Camfield - Reorientating Class Anlysis

8/10/2019 Camfield - Reorientating Class Anlysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/camfield-reorientating-class-anlysis 1/27

S S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Re-Orienting Class Analysis: Working Classes as Historical FormationsAuthor(s): David CamfieldSource: Science & Society, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Winter, 2004/2005), pp. 421-446Published by: Guilford PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404795 .

Accessed: 28/01/2014 08:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.167.29.231 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:54:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404795?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404795?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford



Science

f

Society,

ol.

68,

No.

4,

Winter

004-2005,

421-446

A

V

Re-Orienting

lass

Analysis:

Working

lasses as Historical ormations

DAVID

CAMFIELD

ABSTRACT:

n order o conduct etter lass

nalysis,

e need

class

heory

hat ises o the

hallenge

f

understanding

lass

s

a

structuredocial

process

nd

relationshipaking lace

n his-

torical ime

nd

specific

ulturalontexts.he

study

f

working

classes s

historical ormations

equires

he

replacement

f

underdevelopedoncepts

ith

heorydequate

o

the ask.

his

theory

hould

ncorporate

he

knowledge

hat

lassnever

xists

outside fother ocialrelationsuch sgenderndrace, ut s

always

ediated

y

hose

elations,

ndvice ersa.

Marx, ramsci,

Thompson

nd

autonomist

arxism,

nriched ith he

ppre-

ciation f

hemultidimensional

ature f ocial

eing

roduced

by

eminismnd

other

erspectives

rising

rom

trugglesgainst

oppression,

rovidemportant

esourcesor he

development

f

such

theory.

DO WE UNDERSTAND

working

lasses s

groups

f

people

n

particular

imes nd

places

in

otherwords

s

historicalollectivitiesand howdo such lass ormations

change?

his heoretical

hallenge

s addressed

n

this rticle. tart-

ing

with

hemost asic

uestion,

what

s

class?,

t xamines he

work

of

number f

thinkers ho

have

grappled

ith his

roblem

n n-

sightful

ays

n order o

begin

o

develop

Marxist

econceptuali-

zation

f lass s

a structured

ocial

rocess

nd

relationship

hat akes

place

n

historical

ime

nd

pecific

ultural

ontexts.tcontendshat

such

theory

ust

onsciously

ncorporate

ocial elationsther

han

class,

uch s

gender

nd

race.

Thiskind f

theory

s

mportant

ecause tfocusesttentionn

theexistence

f

classes

s

multidimensional

ormationsonstituted

421







422

SCIENCE & SOCIETY

by

ocial

elations

n

time,

t a level f

nalysis igher

han

articular

groups

f

workers.

he

latter

re

always

ositioned

ithin

broader

field,

hich call class

ormation.

very

uch

ormation,

hich

oes

not xist s an

entity

ver r

part

romndividual

orkers

ut s

made

up

of the

relations

mong

hem,

s

part

f the

arger

et of social

relations f

a concrete

ociety.

Theoretical

eflection

n classes

s historical

ormations

as a

vital ole to

play

n

overcomingmpiricism,

historical

heory

nd

reliance n theunderdevelopedotion fa class in tself/ fort-

self.

hus he

imof his rticle

s to

contribute

obetter

lass

naly-

sis,

nderstood

n Miliband's

ense s

class

truggle

nalysis

1989,

3):

research n the

nature

f this

truggle,

he

dentity

f the

pro-

tagonists,

heforms

hich he

truggle

ssumes

rom

ne

period

o

another nd

from ne

country

o

another,

he

reasons

or hediffer-

ences

n

these

orms

and]

.

. .

the

consequences

which

low

rom

these

differences

3).

1

Whats Class?

While

Marx

igorously

larified

oncepts

uch

s value

nd

abor

in

his

ritique

f

political

conomy,

e

didnot

do the

amewith

lass.

As

G. E. M. de Ste.Croix

bserves,

Marx

imself,

lthough

e

made

important

se

of he

oncept

f

lass

hroughout

is

work,

ever

ave

a

formal

efinition

f

t,

nd

indeed

employed

t

n

very

ifferent

senses

t different

imes

1981,46).

In

the

material

ublished

s

chapter

2

ofVolume

II

of

Capital,

arx

amously

rites:

The

ques-

tion obe answeredext s: Whatmakes class?' (Marx,981, 025)

but the

manuscript

reaks ff fter he

beginnings

f

a

critique

f

the

dea that hethree

great

ocial lasses

f

modern

ociety

ased

on

the

capitalist

mode of

production

1026),

wage-laborers,

api-

talists nd

landowners,

re

defined s such

by

virtue

f common

sources

f

revenue.

o answer

s

to

be found

ymining

heworks

f

Marx

nd

Engels.

The

result asbeen

proliferation

fdefinitions.

he best f

he

lot

s theone

offered

y

Ste.Croix:

1 This

rticle raws

n

Camfield,

002.

Support

rom he ocial

Sciences nd

Humanities

Research

ouncil

f

Canada

during

ts

preparation

s

acknowledged.







CLASS

ANALYSIS

423

Class

essentially relationship)

s

the

collective

ocial

expression

f

thefact

of

exploitation,

he

way

n

which

xploitation

s

embodied

n

a social

struc-

ture.

By

exploitation

mean

the

appropriation

f

part

of the

product

of the

labour

of

others:

n a

commodity-producingociety

his

s

the

ppropriation

of what

Marx called

surplus

alue.

A class

a

particular

lass)

is a

group

of

persons

n

a

community

denti-

fied

by

heir

osition

n

thewhole

ystem

f ocial

production,

efined

bove

all

according

o their

elationship

primarily

n terms f

the

degree

of own-

ership

r

control)

to the conditions

f

production

that

s to

say,

he

means

and labour ofproduction) nd tootherclasses. . . The individuals onsti-

tuting given

class

may

or

may

not be

wholly

r

partly

onscious of their

own

dentity

nd common

nterestss a

class,

nd

theymay

r

may

not feel

antagonism

owards

members

f otherclasses as such.

(43-44.)

ThisSte.Croix

believes

o be closer

o Marx's fundamentalhink-

ing

46)

about

lass han

ther

efinitions,

nd

he

supports

is n-

terpretation

ith

uotations

rom

apital

o

good

effect

50-51).

The

danger

ith ven

he est f uch

efinitionssthat

hey

ave

beenusedas thebasis ornotions fclass s a synchronietructure

or set

of

empty laces.

These

pervade

he

ociology

f

class,

nd

have

ed

to

unproductive

ebates

boutwhere o

place particular

occupations

nd where

o draw

oundaries etween lasses.

n the

course

f

hese

iscussions

bout

ynchronie

tructures,

he elational

and

antagonistic

haracter

fclass nd

thereforelass

truggle

tself

has been

eclipsed.

f,

s Ellen

MeiksinsWood has

proposed,

there

are

really nly

wo

ways

f

thinking

heoretically

bout lass: ither

as a structural

ocation

ras

a social elation

nd the atters the

spe-

cificallyarxist ayf heorizinglass 1995, 6),thenmuchMarxist

sociology

fclass

has drifted

nto

reating

lass s a

location,

n

con-

formity

ith

hedominant

onceptions

n

the

discipline.2

Against

uch tructural-locational

hinking,

e

can take he

pro-

duction

f

surplus

abor

by

toilers

f one

kind

or

another nd its

appropriation

y

xploiters

s

simply

he

tartingoint

fa Marxist

theory

f lass.

f

we

are nterested

n

understanding

ctual

apitalist

(or

other

lass-divided)

ocieties,

t

s

not

enough

o consider

lass

relations

s

they

xist

t

a

given

moment

n

time.

This

synchronie

2

For ontributions

o these

ociological

ebates hat

ropose

n alternative ore n ine

withMarx's

pproach

s

interpreted

ere,

ee

Meiksins,

986 nd 1987.







424

SCIENCE &

SOCIETY

sense f

lass

elationsswhat

Woodreferso as

class

ituation.The

point,

he

writes,

is

to have

conception

f

class

hat urns ur

at-

tentiono

precisely

ow,

nd

n

what ifferent

odes,

bjective

lass

situations atter.

he real ssue s the

omplex

nd

often

ontradic-

tory

istorical

rocesses

y

which,

n

determinate

istorical

ondi-

tions,

lass ituations

ive

ise oclass

ormations'

83).

