--- Bitch | Lab <info at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> I don't see the problem. If we want to understand
> why class consciousness
> isn't prominent why not look at the actually social
> interactions of
> people doing what they do at least 40 hours a week?
I generally agree with what you say but I have a few comments.
1. The fact that service workers use management as a "resource" to protect themselves from customers does not explain anti-unionism; unlike the production work, the nature of service work is such that it creates a substantial potential for conflict regardless of social status or politics of the sides involved; for example service work involved a great deal of conflic with customers in x_Soveit bloc countries as weel, but over there, the wrokers had a decidedly "upper hand" and customers were regularly abused; so the status differences between workers and customers you describe in your examples does not explain these conflicts - they exist even when the status positions are reversed or are not an issue. I think what explain the lack of unionization in service occupations is that these tend to be treaded as "temporary jobs" and people do not want to take risks when they think (or hope) to get a different job.
2. Cultural identities, including those basd on gender and race, that cut across class lines indeed are an obstancle in forming working class consciousness and national labor movement. Skocpol makes that argument when contrasting US and Europe (_Protecting Soldiers and Mothers_). But regardless of hom much we 9or at least I) despise "identity politics" it is here to stay for good. The reason is very simple, people want to identify themselves as the "bottom runk of society" even if they are such a runk. They aspire for somehting better. And when various industries are in the position to cater to these aspirations, you inevitably have identity politics big time. It matters little that it is mostly only in people's heads - but so is money.
3. Given the above, the trick is is not to build
class consciousness from the "bottom up" at the
micro-level, i.e. by persuading various identity
groups to "transcend" their identities and show a
positive attitude toward fellow workers, but rather to
build it from "above" or rather from a meta-level.
That means letting the identity politics run it
scourse and develop micro-sstructural solidarity ties
(i.e. alleginace to narrowly defined identity groups),
because that is inevitable anyway, given the nature of
our society. The trick is to connect the selected
identity groups that have a progressive potnetial into
a nation-wide network that coordinate political
activities of these micro-groups at a "meta" level.
>From that point of view, the narrower the group
identity the better, becaouse it allows a better
selection to the network. Broadly defined identity
groups will make it difficult to keep reactionary or
dysfunctional elements out.
Wojtek
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com