as those which follows the capital volume dimension. They are coming into being in the divisions and tensions between two more or less differentiated social hierarchies built on the two different forms of capital. A conception of a social structure, which cannot account for these is therefore doomed to be blind to these divisions. 
	The presented imagery of social regularities related to social structures and mental structures (and their products = divers lifestyles) constitute a challenge towards opinions held by major quarters of empirically oriented social scientists; about the fading influence on human conduct of indicators relating to social structures. It is quite possible and indeed meaningful to comprehend human behaviour by referring to objective social structures. This applies, not least, which I hope that I have demonstrated, to the formation of values, which the “researchers of values” ascribe to the individual choice. According to them the “individual chooses its own values and has to account for the choices that follow from these values” (Todal Jenssen 1998: 471). These aspects of the personality are all ordered into patterns that are comprehensible according to the two principles of social differentiation. The “free-set”, “individualised” individual, who is supposed to make his own choices, creating and living his “his/her own life” (Beck), is doing it according to regularities, which clearly indicate that they are socially designed. The values a person develops and his/her comprehension of the social world in which he/she lives are not free of choice! They follow the two principles of social differentiation, volume and composition of capital.

Literature:

Beck, U. (1992): Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: SAGE. 

Benzécri J. P. (1969): “Statistical Analysis as a Tool to Make Pattern Emerge from Data”. In: Natanabe, S. (ed.): Methodologies of Pattern Recognition.. New York: Academic Press. 

Benzécri J. P. (1992): Correspondence Analysis Handbook. New York.

Birkelund, G. E. (1996a): Klassestruktur, lønnsulikhet og klasseidentifikasjon i Norge. En kommentar. Tidskrift for samfunnsforskning, nr 3 1996.

Birkelund, G. E. (1996b): Valg av klassebegrep. Tidskrift for samfunnsforskning, nr 3 1996.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1984): Distinction - A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:     Routledge and & Kegan Paul.

Bourdieu, Pierre, Wacquant Loïc J.D. (1992): An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press

Bourdieu, Pierre (1995): Distinksjonen. En sosiologisk kritikk av dømmekraften. Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1990): In other words: essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Clausen, Sten-Erik (1989): Korrespondanseanalyse: Grafisk representasjon av frekvenstabeller. NIBR-rapport 1989:14.

Colbjørnsen, T., Hernes, G., Knudsen, K. (1982): Klassestruktur og klasseskiller. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Colbjørnsen, T., Birkelund, G. E., Hernes, G., Knudsen, K. (1987): Klassesamfunnet på hell. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Dahrendorf, R. (1959): Class and Class Conflict in an Industrial Society. Stanford.

Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992): The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gooderam, P., Ringdal, K. (1995): Klassestruktur, lønnsulikhet og klasseindentifikasjon i Norge. En sammenligning av Wrights og Goldthorpes klassemodeller. Tidskrift for samfunnsforskning, nr 3, 1995.

Gooderam, P., Ringdal, K (1996): En kommentar til kommentaren. Tidskrift for samfunnsforskning, nr 3 1996.

Greenacre Michael J. (1984): Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press, INC.

Greenacre Michael J. (1995): Correspondence Analysis in Practice. London: Academic Press, INC.

Greenacre Michael J., Blasius, Jörg (1995): Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences. London: Academic Press, INC

Grenstad, Gunnar, Rommetvedt, Hilmar (1997): Fem tyver på samme marked?, i Rommetvedt, H., red.: Oljehovedstadens politiske kulturlandskap. KULTs skriftserie nr.94.

Hjellbrekke, J. (1999): Innføring i korrespondanseanalyse.

Jambu, M.,  Lebeaux, M-O (1983): Cluster Analysis and Data Analysis. Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company.

Jambu, M.(1991): Exploratory and Multivariate Data Analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.

Jenssen, A. T. (1998): Verdier, opinion og politikk. Tidskrift for samfunnsforskning nr.4, 1998

Koch, M. (1996): Class and Taste: Bourdeiu’s contribution to the Analysis of Social Structure and Social Space. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1996.

Lebart, L., Morineau, A. Warwick (1984): Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis. Correspondence Analysis and Related Techniques for Large Matrices. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Lockwood, D. (1958): The Black-coated Worker: a study in class consciousness. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Rosenlund, L. (1992): Korrespondanseanalyse. Metode for kvantitativ behandling av kvalitative data. Arbeidspapirer fra Høgskolesentret i Rogaland, nr 156.

Rosenlund, Lennart (1995a): Korrespondanseanalyse. Dataanalysens magiske øye. Sosiologisk tidskrift nr 1 (1995), 55-78.

Rosenlund, L. (1997): Livsstiler og politiske holdninger, i Rommetvedt, H., red.: Oljehovedstadens politiske kulturlandskap. KULTs skriftserie nr.94.