Class

ormation

is bestunderstoods a

relational

oncept

f

process.

definition

f

class ikeSte. Croix's

helps

us to

grasp

class

ituation,

but

his s

the eginning,ot he nd, f lass ormation81).Class ormations

develop

rom herelations

eople

have

o the onditions

f

produc-

tion nd other lasses.

eepening

his

nderstanding

s the oncern

of

what

ollows.

Three ssues

equire

omediscussion

efore

roceeding.

irst,

whenwe move

way

rom lassunderstood

s a

position

r ocation

and look at classformations

n

history,

e

ought

o be confronted

with he

reality

hat lass

s not

omething

hat

nlyhappens

t

the

point

f

production,

ven

f

t s

ultimately

nchored

nd

sustained

there. eopledo not topbelongingoclasseswhen heyeave heir

workplaces.

lass elations

ervade

ll

aspects

f ocial

ife.

ne

help-

ful

way

f

conceptualizing

his s to

consider

apitalist

ocieties s

made

up

of

three

rimary

pheres

f

ctivity:aid

workplaces,

ouse-

holds nd communities

Livingstone

nd

Luxton, 996,

09).

Class

isrooted

n

the

workplace,

ut

processes

f

lass ormation

ake

lace

across ll three

pheres.

narrow otion

f

class

hat

nly

eesclass

in

and

aroundwhere

wage-labor

s

performed

reates

number

f

problems,

ncluding

pecial

difficulties

n

understanding

lass

s it

relates owomen'sives.nmany apitalistocieties omen's rimary

responsibility

or hework f

cooking, leaning,

aring

nd child-

rearing

as

ed to women

working

or

wages nly

n

certain

hases

of

their ives

r,

more

arely,

ot t all. Should he

unwaged

emale

partners

f male

wage-earners

e

regarded

s

part

f

the

working

class?

theory

f

lass

hat

tates r

mplies

hat

hey

renothas

failed

to

grasp

he

lose onnection etween

aged

nd

unwaged

members

of

working-class

amilies

Brenner, 000).

Second,

n

discussing

lass ormationst s useful

o

adopt

ames

Wickham'sistinctionetweenworking-classovementnd work-

ing

class.

Wickham

rgues

hat lass

trugglelways

nvolves

rgani-

zation f

some

kind,

nd it

s never he

case that

ll members fa

class

articipate

n

truggle

nd

organization.

he

working-class

ove-







CLASS ANALYSIS

425

ment hould e understood

s

being

made

up

ofboth

formal

rga-

nizations

uch s

unions

nd

parties

which

Wickhamalls institu-

tions )

nd

-

importantly

lessformal

quasi-institutions

hich

range

rom

hop

stewards' ommitteesnd

tenants' ssociations

(some

ofwhich ecome nstitutions

n

thefull ense

of

the

word),

through rganizations

uch s

factory

elegatemeetings

o friend-

ship

networksnd other informal' ontacts.

ll

of these nvolve

political

rganization

they

re all

ways

n

which

eople

come to-

getheroresistogether1979, ). To avoid onfusingheworking-

classmovement ithndividual

r

subculturalorms f

resistance,

t

should

e

conceptually

imited o

all resistance

o

capitalist

omi-

nation nd

exploitation

hichsboth ollectivend

explicit

7)

This

distinctionetween

orkers' ovementsnd broader

working-class

formations

as themerit f

avoiding

n

undifferentiatedotion

f

class

truggle

s

encompassingverything

rom

nions o the

very-

day

connective

issues f cultural

ife

Palmer,

988,

37)

without

making

he

opposite

mistake f

reducing

heclassmovemento ts

formalrganizationsndignoringhe cultural asisonwhich he

movement

oves.

lass

nalysis

n

Miliband'sense fclass

truggle

analysis

equires

n

ability

o

make

distinctions

fthis ind

n

order

to lluminateelations

mong

workers ho

belong

o

the ame

lass

formation.

Third,

rrespective

fwhat ome

may

have

rgued,

ocieties

re

made

up

of

good

deal more

han lass elations.

society,

s a com-

plex

whole,

s a

rich

otality

f

many

eterminationsnd relations

(Marx,

973,

00).

f

one

accepts

hat he ocialrelationsf

capital-

ist ocietyorm totalityf omekind seeJay, 984), hentcanbe

said

that lass s

mediated

hrough

ll other ocial

relations,

nd vice

versa.

f classhas

a

privileged

ausal

role n historical

hange

on

which

ee

Wood,1995,

108),

t s notbecause

lassrelationsre

n

some sense

more

real

than,

or

nstance,

ender

elations. ther

social

relationsre

not

epiphenomena

fclass.

What

tuart

all and

his o-authorsrite

bout ace that t s

the

modality

n

which

lass s ived

nd themedium

n

which lass

relations

re

experienced

Hall,

et

l, 1978,

94)

-

is

true,

nd

not

onlyf ace ut f ll ocial elationshatimultaneouslyediate lass.

To

say

hat

lass s

mediated

y

ther ocial

elations eans hattdoes

not xist utside fthem.

lass

s

not

nitially

onstituted

n

pristine

isolation

nd

then

brought

ntocontact.

Rather,

he

relationship









CLASS

ANALYSIS

427

are anchored

n

the

places

where

aid

works done but re

also

very

much

resent

n the

ommunity

nd household

pheres

f ocial ife.

Class

tructureshe

otality

f ocial

elations,

hich annot

e

reduced

to class ven

s all social

relationsre mediated

y

ach other. lass

may

e considered

ynchronically,

s class ituation.

owever,

lass

relations

xist

n time. husclass

ught

o be

considered iachroni-

cally,

s a historical

rocess.

theory

fclassneeds

o

be concerned

with his

rocess

fhow lass ituations

ive

ise o class

ormations,

and the haracteristicsf uchformations.ith hisnmind,etus

proceed

o

examine he deas

of everal hinkers

ho,

espite

heir

many

ifferences,

ave

reflected

heoretically

n classformation

n

ways

hat re

especially

ruitful.

Marx

Marx everwrote

n elaboration

f

his

heory

f lass.

However,

his deas

bout

working-class

ormation

re

relatively

oherent,

ven

ifthey re notpresentedystematically.nfortunately,oomany

Marxists

ave

oaded

farmore

xplanatory eight

n some of his

formulations

han

hey

an

possibly

ear.

The belief hat hework-

ing

class

has to

undergo

process

f

elf-development

o transform

itself

hrough

tsown

truggles

nd

in

so

doingready

tself o take

power

s central

eaturef

Marx's

hought,

red hread

Lebowitz,

2003,

80)

that uns

hrough

is

heory

nd

political

ctivity.

t s an

integral

art

of his

conception

f

working-clasself-emancipation

(Draper,

978,

2-80,

147-165).

For

Marx, not

nly

he

proletarian

revolutionut heproletariattselfs a historicrocess. hisbegins

as

a

process

f

maturation,

irstf

ll n terms f he ocial

ystem.

t

ends

s an

educational

nd

transforming

rocess

80).

This

onception

s

associated

ith

hrases

bout he

proletariat

evolving

rom

class

in

tself

o a class

for tself. his

particular

expression

s

only

ound

n a

few

laces

n

Marx'sworks

p

to

1852

(41).

The best-known

f these

referencesccurs

n

The

Poverty

f

Philosophy:

Economic

onditions

ad firstransformedhemass

f

the

people

ofthe

country

ntoworkers.

he combination

f

capital

has reatedor hismass commonituation,ommonnterests.his

mass

s

thus

lready

class s

against

apital,

utnot

yet

or tself.

n

the

truggle

. .

this

mass

ecomes

nited,

nd

constitutestselfs a

class or

tself

Marx,

955,

50)

Hal

Draper

ommentshat all

his,









CLASS

ANALYSIS

429

1977,

99).

So the

formation

f

a

working

lass ble to

emancipate

itselfmust

lso nvolve he

overcoming

f

deological

ivision nd

subordination,

lthough

Marxnever heorizes his t

any ength.

However,

is

ongoing

oncernsbout

he nfluencef he

bourgeoi-

sie and

petty

ourgeoisie

n

the

proletariat

re

clear

Draper,

978,

514-526).

Nationalism

s an

obstacle,

with he

hostility

f

English

workers

o rish

mmigrants

dentified

s the ecret

f

he

mpotencef

the

nglish

orking

lass,

espite

ts

rganization quoted

n

Draper,

1978,67). Likewisewith acism: Laborwith white kin annot

emancipate

tself

hereaborwith

black kin

s

branded

ibid.,

8).

