Download Title: The resources of „class analysis‟ in Australia: Toward a

Title: The resources of „class analysis‟ in Australia: Toward a
redefinition of terms.
Keywords: Class, Capital, Marx, Bourdieu, Political Economy.
Name: Henry Paternoster
Affiliation: La Trobe University, Bundoora.
Contact details: [email protected] 0407167434
Abstract: The analytic category of „class‟ remains one of the most contested in sociology. A
number of traditions lay claim to this term, including Marxist, Weberian and „culturalist‟
research inspired by Bourdieu‟s notion of „cultural capital‟. It is the latter which has come to
dominate recent discourse of „class‟. However, it is unclear how this new approach to class
can be integrated with previous class histories of Australia: its focus on cultural capital as a
resource in „status games‟ does not appear to speak to the same kind of social processes of
histories within the Marxist tradition. This paper focuses on the use of „class‟ in five of these
Marxist histories of Australia: Constructing Capitalism, Beyond Dependence, Class Structure
in Australian History, For Freedom and Dignity and Winners and Losers. It is found that
each history focuses on different social dynamics to „culturalist‟ class analysis and to each
other. It is argued, finally, that the substantial contributions of these authors is incompatible
with contemporary discourse of „class‟ as long as these various kinds of social dynamics are
treated as one phenomenon. This paper ends by calling for a re-appraisal of these dynamics
without prejudicing their study with the term „class‟.
The resources of „class analysis‟ in Australia: Toward a redefinition
of terms.
A renewed interest in ‘class’.
Australia had a rich tradition of Marxist class analysis until the 1990s. Since the notion of the
„death of class‟ gained widespread popularity in the wake of Pakulski & Waters (1996),
however, very little new work has been produced. The most significant ongoing source of
Marxist class analysis has been associated with the International Socialists, although their
work has tended to political analysis (e.g. Burgmann, 1993; Bramble, 2008) or the defense of
Marxist theory (Kuhn, 2005) over conducting new empirical research. Despite these efforts,
Marxist class analysis remains marginal to contemporary discourse. Its classics, such as
Connell and Irving‟s Class structure in Australian history (CSAH) (1992) have faded from
memory.
In recent years, a new discourse of „class‟ has emerged in Australian sociology. This draws
primarily from Bourdieu‟s concept of „cultural capital‟, which is treated as a competitive
resource which helps explain inequalities (See Pini and Previte, 2013; Huppatz and Goodwin,
2013). It is perhaps more fair to refer to this approach as „culturalist‟ than „Bourdieuian‟,
since Bourdieu‟s work was varied and complex (Savage and Bennett, 2005: 2-3).
Internationally, „culturalist‟ class research has gained prominence most recently with the
Great British Class Survey (GBCS) (Savage et al., 2013). Australia has been slower to catch
on in terms of actual large-scale research, with the exception of Accounting for Tastes
(Bennett et al., 1999). Nevertheless, a recent edition of The Journal of Sociology was
dedicated to evaluating the influence of Bourdieu in Australia (Bennett et al., 2013). Several
articles point possible ways forward for the study of Bourdieu‟s „capitals‟ in Australia: of
particular interest, the proposed introduction of „gender capital‟ (Huppatz and Goodwin,
2013), and an analysis of Cashed-Up-Bogans (CUBs) using the concept of „cultural capital‟
(Pini and Previte, 2013). It seems likely that future work on class in Australia will be
conducted within this „culturalist‟ tradition.
The main problem with the focus on „class‟ through culture is that it deepens, rather than
clarifies, confusion around the term. The history of mid-late 20th century social theory was
one of conflict between Weberian and Marxist theories of class. Weberians emphasised the
stratification of income brackets, while Marxists emphasised the unity of productive relations
with social power, cultural expression and normative project. „Culturalism‟ has not solved
that conflict; rather, it begins a new discourse as if it could replace both Weberian and
Marxist analyses. The effect has been to strip „class analysis‟ of its interest in economic
exploitation, and those elements of class consciousness which are not reducible to hierarchybuilding. „Culturalist‟ class analysis, insofar as it uses „cultural capital‟ as its key concept, is
primarily interested in „status games‟. This is the use of Bourdieuian terminology in both Pini
and Previte (2013) and Huppatz and Goodwin (2013). Here, „capital‟ is a resource which can
be used to competitive advantage in any given social arena; an instrumentalist theory of
conflict. This is simply not a replacement for Marx‟s theory of „surplus value‟, which can be
used to explain socially influential sections of the economy (Wells, 1989: 141), or theories of
class consciousness in which group identity is not reducible to the struggle for power or
legitimacy (e.g. Metcalfe, 1986: 73-74).
