留學(xué)生畢業(yè)dissertation：From Class Consciousness to Culture,

From Class Consciousness to Culture, Action, and Social Organization
Author(s): Rick Fantasia
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 21 (1995), pp. 269-287
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083412
Accessed: 05/07/2010 21:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review ofSociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1995. 21:269-87
Copyright X 1995 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
FROM CLASS
CONSCIOUSNESS TO
CULTURE, ACTION, AND
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Rick Fantasia
Department of Sociology, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts 01063KEY WORDS: research methods, collective action, social stratification, working-classculture, work organization
ABSTRACT
For much of the postwar period in the United States, sociological research onclass consciousness has tended to be limited to and by survey methods, withthe result that class consciousness has been viewed as a static, individuatedphenomenon, abstracted from social action and the context of class practices.However, in recent years a body of work has developed, often based upon theconcept of class formation rather than the ideationally bound concept of classconsciousness, that holds more promise. By drawing upon historical, ethnographic,and participant observation techniques, this work challenges conventionalapproaches and points toward promising new directions for futureresearch. This article reviews recent examples of sociological research that hassought to ground consciousness in cultural practices, in collective action, and
in forms of social organization.The Unconscious Treatment of Class Consciousness
For over three decades following World War II, the study of class consciousnesin American society was constrained by two separate but not unrelatedhistorical developments. The first was a Cold War imperative that renderedmost Marxist-inspired theoretical conceptualization ideologically suspect and#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
therefore unlikely to attract serious sociological treatment, particularly withinthe terms set by Marx's own analysis (Bottomore 1976). The second wasAmerican sociology's shift from its roots in Chicago School social anthropol-FANTASIAogy toward the "Lazarsfeldian"r esearch edifice that had begun to shape thediscipline in profound ways (Boudon 1993).In many respects Richard Centers's classic study (1949) was emblematic of
these dual processes. Initially undertaken as a challenge to the findings of anearlier Fortune magazine survey that had found over 80% of the samplepopulation identifying themselves as "middle class," Centers sought to demonstratethe existence of a significant working class consciousness in theUnited States. Adding the response "working class" to his survey of what wasconsidered a nationally representative sample population (1097 white men),Centers found a sizeable portion (51%) registering under that label, thusoffering empirical support to his euphemistically termed "interest group theoryof social classes." Though some disputed his findings and interpretations(Gross 1953, Case 1955, Gordon 1963, Wilensky 1970), Centers's study served
as a model for understanding the subjective dimensions of social class.The specific methodologies have differed across a range of systematic datacollection techniques, from self-administered questionnaires, to face-to-faceinterviews and telephone surveys, to analyses of election data. In general,
however, quantitative methods that yield large data sets, utilize precisesampling techniques, and provide opportunities for statistical manipulationof the data have been strongly favored in the study of class consciousnessin the United States. Though the amount of research in the United States hasnot been voluminous (Kerbo 1991:346-47, Gilbert & Kahl 1993:233), asubstantial body of research has developed on class identification (Gross1953, Kahl & Davis 1955, Tucker 1966, Hodge & Treiman 1968, Schreiber
& Nygreen 1970, Jackman & Jackman 1983, Davis & Robinson 1988,Simpson et al 1988), on class attitudes (Eysenck 1950, Manis & Meltzer
1954, Leggett 1968, Wright 1985, Kluegel & Smith 1986), and on classpolitical preferences and opinions (Lipset 1960, Hamilton 1972, Szymanski
1978, Weakliem 1993). Some researchers have found indications of one oranother sort of class consciousness employing such methods, others havenot, and still others have found it and denied it. Such differences have tendedto reveal more about the preconceptions of the researchers than they have
about any collective consciousness of class in the society (Marshall 1983:288,Vanneman & Cannon 1987:48).Whether or not Marx's conceptualization is posed as the key theoreticalreference point (as it often is), from a basic sociological standpoint, surveyresearch methodology embodies some questionable assumptions with regardto the study of class consciousness. The most basic criticisms have beenadvanced previously and summarized by Marshall (1983). They are:#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
1. Survey research acquires an individualist bias by treating the responses ofisolated individuals as the primary data source. Though there is an assumpFROM
CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 271tion that individual attitudes can be summed to equal one or another formof collective consciousness, the intersubjective nature of meaning-constructionin a class (or indeed any group) consciousness cannot easily be apprehended.
2. Survey responses tend to be recorded as fixed, static entities, minimizingany denotation of process, change, maturation, or ambivalence in consciousness.Contradictory or seemingly opposed meanings, oscillations,and shifts in interpretation,w hich are often the consequence of intersubjectiveprocesses, are ignored.