It s clear

hat

vercomingompetition,

ivisionnd subordination

is central

o the

working

lass's

maturation

hroughtruggle.4

Marx's

deas bout

lass mount

o a

truly

ioneering

ffortull

of

mportant

nsights.

hey

o

not,

however,

dd

up

to an

adequate

theory

f

working-class

ormation.

iven

hatMarxwas

only

ble to

analyze

workers'

movements

efore

is

death

n

1883 and

thathis

main heoretical

reoccupation

as

the

never-completed)

ritique

ofpoliticalconomy,twouldbe unrealisticoexpectmuchmore.

That

aid,

t s

necessary

o

dentify

hemainweaknesses

f

Marx's

contribution.

ne

is ts

agueness

bout

he

overall

rocess

f

work-

ing-class

ormation.

arx

believed

e knew

hedirection

n

which

the

rocess

as

heading,

nd

ts

ikely

utcome,

uthe didnot

pecify

much bout

he

dynamics

f

he

process

tself.

olitical

exts

ike

The

Eighteenth

rumaire

hich

make

more oncrete

istorical

ssessments

ofclass

movements

re the

most

uggestive

n this

egard.

This

weakness

an

be

partially

xplained

y

Marx's

practice

f

sometimesreatingocietyn a naturalisticanner.n TheHoly am-

ily,

arx laims hat

he

working

lass's

ssential

eing

will

ltimately

determine

ts ctions:

The

question

s notwhat

his r

that

roletar-

ian,

or

even

hewhole

f the

proletariat

t the

moment

onsiders

s

its im.

The

question

s

what

he

roletariat

s,

nd

what,

onsequent

on that

being,

twill

be

compelled

o

do

(Marx

nd

Engels,

956,

53).

While

heGrundrisse

nd

Capital

o,

as

DanielBensaïd

uggests,

reveal a

radical

eontologization

n

which

being

s

resolvednto

existence,

lass ssence

nto

lassrelations

2002,

116),

even

here

Marx oesat timesmplyhat heoutcome fclass ormationnthe

emergence

f a

revolutionary

roletariat

s

ultimately

ssured

e.g.,

4

For valuable

evelopment

f Marx's

nsights,

ee

Lebowitz,003,156-160,

79-189.







430

SCIENCE &

SOCIETY

Marx, 977,

29-930).

Marx's

optimistic

volutionism

Molyneux,

1986,

0)

produces

fatalistic

xpectation

hat

hefurther

evelop-

ment

f he

apitalist

ode

of

production

ill rive

workers

owards

unity

n

revolutionary

lass

organization.

his would

prove

o be

mistaken. elated o this

s Marx's nderestimation

f

the enacious

persistence

f

quite

non-revolutionary

deas

among

workers.

n

ad-

dition,

lthough

Marx

ecognized

acism nd

nationalism

s

signifi-

cant

phenomena,

e did notelaborate

is

nsights

bout

hem

nto

a theoreticalccountn which ocialrelationsther han lasswere

understood

s

integral

spects

f

capitalist

ociety.

is

conception

of social

being

wasnot as

multidimensional

s

social

reality

tself.5

Some50

years

fter arx's

eath,

Gramscieflected

n

some

f

hese

issues

n

ways

hat

o beyond

Marx.

Gramsci

Gramsci's

risonwritings

ontain

omeuseful

deas about

the

process hrough hichworkinglasses reformed. e had consid-

erable irst-hand

xperience

n

working-class

olitics

up

to

his

m-

prisonmenty

talian

ascism

n

1926

as

well s

knowledge

f

the

history

f

the

European

workers'

ovement,

pon

which

o

reflect.

Likethe ontentsfhisPrison otebooks

n

general,

ramsci's

bser-

vations o not

dd

up

to

a

systematic

heory,

ut

they

ontribute

o

the

development

f uch

theory.

In

hisnoteon

methodological

riteria

or

writing

he

history

f

subaltern

lasses,

ramsciets ut n

agenda

or esearch.

his

tarts

withhe objectiveormation f lasses y developmentsndtrans-

formations

ccurring

n

the

phere

f economic

roduction.

he

social

roups

ut ofwhich

ew

lasses rise

must lso

be

studied,

since he

atter re nfluenced

y

he

mentality,

deology

nd

aims

of

theformer. ext s

the

relationship

f a new lass

o

ruling-class

political

ormations,

nd how

ttempts

o articulate

ubaltern

nter-

ests

hape processes

f

decomposition,

enovation

rneo-formation

of

the

xploited

lass.

New

ruling-classolitical

arties,

aunched

n

order o

maintain

egemony

ver he ubaltern

lass,

re a

further

5

Seccombe nd

Livingstone

2000)

s an

interesting

ttempt

o

develop

historical

ate-

rialist

onception

f ocial

being

s

many-sided,

nd to

explore

he

mplications

f this

forworkers'

onsciousness.







CLASS ANALYSIS

431

issue.

inally

ome

formationsfthe

ubalternlasses

hemselves:

those

hat dvance claims f limitednd

partial

haracter,

thers

that

asserthe

utonomy

f

he ubaltern

roups,

utwithinhe

ld

framework,

nd those hat

ight

or the

ntegral

utonomy

f

the

exploited

Gramsci,

971,

2).

There

s a

great

eal

packed

nto hese

methodologicalugges-

tions.

he need to

study

he ocial

rigins

fnew

lasses s notewor-

thy.

hismakes tclear hatGramsci oes not ee

working

lasses s

collectionsf bstractellersf aborpower ocapital. ather, ork-

ing

classes

re formed ut

of

pre-existing

ocial

groups

whose

par-

ticular

raditions,

spirations

nd cultural

ractices

modified

y

the

devastatingxperience

f

proletarianization

willbe those f

an

emergent

roletariat.

This s also

a clear

ignal

fGramsci's elief hat

lass

ormation

is a

process

hat

akes

lace

over ime. tructures

atter

n

this

ro-

cess.

However,

hey

re

tructures-in-process,

ot nert

imelessorces

but

changing

nes.Class

formations

historical.ven

f

he

objec-

tive ormation fa class tanygiven onjuncture equires syn-

chronie

nalysis, orking-class

ormation,

ncluding

he

structural

dimension

fworkers'

elationships

o themeans f

production,

s

diachronic.

his s confirmed

y

he

cknowledgment

f

decomposi-

tion,

enovation

rneo-formation.

class's

rigins

o

not

necessarily

stamp

tforever

f neo-formations

possible.

f

decomposition

s a

possibility,

hen

his

uggests

hat lassformationoes not

proceed

inevitably

oward

he

integralutonomy

ramscidvocates.t snot

a smooth

r inear

rocess.

The othermethodologicalriteria ramsciistsnthis otedeal

with

he

political

rganization

f ubalternnd dominantlasses.

is

mention

fformationshat

ssert orkers'

artial

emands

robably

refers

t east

n

part

o trade

nions,

o

political

ere

houldbe

understood

n

a broad ense.

Gramsci's irst

njunction

n

political

organization,

amely

o

study

ow ubaltern

roups

re

passively

r

actively

ffiliatedo

the

political

ormationsf the

ruling

lass,

ug-

gests

hat lass ormation

s a relational

rocess. working

lass oes

not

orm

tself

ver ime

nly hrough

nteractionnternalothe lass.

Thenature f a subalternlass'snecessarilynequal 53) relations

over imewith

dominant

lass

will

have

ignificant

ffectsn

work-

ers'

consciousnessnd

organization.

or

nstance,

working

lass

excluded rom fficial

olitics

hrough

hedenial

of the

franchise







432

SCIENCE

àf

SOCIETY

will

ndergo

ifferent

xperiences

han

ne

whosemembersrefull

citizens fa

capitalistemocracy.

Parties

lay

very mportant

ole

n

Gramsci's

onception

f

working-class

ormation.

nstead f

treatingolitical

arties

s sim-

ply

eflectionsf

a class's

tage

f

development,

e

recognizes

hat

the

relationship

etween

arty

nd

class s dialectical.

In

fact,

e

writes,

if

t

s

true hat

arties

re

only

henomenclature

or

lasses,

it

s also true hat

arties

re

not

simply

mechanical

nd

passive

expressionf hose lasses,ut eactnergeticallypon hemnorder

to

develop,

olidify

nd

universalize

hem

227)

in

accordance

ith

their

olitical

rograms.

olitical

rganization

y

ections

r

ayers

of

the

working

lass,

nd

byparties

fthe

dominant

lass

which

n-

fluence

hem,

as

a

significant

mpact

n

how

he lass akes

hape.

For

Gramsci,

olitical

rganization

ntails

ntellectuals:

There

is

no

organization

ithout

ntellectuals,

hatswithout

rganizers

nd

leaders

334).