Rosenlund, L. (2000): Social Structures and Cultural Changes: Applying Pierre Bourdieu's Approach and Analytical Framework. Stavanger 

Wright, E. O. (1985): Classes. London: Verso.

Wright, E. O. (1989): The Debate on Classes. London: Verso.

APPENDIX I: Some technical considerations on the constructed local social space – first movement.

The full print-out table of category parameters is presented in Table IV at the end of this appendix. The presented construction of the local social space is one of several that have been undertaken. We have tried many solutions, using different active variables and several principles of coding the analysed variables. The purpose of these «challenges» towards the construction has been the evaluate its general quality. What has been very interesting to note in this trial and error exercise is the consistency by which the same dimensions have been reproduced. The volume and the composition of capital dimensions seem to be quite robust constructions and they seem to be clear and solid evidences of the existence of the two independent principles of social differentiation.
One of these «challenges» to the construction needs a comment. There is a certain ambiguity with regard to the entity of analysis built into our undertaking. Thus, our indices of economic capital are all related to the economic condition of the household, either directly such as using the family income, or indirectly such as the value of car(s), yacht(s) and possession of a summer house. However, when «measuring» cultural capital we are using the characteristics of the respondents. In the analysis of secondary characteristics of the constructed space it was noticed that the structure of the household unit varied conspicuously across the constructed social space. The table shows the proportions of the various class fractions who are living together with a spouse or a girl/boyfriend.  

Table I: The local social space in tabular form. Percent living together with spouse or girl/boyfriend. 

	Dominant class	Intermediate class 	Working class   	
+ economic capital	94	93	85	
Balanced cap. Comp.	86	69	56	
+ cultural capital	72	48	43	
	Dominant class 	Intermediate class	Working class 	
(Total: Living together = 72 percent) 

It is much more common to live together with a spouse (in particular) or a girl/boyfriend among the fractions whose capital asset is dominated by economic capital than those whose capital assets is dominated by cultural capital. This tendency is particularly conspicuous in the intermediate class and in the working class, among which more than half are living single.
On the one hand this finding is an important secondary trait of the social space as such: the family as a social institution can not be assumed to have a «universal» character, but is structured and influenced by the different social conditions prevailing in the various domains of the social space. It seems as if it is in the «cultural territory» of the space that its «erosion» has set in, a trait which is in accord with other characteristics present in these areas of the space. 
On the other hand, the finding may cause serious doubts as to the construction as a whole. The following line of thoughts is quite logical and plausible:  The economic level of the household, as we have «measured» it, is dependent on inheritance and on the capacity of the respondents to generate income. The latter is dependent both on the level of personal income and on the number of persons contributing to it. Therefor, a household consisting of two «providers» is generating a higher economic level than those which are consisting of persons living «single», on the average. Theoretically, the capital composition principle of social differentiation, as we have outlined it, could therefor be an epi-phenomenon of the differences of household structures. Instead of being an indication of an important principle of social differentiation - as we have advocated - the second dimension could simply be a reflection of the division between those respondents who are living «single» and those who are living in a household with two providers.  
In order to test this alternative, possibly damaging hypothesis the research design was altered. The analysis was re-run with the same variables as in the original version, but now using only the respondents who were living with a spouse or girl/boyfriend. This attempt at demolishing the construction «failed». The results were very similar to the those obtained in the presented solution. The main dimensions were still recognisable as a volume and a capital composition dimension.   
As a general rule it is proposed to use variables with an approximate equal number of variable values, when working with multiple correspondence analysis. The variable occupation of the respondent has altogether 30 categories. Two variables have ten each. There is one variable with seven, two with six, one with five, one with four and one variable with only two categories. The design of the analysis is in other words extremely heterogeneous with regard to the number of analysed categories.
The fact was a cause for concern and various strategies were adopted to try to evaluate its possible damaging effects. There are none however. One was to re-code variables with many categories. For instance family income could be re-coded easily. The lowest categories with few respondents were merged. Re-analyses of the data gave no change of the main results and no improvement of them, apart from having fewer points to account for. Similarly, the education variable was re-coded in spite the risk of loosing important information, with no improvement. 
An other strategy to challenge the construction was to exclude the variable occupational group and possession of a summer/winter house, the two extreme variables with regard to their number of categories. This was a dramatic amputation of the design since good economic indicators were lacking from the outset of the venture. Even if the variable possession of a summer/winter was a crude measure indeed, it contained an important aspect of the holdings of economic capital. However, the results of these analyses gave no reasons for reinterpretations. The first extracted principle axis was still a dimension volume of capital, the second was a horse-shoe solution   and the third was easily identified as the capital composition dimension. When re-introducing the variable possession of a summer/winter house, the second principle axis changed back orientation and «became» the capital composition dimension once again. 
This solution - without the variable occupational group  - was the main one for a while. However, after a session of detailed comparisons of the mentioned solution with the presented one, the latter was judged to be the better. The first principle axis of the two solutions were comparable with regard to «explanative power», i.e. the they explained an equal number of categories. The second principle axis - the dimension of capital composition - differed in this respect. In the presented solution this dimension explained 16 categories (not counting the categories of the variable occupational group). The alternative solution, the one where the occupational groups were excluded, accounted for only 9 explained categories.
The presented construction is not affected by any so-called «out-liers». This is a «small» point - representing few people - with a particular attribute-profile, which attracts one of the principle axes in its direction in a disproportionate way. A consequence of this is the suppression of the variation among the other points and can thereby have a damaging effect of the analysis. One simple method of discovering these is to cross-examine the weight- and the Ctr-columns. Low weights combined with high absolute contribution values is an indication of «out-liers». 
There are several «rules of the thumb» given for safeguarding against having the stability of the construction disrupted by «out-liers».  A minimum number of respondents in each category has been proposed: 5 (Broady), 10 (Høstaker), 2 percent (Allenbach). The smallest and accordingly the most «critical» categories are: brought up in a foreign town, 3 respondents, brought up in a foreign city, 9 respondents, family income < 60.000, 8 respondents, unskilled worker oil, 8 respondents, and farmer which has 8 respondents. Of these categories only two have significant contribution values: family income < 60.000 which contributes by 2 percent to the inertia of the second principal axis. The category farmer contributes by 1 percent to the first principle axis, and by 0,9 percent to the second. The inclusion or exclusions of these small categories is therefor a matter of minimal concern. 
The following table gives additional information about the presented solution. 

