Michael Yates
kelley wrote:
> Michael Pugliese wrote:
> > Thanks to Chris Kromm for citing Erik Olin Wright's work on class. He
> >also has a early book published in paperback by Harper & Row entitled, "The
> >Politics Of Punishment, " that with all the debates on the criminal justice
> >apparatuses and their effects on the w/c here lately might be a useful
> >source. Used to see his work more often, is he still at Univ. of Wisconsin?
> > Michael Pugliese
>
> someone once asked me for a critique of Wright. here it is......you might
> find it helpful too, carrol for it lays out a different model of class that
> might be able to account for empirical class analysis in research, etc
>
> Perhaps the most sophisticated recent attempt to specify a Marxist
> approach to class is the work of Erik Olin Wright (197l; 1978; 1979; 1985).
> Wright brings the analytical theory construction, mathematical modeling,
> and statistical analysis to bear on the project of delineating or mapping
> out the contours of the contemporary class structure. As with earlier
> Marxist critiques of structural functionalist theories of stratification,
> Wright insists that class is a relational concept. Classes are always
> defined in relation to other classes, just as the concept of parent can
> only be defined in relation to the concept of child (1985: 34). The
> Marxist concept of class is antithetical to 'gradational' concepts of class
> which differ in the degree of some attribute such as status, income, or
> education. Thus, Wright argues that a relational concept of class must be
> defined primarily in terms of the processes of exploitation and subordination.
>
> Where Wright has broken from some variants of Marxist sociology is in his
> insistence on utilizing the tools of mainstream social science: analytic
> theory construction, survey data and statistical analyses. He believes
> that a Marxist sociology can draw on survey sampling techniques and formal
> theory construction in an effort to revise Marxist theory an make it more
> adequate to the task of understanding and predicting class relations and
> the development of capitalism.
>
> Hence, Wright has used large scale surveys in order to obtain indicators
> that will help build a theory of class structure. The concpet of class was
> operationalized through questions designed to identify respondents'
> locations in the class structure. These questions distinguished between
> classes on the basis of three determinants of an individual's relationship
> to the means of production: ownership of economic surplus, control over
> the physical apparatus of production, and control over workers (1978: 73;
> 1979: 24). Thus, Wright operationlizes class in terms of relations to the
> ownership, control, and command of the means of production. Those who
> effectively possess all three attributes are defined as the modern
> bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Those who possess none of these
> attributes are defined as the proletariat or working class. Wright admits a
> third class, the petty bourgeoisie, who generate and control surplus,
> operate and manage their own business, but do not employ workers. The
> class structure of the contemporary United States, then, is composed of
> three main classes defined in terms of their relation to the means of
> production.
>
> However, the impetus behind much of Wright's work has been to deal with
> the 'problem' or 'embarrassment' of the middle classes: those who do not
> fit neatly into the class categories of bourgeoisie, proletariat, or petty
> bourgeoisie. Wright argues that individuals who possess some but not all
> attributes which signify exploitative class relations do not, strictly
> speaking, form classes. Instead, they occupy 'contradictory' locations
> arrayed between the three main classes: executive managers, supervisors
> and foremen, small to medium capitalists, and semi-autonomous wage earners
> such as professionals. These contradictory class locations are
> differentiated on the basis of skill levels and Wright argues that these
> are best operationalized through questions that indicate educational
> attainment (Wright 1987: 24-29).
>
> There are two problems entailed in Wright's attempt to operationalize
> class. First, despite his protestations otherwise and his attempt to build
> a relational model of class structure, Wright's analysis is driven by
> methodological individualism and a distributional analysis of class, both
> of which are the defining features of the structural functionalist approach
> to class. This is because Wright operationlizes class by using statistical
> survey and variable modeling and this approach cannot account for the
> Marxist conception of class as a relational process. Nor can it account
> for the concept of social change, as Stolzman and Gamberg (1974) argue.
> Wright operationalizes class as an independent variable that is derived
> from an aggregation of data about individuals. But, on the Marxist theory
> of class, this operation cannot account for social phenomena, social
> relations, and social change or history (Stolzman and Gamberg 1974: 121-122).
>
> Wright's operationalization of class also conforms to a distributional
> model of inequality. For example, his attempt to map the dimensions of
> exploitation along the lines of skilled and unskilled labor reveals that,
> despite his insistence on a relational conception of class, he is willing
> to discard this principle: There is no necessary relationship between
> those who are skilled and those who are not. That is, one can be skilled
> but this does not mean, at least theoretically, that one's possession of a
> skill or skills translates into a relationship of exploitation with those
> who are unskilled (i.e., skilled blue collar workers do not exploit
> 'unskilled' domestic workers; professors do not exploit dental hygienists.)
> Thus, Wright's operationlization of this aspect of class depends on a
> distributive (and not a relational) model of skilled and unskilled labor.
> Wright recognizes the limitations in this aspect of his definition,
> conceding that different skill levels may well be a for of differentiation
> within classes and not between them (1985: 85, 95, 185).
>
>
> As Burawoy (1989) and others influenced by labor process theories (Clegg
> 1994; Thompson 1989) have pointed out, a Marxist approach to the study of
> inequality and class structure seeks to understand how groups of workers
> are exploited and not merely how individuals are exploited. Bu focusing on
> distriubtional aspects of inequality, Wirght's theory cannot account for
> historical change (Carchedi 1987: 124-131). An historical analysis of
> class structure must conceptualize class in terms of production relations.
> A the center of Marx's theory is a concept of exploitation that is based on
> the alienation of workers from work and thus from their control over the
> process, product, and conditions of their labor. Marx's theory is not a
> theory of inequality 'per se.' Rather, inequality of income, education, or
> skill is symptomatic of the underlying structural relations and processes
> of historical change in the development of capitalist societies
>
> kelley