3. The exclusive focus on ideation and attitude significantly limits what maybe considered an expression of consciousness. In standard survey research,class consciousness tends to be viewed as a fact that exists (or not) in theminds of subjects.
4. Such research assumes that most of what needs to be known about attitudes,conceptions, or beliefs can be learned by eliciting verbal or written responseso questions.
5. In the social survey, attitudes and ideation are artificially decontextualizedbecause they are abstracted from the class practices and social relations
that give them meaning.Though the implications of basing class consciousness on survey methodsare considerable, they are rarely considered explicitly (Coser 1975, Vanneman& Cannon 1987). However, in one case, a pair of survey researchers decidedto abandon the method when they realized the limitations that it imposed ontheir ability to document the ambivalences and contradictory lines of thoughtamong workers who inhabit a world full of contradictions (Blackburn & Mann1975). More recently, Erik Wright (1985) recognized that there is "no necessaryreason to assume" that the same consciousness that would be apparent ina situation of class conflict would be evident in an interview setting. Heacknowledged that class consciousness is "notoriously hard to measure" andagreed that the problems raised by critics of the survey method are significantand "potentially undermine the value of questionnaire studies of class consciousness"(1985:252-53). Yet despite his reflexivity, Wright proceeded todraw upon survey data about attitudes, offering the unconvincing explanationthat "the cognitive processes of people have some stability across the artificial
setting of an interview and the real life setting of class struggle, and that inspite of the possible distortions of structured interviews, social surveys can
potentially measure these stable elements" (p. 253). But while they may havethat potential, this cannot be known using survey methods because people arenot surveyed across a range of settings (let alone in class struggles), and thisrepresents enough of a problem that the Penguin Dictionary of Sociologydevotes an entire entry (on "Dual Consciousness") to the difficulty of assuming#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
272 FANTASIA
any such stability between the survey situation and other social settings (Abercrombieet al 1988).
留學(xué)生畢業(yè)dissertation網(wǎng)A notable exception to this rule is represented in a recent study of the beliefsof a sample of Canadian postal workers before and after a strike (as well as
their actions during it) whereby the context of the strike reportedly producedan ideological shift (toward solidarism, away from conciliation) that wassustained by only a minority of workers once the collective action had subsided(Langford 1994:126-27). It is generally a worthwhile study, and one whichcan be instructive to the extent that it underscores the disjunction betweencollective action and individual belief intrinsic to most survey research.The theoretical foundations of the concept are at least as problematic as themethodological techniques used to study it. The concept of class consciousnessis generally thought to have originated in the work of Karl Marx, as one ofthe "pivotal" elements of his theory of class and society (Gilbert & Kahl1993:228). But I would suggest that while Marx wrote about the humanconsciousness that "distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees"(quoted in Bottomore & Rubel 1961:102), and while he maintained a formulationabout class relations in which a working class structured "in itself' (ansich) would increasingly become a class "for itself' (ftir sich) (quoted in Tucker1978:218), to my knowledge Marx never employed the term "class consciousness,"and certainly never to designate the ideational standing of a collectionof individual workers, as much of the sociological (including some Marxist)research has sought to do. Even the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs, who isprobably most responsible for circulating the term, through his book Historyand Class Consciousness, expressly rejected reducing class consciousness tothe individual, ideational level: "This analysis establishes right from the startthe distance that separates class consciousness from the empirically given, andfrom the psychologically describable and explicable ideas which men formabout their situation in life," and "...class consciousness is concerned neitherwith the thoughts of individuals, however advanced, nor with the state ofscientific knowledge" (Lukacs, quoted in Bottomore 1973:97-100).
This is mentioned not to quibble or to engage in an arcane exercise in
"marxology," but to suggest that at least a share of the sociological weaponry
(particularly in the United States) used against Marx himself has been based
on a partialb ut significantm isconception,p articularlya s it refers to something
that can be understood with reference to the ideas or beliefs of individual class
members at a single moment in time. Even those with friendly intent who have
sought to refine the concept to bolster Marx's perspective have helped sustain#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
ideation as the crucial ingredient. Thus, Michael Mann's (1973) otherwise
commendable attempt to specify varying levels of consciousness-identifying
oneself as a class member; perceiving opposition with other classes; understanding
class as defining the totality of one's society; and having a vision of
FROM CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 273
an alternative, classless society-may have expanded the range of categories,
http://www.mythingswp7.com/dissertation_writing/but it did little to shift the emphasis away from subjectivity.