Table II: Contributions of analysed variables to the inertia of the first and second principle axes. (Values exceeding threshold value 1/Q=0,111 in bold)
Variables	Axis 1	Axis 2	
Type of community in which the respondent has been brought up  	0,044	0,040	
Education of respondent 	0,174	0,148	
Approximate family income 	0,167	0,112	
Educational level of father 	  	0,167	0,063	
Occupation of father 				  	0,164	0,049	
Occupation of respondent				0,180	0,284	
Value of car(s) (car value)			  	0,049	0,139	
Value of yacht(s) (yacht value)		  	0,037	0,087	
Possession of a summer/winter house        	  	0,014	0,076	
	0,996	0,998	

The following five variables contribute significantly to the inertia of the first principle axis: education of the respondent, family income, educational level of the father, his occupation and the occupation of the respondent. The following four variables contribute significantly to the inertia of the second principle axis: education of the respondent, family income, occupation of the respondent and the value of car.
The conspicuously high contribution value from the variable occupation of  respondent to the inertia of the second principle axis needs a comment. This variable was coded on the basis of two different question, one related to occupation, the other related to branch/type of employment. So the variable occupation of the respondent contain information both about the position in an occupational structure, and about economic sector of employment. On this background there are good reasons to expect strong contribution from this particular combined variable.
Some technical details from the construction work remains to be given. Our focus of interest has been the two first principle axis of the optimal low dimensional space. However, attention has also been given to subsequent axes. The «content» of these have varied according to which set of variables has been used. In the present solution the third axis is heavily influenced by the sex division. This is noteworthy since the sex variable has not been used as an active variable.  Still it is expressed in the third principle axis. From a technical, statistical point of view we may conclude that the sexual division is the third most important principle of differentiation, after the volume and composition of capital. 
The principle inertia values and corresponding proportions of the total variance for the three first extracted dimensions are listed in the following table. One of the features of multiple correspondence analysis is that it grossly underestimates the «explained» percentages of variance. We get a clear impression of this by inspecting the second column of the table 3. The extracted three dimensions account for only 9,20 percent of the total variance, which is not particularly impressive in the eyes of researchers accustomed to use multiple regression analysis, for instance.  Benzécri has proposed the following formula to recalculate the principle inertia values to make them more realistic:  where .is the principle inertia of the k-th dimension.  The results are given in the table. 

Table III: Principle inertia values and proportions of explained variance.

Dimension		% of total variance	Accumulated  % of total variance	Recalculated  princ. inertia according to Benzécri	% of total variance	Accumulated % of variance	
1	0,2889	3,80	3,80	0,039990	36,53	35,52	
2	0,2083	2,74	6,54	0,011952	12,27	48,80	
3	0,2030	2,67	9,20	0,010684	9,11	57,91	

Our three extracted dimensions account for as much as 58 percent of the total variance of the data set. The two first dimensions, which are our main concern, account for almost half of the total variance, which is quite satisfactory.
  
	The full numerical output is given in the following table.    
	 
