citekey: wrightClasses1987
aliases: ["Wright (1987) Classes"]
title: "Classes"
authors: Erik Olin Wright
tags: [literature-note, SocialClass]
year: 1987
publisher: ""
doi:

Classes

Key takeaways

content: "@wrightClasses1987" -file:@wrightClasses1987

Reading notes

• Given that it is no longer generally accepted that the class structure within capitalism is increasingly polarised, it has become more difficult to side-step the theoretical problem of the gap between the abstract polarised concept of class relations and the complex concrete patterns of class formation and class struggle
• Class structure refers to the structure of social relations into which individuals enter which determines their class interests
• class formation refers to the formation of organised collectivities within their class structure on the basis of the interests shaped by that class structure
• If class structure is defined by social relations between classes, class formation is defined by social relations within classes, social relations which forge collectivities engaged in struggle
  Part One Concetual Issues
  Biography of a Concept
• Concepts are produced. They have theoretical presuppositions. They also face empirically mediated real-world constraints.
• Because of the contingencies that enter theories as you move from the most abstract to the most concrete levels of analysis, there tends to be a fair amount of slippage between the theoretical stipulations of the abstract theory and the specification of concrete concepts used in research
• One of the main impulses for the much more arduous task of theory reconstruction is precisely the repeated failure in efforts at cocnep formation within a given theory, to produce concepts which simultaneously satisfying thereotical and empirical constraints
• 'Dogmatism' - refusal to call into question the theory in light of repeated failures
• 'Eclecticism' - refusal to worry about theoretical coherence
• Steps in forming a concept of contradictory locations
  • Empirical setting - indicate prior empirical problems
  • theoretical constraints
  • alternative solutions
  • building a new concept
  • unsolved issues
    Theoretical Constraints
• Conceptual Constraint 1: Class structure imposes limits on class formation, class consciousness and class struggle
  • classes have a structural existence which is irreducible to the kinds of collective organisations which develop historically (class formation), the class ideologies held by individuals and organisations (class consciousness), or the forms of conflict engaged in by individuals as class members or by class organisations (class struggle), and that as such class structures impose basic constraints on these other elements in the concept of class
• other mechanisms (race, gender) operate within the limits established by the class structure, and it could well be the case that the politically significant explanations for variation in class formation or consciousness are embedded in these non-class mechanisms rather than in class formation or consciousness are embedded in these non-class mechanisms rather than in the class structure itself
• the interconnection of these four constituent elements in the concept of class can be formalised within a 'model of determination'
  • limitation in which one element imposes limits of possible variation on another
  • selection, in which one element imposes narrower limits of variation on another element within a range of already established broader limits
  • transformation in which a practice by social actors transforms a given element within the constraitns of limitations and selections
    !Pasted image 20231027212234.png
• Consciousness, formation, and struggles are all objects of class structurally and are transformed in the course of class struggles
• Conceptual Constraint 2: class structures constitute the essential qualitative lines of social demarcation in the historical trajectories of social change
  • the primacy of class can be explained without invoking functionalist accounts of determinism
  • sufficient to argue that the class structure constitutes the central mechanism by which various sorts of resources are appropriated and distributed, therefore determining the underlying capacities to act of various social actors. Class structures are the central determinant of social power, Consequently, they may determine what kinds of social changes are possible, even if they do not functionally determine the specific form of every institution of the society.
• there is no teleological implication that there is a 'final destination' towards which all social change inexorably moves. There may be multiple futures to a given society. The argument is that along such road, the critical junctions are specificized by changes in the class structure.
• to say that class defines the pivotal lines of demarcation is not to say that all other social relations are uniquely determined by class relations. While class relations may establish limits on possible variations, within those limits quite autonomous mechanisms may be operating
• Three basic ways in which class struggle has been defined: 1) by the nature of the agents in conflicts, 2) by the objectives of conflict, 3) by the effects of conflict
  • 1. to count as a class struggle, the actors involved must be class actors and the lines of opposition int eh conflict must be class lines
  • 2. to count as a class struggle the balance of power or distribution of resources between classes must be a conscious objective of that struggle
  • 3. any conflict, regardless of objectives or actors, which has systematic effects on class relations should count as a 'class struggle'
• Conceptual Constraint 3: The concept of class is a relations concept
  • it is always defined within social relations, in particular in relation to other choices
• Conceptual constraint 4: the social relations which define classes are intrinsically antagonistic rather than symmetrical
  • the relations which define classes, intrinsically generate opposing interests
• Conceptual Constraint 5: the objective basis of these antagonistic interests is exploitation
  • causal relationship between affluence and poverty
• Conceptual constraint 6: the fundamental basis of exploitation is to be found in the social relations of productions
  • these constraints constitute the conceptual frameworks within which the attempt at transforming the ideological concept 'middle class' into a theoretical concept will occur
