textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000609.txt

~Johnny Yen

Class and the Communication of Anarchism 


Further Comments on an Anarchist Model of Class and Class Consciousness 

In Raven 11 ('Class, Power and Class Consciousness') I claimed that the concept
of class is useful to anarchists because it is useful to the oppressed
majority'. I based this claim on my argument that, since subjective class
consciousness (basically, how -- and if -- you categorise yourself according to
class, and act according to that self-categorisation) is partially independent
of economic and political factors, 'revolutionary working class solidarity can
develop among the large majority of people who do not own or control the means
of production'. 
I now want to qualify these rather bald statements by discussing empirical
evidence on the current status of the label 'working class', and psychological
theories of the processes involved in self-categorisation. This, I hope, will
help to suggest just how useful the label 'working class' is, and therefore what
degree of reliance we should place on it in our propaganda. The end of class as
an explanatory tool? 
According to Gordon Marshall (1987), sociologists are in agreement that the
working class is changing; the changes are usually seen in terms of the decline
of traditional proletarian occupations and communities, the growth of working
class affluence, the decline of manual occupations, the growth of non-manual
occupations (particularly in the service sector), the professionalisation of
some non-manual jobs, the routinisation ('deskilling') of some non-manual jobs
and the increasing participation of women in paid employment. These changes have
been interpreted by sociologists in very different ways. But what matters to us
is how they are interpreted by the vast majority of people. It has been
suggested by some of a Fabian persuasion (eg Steven Lukes, Eric Hobsbawm, Ivor
Crewe) that new forms of social stratification are evolving, based, for example,
on consumption rather than work; people are said to identify with what they buy
(eg home ownership) more than with what they do. It is implied that what many
Marxists (and anarchists) re~ard as the dynamic of social change (ie people's
relationship to the means of production) is no longer salient. Instead,here are
many subgroups with a variety of interests; if people do organise collectively
it will be on the basis of these subgroups rather than on the basis of class
membership, it is argued. On the other hand, in 'Social Class in Modern
Britain', Marshall, Newby and Rose claim that class remains an important source
of identity in Britain and across the world; it is still the most important
indicator of voting intention, for example. This claim is based on an
international research project consisting of thousands of interviews on the
topic of class consciousness. But since many people for whom class membership is
a more salient source of identity than patterns of consumption call themselves
middle class rather than working class, we are still left with the problem of
building unity between culturally distinct groups. Further, even if a majority
of people continue to classify themselves as working class, it does not mean
that they interpret this label in the same way. For example, in 'The Blackcoated
Worker', David Lockwood identified three types of working class consciousness:
'traditional deferential','traditional proletarian' and 'new privatised'; each
sees the role and interests of the working class as different. Optimistically,
one could argue that if we promote anarchism successfully among the 'traditional
proletarians' then many of the others might come to identify more closely with
us when the anarchist counter culture looks like supplanting the old system. But
this assumes that the 'proletarian' group are the largest; as I argued in Raven
11, the 'middle classes' are beginning to outnumber productive manual workers;
and by the time our revolution gathers pace, 'traditional proletarians' may not
exist at all in some nations. The fastest growing group of manual workers are
the 'privatised' working class. These are those who are 'affluent', often
self-employed, often in high-tech industnes, often not unionised, who vote for
whoever would seem to give them the best deal economically; in other words they
have no traditional allegiances and have a more individualistic ethos than
'proletarian' workers. It is to them we must increasingly turn with our
anarchist propaganda; yet, depending on how we characterise the rationale for
anarchism, we could meet the same difficulties here as we might encounter when
trying to communicate with the lower middle classes. Despite the fact that many
first-generation middle class think of themselves as working class, many others
are glad to categorise themselves differently. Similarly, many manual workers
simply don't use the label 'working class' and don't want to for the same
reasons as the first-generation middle classes. The label 'working class' has
many historical associations which will not easily disappear that make it an
unattractive self-categorisationor many people; and if manual workers reject it,
how likely are non-manual workers to adopt it on a wide scale? If, as the
neo-Marxist Andre Gorz argues, work is no longer going to dominate our lives,
how can we hope to help people to unite by using a verbal label so inextricably
linked to the concept of work, and manual work in particular? 
As things stand, it seems to that the label 'working class' is highly accessible
to certain groups and highly inaccessible to certain others. Therefore, if the
term is employed equally across the population in anarchist (or other)
propaganda, we might even be helping to promote only a futile conflict between
those oppressed who categorise themselves as working class and those oppressed
who categorise themselves as middle class; in other words, divide and rule. This
will not be the result of us using too narrow a definition of the term 'working
class'; this term already has certain meanings for people however we define it.
These meanings will be consistent with or in contrast to certain values which
people are not likely to give up easily since they will be closely related to