Every

undamental

lass,

fwhich

he

proletariat

s

one,

creates

ogether

ith

tself,

rganically,

ne or

more

trata f

intellectualshich ive thomogeneityndan awarenessf ts wn

function ot

only

n

the

conomic

ut lso

n

the

ocial nd

political

fields

5).

Therefore,

n

trying

o

understand

orking-class

orma-

tion

t s

necessary

o

payparticular

ttentiono

the

development

f

a class's ntellectuals.

f ntellectuals

recentral

o

parties,

arties

re

also vital

o the

development

fa class's

ntellectuals,

ts

rganizers.

Partiesranslate

ifferent

onceptions

f heworld

nto

ractice.

hey

diffuse

deas

mong arger

umbers

f

people,

whose

onsciousness

is

generally

contradictory

ixture

f the

deologies

f

the

hege-

monic lass nd elementsrising rom racticalxperience hich

include ritical

nsights

boutthe

nature

f

society

326-343,

19-

425).

For

this

eason,

t

s

through

arties

hat

roups

f

ntellectu-

als

capable

f

rganizing

new

hegemony,

uch

s that

f he

working

class,

ake

hape

335)

Thisfurtheronfirms

he

direct

ink etween

Gramsci's xtensive

ritings

n

parties

n

the

Prison otebooks

nd

theorizing

lass

formation.

The kind fconcrete

tudy

f

working-class

ormation

o

which

Gramsci's

otes

oint equires

profound

ppreciation

f

the oci-

etynquestion. ational articularitiesave eal ignificance.ccord-

ingly,

ocial

relations

must e understood

nd

conceived

n their

originality

nd

uniqueness.

. .

the

point

f

departure

s

national'

-

and t s

from his

oint

f

departure

hat

ne

must

egin.

et

he







CLASS

ANALYSIS 433

perspective

s

nternational

ndcannot e

otherwise

240)

Gramsci's

commitment

o this

kind f

analysis

an be

seen

n

the

many

otes

on

Italy

nd theUnited

tates

n

his

prisonwritings.

hateverne

makes f heir

ubstance,

hey isplay

is oncern o

grasp

he

peci-

ficities

f

working-class

ormation.

It s not

unfair o conclude hat

what

Gramsci ffersbout

how

working

lasses

remade s

a number f

njunctions

nd

suggestions.

The

Prison otebooks

ontain

many houghts,

ut

ew,

f

ny,

ully

labo-

rated heories. evertheless,heres still reat alue nGramsci's

thinking

n

working-class

ormation.ramsci

ighlights

he

histori-

cal

and

relational

ature f

he

process y

which

orkersorm lasses.

He

emphasizes

hat lass

formationoes not

happen

n

the

same

manner

n differentontexts.

ather,

t s

alwayshaped y

he

pecu-

liarities

f

unique

societies.

hese includethe relations

etween

working

lasses

nd

dominant lasses.Gramsci's

methodological

notes

uggest

eneral atterns

nd

possibilities,

ot

model o sub-

stitute

orresearch.

is

rejection

f fatalistic

onceptions

f

how

classes re made s evidentnthe mportancee gives opolitical

organizations

ndtheir

ntellectual

eaderships

n

the

process

f

lass

formation.

riting

n

Mussolini's

rison

n

the

1930s,

e has

greater

appreciation

hanMarx f he

pressures orking

gainst

he

develop-

ment

f

revolutionaryorking

lasses.While ot

ncorporatingen-

der

nd other

ocial

relationsnto

he

heory

fclass

ormation,

is

method's

mphasis

n

the

tudy

fclasses

n

their

omplexity

eaves

it

pen

o

development

n

this irection.

lthough

ramsci's

houghts

do

not dd

up

to n

adequate

heory

f

working-class

ormation,

hey

provide seful lementsor hedevelopmentfone.

E.

P.

Thompson

nd

EllenMeiksins

Wood

Unlike

Marx nd

Gramsci,

. P.

Thompson

was

primarily

his-

torian,

lbeit

politically

ngaged

one. His

primary

oncernwas

historical

esearch

nd

writing,

ot

ocial nd

political heory,

nd

his

relations ith

Marxist

heorists

ere

fraught

ith

ontroversy.

This s not

to

say

hat

hompson

was nti-theoretical.hat

he was

resolutelyostile o wastheory eveloped utside f an ongoing

dialog

with

istorical

rocesses Thompson,

978c,

3).

As a

theo-

retically

elf-consciousistorian ather han

systematic

heorist,

his

fragmentary

ronouncements

n

class

heory

eed

tobe treated







434 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

with aution.

They

are not

always

lear,

nd have

at times een

misunderstood.

hey

re often

resented,

ometimes

olemically

and

without

are to

avoid

misreadings,

n

counter-position

o views

with hich

hompson

isagrees.

or

his

eason,

here

s

great

alue

in

Wood's

careful

lucidation

f a

theory

f class

out

of

his

work,

on which

draw

here.

Thompson's

est-known

ontribution

o

theorizing

lass

s

found

in the

preface

o his

great

work

The

Making

f

he

nglish

Working

lass.

Here hewriteshat lass s a historicalhenomenon, ot 'struc-

ture'

8)

ora

thing

9)

but

something

hich

n

fact

appens

and

can be shown o

have

happened)

n

human

elationships

8).

It

s a

historical

elationship

nconceivable

ithout

oth

erms fthe

rela-

tion;

lasses

o

not

develop

eparately

nd then

nteract ith

ach

other.

n what as

become

erhaps

ismost elebrated

nd

disputed

theoretical

laim,

hompson

writes

hat

class

happens

when

ome

men

sic],

s a result

fcommon

xperiences

inherited

r

shared),

feel nd

rticulatehe

dentity

f heir

nterests

s between

hemselves,

and as against thermenwhose nterestsre differentromand

usually pposed

to)

theirs

8-9).

These

experiences

re

notfree-

floating.

hey

have material

oundation:

The

class

xperience

s

largely

etermined

y

he

productive

elations

nto

which

men

are

born

orenter

nvoluntarily.

lass-consciousness

s

the

way

nwhich

these

xperiences

re handled

n

cultural

erms

9)

Historical

vi-

dencedoes

not end

upport

o

vulgar

Marxist otions

f

lass.

Class

consciousness

s never

simple

eflection

f relation

o the

means

of

production,

he

consciousness

heclass

ought

o have

but

el-

domdoeshave) f it'wasproperlyware f ts wnpositionndreal

interests s decided

by party,

ector

theorist

9).

In

the

ame

spirit

s hisremarks

n

theory

bove,

e concludes:

Class s

defined

by

men

sic]

s

they

ive

heir wn

history,

nd,

n the

nd,

his

s ts

only

efinition

10).

In his

ssay

ThePeculiarities

f he

English,

hompson

estates

this

osition

ith haracteristic

erve:

Sociologists

hohave

topped

hetime-machine

nd,

with

good

deal of

conceptualuffingndpuffing,ave onedowno he ngine-roomo ook,

tellus that owhere

t all have

hey

een

able to ocate

nd

classify

class.

... Of course

hey

re

right,

ince lass s

notthis r

that

art

f

the

ma-

chine,

ut

he

ay

he

machineorksnce t

s et

n

motion.

. . Class

s

social







CLASS

ANALYSIS

435

and cultural ormation

often

finding

nstitutional

xpression)

whichcan-

not

be

defined

bstractly,

r in

isolation,

ut

only

n

terms

f

relationships

with

other

classes;

and

ultimately

he

definition an

only

be

made

in

the

medium

of time.

1978b,

295.)

A

happening,

process, relationship,

formation:

hese deas re

central

o

Thompson's oncept

f class. A

class,

n

this

iew,

s a

veryoosely

efined

ody

f

people

with imilar

experiences,

deas

and interests,whohave dispositionobehavesa class 295).

This

pproach

as

been aken otask

y

therMarxists.t s

often

seen

as

giving

hort

hrifto the

objective

imension f class.For

example,

te.

Croix omments

hat nstead fMarx's

wo-sided

naly-

sis

n The

ighteenth

rumaire economiconditionsf xistence s

well s

community,

national

ond

nd

politicalrganization

Thompson's

heory

f

lass

cknowledgesnly

he

ignificance

fthe

second

spect

Ste.

Croix,

981,

2).

Does not

Thompson

issolve

class

in

tself

nto lass

for

tself,

aking

lass

nalysis

rrelevant

when lass-consciousollectivectionsnothappening?his swhat

Thompson's

ore

tructuralist

riticsave ontended

e.g.,

nderson,

1980,39-43).