In this article, examples are drawn from five of the best examples of Marxist „class‟ theory in
Australia, all of which address different topics to each other and to Bourdieu. A central theme
can, however, be isolated: the study of economic relationships. Three subcategories or
„dynamics‟ of interest can also be identified: economic „purposive rationalities‟ (Slomczynski
and Shabad, 2000: 191); group formation around economic role; ownership and social power.
These suggest that a disentangling of the various social dynamics all termed „class‟ could
help to integrate past research into contemporary discourse. This task can be undertaken now
that sociology has moved past the Marxist eschatology which demanded the conflation of
economic position, group formation and power. In creating a new and narrower definition of
„class‟, however, „culturalist‟ class analysis has avoided this sorting process.
Wells: Classes as economic competitors.
Wells‟ Constructing capitalism was an attempt to demonstrate the utility of political economy
during a period in which it was, as a discipline, under threat during the late 1980s. It is a
capital history, traced alongside key political developments and policy changes. Wells‟ main
actors are economic groupings, such as merchants, pastoralists and those involved with
finance capital. The development of each of these groups is treated both in economic and
political terms, as they have come to gain control of productive resources and in doing so
have shaped class relations as a whole (Macintyre 1988: 135-155). Wells‟ work compliments
others, such as Rowley, who were attempting to build Marxist political economies of
Australian history (Beilharz and Cox, 2007: 121).
Two main arguments are useful to consider here. The first is that Australia was not a
„capitalist‟ society until the 1850s (Wells, 1989: 1). Wells argues that the overall social
dynamic was yet to be decided, embroiled in a contest of economic rationalities and
philosophies which only during the later period, associated with intensified domestic
production, sided with the accumulation of capital: The introduction of capitalist logics of
development in Australia were not inevitable.
The second point is Wells‟ use of the concept of economic „surplus value‟ to explain the rise
and fall of different „class‟ groupings: for example, the conflict between merchants and the
„regional bourgeoisie‟ over the transportation of convicts; similarly between pastoralists and
advocates of liberal political economy (Wells, 1989: 62-63). These groups had different
relationships to the appropriation of surplus value, and mobilised politically where these
„interests‟ came into conflict (Wells, 1989: 62).
Wells critiques economic historians such as N.G. Butlin for their focus on the total sum of
economic activity. Wells argues that this is misleading when most economic activity is
geared towards „subsistence‟: those specific areas of the economy, such as the pastoral sector,
which produced a high level of surplus were those which formed the basis of economic
wealth and power (Wells, 1989: 135-141). Industries which were relatively unprofitable to
begin with, such as manufacturing, suffered the opposite fate: relying on government
protection (Wells, 1989: 24-25).
Wells‟ history is a powerful social analysis which cannot be replaced by the study of status
games. It seems likely that logics of capital accumulation, such as those of the mining
industry, continue to exert considerable influence over both state policy and cultural
imagination.
Tsokhas: Class as power through ownership.
Beyond dependence is another capital history, except that instead of defining class per se,
Tsokhas tells the story of the Australian mining industry. Tsokhas convincingly argues,
through a combination of economic statistics and discussing the personalities of mining
managers, that foreign ownership and financing does not equal domestic underdevelopment
or even loss of control (e.g. Tsokhas, 1986: 14-24). This book was something of a watershed
moment for the Australian Left, which had long harboured fears of Australian subordination
to foreign capital (such as Fitzpatrick and Wheelwright‟s1965 book The Highest Bidder).
Beyond dependence also contains an interesting discussion of employer-employee relations in
mining towns marked by high levels of industrial peace. Western Mining at Kambalda
considered it „in their interest‟ to hand a high degree of community control over to their
employees (Tsokhas, 1986: 151); the „lead bonus‟, a profit sharing scheme, was also
identified as the main factor leading to industrial peace at Broken Hill (Tsokhas, 1986: 193).
This stands in stark contrast to the history of class conflict in the coalfields of NSW
(Tsokhas, 1986: 203-216). Such a view contradicts orthodox Marxist narratives of the
necessity of conflict between capital and labour. Tsokhas does not pursue this line of thought
further, but here the cultural logics of capital and labour imply the possibility of a combined
social project. This is „class‟ research very different from an instrumentalist treatment of
subordination and oppression.