Table IV: The social space. Print-out table of category parameters (values of absolute contribution (Ctr) exceeding threshold value in bold , values of relative contribution (Cor) in italics)

				Axis: 1	Axis: 1	Axis: 1	Axis: 2	Axis: 2	Axis: 2	
Categories	Qlt	Weight	Inr	Coord	Cor	Ctr	Coord	Cor	Ctr	
brought up in rural community		0.076	0.017	0.012	0.600	0.063	0.022	-0.270	0.013	0.006	
brought up in small town (<10.000 inh.)	0.014	0.014	0.012	0.300	0.012	0.004	0.130	0.002	0.001	
brought up in a town (10-50.000 inh.)	0.021	0.012	0.013	-0.110	0.001	0.000	-0.416	0.020	0.010	
brought up in a city (not Oslo)	0.063	0.066	0.006	-0.155	0.033	0.006	0.150	0.030	0.007	
brought up in Oslo     	0.030	0.003	0.014	-1.036	0.026	0.010	-0.404	0.004	0.002	
brought up in a foreign city	0.025	0.001	0.014	-0.359	0.002	0.001	-1.403	0.024	0.013	
brought up in a foreign town 	0.005	0.000	0.014	0.915	0.003	0.001	0.610	0.001	0.001	
education of resp. 8 years	0.050	0.005	0.013	0.998	0.049	0.018	0.108	0.001	0.000	
         - « -  9-10 years	0.138	0.015	0.012	0.882	0.116	0.040	0.382	0.022	0.010	
         - « - high sch. gener	0.009	0.011	0.013	0.110	0.001	0.000	-0.272	0.008	0.004	
         - « - high sch. trade/comm     	0.060	0.013	0.013	0.450	0.026	0.009	0.519	0.034	0.017	
         - « - high sch .health/social	0.048	0.003	0.014	0.495	0.007	0.003	-1.237	0.041	0.022	
         - « - high sch vocational	0.061	0.017	0.012	0.425	0.030	0.010	0.427	0.031	0.014	
         - « - university, humanities	0.154	0.015	0.012	-0.468	0.034	0.012	-0.870	0.119	0.054	
         - « - university, social science 	0.106	0.006	0.013	-0.985	0.055	0.020	-0.945	0.051	0.025	
         - « - university, technology    	0.112	0.017	0.012	-0.783	0.107	0.036	0.164	0.005	0.002	
         - « - university, economy       	0.071	0.009	0.013	-0.896	0.070	0.026	0.094	0.001	0.000	
family income < 60.000 NOK	0.042	0.001	0.014	0.234	0.000	0.000	-2.124	0.041	0.022	
family income   60-100.000	0.082	0.003	0.013	0.942	0.022	0.008	-1.534	0.060	0.030	
family income   100-160.000	0.034	0.004	0.013	0.932	0.032	0.012	-0.222	0.002	0.001	
family income   160-200.000	0.111	0.008	0.013	0.921	0.067	0.024	-0.745	0.044	0.021	
family income   200-300.000	0.048	0.022	0.011	0.397	0.038	0.012	-0.204	0.010	0.004	
family income   300-400.000	0.008	0.022	0.011	0.172	0.007	0.002	0.063	0.001	0.000	
family income   400-500.000	0.046	0.022	0.011	-0.239	0.013	0.004	0.373	0.033	0.014	
family income   500-600.000	0.101	0.011	0.013	-0.856	0.081	0.029	0.429	0.020	0.010	
family income   600-700.000	0.086	0.006	0.013	-1.253	0.085	0.032	0.167	0.002	0.001	
family income   >700.000	0.131	0.004	0.014	-1.700	0.114	0.044	0.651	0.017	0.009	
education of father 8 years	0.276	0.036	0.010	0.668	0.210	0.057	0.374	0.066	0.024	
education of father 9-10 years	0.026	0.021	0.011	0.316	0.023	0.007	0.110	0.003	0.001	
education of father high school       	0.026	0.028	0.011	-0.278	0.025	0.008	-0.060	0.001	0.000	
education of father univ. short 	0.263	0.019	0.012	-0.981	0.193	0.064	-0.591	0.070	0.031	
education of father univ. long     	0.097	0.004	0.013	-1.429	0.084	0.031	-0.579	0.014	0.007	
father unskilled worker	0.207	0.021	0.011	0.808	0.149	0.048	0.504	0.058	0.025	
father skilled worker	0.017	0.036	0.010	0.174	0.014	0.004	-0.091	0.004	0.001	
father manager 	0.208	0.020	0.012	-0.981	0.200	0.066	-0.195	0.008	0.004	
father office worker	0.096	0.013	0.013	-0.718	0.068	0.024	-0.462	0.028	0.013	
