Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.