Marx himself once attempted a survey research project (Weiss 1973), and
though the negligible rate of return on his survey of 101 questions would have
made it a distinct failure in social scientific terms, its deviation from modem
survey research on class consciousness is instructive. For his "enquete ouvriere"
was not designed to elicit worker attitudes, ideas, self-identification,
political preferences, or "class consciousness" but to collect concrete data on
the material conditions of workers' lives: wages, methods of payment, hours,
safety conditions, etc. Though obviously such a survey would have necessarily
produced subjective accounts about objective conditions, Marx's interest was
primarily didactic. He distributed the survey to French workers' groups, socialist
circles, "and to anyone else who asked for it" (Bottomore & Rubel
1961:210) in order to prompt group discussions about working conditions, as
a way to inspire class action.
To mainstream social science, such an enterprise would appear hopelessly
tainted by the subjectivity of the investigator, but the relationship between
theory and method was not at all incongruent for the philosopher who hoped
to change the world rather than to merely interpret it. Most of what Marx
needed to learn about the militancy and organizational capacities of the French
working class he had learned less than a decade before his survey, largely on
the basis of its mobilization and organization during the Paris Commune, as
well as from the massacre of 60,000 that followed it (Tucker 1978).
Though the consciousness of class members could undoubtedly be fruitfully
studied outside of a Marxist theoretical framework (Goldethorpe & Marshall
1992), in much of the survey research on class consciousness in the United
States there has been a preoccupation with specifically working-class consciousness,
as well as an engagement, however oblique, with Marx's supposed
conception of it. The question has generally been framed by Marx's wellknown
dichotomy, whereby the increasing socialization of production brings
a class into being "as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle.. .this
mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself' (Marx quoted#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
in Tucker 1978:218). But all too often, the expression "for itself' has been
removed from its active, dynamic context, in which the working class is "in
struggle," "becomes united," and "constitutes itself' in active, historical processes
of struggling, uniting, and constituting. Though Marx never provided
a formal definition of class, let alone class consciousness, his writings reveal
an overwhelming theoretical regard for the actions, political mobilizations,
organizational capabilities, and the functional cohesion (or lack of it) of classes
in their relations and interaction with other classes.
Ideas mattered for Marx, but not in isolation from the world of action. In
his formulation "objectivity" and "subjectivity" were conjoined through "con274
FANTASIA
scious human activity," but conventional sociological methods have tended to
abstract ideational and attitudinal responses from the realm of lived, practical
experience. Important attitudinal trends may be captured in this way, but by
trimming Marx's conception to fit a survey design, one is likely to bypass
what may be the most important and interesting dimensions of class relations
and experience. This is as true for those seeking to continue Marx's project
as it is for those intent on burying it.
While randoms amplinga nd the standardizationth ats urvey schedules afford
would seem to offer methodological advantages over less systematic methodological
strategies, Hodson and his colleagues have demonstrated that a large
number of ethnographic accounts can be systematically coded to provide a
comparative database for testing hypotheses across a range of settings (Hodson
et al 1993). But I would suggest that if we are interested in the extent to which
classes act in relation to other classes, as the notion of a class acting "for itself'
implies, then random sampling may actually obstruct one's view rather than
illuminate it. The danger is that the search for a state of representativeness
may overlook the most consequential cases, the principal players, the key
institutions, and the rules, principles, and strategies that make them key. As
Bourdieu has noted, random sampling can "mutilate the very object you have
set out to construct," which is particularly relevant when studying contending
groups and organizations where there may very well be "positions in a field
that admit only one occupantb ut command the whole structure"( Bourdieu &
Wacquant 1992:243).
This problem is illustrated in a recent analysis that draws upon much of the
literature on class consciousness that I am critizing, to reject the very existence
of class in the United States (Kingston 1994). It is a carefully presented analysis
that seeks to assess the empirical support for several class theories, including#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Wright's (1985) map of the class structure and Giddens's (1973) conception
of "structuration."B asing his assessment on a review of the quantitative
literature of "recent, well conducted studies" (p. 16), Kingston finds very little
evidence that "... people with a common economic position-a 'class'-share
distinct life experiences" (p. 6).