father self employed + 5 employee	0.013	0.005	0.013	-0.502	0.013	0.005	-0.082	0.000	0.000	
father self emoluyed - 5 employee	0.062	0.016	0.012	0.554	0.049	0.017	0.275	0.012	0.006	
unskilled worker oil	0.005	0.001	0.014	0.677	0.005	0.002	-0.102	0.000	0.000	
skilled worker oil	0.008	0.002	0.014	0.085	0.000	0.000	0.622	0.007	0.004	
manager oil	0.055	0.007	0.013	-0.913	0.051	0.019	0.265	0.004	0.002	
office work oil	0.020	0.006	0.013	-0.582	0.019	0.007	-0.135	0.001	0.001	
unskilled worker other industry	0.036	0.002	0.015	1.345	0.030	0.012	0.581	0.006	0.003	
skilled worker other industry	0.046	0.005	0.013	0.878	0.032	0.012	0.563	0.013	0.007	
manager other industry	0.038	0.003	0.014	-0.610	0.011	0.004	0.968	0.027	0.014	
office work other industry	0.007	0.004	0.013	-0.326	0.004	0.002	0.246	0.002	0.001	
unskilled worker other production 	0.076	0.004	0.013	1.417	0.075	0.029	-0.123	0.001	0.000	
skilled worker other production 	0.010	0.004	0.014	0.531	0.010	0.004	0.043	0.000	0.000	
manager other production	0.069	0.007	0.013	-0.478	0.014	0.005	0.959	0.055	0.028	
office work other production	0.018	0.009	0.013	0.095	0.001	0.000	0.448	0.018	0.009	
unskilled public sector	0.023	0.003	0.013	0.864	0.021	0.008	0.287	0.002	0.001	
skilled public secter	0.003	0.002	0.014	0.419	0.002	0.001	0.102	0.000	0.000	
skilled worker health/social	0.120	0.004	0.013	0.278	0.003	0.001	-1.718	0.117	0.059	
manager health/social 	0.029	0.003	0.014	-0.717	0.012	0.005	-0.842	0.017	0.009	
office work health/social	0.033	0.004	0.014	-0.022	0.000	0.000	-0.966	0.033	0.017	
Lecturer	0.020	0.002	0.013	-0.968	0.020	0.007	-0.130	0.000	0.000	
Teacher	0.057	0.005	0.013	-1.027	0.045	0.017	-0.547	0.013	0.006	
manager public sector	0.030	0.003	0.014	-0.971	0.023	0.009	-0.512	0.006	0.003	
office work public sector	0.000	0.003	0.013	-0.074	0.000	0.000	-0.094	0.000	0.000	
self-employed more than 5 employees	0.041	0.002	0.014	-0.513	0.004	0.001	1.666	0.038	0.020	
Farmer	0.041	0.001	0.014	1.518	0.024	0.010	1.253	0.017	0.009	
self-employed less than 5 employees	0.016	0.002	0.014	-0.896	0.015	0.006	0.310	0.002	0.001	
Student	0.093	0.004	0.014	0.040	0.000	0.000	-1.614	0.093	0.048	
Unemployed	0.036	0.002	0.014	0.231	0.001	0.000	-1.594	0.035	0.018	
Retired	0.009	0.005	0.013	0.295	0.004	0.001	0.339	0.005	0.003	
social security	0.049	0.005	0.014	1.065	0.046	0.018	-0.255	0.003	0.001	
house wife (husband)	0.008	0.008	0.014	-0.008	0.000	0.000	0.326	0.008	0.004	
other 	0.030	0.002	0.014	0.164	0.000	0.000	-1.380	0.030	0.016	
possession of summer/winter house 	0.184	0.028	0.010	-0.272	0.026	0.007	0.673	0.158	0.059	
no summer/winter house	0.218	0.086	0.003	0.148	0.073	0.007	-0.208	0.144	0.017	
no yacht	0.197	0.083	0.004	0.133	0.046	0.005	-0.242	0.152	0.023	
yacht value <75.000 	0.077	0.020	0.011	-0.092	0.002	0.001	0.595	0.075	0.033	
yacht value 75-150.000	0.060	0.007	0.013	-0.587	0.023	0.009	0.732	0.036	0.018	
yacht value >150.000	0.079	0.004	0.014	-1.271	0.055	0.022	0.847	0.024	0.013	
no car	0.089	0.027	0.011	0.290	0.026	0.008	-0.448	0.062	0.026	
car value <75.000	0.098	0.031	0.010	0.199	0.015	0.004	-0.472	0.084	0.033	
car value 75-150.000	0.013	0.023	0.011	0.052	0.001	0.000	0.223	0.013	0.005	
car value_150-225.000	0.056	0.019	0.012	-0.202	0.008	0.003	0.500	0.048	0.022	
car value 225-300.000	0.114	0.009	0.013	-0.687	0.038	0.014	0.972	0.076	0.039	
car value >300.000	0.077	0.005	0.014	-1.049	0.050	0.020	0.762	0.026	0.014	