Thompson's

estatement

f

his

theoreticalonclusions

n the

article

Eighteenth-Century

nglish

ociety:

lass

Struggle

Without

Class?

elps

o

clarify

is

position.

lass,

e

emphasizes,

s a histori-

cal

concept.

t takes

lace

not

only

nside heheadsoftheoristsut

as a

process

n

time.

As a

category,

t can be used

n

two

ways.

ne

refers

o class

henomena

s

they

ccur

n

capitalistociety

rom he

19th enturyn.Here,hewrites,the oncept ot nly nables sto

organize

nd

analyze

he

vidence;

t s

also,

n

a new

ense,

resent

n

the

vidence

tself

1978a,

148)

in

self-conscious

lass

organizations

and cultures.

he other se

ofthe

concept

s

as

a

heuristic

r

ana-

lyticategory

148)

that

may

e used

n

the

tudy

f

ocieties efore

industrial

apitalism.

n

such ocieties

odern

anguages

f lasswere

unknown.

husweneed

tobe

especially

ensitiveo dentitiesfrank

and

status.

owever,

ecause here

s no

other

oncept

vailable

o

understand

a manifestnd

universal

istorical

rocess

149),

class

ought otto be abandoned.Wecan think nd write bout lassbe-

cause

people

havebehaved

n

class

ways,

ven

f

hey

hemselvesid

notunderstandheir

ctions

n

these erms.

hishas

been o

because

of

the

pervasiveeality

f

class

truggle:







436

SCIENCE f SOCIETY

people

find

hemselves

n

a

society

tructuredn determined

ways crucially,

but not

exclusively,

n

productive

elations),

hey xperience

exploitation

(or

the need to maintain

ower

over

thosewhom

they xploit),

they

den-

tify oints

f

antagonistic

nterest,

hey

ommence

to

struggle

round

these

issues and

in

the

process

of

struggling

hey

discover

hemselves

s

classes,

they

ome to know

this

discovery

s

class consciousness.

Class

and

class-

consciousness

re

always

he

last,

not the

first,

tage

n the real

historical

process.

149.)

This explains whyThompson sees class struggle s both priorto class,

and more

universal.

This

passage

uggests

hat

Thompson

oes

not,

n

fact,

eave

Marx's economic

onditions

f

xistence out

fhis

lass

heory.

his

is confirmed

y

his tatement

hat static

tructural

nalysis

fclass

may

e both aluable

ndessential

n

offering

a

determining

ogic.

What

tdoes not

provide

s

thehistorical

onclusion

r

equation

that hese

roductive

elations

these lass

ormations

1978a,

47n)

Critics hofault

hompson

or

nderplaying

lass

n

ts

objective

sensegenerallyonotunderstandhat his s what e isreferringo

whenhe writes

f

productive

elations.

f

one reads

class

orma-

tion where

hompson

rites

class

n

a sentence

ike class

appens

when ome

men ..

in

the

preface

o The

Making

f

he

nglish

Work-

ing

lass,

is

meaning

ecomes

learer. Productive

elations

r

class

relations

n

the

ynchronie

ense

f lass ituations

xist

nall ocieties

in

which

xploitation

akes

lace.

Exploitation

eads oclass

truggle,

out

of

which

lass ormations

arise

t the ntersection

fdetermina-

tion nd

self-activity

..

in

an

open-ended rocess

f

relationship

ofstruggle ith ther lasses over ime 1978c,106).Howclass

formations

evelop

n

timewithin

n

array

f ocial

relations

s the

real

question,

he

process

emanding

istorical

nquiry.

In

Democracygainstapitalism,

ood

draws ut

everal

ignificant

implications

f his

heory

f

lass,

cknowledging

hat ere

he s

doing

more han

ust nterpreting

hompson

Wood,

995,

3).

One

is that

class s

a

relationship

nvolves

ot

only

elations

etween

lasses,

ut

also

mong

membersf he ame

lass.

A

working

lass s not

brought

togetherirectly

s

a class ormation

y

virtuefworkers'

elations

o

capitalistsnworkplaces. orkersmployedythe samecapitalist

enterprise

hare n immediate

elationo

their

articular

mployer.

They

o

not,however,

ave s

direct

relationship

o

wage-laborers

working

or ther

mployers,

r with he

capitalist

lass

s a whole.







CLASS ANALYSIS

437

Wood

rgues

hat heorieshat oo

easily

erive lass

rom he

truc-

ture

frelationsf

production

o not

ppreciate

his ssue

93-95).

This

raises he

uestion

fwhat

ignificance

elationsf

produc-

tion

ctually

o have

n

the

making

f

lasses. o

explain

heir

nflu-

ence,

Wood

uggests,

t s

necessary

o

follow

hompson

n

utilizing

a

concept

f

xperience.

his s not neat

heoretical

nswer o

the

question,

hich an

really nly

e

answered

y

tudying

he

messy

complexities

f

history.

It

s n

themedium fthis

ived

xperience

that ocial onsciousnesssshaped nd with t the dispositionobe-

haves

a class'

96),

touse a

phrase

f

Thompson's.

he

concept

f

a

common

xperience

s,

for

hompson, way

f

describing

ow o-

cial

being

determines

ocial onsciousness.his s

not

static ela-

tionship,

orneither

s social

being

tself. lass s

not

a

structure

formed utside

of

history

hat hen

undergoes rocess,

s

many

theoristsould ave

t,

ut structured

rocess.

he

relationsf

pro-

duction

re

only

he

point

f

departure.

ow heir

owers

fdetermi-

nation ontribute

o class ormationremainsn

openquestion

o be

resolvedmpiricallyyhistoricalndsociologicalnalysis 98). Al-

though

his

may

e

unsatisfactory

or

hose

who

xpect

solution t

the evel f

heory,

ood

believes hat

t

iswhere

hemost

mportant

and

problematic

uestions

bout lass ie

98).

What

s

probably

f

greatest

alue

n

Thompson's

ontribution

is

the

way

n

which

e dentifieslass ormations a structured

rocess

and

relationship

nd offers

ome

generalizations

bout ts

haracter.

The manner

n

which

hompson

ormulatesheoretical

oints

s

not

alwaystraightforward,

ith

isuse of class

eing

hebest

xample.

Even o,his ssentialrgumenthat xploitativeelationsfproduc-

tion

generate

lass

struggle,

nd that lassformations

evelop

s

workers

xperience

his

truggle,

s clear

nough.

This

s

accompa-

nied

by

forcefulirective

o

study

he

pecific

ocialdeterminants

of

experience

nd their ultural

xpressions

n

each case.

Thomp-

son

recognizes

hat lassrelationsre

not

the

only

ocial

relations,

although

e does

not

theoretically

ssert he

multidimensionality

f

social

being.

As

guidelines

or

esearch,

is

theoreticalbservations

are

helpful

ut ess

pecific

hanGramsci's. ramsci's

mphasis

n

theroleofpolitical artiessmissingrom hompson's eneraliza-

tions bout

lass ormation.hat

aid,

Thompson

ertainly

oes not

6

This

mplicitly

ouches n the ssue f

ocial-spatial

ies

mong

workers.ee

Savage,

996,

for

discussionhat

istinguishes

ense ies rom

ies f

range.







438 SCIENCE äf SOCIETY

neglect

gency

n

his

historical

ork. he

Making f

he

nglish

Work-

ing

Class xamines

lebeian

adical ocietiesnd other

imilar

oliti-

cal institutions

t

ength.

s tsreaders

re

told t the

outset,

t

is

study

n an active

rocess,

hich wes

s much

o

agency

s to condi-

tioning.

he

working

lassdid not

rise ike he un

at an

appointed

time.

t was

present

t ts wn

making

1980,

).

Autonomist

arxism

The current

ften

eferred

o

n

English

s autonomist

arxism

originated

n

taly

n

the

arly

960s.7ts hief

ontribution

o

theory

of

working

lasses

s

historicalormations

s a trio

f

concepts:

lass

composition,

ecomposition

nd

recomposition.

he

firsts derived

from

he utonomist

evelopment

f

Marx.

n

Capital,

arx tudies

the

omposition

f

apital;

he utonomists

eason

hat

f

apital

as

a

composition,

o too

does abor.

he two

oncepts

omprehend

he

same

reality,

he

organization

f the

capitalist

roduction

rocess,

from ifferenterspectives:arx's rom he ide f apital,he uton-

omists' rom

he ide f

he

working

lass. lass

omposition

involves

a

disaggregated

icture

f he tructure

f lass

ower

xisting

ithin

thedivision

f abor

ssociated

ith

particular

rganization

f

on-

stant

nd variable

apital

Cleaver,

992,

13).