Connell and Irving: Class as oppositional consciousness.
CSAH discusses economic history, but its central theme is the study of of oppositional class
consciousness. The focus here, after an assessment of the convict system, is on the labour
movement and to a lesser degree elitist culture (Connell and Irving 1992: 126, 134). In
focusing on exclusion and rebellion, however, many other facets of productive relations are
ignored. The most glaring omission is the lack of engagement with workers and employers
positively disposed to Australian economic organisation and whom supported mutual
solutions: these actors are easily written off as disingenuous or „bourgeois‟ (Connell and
Irving, 1992: 201-203, 413-15, 427-30). In writing a history of Australia seemingly from the
imagined perspective of Marxist workers, the reader loses a sense of what is distinctive about
exploitative productive relations; all capital-labour relations are treated by definition as ones
of status and power.
CSAH is nevertheless a comprehensive history of the development of oppositional class
consciousness in Australia. Future attempts to assess class conflict in Australia would do well
to contextualise their work historically, and in this regard CSAH cannot be overlooked.
Metcalfe: Class as the experience of common economic role.
Metcalfe‟s critique of objectivism, interestingly enough, draws on Bourdieu as a supplement
to, rather than a replacement for, Marx (1987: 78). Metcalfe argues for a „study of practices‟
against the „analysis of objects‟ endemic in classification systems of „class‟ (1987: 78).
Metcalfe sets out in For Freedom and Dignity to take this approach to studying the lived
„class‟ practices of the mining town of Kurri in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales
(1988: 1). His research reveals social practices much deeper than status games: Metcalfe
describes a sense of identity and community organisation which links miners‟ role in
production, political organisation, morality and even cultural forms such as poetry (1988: 1718, 73).
Importantly, Metcalfe describes two counterposed cultural-political expressions linked to
miners‟ roles in production: cultural larrikinism and political reformism. Metcalfe views
these as ideological consolidations around either side of a practical dilemma facing the labour
force at the time (1988: 135).
There main problem here is that Metcalfe implies a sense of material conditions determining
ideological reflection in his dualisation of possible ideologies, both of which respond to a
contradictory or „irresolvable‟ practical problem facing working class practice (1988: 126,
135). Nevertheless, Metcalfe‟s study pushes the boundaries of Marxist class analysis, and its
effect is to bring the study of these „purposive rationalities‟ in mining much closer to a
cultural sociology.
It must also be said that Metcalfe‟s object of study brings the relevance of classical Marxism
artificially forward in terms of timeframe: while Australian cities were already offering a
diversity of productive roles, mining-towns established an exaggerated dependence of large
groups of labourers on single employers. This was not representative of Australian society as
a whole, although it has ongoing implications: for instance, what is happening in the singleindustry mining towns in Western Australia as part of the current boom? The fly-in-fly-out
(FIFA) system perhaps undercuts the development of community identities around these
relationships, but the study of the meanings attached to those roles is almost certainly still
relevant.
Macintyre: Class through the articulation of ‘social justice’.
Winners and Losers studies „class‟ indirectly, through the concept of „social justice‟ in
Australian history. Like Connell and Irving, Macintyre avoids defining class (and social
justice) by looking at its historical articulation. Macintyre explores the rise of the notion of
„social justice‟ in the context of convicts and ex-convicts, the labour and unemployed
movements, the welfare state and the New Social Movements. This is a history of the
normative side of class politics. Macintyre is not limited by Marxist class categories in the
same way as Connell and Irving: he studies the labour movement and the unemployed
movement; the relationship between the state and welfare recipients; conflict between state
universalism and Aboriginal independence (Macintyre 1985: 49, 76; 79; 137, 140).
Macintyre‟s study operates at a secondary level of analysis: looking at the political
articulation of demands, while presuming but not exploring the identities of the groups
making those claims. This is a history of groups demanding social justice, with an implication
that all who have made those claims are by default right, and righteous. As in Connell and
Irving, the other side of the argument is absent. „Class‟ in this sense, is less an intersection
between people and more the self-narrative of one side of a relationship.