APPENDIX II: Categories belonging to the local space of lifestyles (supplementary points), frequencies and category parameters from correspondence analysis – first movement. 

Category	Frequencies		Axis: 1	Axis: 1	Axis: 2	Axis: 2	
		Qlt	Coord	Cor	Coord	Cor	
prefer to read poetry	3	0.098	-0.119	0.003	-0.620	0.095	
member of arts association of firm	22	0.194	-0.239	0.118	0.193	0.077	
very interested in cultural matters	14	0.181	-0.224	0.050	-0.366	0.132	
«Jans mat og vinhus» favourite restaurant	3	0.261	-1.001	0.190	0.610	0.071	
«Sjenkestuen» favourite pub	2	0.206	-0.323	0.019	-1.019	0.187	
suit and tie at work	4	0.313	-1.132	0.247	0.584	0.066	
like «4 seasons»	62	0.385	-0.183	0.286	-0.108	0.099	
dislike Beethoven’s 5th (Skjebnesymfonien)	8	0.158	0.106	0.011	0.394	0.147	
like «Fire Bird Suite»	13	0.189	-0.366	0.142	-0.210	0.047	
like Bjørå Håland	16	0.307	0.520	0.231	0.298	0.076	
dislike Bjørå Håland	45	0.350	-0.199	0.196	-0.176	0.153	
like Radka Toneff	15	0.344	-0.436	0.146	-0.508	0.198	
dislike svensktopp	40	0.426	-0.270	0.220	-0.261	0.205	
like Country and Western	36	0.428	0.351	0.334	0.187	0.095	
dislike Country and Western	21	0.342	-0.383	0.206	-0.311	0.136	
like modern jazz	13	0.312	-0.187	0.045	-0.457	0.267	
never visit art exhibition	32	0.375	0.441	0.349	0.120	0.026	
go to art exhibitions >= a couple of times a year	26	0.381	-0.434	0.293	-0.237	0.088	
go to symphony concerts 1-2 a year	16	0.213	-0.371	0.196	-0.109	0.017	
go to symphony concerts >= 3 a year	9	0.151	-0.572	0.113	-0.335	0.039	
Rogaland Theatre >= 3 a year 	10	0.038	-0.435	0.038	0.001	0.000	
would like to live on Stokka	69	0.374	-0.236	0.343	-0.071	0.031	
would not like to live on Stokka	31	0.216	0.320	0.214	-0.031	0.002	
would like to live on Storhaug	30	0.147	-0.187	0.059	-0.228	0.088	
prefer «classic» home	3	0.161	-0.944	0.158	0.121	0.003	
prefer «imaginative» home	6	0.164	-0.235	0.037	-0.435	0.127	
prefer period furniture or copies	9	0.125	0.027	0.001	0.368	0.124	
wear a moustache	25	0.073	-0.059	0.002	0.351	0.071	
live in a block of flats	13	0.277	0.067	0.004	-0.536	0.273	
live in a detached house	57	0.261	-0.032	0.006	0.207	0.255	
have a mobile telephone	24	0.161	-0.448	0.058	0.596	0.103	
have a PC	38	0.317	-0.330	0.316	0.013	0.000	
have a video camera	27	0.118	-0.108	0.023	0.222	0.095	
know <= 2 pieces of music/composers	13	0.386	0.704	0.368	0.155	0.018	
know 10-12 pieces of music/composers	5	0.234	-0.549	0.127	-0.505	0.107	
clean and tidy home	31	0.123	0.100	0.038	0.150	0.086	
somewhat «untidy» home	15	0.078	0.044	0.004	-0.198	0.074	
home expensively equipped	34	0.425	-0.266	0.230	0.245	0.196	
home inexpensively equipped	13	0.323	0.252	0.052	-0.573	0.271	
influential politician possible friend	9	0.014	-0.012	0.000	0.132	0.014	
person who helped Kosovo Albanians in church asylum possible friend	16	0.360	0.088	0.011	-0.497	0.349	
successful businessman possible friend	31	0.237	0.160	0.060	0.275	0.177	
person who gives a substantial part of income to charities possible friend	13	0.048	0.084	0.008	-0.189	0.040	
person of wide culture possible friend	54	0.359	-0.189	0.288	-0.094	0.071	
influential politician not possible friend 	61	0.120	-0.027	0.008	-0.101	0.112	
person who helped Kosovo Albanians in church asylum not possible friend	38	0.161	-0.095	0.040	0.164	0.121	
successful businessman not possible friend	36	0.233	-0.061	0.013	-0.250	0.220	
person who gives a substantial part of income to charities not possible friend	45	0.056	-0.019	0.002	0.102	0.054	
person of wide culture not possible friend	18	0.286	0.423	0.280	-0.059	0.006	
strong sense of control over own situation/sense of power	14	0.502	-0.768	0.424	0.330	0.078	
fatalism	13	0.259	0.486	0.259	0.005	0.000	
strong right-wing attitude, economic policies	14	0.333	-0.451	0.150	0.499	0.183	
strong left-wing attitude, economic policies	13	0.221	0.013	0.000	-0.459	0.221	
listen regularly to P4 	17	0.124	0.274	0.124	-0.010	0.000	
listen often to «Kritikertorget»	3	0.162	-0.338	0.038	-0.611	0.124	
prefer to read love stories	13	0.069	0.294	0.068	-0.033	0.001	
interested in the arts pages in the papers 	25	0.344	-0.186	0.080	-0.339	0.264	
read foreign papers occasionally 	13	0.213	-0.412	0.142	-0.289	0.070	
read «Dagens Næringsliv» regularly	9	0.360	-0.816	0.245	0.557	0.114	
read economic reviews once aweek	4	0.302	-0.618	0.127	0.724	0.175	