A class

omposition

refers o therelations

ithin

working

lass

s it

exists

n

relation-

ship

o

a certain tructure

f

production.

he divisions

nd

hierar-

chiesthat xistwithin

he

classthusbecome

an

integral

art

f a

central

oncept

f autonomist

lass

theory.

his

flows

rom

hall-

mark f autonomist arxisthought:heview hat nydivisionf

laborwithin

apitalist

roduction

s

not

only

echnical

ut

also a

specific

modefor

apital's

ttempts

o control

abor.

Capital

ims o

establish

class

omposition

hat llows

t

to

accumulate

ith

mini-

mum

f

disruption

y

workers

113-114).

In

a useful

xplication,

he

ollectiveround he

hort-lived

id-

1970sU. S. autonomist

ournal

Zerowork

utlines our

imensions

f

the

nalysis

f

lass

omposition.

ne is the

tudy

f

struggles

hem-

selves: heir

ontent,

heir

irection,

ow

hey evelop

nd how

hey

circulate Zerowork,992,111).Anothers therelationsmong

differentectionsf he

lass

including

he

unwaged)

the

way

hese

7

Forthose nable o read

talian,

Wright,

002

s

ndispensable.







CLASS

ANALYSIS

439

sectorsffect

achother ndthus he

elationf he

working

lasswith

capital

111).

This

makes ivisionsnd

inequality

ithin he

class,

reflectedbove ll

n

different

age

evels

111

,

a

key

ssue.

he

third

dimension

s therelations etween orkers

nd their

rganizations,

including

rade nions

nd

political arties.

Whether

particular

organization

dvances he nterests

f

he

working

lass r

not,

t

plays

a role

n

the

elationship

etweenhe

working

lass nd

capital

112).

Finally,

he uthors rite

hat allthese

spects

ave o be related

o

the apitalistnitiativen termsfgeneralocial lanning,nvestment,

technological

nnovations,

mployment

nd

to

the nstitutional

etting

of

capitalist

ociety

112).

The

concept

f

recomposition

eferso ctivitieshat

nitework-

ers s

a

class

gainst apital,

hereby

isruptingapital's rganization

of

exploitation

nd

increasing

orkers'

bility

o

meettheir wn

needs.

By educing

ivisions

ithin

he

working

lass,

hebalance f

forces etween

heclasses s shifted

n

workers' avor.

n

response,

capital

ttempts

o break own

he

growingnitymong

workers

n

order oreimposeontrolnd establish new lass ompositiona-

vorable o tself.

ccording

o utonomist

arxism,

he

apitalist

lass

does

this

y eorganizing

roduction

ith ew

echnology

nd a new

division

f abor nd

also

through

he

tate,

sing

iscal,

monetary

and social

policy.

his

s

decomposition.

orkersre ocked

n

an

ongoing

truggle

ith

apital

n

which

hey

ttempt

o

recompose

themselves

s a class o

meet

heir

eeds nd

capital esponds

ith

strategies

f

decomposition.

ith he

ynamic

oncepts

f

ecomposi-

tion nd

decomposition

nd the tatic

oncept

fclass

omposition

it spossibleoanalysehe yclesfworkers'trugglehat haracter-

ize the

history

f

capitalism

Cleaver,

992,

114).

The

autonomists

theorizehese

ycles

s battles

y

apital

o atomize

orkers

decom-

position),

nd workers'

fforts

o

resistnd make hemselvesnto n

active,

lass-conscious

orce

recomposition).

There

s

much

hat s

questionable

bout utonomist arxism

that nfluences

ow hese

oncepts

reused

by

heir

est-known

ro-

ponents.

he most

ignificant

s ts

endency

o

conceptualize

abor

as a collective

ubject

hat

xists utside nd

against apital,

ather

than nandagainst apital.Werner onefeldautions hat heau-

tonomist

approach

ends o

neglect

he

orms

n

and

through

hich

labor xists

n

capitalism

Bonefeld,

993,

6).

Autonomist arx-

ism risks

eplacing

he one-sided

indof

Marxismn

which

nly







440

SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

capital

has

agency

nd workersre

strictly

eactive

ith

n

equally

one-sidedeversal.t

imes,

t

depicts

constantly

ctive

orking

lass

whose

trugglesush

capital

o ntroduce

ew

machinery

nd

look

for ther

ways

o tame

abor

nsurgency.

onefeld's

ialectical

or-

rection

s to

argue

hat abor

exists

within

nd

against

apital,

ot

outside

nd

against

t.

n

capitalism,

abor

does

notexist

utside

f

capital

or

capital

utside

f abor

26-27).

Thus t s

wrong

o

sug-

gest

hat

pure

working

lass

onfronts

n external

nemy.

he

an-

tagonistsnclass trugglere ntertwined.second ausefor oncern

is that

oncepts

ike abor

nd

capital

ormulated

t the evel

fab-

straction

f

Capital

hould

notbe used

n more oncrete

istorical

studies

ithoutonsiderable

are. Labor

lways

xists

s a to

some

degree

eterogenous

orking-class

ormation,

hich

tselfs

not

den-

tical o a

workers' ovement.

either

abor

nor

capital

re

singular

subjects,

ince

apital

nvolves

ompeting

apitalists.

Another

roblem

s the

laim,

rat east

he

uggestion,

hat

api-

talists

eorganize aid

workplaces

ith

ew

echnology

olely

r

pri-

marilyodecomposeheworkinglass.Whileworkeorganizationay

sometimes

avethis

oal,

t often

as other

motivations

elated

o

improving

n

employer's

ompetitive

osition.

evertheless,

ecause

there

s no

necessary

onnection

etween he

oncepts

fclass

om-

position,

ecomposition

nd

decomposition

nd other

heoretical

positions

ommonly

ound

n

utonomist

arxism,

he

oncepts

hem-

selves re

not nvalidated

f ome

fthe atter

re

rejected.

The

concept

fclass

omposition

as tself

lso been

criticized.

Autonomists

ligned

with

he Italian Communist

arty,

uch

as

M.Cacciari,ontendhat he oncepts reductionist.annMouliet

summarizes

heir

rgument:

The

passage

rom

abor

power

in

an

analysis

f class

omposition)

o the

working

lass

level

f

analysis

situated

n the evel f

political

rganization)

s neithermmediate

or

linear or

etermined

y

he

ausality

f he

mmanenttructure

f his

class

omposition

Moulier,

986,

7)

(my

ranslation).

ccording

to these

ritics,

ther utonomist

arxistsrr

n

eaping

rom n

ac-

count fthe

apital-labor

elation

sing

he

oncept

fclass

ompo-

sition o the

working

lass

s a historicalnd

politicalategory

48)

In thismove,nstitutionsnd class onsciousnessretreateds re-

flectionsf a class

omposition.

Moulier

esponds

hat

f

lass

omposition

s a

sociological

naly-

sis rom

hich he haracter

f

workers'

rganizations

anbe deduced







CLASS

ANALYSIS

441

ahistorically,

hen hecriticsre

correct.

owever,

oulier's

nter-

pretation

s

that he

oncept

hould e

understoods

referring

o a

complexrocess

nd

a method f

nalysis

50)

integrating

he

apital-

labor elation

ith hebroader ealms

f

ocial,

olitical

nd cultural

organization.

hus

understood,

t

can

be used to

investigateycles

of

capitalistestructuring

nd workers'

esistance.hesedo

notun-

fold

ccording

o a

predetermined

ogic

but

through

lass

truggle

(50).

Composition

n the ourse

f

makingtself,

herefore,

uper-

imposes tself n compositionspure tate f act (52). To para-

phrase,

he

concept

f class

composition

s worth

etaining

f

t s

understoods

a toolfor he

nalysis

f historical

rocesses

nd not

as a

way

f

deducing

class

ormation

rom

form fthe abor

pro-

cess.

mplicit

n

Moulier's

osition

s an

understanding

hat lass

composition,

ecomposition

nd

decomposition

o

not take

place

only

n

the

workplace

ut

cross

apitalistociety

hence

herefer-

ence

to

social,

olitical

nd culturalife. t s

not

only

t the

point

f

production

hat

lasses re

composed.

his

nterpretation

s

in

har-

mony ith he xpanded cope f lass oundnautonomist arxism.