  • Four alternatives exist: 1) the gap between the polarised concept and legality is only apparent - capitalist societies really are polarised. 2) non-P, and non-B positions constitute the petty bourgeoise. 3) Non-P, Non-B locations constitute a historically new class 'professional manager'. 4) Non-P, Non-B positions should be referred to as 'middle strata', social positions that are not really in any class
  • All these alternatives assume that there is an isomorphic relationship between the categories of the class structure and the actual locations filled by individuals. (every position within a class structure falls within one and only one class).
    pg. 43 onwards
• some positions have a multiple class character; they maybe in more than one class simultaneously. These are 'contradictory locations within class relations'.
  • contradictory locations are contradictory precisely in the sense that they partake of both sides of these inherently contradictory interests
• Four problems with conceptualisations of contradictory locations
  • the contradictoriness of contradictory locations
    • may be better to call these 'dual' or 'heterogenous' locations
  • autonomy as a class criterion
    • the claim that autonomy is a 'petty-bourgeois' property of class relations, the relatively unstable or underdetermined character of autonomy in certain work settings, and empirical anomalies in the use of the concept
    • structurally the characterisation of autonomy as 'petty bourgeoise' results largely on what may be a rather romantic image of the petty bourgeoise as independent producers with such autonomy and proletarian wage theories without such autonomy may simply be incorrect
    • whether or not a given job is 'semi-autonomous' could easily be a consequence of rather contingent characteristic of the work setting
    • the concept of class is meant to designate fairly stable and structurally determine properties of locations within the social relations of productions
• Class in Post-Capitalist Societies
• the shift from exploitation to domination
  • domination-centred concepts of class tend to slide into 'multiple oppressions' approach to understanding society. Societies, in this view, are characterised by a plurality of oppressions each of which are rooted in a different form of domination. Class then becomes just one of may oppressions, with no social or historical centrality.
• 3 A general framework for the analysis of class
• to describe an inequality as reflecting exploitation is to make the claim that there exits a particular kind of causal relationship between the incomes of different actors
• Roemer has attempted to elaborate this view of exploitation using:
  • the 1) labour transfer approach and the 2) game theory approach
    • 1. Roemer demonstrates two basic propositions: first, that exploitation can occur in a situations in which all producers own their own means of production but differ int he amount of physical assets who they own. Second, there is a complete symmetry in the structure of exploitation in a system which capital lives wage labourers.
    • Roemer demonstrates that exploitation can occur in an economy in which every producer owns their own means of production, where no market for labour power exists, and there is not credit market. Different producers produce different things, some work more hours to exchange for things they need compared to others working less
    • market based exploitation and the class relations associated with it can be formally derived simply from inequalities in the distribution of property rights in the means of production
    • A coalition of actors S can be said to be exploited, and another coalition S' to be exploiting it, iff:
      • there is an alternative, in which S would be better off than its present situation
      • under this alternative, the compliment to S, the coalition... S' would be worse off than at present
    • 2. Roemer defines four kinds of exploitation: feudal, capitalist, socialist, and status.
      • each of these works under a game theory premise of a 'withdrawal role'
      • leaving the game with per capital shares of physical assets becomes the formal test of is a social system involves 'capitalist exploitation'
      • for feudal exploitation, the withdrawal rule is leaving the game with ones personal assets
      • for socialist exploitation, it is leaving the game with ones share of inalienable assets (skills)
    • central message for Roemer's analysis of exploitation is that the material basis of exploitation lies in inequalities in the distribution of production assets referred to as property relations
      • classes are then defined as positions within the social relations of production derived from the property relations which determine the patterns of exploitation
        • this challenges the Marxist attempt to define class relations primary in terms of relations of domination within production
    • property relations of classes don't need to be rooted in market based explanations
    • Roemer rejects labour transfer views on exploitation on the grounds that there are cases in which labour transfers occur from the rich to the poor
    • Exploitation implies more than just economic oppression, it also includes the appropriate of the fruits of the labour of one class by another
  • Middle Classes
  • there are class locations that are neither exploiters nor exploited
  • because of the multitude of intersecting modes of productions within society there is intersecting exploitation relations:
  • !Pasted image 20231028121102.png
  • one of the consequences of this reconceptualization of the middle class is that it is no longer axiomatic that the proletariat is the unique, or perhaps even universally central rival to the capitalist class for power in capitalist society
• 4 Implications and Elaborations of the General Framework
• Both Marx and Weber adopt production-based definitions in that they define classes with respect to the effective ownership of production assets: capital, raw labour power, and skills in Weber; capital and labour power in Marx. The difference between them is that Weber views production from the vantage point of the market exchanges in which these assets are traded, whilst Marx views production from the vantage point of the exploitation it generates, which reflects the fundamental different between a culturalist and a materialist theory of society.