APPENDIX III: The space of lifestyles – second movement: Category parameters of active categories.(Explicative values in bold, explained in italics) 
				Axis: 1	Axis: 1	Axis: 1	Axis: 2	Axis: 2	Axis: 2	
	Qlt	Weight	Inr	Coord	Cor	Ctr	Coord	Cor	Ctr	
-  a person of wide culture (not possible friend)	0.202	0.012	0.016	-0.657	0.091	0.029	0.725	0.111	0.038	
+ a person of wide culture (possible friend)	0.225	0.036	0.009	0.393	0.186	0.032	-0.178	0.038	0.007	
-  a hard working man providing (not possible friend)	0.163	0.004	0.017	1.436	0.161	0.053	0.176	0.002	0.001	
+ a hard working man providing (possible friend)	0.160	0.047	0.006	-0.261	0.158	0.019	0.027	0.002	0.000	
- a person helping Kosovo Albanians (not possible friend)	0.156	0.025	0.011	-0.352	0.078	0.018	-0.352	0.078	0.019	
+ a person helping Kosovo Albanians (possible friend)	0.216	0.011	0.016	0.579	0.064	0.021	0.889	0.152	0.052	
-  businessman, two empty hands (not possible friend)	0.243	0.024	0.012	0.490	0.135	0.033	0.440	0.108	0.028	
+ businessman, two empty hands (possible friend)	0.166	0.020	0.013	-0.581	0.149	0.038	-0.197	0.017	0.005	
Respondent very interested in culture	0.155	0.008	0.017	1.037	0.153	0.052	0.121	0.002	0.001	
Respondent rather interested in culture	0.054	0.032	0.010	0.212	0.041	0.008	-0.116	0.012	0.003	
Respondent rather uninterested in culture	0.124	0.019	0.014	-0.523	0.111	0.030	0.177	0.013	0.004	
Respondent totally uninterested in culture	0.097	0.004	0.019	-1.297	0.091	0.035	0.350	0.007	0.003	
Working clothes at work	0.160	0.008	0.017	-0.926	0.118	0.041	0.555	0.042	0.016	
Jeans at work	0.006	0.012	0.015	-0.062	0.001	0.000	0.145	0.005	0.001	
Trendy dressed at work	0.004	0.002	0.017	0.176	0.001	0.000	-0.360	0.003	0.001	
Sporty dressed at work	0.059	0.007	0.017	0.666	0.054	0.018	-0.208	0.005	0.002	
Jacket and trousers at work	0.102	0.008	0.016	-0.006	0.000	0.000	-0.854	0.102	0.034	
Suit and tie at work	0.099	0.003	0.016	-0.039	0.000	0.000	-1.460	0.099	0.034	
Less than 50 books at home	0.138	0.010	0.017	-0.773	0.108	0.036	0.413	0.031	0.011	
50-100 books at home	0.030	0.013	0.016	-0.353	0.028	0.009	-0.077	0.001	0.000	
100-200 books at home	0.009	0.013	0.017	-0.163	0.006	0.002	0.122	0.003	0.001	
200-400 books at home	0.033	0.014	0.015	0.356	0.033	0.010	0.035	0.000	0.000	
>400 books at home	0.209	0.014	0.015	0.827	0.180	0.054	-0.333	0.029	0.009	
Would like to live in Stokka	0.217	0.035	0.008	0.220	0.065	0.010	-0.338	0.152	0.025	
Would not like to live in Stokka	0.201	0.015	0.014	-0.505	0.079	0.021	0.626	0.122	0.035	
Would like to live in Tananger	0.057	0.016	0.014	-0.356	0.043	0.012	-0.204	0.014	0.004	
Would not like to live in Tananger	0.025	0.033	0.008	0.142	0.024	0.004	0.029	0.001	0.000	
Would like to live in Madla	0.132	0.033	0.009	0.101	0.011	0.002	-0.331	0.121	0.022	
Would not like to live in Madla	0.113	0.017	0.013	-0.212	0.018	0.004	0.492	0.095	0.025	
Would like to live in Våland	0.171	0.027	0.010	0.450	0.160	0.031	-0.119	0.011	0.002	
Would not like to live in Våland	0.175	0.022	0.011	-0.561	0.175	0.039	0.023	0.000	0.000	