their self-concept. This is why using pro-class tracts (like my class model in
Raven 11) as popular propaganda is unlikely to persuade large numbers of people
to unite as 'members of the working class'; people will simply resist such a
self-categorisation, irrelevant of the merit of the arguments. Although I
believe that class consciousness is partly independent of economic factors, I do
not deny that pure and simple 'objective relations to the means of production'
(ie the type of work one does) is generally the most important determinant of a
person's class self-categorisation (if any); this appears to be the conclusion
of Marshal al. There is no guarantee that at some point in the future, the
pattern of industry and employment will not change again, enabling the label
'working class' to become easily accessible to the vast majority once more. But
it must be said that this does not seem likely in the near future. Therefore,
since the meanings of the label 'working class' and objective economic relations
facilitating the use of that label are unlikely to work wholly to our advantage,
we must find other ways of building unity among the majority of people. 
Recent developments in social psychology have investigated the processes
underlying group action. It seems that the existence of a goal that cannot be
achieved individually, but only co-operatively, is not even necessary for social
cohesion (and thus mass action); simply the awareness of shared categoty
membership is enough. Although research has principally focussed on small,
nominal groups in laboratory settings, 'self-categorisation' and 'social
identity' theories have also been used to explain action on a wider scale, such
as the Black Power movement in the USA. Social categorisation: a general
phenomenon If it is assumed that our mental representations of ourselves take
the form of categorisations, then categorisations will always be with us. Inthis
case, even if the label 'working class' is dropped there will be other ways of
enabling the majority to see their aims as shared and thus to encourage mass
activity against capitalism and the state. Self-categorisations exist on many
different levels; the most superordinate (for our species) is 'human being', the
most subordinate is anything you regard as idiosyncratic about yourself. Given a
self-classification or self-category existing in the head as a latent entity, a
person can act more in terms of this social identity than the (more
idiosyncratic) personal identity, depending on the situation and the relative
importance to the person of that self-classification (ie accessibility). The
category needn't be an explicit verbal label, though this certainly helps when
communicating in words. If it is verbal, it can be as simple as 'us' and 'them'.
By highlighting the difficulty for most people of becoming owners and
controllers of capital and state, we are already creating a distinction between
'them' and 'us', which in turn can lead to increased ingroup solidarity, and a
need to redress a perceived imbalance among valued dimensions (ie the political
and the economic). Conclusion The concept of working class is useful to the vast
majority contingent upon there being a good 'fit' between people's
interpretation of the verbal label on the one hand, and their representation(s)
of themselves on the other. Therefore I am not advocating the abandonment of the
label 'working class', but I am suggesting that we don't need to rely on it
exclusively. Clearly, there are many situations where it is invaluable in
enhancing political consciousness; in many industrial conflicts, by raising
their awareness of class membership, workers can see more clearly the intrinsic
conflict of interests betwee them and the capitalist/employer class. In these
cases, the label is useful partly because of its (historical) associations; but
in other cases, the meanings associated with the term render it
counterproductive. If people for whom the self-category working class is
important become introduced to a perspective that advocates the abolition of
class,capital and employment (ie anarchism) they may realise that others who
share a common enemy with them are not to be regarded as counter-revolutionary
simply because they personally reject the label 'working class'. Simply the
recognition of a common aim, if it is important enough, is sufficient to
facilitate a shared identity and thus strengthen our solidarity. 
Although categorisations are always with us, there will be times when they are
not salient. In such cases, Moscovici (1976) believes that the confidence,
consistency and style of negotiation of the person advocating a minority view
can bring about a fundamental attitude change in those s/he is addressing. But
when social categorisations are relevant to the situation, Turner (1987) argues
that social influence is most likely when one disagrees with someone with whom
one expects to agree. One expects to agree with them because one categorises
oneself with them on the relevant issue. So, for example, if two Yorkshire
miners are talking politics and one begins espousing anarchism, this is more
likely to make the other think about anarchism much more seriously than if the
anarchist was categorised in advance as dissimilar along the relevant dimension.
Sociologists continue to provide evidence that class remains an important
explanatory tool, though its salience appears to have declined since the war. 
I contend that we should continue to use it in analysis, propaganda and practice
wherever it is useful, but that where it is not seen as relevant to people who
are oppressed and exploited (who should thus be receptive to anarchism), we must
use other ways of creating a superordinate social category to unite against the
state and capitalism. 

References 
Gorz, A. (1982). Farewell to the Working Class. London: Pluto Press. 
Lockwood, D. (1958). The Blackcoated Worker. London: Unwin. 
Marshall, G. (1987). What's happening to the working class? Social Studies
Review 2 (3). 
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Acadernic
Press. 
Turner, J.C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorisation
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. (This volume is particularly recornmended for those
interested in how riots can function to bring about new ways of thinking.)