Though there is much worth considering in the article, after 30 pages of an
unswerving offensive against the existence of class in the United States, the
reader suddenly discovers the existence of not one, but two classes: "the very
rich (an upper class?)" and "the poor (a lower class?)" (p. 33). In a section
entitled "Neglected Extremes," we are told that the upper class has been
neglected because it is so small and can afford to defend its privacy so that it
doesn't appear in representative samples of the general population, while the
lower class is neglected because the relevant research is based on occupational
categories that tend to exclude the poor, by definition (p. 34). But a good deal
is actually known about the upper class in America, including its historical
FROM CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 275
development as a group, its political mobilization, its social networks and
group solidarity, its cultural practices, its socialization, its economic locations,
its institutional life, and its relations with other social classes. So a class that,
according to many historical and ethnographic accounts, has been viewed as
more or less dominating the major economic, political, and cultural institutions
of the society, and that many would consider central in understanding class
relations in the United States, is "neglected" because it is "extreme" (too rich?
too powerful? too exclusive? too class-like?). By the same measure, a reliance
on standardo ccupationalc ategories means thatt he unemployeda nd marginally
employed, those who would once have been considered classic "proletarians,"
are similarly "neglected." But it wouldn't be necessary to neglect these groups
if one would accept as valid research findings other than those based on
quantitatived atad erivedf rom nationallyr epresentatives amples of individuals.
In fact, several years earlier, a pair of researchersr einterpretedm any of these
same kinds of survey data and voting studies to demonstrate that when those
who have been excluded from traditional samples (nonvoters, African-Americans,
capitalists) are examined, and when comparative, ethnographic, and
historical materials are brought to bear, an entirely different picture of class
consciousness materializes (Vanneman & Cannon 1987).
By dismissing ethnographic and historical data because of its "one-group
focus" or lack of "representativeness,"K ingston (1994:16) and others may#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
foreclose crucial aspects of class relations and experience. When the subjects
of research and the ways of treating those subjects are rendered off-limits by
a methodological technique, this is a theoretical decision, because methodological
strategies are not theoretically neutral. The theoretical roots that lie
beneath the stratificationist conception of class stretch at least as far back as
Tocqueville. His emphasis on individual striving and the obliteration of class
differences between the extremes of very rich and very poor set Tocqueville's
ideas about class and class conflict off as the direct converse of Marx's (Nisbet
1966:183-86).
The disparities between approaches to class consciousness reflect fundamental
differences in the conceptual status of class. The Marxist conception
of class encompasses a historical relationship, not a position in a hierarchy,
and is therefore best understood and studied as contingent, as a process, and
as an interactional phenomenon (Thompson 1968:939, Zeitlin 1980:3, McNall
et al 1991:4). Classes are social configurations structured from without (in
terms of the changing "bases and forms of interclass systems of material and
symbolic relations") and from within ("intraclass relations" or what is often
called "class formation"), but classes are also always partial social configurations
to the extent that they are constantly in a process of organization, disorganization,
and reorganization in relation to their conflicts with other classes
(Wacquant 1991:51).
276 FANTASIA
Class formation has often been framed as a dual historical process comprising
an objective side (in the mechanisms by which people are distributed into
different economic practices) and a subjective side (ideational class consciousness).
It thus tends to replicate, albeit within a historically dynamic process,
a separation between objectivity and subjectivity that corresponds to the stratificationist
approaches discussed earlier (Therborn 1983:39, Katznelson 1986,
McNall et al 1991:7). But the view of class structure as "interclass relations"
and class formation as "intraclass relations" may offer a more useful formulation
(Wacquant 1991). The notion of "intraclass relations" suggests a relaxation
of the subjective/objective dichotomy, thus making conceptual space for
the return of "conscious human activity" in its mediating role between subjectivity
and objectivity, both of which it embodies and produces.
A focus on class formation as intraclass relations would seem to provide an
improved conceptual tool for studying the extent to which a class or class
fraction acts "for itself." It better allows for the consideration of those practices-
cultural practices, collective actions, processes of organizational construction#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
(and destruction)-that have been central to the sustenance (and
weakening) of class cohesion and definition, yet that have been largely ignored
in the study of class consciousness. This does not preclude the consideration
of ideation but requires that it be contextualized within real (and contingent)
historical processes that emerge from the interaction between groups, or
classes, in their relations with one another. In other words, ideas and attitudes
must be examined in the practical, institutional, and historical contexts in which
they are formed, negotiated intersubjectively, and given meaning. Such an
emphasis recommends that we relinquish the concept of class consciousness
as the main focus of inquiry in exchange for what would seem to be an
enhanced ability to comprehend class relations.
Of course, such a project has been under way for some time, and a significant
literature exists, one that could be characterized as being, simultaneously,
theoretically homogeneous and thematically heterogeneous. That is, a somewhat
limited range of questions has been asked of a fairly wide range of
empirical materials. Various "neo-Marxist" frameworks have predominated
(which is not surprising for the study of class relations and class formation),
but a Weberian influence is often present as well. In what follows I review
some recent and promising examples.