One need

not

accept

utonomist arxism

holesale o

recog-

nize he

usefulness

f

he

oncepts

f

class

omposition,

ecomposi-

tion nd

recomposition.

he firstffers

way

f

understanding

he

foundationsf

a

working-class

ormation

n

a

historicallypecific

organization

f

capitalist

roduction

hat

nderpins

he relations

between

lasses nd within

he

working

lass.

With his s a

pointer,

it

s

less

ikely

hat

nalysis

ill uffer

rom

verly eneral

bserva-

tions boutrelations

f

production.

hen

working-class

ormation

isframednsuch vagueway,ccounts re more ikelyohighlight

struggle

nd

culture nd underestimatehe nfluencefthe

harac-

ter

f

production,

ncludingualitative

eaturesf

work-life

n

a

par-

ticular

eriod.

The

concept

f class

omposition

irects

s

to

take

suchdeterminants

eriously,

ithout

alling

nto he

historicalrror

of

rying

oread

class ormationffa tructuref

production.

lass

composition

ertainly

oesnot

displace

he entrali

y

f lass

truggle.

Nor

does

the

oncept

ecessarily

arrowne's ttentiono

workplace

developments

lone.

Rather,

t

grounds

lass

truggle

nd

formation

intheorganizationfproductionnddirects s topay ttentiono

how ifferentectors f

working

lass elate o

eachother

s well s

their

elation ith

apital.

are

must e

taken n

periodizing par-

ticularlass

omposition,

s s the

ase

whenever

ynchronie

oncepts







442

SCIENCE äf SOCIETY

are used

n

the

tudy

f

processes.

he

concepts

f

decomposition

and

recomposition

re

helpful

n

nalyzing

aves

fworkers'

truggles

and

employers'

ffensives,

roviding

hat

hey

reused

o

nalyze

he

effects

f

developments

n

working-class

ormations,

ithout

ny

s-

sumptions

bout he

onscious

ntentions

f hose

aught p

n class

struggles.

Towards

Theory f

Working

lasses

as Historical

ormations

Taken

together,

he

deas of

Marx,

Gramsci,

hompson

nd

autonomist

arxism,

nriched

y

he

nalyses

f

gender,

ace,

exu-

ality

nd

other ocial

relations

hat

ave

been

generated

y

heories

thathave

emerged

rom

truggles

gainst

ppression,

mount

o

a

significant

ontribution

o a

theory

f

working

lasses

s

historical

formations.

arx's

oncept

f lass

s

a

relationship

f

urplus

abor

extraction

s thefoundation

tone

f the

theory.

n contrast

o

no-

tions f

class s

location

r level

of

wealth,

truggle

s inherent

n

Marx's onceptionfclassrelations. ereconflictsmateriallynd

historicallyrounded

n

a

way

hat

t s not

n

contemporary

ocial

theory

nfluenced

y

he

metaphysical

ietzschean

deaof

universal

will o

power,

most ften

hrough

oucault

on

which

ee

Neocleous,

1996,

9-87).

For

Marx,

working

lasses

re understood

ot

s static

lass

itu-

ations

ut s formations

n time.

He does

not

develop

his

mplicit

view f

class s

process,

lthough

ome

ofhis

political

ritings

ike

The

ighteenth

rumaire

isplay

recognition

fsome

of the

crucial

dimensionsfclass ormation.uch ess ound shisbeliefhat he

working

lassmatures

owards

ecoming

revolutionary

lass

or

t-

self.

his

s a rather oo

inear

onception

nd deserves

o be

aban-

doned,8

long

with he

epistemology

f bsence

Somers,

996,

81)

of

studies

tructured

ytrying

o

explainwhy

eality

as

not con-

formed

o Marx's

heoretical

rediction.

n

its

place,

he utonomist

Marxist

oncepts

f

lass

ecomposition

nd

recomposition

an

erve

as

tools

o

help

analyze

ow

truggles

ver

he xtraction

f

urplus

value

nd

capital's

ontrol

f abor

n

and

beyond

aid

workplaces

shapethedevelopmentf classformations.

8 Note hat t s not he

possibility

f

workers'

elf-emancipation

hat

s

being

ejected,

ut

what

Molyneux

allsMarx's

optimistic

volutionism.







CLASS

ANALYSIS

443

The

concept

f

class

omposition

uilds

n some

of Marx's

s-

sentials.t directs s

to

inquire

ntohowthe

division f

aborcor-

responding

o a certain tructuref

capitalistroduction

onditions

a

working-class

ormation,

ot

n

the enseof

ob

categories

ut

n

terms frelations

mong

ections f he

lass nd

betweenhem nd

capital.

t

highlights

nternal

ivisionsndhierarchies

ndthe act

hat

thedivisionf abor

s

not

ust

a technical

matter. he

concept

s an

invitationo

fill bstractionsuch s the

apitalist

abor

process

nd

relationsfproduction ithmorehistoricalontent. ssuch,t sa

counter-pull

o

any

ulturalist

nclinationo

pass

too

ightly

ver he

social-material

rganization

fwork

n

studying

lass

ormation.

Gramscind

Thompson

lsoconsider

lass s

process.

hompson

isthemore

loquent

f

he wo

n

this

oint:

orkers

nternto

xploi-

tative elations

f

production,

iscoverhat heirnterests

ifferrom

those fmembersf

he

uling

lass,

ngage

n

truggle

ndcreate lass

formations.

ll

this akes

lace

n

the ultural

xperience

f

working

people.

hompson'spproach

emandshat

cholarsxaminehe

ived

historyfreally-existingorkersnd rid hemselvesfthefalse on-

sciousness-ridden

eneric roletarians

ound

n

ome

heory.

ramsci's

suggestions

bout

heneedfor esearchnto

nationalontextsnd the

social

rigins

fnew

working

lasses eflect similar

rientation.

As

products

fdifferentistoricalontextshan hat f

arly

1st-

century

orth

America,

hetheories f

Marx,Gramsci,

hompson

and

the utonomist

arxistso not

dequatelyppreciate

hemulti-

dimensionality

f ocial

eing

rhow lass

s

lways

ediated

y

ther

socialrelations.

eminist,

nti-racistnd other

erspectivesrising

fromocialmovementsgainstppressionlert stothese ssues nd

emphasise

hat

lassformations never

olely

bout

class.

Gender,

sexuality,

ace nd other ocial elations eed to be

integrated

heo-

retically

s

part

f how lass

formations

understood. o do this s

not o

collapse

lass nto

ender

r

race.

t s

necessary

o

analytically

distinguish

achof hese ocial elationsrom he thers

ecause ach

has

ts

wn haracter.

t he ame

ime,

e must

ememberhat he

distinctions

re

analytical.

n

concrete ocial

reality,

lass nd other

social

relations

nterpenetrate.hey

re lived

ogether y

working

people.

The role f onscious ffortso

organize

orkers

round

arious

political

rojects

s best

highlighted

y

Gramsci.

ike

Thompson,

e

recognizes

hat

ecause

lass ormation

s

relationalhe

haracteristics







444

SCIENCE àf SOCIETY

of

ruling

lasses nd their

olitical rganizations

re

part

fthe

pic-

ture.Granisci

lso

emphasizes

hat

nions,

arties

nd other

work-

ers'

organizations

re

key

layers

n

class

ormation.

ypropagating

particular

onceptions

ftheworld

nd

motivating

ertain

ctions,

they

an contribute

n decisive

ways

o

what

workers

o

and

think.

This s an

aspect

f the

organization

f

hegemony.

nderstanding

the

political

gency

fworkers

nd

ofother

lasses

hat eek

to

n-

fluence nd

direct

workers

s vital

f

we are

to avoid

falling

nto

he

view hat lasses reformed,s itwere, ehind hebacks fthe n-

dividuals

f which

hey

re made

up.

Parties

nd

other

rganiza-

tions

re,

for

Gramsci,

ehicles

or he

organizers

nd

leaders

hat

he

calls

ntellectuals.

heirhistories

nd

ideologies

eed

to

be

in-

vestigated.

utonomist

Marxism's

oncept

of class

composition

complements

ramsci's

uidelines

y pecifically

roblematizing

the

relationship

etween

workers

nd

working-class

rganizations.

This

guards

gainst

simplistic

quation

or identification

f one

with

he

other.

This ontributionoclass heoryims oreplace nderdeveloped

and

ahistorical

oncepts

with

thers

etter

uited o

the

nalysis

f

working-class

ormations

n

time.

