A New Social Class Paradigm: Bridging Individual and Collective, Cultural and Economic in Class Theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Debating the Reality of Social Classes
This paper first surveys a significant set of issues that are intertwined in asking whether social classes are real. It distinguishes two different notions of class: class as organized social entities and class as types of individuals based on individual characteristics. There is good evidence for some classes as social entities—ruling classes and underclasses in some societies—but other classes in contemporary society are sometimes best thought of in terms of types, not social entities. Implications are drawn for pluralist accounts of social classification and the individualism-holism dispute.
“The Reemergence of Class in the Wake of the First ‘Classless’ Society”
2015
Class structure, class inequality, and class analysis are central to understanding contem- porary Russian politics and society. And yet Russians themselves—from social scien- tists, to political leaders, to everyday Russians—have struggled to come to grips with the concept of class, which became a taboo topic following the collapse of commu- nism. In recent years, that has started to change. Russian social scientists have placed great emphasis on defining the Russian “middle class,” in a search both for a non- Marxist conception of class and for a social group with the potential to lead Russia toward a more liberal future. Yet the middle class concept remains fuzzy, and the political aspirations for the group have been only partially realized. Meanwhile, much of the rest of Russian society retains a more traditional view of class and class conflict, as reflected in various political struggles and even in popular culture, such as Russian film.
Class Formation and Class Identity: Birth, Death, and Possibilities for Renewal
Sociology Compass, 2014
While social class served as a powerful organizing identity for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, many doubt its contemporary relevance. This article examines the formation and development of theories of class identity over the past century. From a debate largely among Marxists in the early 20th century about the conditions under which the working class will mobilize to defend its interests – moving from a “class in itself” to a “class for itself” – the question of the relationship between individuals’ class position, social interests, and political mobilization attracted greater attention among social scientists following World War II. However, postwar socioeconomic transformations led some to argue for the “death of class” as a central organizing principle for modern social and political life. While others countered that class identities remained relevant, the sharp decline in class-based organization in the late 20th century led scholars to develop more nuanced understandings of the relationship between individuals’ class position and collective identities. Although current scholarship shows that there is no natural translation of class identities into collective action, the reality of growing socioeconomic inequality, along with the resurgence of social and political mobilizations to contest that growth, suggests that class identities retain the capacity to unite.
Introductory Chapter: Classes - From National to Global Class Formation
Classes - From National to Global Class Formation, 2019
The diachronic narrative presented here differs sharply from the synchronic panorama of current uses of the concept of a class, e.g., in [1]. While both approaches are of complementary value, the one presented here makes it easier to broaden the class concept for a better understanding of contemporary class struggles. 2 Compare [2].
Class in Britain: change and permanence
2020
In an essay published in 1941, George Orwell referred to England as 'the most class-ridden country under the sun,' and in context, his judgement does not appear unreasonable. Even if such forceful words are no longer adequate as a description of English society today, Britain is still regarded by many (at home and abroad) as a class-conscious society. Judging by the number of novels, essays, opinion polls, press articles or academic papers that are regularly published on the topic, one cannot help thinking that there must be at least an ounce of truth in that view and that the British are, if not obsessed with class, at least more aware of and even more concerned with class distinctions than other western nations. The mere fact that in the 1990s a Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, wanted to bring about a 'classless society' suggests that class has retained its pertinence for most Britons, English people in particular...
Misreading status as class: A reply to our critics
Theory and Society, 1996
Within these three moderate and fair-minded critiques of our essay, a central criticism concerns the accuracy of our portrayal of the class paradigm. This is partly an empirical question, and partly a matter of semantics. The summary propositions are derived from the class literature with the intention of capturing typicality rather than constructing an easy target. Naturally, our critics have every right to distance themselves from some of the elements. Indeed, we insist that not all four propositions are embraced by every class approach with equal vigor, and that one would expect to find differences among class theorists on the precise meaning of "the fundamental structuring principle;' "real features" or "transformative capacity." We endorse Wright's objection to the excessive determinism that characterizes some versions and his stress on the relative autonomy of politics. However, we disagree with our critics on two points. First, Manza and Brooks's depiction of our argument as "one-sided" and "misleading," relies on a misinterpretation. Of course, class analysts can and do address racial, ethnic, and gender divisions, but it is simply a fact that they do so within a context of an either explicitly stated or an assumed primacy of economic-class divisions. This means privileging class divisions and relations by disproportionate attention or by misattributing causal directionality. This should be seen as a fair representation of not only the more orthodox Marxism of, say, Poulantzas or Miliband but also of more sophisticated neo-Marxist analyses of Wright and the "neo-Weberian" class studies of Marshall et al. 1 Such analyses also seldom theorize these non-class divisions. Second, we contest Wright's claim (implicitly endorsed by Manza and Brooks 2) that "class primacy is not an essential component of class analysis." We take the not unreasonable position that if the class para
Theorizations of social class represent the first attempt in European social theory to systematically account for how the social location of human agents shapes their conditions of possibility in society (now supplemented by a variety of other concepts including race and gender). It took shape in German and French sociological theory in the nineteenth century (associated with Marx, Weber and Durkheim), from which it diffused into the Anglophone social sciences, and eventually (after 1945) into geography. An analysis of geographical applications of class, and geographical theories of class, thus cannot be understood without some attention to its genealogy in social theory. We thus begin the chapter with a brief overview of sociological theories of class, highlighting the (shifting) spatial ontologies embedded in these theories. We then consider how class became influential in human geography; initially as an imported concept for making sense of sociospatial relations, before geographers turned to consider how spatiality should be incorporated into theories of class. We will show that the genealogy of class in Anglophone geography does not replicate that in sociology: Rather, it reflects the shifting theoretical fashions in different fields of human geography, and in different regions of the Anglophone world. (We pay particular attention, here, to North America and Britain.)