Culture In Action
In his classic study, The Making of the English Working Class, EP Thompson
provided a significant critique of both stratification research and Marxist determinism,
by conceptualizing and demonstrating class as an active and relational
historical process and class consciousness as the cultural expression of the
class experience (1968:9-12). Thompson demonstrated analytically the selfFROM
CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 277
activity of the working class in its construction of an independent workingclass
culture as well as the relative autonomy of cultural processes from
material forms. His analysis made working-class culture and consciousness
significant intellectual concerns for a generation of social historians. Thompson
himself thus became the intellectual forebear of the interdisciplinary scholarship
that has become known as "cultural studies" (Kaye 1984, Alexander &
Seidman 1990, Aronowitz 1993).
While the leitmotif of his work was "culture,"i ncluding the study of various
symbolic modes of expression (ritual practices, the evolution of customs, and
the appropriation and alteration of traditional patterns by emergent social
groups), Thompson was never fully at ease with the traditional anthropological
conception of culture, which "... with its cosy invocation of consensus, may
serve to distract attention from social and cultural contradictions, from the
fractures and oppositions within the whole" (Thompson 1991:6). Instead, he#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
viewed cultural expression as socially fragmented along rough class lines,
"rough" both because modern class relations were emergent in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, and because historical contingencies, sectoral and
regional differences, and the relational character of the class experience made
searching for a "pure specimen" futile, no matter how finely meshed one's
"sociological net" (Thompson 1968:9). Thompson's working class culture was
a subculture whose products were often invested with meanings in direct
opposition to the dominant cultural rules.
By conceptualizing class consciousness as cultural expression, Thompson's
work expanded the field of investigation to encompass a much broader set of
practices, representations,a nd constructionst han the survey instrumentc ould
ever have allowed. It inspired a large number of social historical writings on
working-class consciousness and formation as it was expressed and embodied
in the development of leisure activities, family rituals, neighborhoods, social
clubs, mutual aid societies, trade unions, etc (Kaye & McClelland 1990).
A crucial aspect of this "history from the bottom up" was that it placed
human agency at the center of its analysis (Appelbaum 1979, Thompson 1978).
But in more recent scholarship the question has been posed: Just which humans
were the historical agents in the world that Thompson recovered? This work
has tended to challenge the notion that a distinctly "working-class" culture and
consciousness was predominanta, rguingf or a more historicallyl imited "artisanal"
consciousness or a more socially encompassing "populism" (Calhoun
1982, Stedman Jones 1983, McNall 1988, Scott 1988, Joyce 1991, Orr &
McNall 1991). For example, where Thompson argued for the historical maturation
of eighteenth century artisanal radicalism into nineteenth century working-
class consciousness (revealed in the collective cultural responses to class
exploitation), Calhoun (1982) viewed the centrality of the community (rather
than class) as the basis for an eighteenth century artisanal radicalism that was
278 FANTASIA
altogether different from (rather than contiguous with) the working-class reformism
evident in nineteenth century Chartism. Whereas Thompson stressed
the processes by which a shared culture and a way of life were constructed in
response to the exploitive social relations in which people were embedded
(class consciousness as the cultural expression of the "lived experience" of
class), recent "post-structural"h istorical analyses have emphasized the power
of language both to mold workers' consciousness in the direction of various
forms of populism and radicalism in ways largely independent of class and to#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
accent the linguistic and discursive (and gendered) bases of the class experience
(Stedman-Jones 1983, Joyce 1991, Scott 1991).
Though the emphasis on discourse obliges a useful rethinking of class
consciousness and the role of language in shaping meaning construction, there
is a danger in treating language as a "determining" force in order to beat a
hasty retreat from the notion of class as an exploitive relationship (Foster 1985,
Meiksins-Wood 1986). It seems less than useful to reproduce the same restrictive
dependence on attitudes and ideation that has been criticized in survey
research, by treating language as if it were completely disconnected, rather
than as "partially autonomous," from the socially structured processes by
which some groups or classes maintain the capacity to shape dialogue, discourse,
and meaning (Orr & McNall 1991, Steinberg 1993). In responding to
his critics, Thompson has noted the tendency to view people as "captives within
a linguistic prison," thus minimizing the ways in which language is used
creatively across different settings, particularly among subordinate groups
where postures of deference and rebellion may be forced into cohabitation
(Thompson 1991: 0-11).
