That is the heart of the entire debate. Who decides what 'objective interests' of the working class are? Kelley and myself argued against a view that pundits have a better and more rational view on that issue than the working class itself. Or to follow Justin's ill conceived analogy to Nazis and Jews - against the position espoused by Heinrich Himmler "it's I who decide who's a Jew."
That is a far cry from subjective empricism as you claim. It's about workingclass becomoing a class "for itself" and becoming aware of its objective interests. My argument was that intellectuals should become a part of that process rather than taking a high moral ground and calling others names because they do not know what the experts do. I think kelley also mentioned Touraine who advocated "sociological intervention" - a sociologist-working class interaction/dialogue desigend to formulate a coherent political position (long before it degenerated into "focus groups" so dear to the US punditocracy).
I moreover think that your choice between cops and teachers/social workers is the debate what kind of professionals should take care of the underclass problem. Both approaches treat the existence of the underclass and social problems they produce as a justification for either police or social work keynesianism, that benefits mainly the professional class. That smacks of medieval 'merit making' - aristorcats using the poor as an opportunity for alms giving to buy social respectablity and a place in heaven.
I do not claim any special links to the working class consciousness, as Justin charges, other than talking to my neighbors and listening to what they say. I do not even claim that I like what I hear from them. But at least I do not call them names because they do not know what I do.
wojtek