Adopting

his

kind

f theoretical

approach

o

class

nalysis

an

helpproduce

icher,

etter-grounded

understandings

fhow

working

lasses re

made

nd

remade

s

his-

torical

ollectivities

n

particular

oncrete

ontexts.

n

addition,

ain-

ing

a better

rasp

f

these

processes

s

not

ust

responding

o an

intellectual

hallenge,

hough

his

s

very

eal ndeed.

f

working-class

self-activity

s central o

future

ossibilities

or he ransformation

f

capitalistocieties,his econceptualizationust lsohavedefinite

political

mplications.

Labour

nd

Workplace

tudies

rogram

Universityollege

Universityf

Manitoba

Winnipeg,

B

R3T 2M8

Canada

camfield@ms.

manitoba.a

REFERENCES

Anderson,

Perry.

980.

Arguments

ithin

nglish

Marxism. ondon:

Verso.

Bannerji,

Himani.

1995.

Thinking

hrough: ssays

n

Feminism,

arxism nd

Anti-

Racism.

oronto,

anada:Women's

ress.







CLASS ANALYSIS

445

Bensaïd,

Daniel.

2002.

Marx

or

Our Times: dventuresnd

Misadventures

f

Critique.

Trans.

Gregory

lliott.

London and New York:

Verso.

Bonefeld,

Werner.

1993.

The

Recompositionf

he ritishtate

uring

he

980s.Alder-

shot,

England:

Dartmouth.

Bonefeld,

Werner,

Richard

Gunn,

and Kosmos

Psychopedis,

ds.

1992.

Open

Marx-

ism.

Vol.

2:

Theory

nd Practice. ondon: Pluto Press.

Brennerjohanna.

2000.

Womennd

the olitics

f

lass.

NewYork:

Monthly

eview ress.

Camfield,

David.

2002.

Class,

Politics and Social

Change:

The

Remaking

of the

Working

Class

in

1940s Canada. Doctoral dissertation. ork

University.

Cleaver,

Harry.

1979.

Reading

apital

Politically.righton,

ngland:

Harvester.

. 1992. The Inversion f Class

Perspective

nMarxian

Theory:

FromValori-

sation to

Self-Valorisation.

p.

106-144 in

Bonefeld,

Gunn and

Psychopedis.

Draper,

Hal. 1978. Karl

Marx's

Theoryf

Revolution. olume

2:

The

Politics

f

Social

Classes.

New York:

Monthly

ReviewPress.

German,

Lindsey.

1996.

A

Question f

Class.London: Bookmarks.

Gramsci,

Antonio.

1971. Selections

rom

he risonNotebooks.

d. and trans.

Quintin

Hoare and

Geoffrey

owell Smith.New York: nternational ublishers.

Jay,

Martin.

1984. Marxism

nd

Totality:

heAdventures

f Conceptrom

ukács

to

Habermas.

erkeley,

alifornia:

University

f

CaliforniaPress.

Lebowitz,

Michael

A.

2003.

Beyond apital:

Marx'sPolitical

conomy

f

the

Working

Class.2nd ed. Houndmills,Basingstoke, ngland: PalgraveMacmillan.

Livingstone,

.

W.,

and

Meg

Luxton. 1996. Gender Consciousness t Work:Modi-

fication f the

Male Breadwinner

Norm.

Pp.

100-129

in

Recast

reams:Class

and Gender

onsciousnessn

Steeltown,

d. D. W.

Livingstone

nd

J.

Marshall

Mangan.

Toronto,

Canada: Garamond Press.

Marx,

Karl. 1955.

The

PovertyfPhilosophy:

nswer

o the

hilosophy

of

Poverty

f

M. Proudhon. oscow:

Progress

Publishers.

. 1968.

The

Eighteenth

Brumaireof Louis

Bonaparte. Pp.

97-180

in

Se-

lectedWorks.

oscow:

Progress

Publishers.

. 1977.

Capital:

A

Critiquef

olitical

conomy.

ol.

I. Trans. Ben Fowkes.New

York:

Vintage.

. 1981. Capital:A Critiquef olitical conomy.ol. III. Trans. David Fernbach.

London:

Penguin.

Marx, Karl,

and

Frederick

Engels.

1956.

The

HolyFamily

r

Critique f

Critical ri-

tique.

rans.

R. Dixon. Moscow:

Foreign Languages

Publishing

House.

. 1968. Manifesto

f the Communist

Party.

p.

35-63

in SelectedWorks.

Moscow:

Progress

Publishers.

. 1970.

The German

deology.

art One. Ed.

C.

J.

Arthur.New York: nterna-

tional Publishers.

Meiksins,

eter.

1986.

Beyond

he

Boundary

Question.

New

Left

eview,

57,

101-

120.

. 1987. WhiteCollar Workers

nd the

Processof Class Formation.

p.

161-

178

in

Workingeople

nd Hard

Times:

anadian

Perspectives,

d. Robert

Argue,

Charlene

Gannage

and D.W.

Livingstone.

oronto,

Canada: Garamond.

Miliband,

Ralph.

1989.

DividedSocieties: lass

Struggle

n

Contemporary

apitalism.

Oxford nd New

York: Oxford

University

ress.







446

SCIENCE

àf SOCIETY

Molyneux, ohn.

1986. Marxism nd the

arty.

ondon:

Bookmarks.

Moulier,

Yann. 1986.

L'opéraïsme

talien:

organisation/représentation/idéologie

ou la

composition

de classe

revisitée.

p.

37-60

in L'Italie:

e

philosophe

t e

gendarme,

d. Marie-Blanche

Tahon and

Andre

Corten.

Montréal,

Quebec,

Canada: VLB

Editeur.

Neocleous,

Mark.

1996.

Administering

ivil

Society:

owards

Theoryf

State

ower.

London

and New

York:

Macmillan

and St.

Martin's.

Palmer,

Bryan

D. 1988.

What

the

Hell:

or Some

Comments

on

Class

Formation

and

Cultural

Reproduction.

Pp.

33-42

in

Popular

Cultures

nd Political

rac-

tices,

d.

Richard

B. Gruneau.

Toronto,

Canada:

Garamond.

Sacks,Karen.1989. Towarda Unified

Theory

ofClass,Race and Gender. Ameri-

can

Ethnologist,

6:3,

534-550.

Savage,

Michael.

1996.

Space,

Networks

nd

Class

Formation.

p.

58-86

in Social

Class

nd

Marxism:

efences

nd

Challenges,

d. Neville

Kirk.

Aldershot,

ngland:

Scolar.

Seccombe,

Wally,

nd

D. W.

Livingstone.

000.

Down

oEarth

eople :

eyond

lass

Reductionism

nd

Postmodernism.

urora,

Canada:

Garamond.

Ste.

Croix,

G. E.

M. de. 1981.

Class

Struggle

n the

ncient

reek

World:

rom

he

rchaic

Age

to the

Arab

Conquests.

ondon:

Duckworth.

Somers,

Margaret.

1996.

Class

Formation

and

Capitalism:

A Second

Look

at

a

Classic. European ournal f ociology,7:1, 180-202.

Thompson,

E. P.

1978a.

Eighteenth-Century

nglish

Society:

Class

Struggle

With-

out

Class?

Social

History,

:2,

133-165.

.

1978b.

The Peculiarities

f the

English.

p.

245-301

n

ThePoverty

f

Theory

and

Other

ssays.

New

York:

Monthly

Review

Press.

.

1978c. The

Poverty

f

Theory

or An

Orreiy

of Errors.

p.

1-210

in

The

Povertyf

Theory

nd Other

ssays.

New York:

Monthly

Review

Press.

.

1980. The

Makingof

the

nglish

Working

lass.

Harmondsworth,

ngland:

Penguin.

Wickham,

James.

1979.

Social

Fascism

and

the

Division

of the

Working

Class

Movement:

Workers

nd Political

Parties

n

the

Frankfurt

rea

1929-1930.

Capital nd Class,7, 1-34.

Wood,

Ellen

Meiksins. 995.

Democracy

gainst apitalism:

enewing

istorical

ate-

rialism.

ambridge,

England:

Cambridge

University

ress.

Wright,

teve.

2002.

Storming

eaven:Class

Composition

nd

Struggle

n talian

Autono-

mist

Marxism. ondon

and

Sterling, irginia:

Pluto

Press.

Zerowork

ollective.

992.

Introduction

o Zeroworkl

idnight

il:

Work,

nergy,

ar,

1973-1992,

d.

Midnight

Notes Collective.

rooklyn,

ew York:

Autonomedia.

Documents

Camfield - Reorientating Class Anlysis