Moving away from accounts that treat discourse as either disembodied or
determining, Steinberg has placed analytical emphasis on the struggle over
discourse and meaning within the context of specific conflicts (Steinberg 1991,
1993). In this work, which is based on historical analyses of nineteenth century
British weavers and cotton spinners, Steinberg argues that a key element in
contention between groups is conflict over prevailing discourses-conflicts
which, at base, are struggles over meaning and embody the potential for
subversion by subordinate groups. As against the post-structural criticisms
advanced by Stedman Jones, Joyce, Scott, and others, Steinberg argues that
because class consciousness was constructed within and framed by a dominant
bourgeois culture, the analytical focus ought to be on the processes through
which the working classes used, appropriateda, nd placed their own stamp of
meaning on bourgeois discourses, rather than on the words that were employed
(Steinberg 1993:12). The search for a "pure" working-class consciousness is
likely to be fruitless, he advises, for it suggests a dubious homology between
social life and its representation.
Instead of a focus on social actors impelled by discourses and their meanFROM
CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 279
ings, as post-structural accounts would suggest, this view emphasizes the
dynamics of the processes by which social actors struggle through meaning
and language. For Steinberg, these struggles are most perceptible during strikes
and other periods of intergroup conflict when discourses of collective identity#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
and interest tend to be articulated most clearly and are subject to the sharpest
challenges (Steinberg 1993:10).
The consideration of language is also an important element in David Wellman's
recent ethnographic account of the political culture of the contemporary
San Francisco waterfront (Wellman 1995). He has analyzed the discourse of
longshoremen, the practical working language of the docks, through both a
textual examination of the union contract and the struggles over its interpretation,
as well as in an analysis of the day-to-day language that workers create
to make sense of and sustain a measure of control and dignity over their lives
at work (Wellman 1994).
Wellman takes a different tack from the stress on strike activity that punctuates
Steinberg's analysis of language and meaning construction, as well as
from Kimeldorf's (1988) view that the political generation of "34 men,"
veterans of the San Francisco general strike, has had a substantial and enduring
impact on the political culture of the West Coast longshoremen. Instead,
Wellman argues that it has not been primarily strike action or left-wing leadership
that sustained the radical trade unionism of the International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemans' Union (ILWU). Rather, his study demonstrates
that the basic practices of everyday contract unionism have served as
a foundation for a militant working-class culture among union members. Wellman's
work ought to prompt some rethinking of both the nature of militancy
and the nature of everyday unionism.
Generally, a focus on "action" as an expression of "consciousness" and class
mobilization has figured prominently in historical and ethnographic accounts.
Though the term "action" could represent virtually all social activity, the two
kinds of social action most relevant to the problem of class formation have
tended to be (a) "strategic encounters" between classes, or strategic industrial
conflicts or collective actions that occur outside of the normal round of everyday
life; and (b) processes of "organizational mobilization (and demobilization)."
The first would include those strategic encounters that have had a
national impact on class relations, like the British miners' strike of 1984-1985,
or the strike and subsequent firing of 12,000 air traffic controllers in the United
States in 1981 (Beynon 1985, Shostak & Skocik 1986), and would also include
sociological analyses of local and regional conflicts that illustrate the dynamics
of class formation at a more micro level (Fantasia 1988, Delgado 1993, Dudley
1994).
The concept of "cultures of solidarity" was specifically employed to avoid
the ideationally bound concept of "class consciousness," in an analysis that
280 FANTASIA#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
focused on the ways in which emergent cultural formations were constructed
intersubjectivelya nd in relationt o opposition,d uringa cute industrialc onflicts
(Fantasia 1988). Expressed in emergent values, behaviors, and organizational
forms, these "cultures of solidarity" indicated that collective "consciousness"
may be bound fairly tightly to the strategic encounter that has given rise to it,
and thus such cultural processes can be seen as relatively independent of the
previously existing ideas and beliefs of individualp articipants.T his analysis
was based on the notion that group beliefs are more fluid in situations of
conflict, than during settled periods. The main unit of analysis was not the
beliefs of individuals, but the collective action and mobilization of both sides
within a strategic encounter.
As Delgado's study of union organizing among undocumented immigrant
workers in Los Angeles shows, while workers in such strategic encounters
often draw upon the resources of existing organizations, like established
unions, their emergent and grass-roots democratic character, and their ability
to mobilize other social assets (ethnicity, residential community, social movements,
etc), suggest that "cultures of solidarity" are not reducible to institutionalized
forms of unionism (Delgado 1993).