Would like to live in Storhaug	0.172	0.015	0.014	0.709	0.157	0.042	0.219	0.015	0.004	
Would not like to live in Storhaug	0.157	0.036	0.008	-0.314	0.135	0.020	-0.129	0.023	0.004	
Would like to live in Eiganes	0.249	0.034	0.008	0.338	0.142	0.022	-0.292	0.107	0.018	
Would not like to live in Eiganes	0.222	0.016	0.013	-0.679	0.156	0.041	0.443	0.066	0.019	
Prefer period furniture or copies 	0.065	0.006	0.018	-0.532	0.027	0.009	-0.632	0.038	0.014	
Prefer modern/functional design furniture	0.018	0.012	0.016	0.142	0.004	0.001	-0.258	0.014	0.005	
Prefer old/antique furniture	0.000	0.008	0.017	0.038	0.000	0.000	-0.032	0.000	0.000	
Prefer IKEA-style furniture	0.034	0.001	0.022	-0.311	0.002	0.001	1.447	0.033	0.015	
Prefer Norwegian/pine furniture	0.093	0.013	0.016	-0.296	0.021	0.006	0.550	0.072	0.024	
Prefer furniture of mixed styles 	0.023	0.026	0.013	0.197	0.023	0.006	0.016	0.000	0.000	
Many ornaments at home (1)	0.103	0.016	0.014	-0.303	0.029	0.008	-0.481	0.074	0.023	
Ornaments_2+	0.005	0.008	0.017	-0.144	0.003	0.001	-0.140	0.003	0.001	
Ornaments_3+                                                                              	0.006	0.014	0.016	-0.016	0.000	0.000	0.156	0.006	0.002	
Ornaments_4+	0.042	0.017	0.014	0.299	0.030	0.009	0.191	0.012	0.004	
Few ornaments at home (5)	0.051	0.009	0.017	0.228	0.008	0.003	0.540	0.043	0.015	
Clean and tidy at home (1)	0.132	0.020	0.013	-0.502	0.108	0.029	-0.237	0.024	0.007	
Clean-tidy_2+	0.015	0.015	0.015	-0.162	0.008	0.002	-0.151	0.007	0.002	
Clean-tidy_3+	0.045	0.009	0.017	0.460	0.031	0.010	-0.305	0.014	0.005	
Somewhat untidy at home (4)	0.069	0.011	0.016	0.321	0.020	0.006	0.507	0.050	0.017	
Somewhat untidy at home (5)	0.114	0.009	0.017	0.592	0.053	0.018	0.630	0.061	0.022	
Home expensively equipped (1)	0.275	0.022	0.013	-0.097	0.005	0.001	-0.749	0.271	0.074	
Expensive_2+	0.038	0.017	0.014	-0.265	0.024	0.007	0.200	0.014	0.004	
Expensive_3+	0.015	0.008	0.017	0.197	0.005	0.002	0.271	0.010	0.004	
Expensive_4+	0.027	0.009	0.017	0.177	0.005	0.002	0.385	0.022	0.008	
Home inexpensively equipped (5)	0.181	0.008	0.017	0.472	0.031	0.011	1.040	0.150	0.055	
Strong sense of power  (Fatalism (1)	0.253	0.009	0.016	0.280	0.013	0.004	-1.193	0.239	0.080	
Fatalism (2)	0.028	0.008	0.016	0.084	0.001	0.000	-0.438	0.027	0.009	
Fatalism (3)	0.027	0.009	0.016	0.316	0.016	0.005	0.263	0.011	0.004	
Fatalism (4)	0.009	0.008	0.017	0.203	0.006	0.002	0.162	0.004	0.001	
Fatalism (5)	0.067	0.007	0.017	0.104	0.001	0.000	0.730	0.066	0.024	
Fatalism (6)	0.120	0.009	0.016	-0.674	0.069	0.022	0.584	0.051	0.018	
Strong right-wing attitude economic policy (1)	0.184	0.009	0.016	-0.177	0.005	0.002	-1.020	0.178	0.059	
Right-wing attitude economic policy (2)	0.050	0.009	0.016	-0.410	0.028	0.009	-0.362	0.022	0.008	
Right-wing attitude economic policy (3)	0.017	0.009	0.016	-0.239	0.009	0.003	-0.217	0.008	0.003	
Left-wing attitude economic policy (4)	0.017	0.009	0.016	-0.097	0.001	0.000	0.324	0.016	0.005	
Left-wing attitude economic policy (5)	0.034	0.009	0.018	0.243	0.009	0.003	0.408	0.025	0.009	
Strong left-wing attitude economic policy (6)	0.223	0.008	0.017	0.761	0.082	0.028	0.993	0.140	0.051