Macintyre‟s study is more instrumentalist than Metcalfe‟s, and closer to „culturalist‟ class
analysis: this is a history of group conflict. However, the issues are not reduced to one of
subordination and dominance, as they are in Connell and Irving. There is a genuine reflection
on the purposive rationality and identity formation around practices which work for one
group and not another: the labour movement has found its articulation in the universalism of
the welfare state, while some Aboriginal Australians seek to preserve their separate identity
(Macintyre 1985:137). There is no clear answer to contradictions between groups articulating
demands for „social justice‟. Neither of these actors can exclude the other. In Macintyre‟s
attempt to follow the „history‟ of social justice, any ability to adjudicate between conflicting
demands is lost.
In principle, one would think this approach could extend to his earlier chapters dealing with
the relationship between capital and labour. It cannot because only the demand for social
justice determines the legitimacy of one‟s position; other social groups, such as capitals,
petit-bourgeois, etc, have no right to speak. But what of the labourers that oppose the
universalism of the welfare state? This dialogue cannot be explored seriously by Macintyre
because his study retains the presumptive eschatology of class analysis. Nevertheless, his
history provides useful material for future scholars interested in understanding the
convergence and divergence of social groups and their political demands on the state.
Conclusion.
Each of these examples demonstrates a contribution to sociology on the question of „class‟
relations. Each of them covers an area distinct from contemporary „culturalist‟ „class‟
analysis. Sociology must be able to separate the problematic aspects of previous class
analysis from its insights, if it is to make use of this rich tradition of class analysis. It is clear,
however, that the Marxist conflation of normative project, power, economic role, status and
oppression, with the term „class‟ has led to a confusion in class research and in interpretation.
The terminological conflation has allowed this rich history to be cut adrift from contemporary
discussions of class, while in doing so opening a space for an unreconstructed Marxism to
make a comeback – simply because nobody else talks about it anymore.
References.
Bennett, T., M. Emmison and J. Frow (1999) Accounting for Tastes: Australian Everyday
Cultures. Melbourne: Cambridge.
Bennett, T., J. Frow and G. Noble (2013) „Antipodean Fields: Working with Bourdieu‟,
Journal of Sociology 49(2-3): 129-150.
Beilharz, P. And L. Cox (2007) „Review Essay: Settler Capitalism Revisited‟, Thesis Eleven
88:112-124.
Bramble, T. (2008) Trade Unionism In Australia: A History From Flood To Ebb Tide. New
York: Cambridge.
Burgmann, V (1993) Power and Protest: Movements for Change in Australian Society. St
Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Connell, R.W. and T.H. Irving (1992) Class structure in Australian History: Poverty and
Progress. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Fitzpatrick, B. And E.L. Wheelwright (1965) The Highest Bidder: a Citizen’s Guide to
Problems of Foreign Investment in Australia. Melbourne: Lansdowne.
Huppatz, K. And S. Goodwin (2013) „Masculinised Jobs, Feminised Jobs and Men‟s „Gender
Capital‟ Experiences: Understanding Occupational Segregation in Australia‟, Journal of
Sociology 49(2-3): 291-308.
Kuhn, R. (ed) (2005) Class and Struggle: In Australia. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.
Macintyre, S. (1985) Winners and Losers: The Pursuit of Social Justice in Australian History
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Metcalfe, A.W. (1988) For Freedom and Dignity: Historical Agency and Class Structures in
the Coalfields of NSW. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Pakulski, J. and M. Waters (1996) The Death of Class. London: Sage.
Pini, B. And J. Previte (2013) „Bourdieu, the boom and cashed-up Bogans‟, Journal of
Sociology 49(2-3): 256-271.
Savage, M., F. Devine, N. Cunningham, M. Taylor, Y. Li, J. Hjellbrekke, B. Le Roux, S.
Friedman and A. Miles (2013) „A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the BBC‟s
Great British Class Survey Experiment‟, Sociology 47(2) 219-250.
Savage, M. and T. Bennett (2005) „Editor‟s Introduction: Cultural Capital and Social
Inequality‟, The British Journal of Sociology 56(1): 1-12.
Slomczynski, K. M. and G. Shabad. (2000) „Structural Determinants of Political Experience:
a Refutation of “the Death of Class” Thesis‟ in K.M. Slomczynski (ed.) Social Patterns of
Being Political: The Initial Phase of the Post-Communist Transition in Poland. Warsaw:
IFiS: 187-209. URL (consulted 14/06/2013):
http://polishpanelsurvey.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/2000_social-patterns_10.pdf
accessed 14/06/2013.
Tsokhas, K. (1986) Beyond Dependence: Companies, Labour Processes and Australian
Mining. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wells, A. (1989) Constructing Capitalism: an Economic History of Eastern Australia, 17881901. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.