The collective actions manifested within such strategic encounters have
often been closely tied to processes of organizational mobilization and demobilization;
this has been particularly true in recent years as employers have
openly mobilized to break unions, which in the United States have traditionally
represented the clearest embodiment of working-class organization (Cornfield
1986, Goldfield 1987, Fantasia 1993). Additionally, the processes of organizational
restructuringm ight be viewed as examples of strategic encounters
capable of engendering fervent class sentiments. In her recent study of the
closing of an auto plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kathryn Marie Dudley found
that the workers' "cultural solidarity" wasn't created anew by the social crisis
of the plant closing; she found that class solidarity had been largely sustained
by the conditions of work. Instead, the crisis exposed existing underlying
differences in cultural interpretationr esulting from differences between the
ways in which the town's working-class families and middle-class professionals
constructed meaning (Dudley 1994). Similarly, in her earlier study of
downward mobility, Newman found strong class differences in the interpretation
of job loss and economic dislocation (Newman 1988). Studies of management
innovations within the workplace have sometimes been framed to
suggest their relationship to class mobilization and demobilization (Cornfield
1987, Fantasia et al 1988, Grenier 1988). Moreover, recent studies of urban#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
poverty and industrial dislocation indicate patterns of labor market cleavage,
residential segregation, racial exclusion, and other forms of social closure that
have important implications for intraclass relations (Wilson 1987, Kasarda
1989, Wacquant & Wilson 1984).
FROM CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 281
In studieso f class formation,o rganizationaml obilizationa ndd emobilization
indicate the degree to which classes and fractions of classes have acted on the
basis of their perceived interests; and historical and comparative analyses are
notable here (Katznelson & Zolberg 1986). Much of this work demonstrates
the complexities and contradictionsi nherenti n intraclassr elations, as in analyses
of late nineteenth century fraternal orders, which sometimes embodied
an uncertain or shifting social constitution (M Clawson 1989, Orr & McNall
1991). Similar complexities are suggested by the divergent political trajectories
of different unions, even within the same industry, as in the comparative studies
of the left-wing West Coast longshoremen's union and the racketeer-led East
Coast union, or of the radical Western Federation of Miners and the reformist
United Mine Workers of America (Kimeldorf 1988, Reitman 1991).
The rise of "new social movements" would seem to represent particularly
fertile ground for research on the mobilization of class organizations. Such
movements tend to eschew class theories, while being largely composed of
middle-class activists and informed by middle-class cultural sensibilities
(Klandermans& Oegema 1987, Melucci 1989). By consideringp articipation,
mobilization strategies, ideological frameworks, coalition-building, and institutional
resources from the perspective of their class bases, our understanding
of the middle class might be greatly increased.
As I have suggested earlier, a good deal is already known about the upper
class from research that has focused on the role of cultural practices, social
networks, and institutions in the mobilization of political and economic resources.
Some of the more recent examples of this work continue to be
extremelyv aluable for an understandingo f class relationsi n the United States
(Cookson & Persell 1985, Domhoff & Dye 1987, Domhoff 1990, Roy 1991,
Clawson et al 1992).
Just as important as comprehending cultural practices and collective action
in the process of class formation are the ways in which various forms of social
organization provide the context for shared meanings and beliefs. Here too,
ethnographica nd historicala pproachesp redominatea nd culturei s often a key
focus, but the main analytical object has been to locate the roots of a shared
consciousness within a particular social matrix.
The Social Organization of Culture and Consciousness
In the United Kingdom the question of the relationship between class and#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
community has been the source of a good deal of research, partly spurred by
David Lockwood's seminal article on the "sources of variation in working
class images of society" (Lockwood 1966). In it he argued that the class
consciousness of particular social classes cannot be imputed, in any simple
way, from their relations to the means of production, because of the extent of
ideological variation within social classes (Lockwood 1966). He sought the
282 FANTASIA
sources of this variation in "the immediate social experience" of workers, by
which he meant the patterns of work and community relationships that serve
to structure particular forms of consciousness (Lockwood 1966).
In the United States work by Katznelson (1981) and Halle (1984) provided
a good sense of direction for understanding the social organizational bases of
working-class culture and consciousness. Independently, they located important
differences in the shared meanings constructed in the workplace and in
the residential community, a function of the historic division between work
and home (for Katznelson), and of the mix of income level, home ownership,
and occupational heterogeneity (for Halle).
Equally valuable was Susan Ostrander's study of the ways in which shared
meanings are constructed by upper-class women in relation to the practices
and expections of upper-class family and community life (Ostrander 1980,
1984). She examined the relationship between their class activities and position
in the community, where they are dominant, and their subordinate role within
the family, illustrating why the former tends to define their consciousness and
shape their conduct more than the latter. Other studies of gendered labor
markets suggest that outside of the upper class there may be a more complicated
relationship between class and gender consciousness (see Milkman 1987,
Acker 1989, Yarrow 1991). When working class subcultures are divided by
both racial and gender divisions, the possibilities for construction of shared
meaning are rendered more complicated still, as Jay MacLeod's ethnography
of black and white adolescent males in a low-income housing project indicates
(MacLeod 1987). His study vividly described the diverging cultural responses
toward the future within a shared context of poverty and social fragmentation.
In a very different approach, Michael Burawoy's comparative workplace
ethnographies have been exemplars of a social-organizational conception of
consciousness, but he argues against the view that working-class consciousness
is produced anywhere but inside the factory gates (Burawoy & Lukacs 1992:4).
Like Lockwood, Burawoy views consciousness not as a simple matter of
workers' relations to the means of production; unlike Lockwood, he has focused
on workers' experiences within production and on the ways that political#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
and ideological "regimes" of production have developed to mediate between
the imperatives of production relations and class consciousness.
Burawoy's formulation has developed over the course of several works. The
first was a participant-observationst udy in a Chicago machine shop, in which
Burawoy showed how the games that workers played to lessen their boredom
paradoxically served to "manufacture consent" with capitalist goals, while
obscuring the exploitive nature of social relations in the workplace (Burawoy
1979). When worker grievances emerged, the plant's "internal state" channeled
and individualized them, instead of producing a collective response or a collective
consciousness. Though the analysis may have overlooked ways in
FROM CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 283
which shop floor "regimes" generate conflict as well as consent, it made an
important and provocative contribution to the study of class formation by
problematizing the lack of class consciousness in factory production and by
offering an argument for the independent importance of factory "regimes"
(Clawson & Fantasia 1983). Burawoy's conception of "production regimes"
as consciousness-structuringm echanisms was furthers harpenedb y the use of
cross-national and historical comparisons, in which he stressed the role of the
state in creating the conditions for the specific forms taken by production
regimes at the local level (Burawoy 1985).
The latest work, written with a Hungarian collaborator, Janos Lukacs, is
based on his participant observation in Hungarian workplaces, affording an
opportunity to compare the relationship between ideology and the politics of
production in the East and the West (Burawoy & Lukacs 1992). Comparing
work experiences in Hungarian machine shops with those in the Chicago
factory, Burawoy & Lukacs demonstrated the paradoxical "efficiency" of
socialist production and "inefficiency" of capitalist production, while drawing
upon experience in Hungarian steel plants to make an important argument
about working-class consciousness. They found that while ideology played
only a secondary role in justifying the appropriationo f surplus productioni n
a capitalist society, in state socialism appropriationb y the state had constantly
to be justified as an expression of collective interests through various ritual
mobilizations. Consequently, "Everyone is called on to 'paint socialism' as
the radiant future at the same time that everyone knows that the everyday
'reality' is anything but radiant" (Burawoy & Lukacs 1992:20-21). Ironically
then, the socialist system of production tended to give rise to a working-class
ideological critique for which the view was much less obscured than in the
capitalist system of the United States. Through his comparative approach to#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
production regimes, Burawoy has grounded class consciousness in the organization
and regulation of work, in the "lived experience in production" (Burawoy
& Lukacs 1992:113).
In a theoretical analysis that links organizational and cultural factors, Stinchcombe
has drawn from EP Thompson's account of working-class consciousness
to highlight the structural factors at work within Thompson's cultural
analysis, and then to suggest the possible interplay of culture and work organization
within contemporary service industries (Stinchcombe 1990). He emphasizes
that in the universality of labor markets (large groups of people with
identical labor contracts) and the uniformity of political rights (citizenship
status), along with urbanization,i ndustrializationp roduced the conditions for
working-class consciousness. Culture matters, for Stinchcombe, because it is
through culture that the meaning of organizational structures comes to be
defined and, particularly in the case of many service industries, that workers
sell cultural symbols of upper-class status. From this perspective, certain
284 FANTASIA
groups of workers will be less class conscious than others largely because they
do not work in large groups with categorical labor contracts, they have regular
contact with upper-class clients, and they are attached to upper-class cultural
symbols. Thus, for Stinchcombe, "while we will not expect, say, stewardesses
or pilots to be as militant as mineworkers, we will expect them to be a good
deal more class conscious than workers in retail jewelry" (p. 309).
Stinchcombe's is a provocative formulation of the way in which social
organization generates and structures consciousness. It contains a number of
possibilities for interesting research, including his ideas about the place of
status symbols in the collective consciousness of service workers. In addition
he suggests that service workers will veer to the left (in political terms) if their
work situation gives them more contact with working-class clients, while those
whose contact is with an upper-class clientele may veer to the right.
This paper has reviewed only a portion of the relevant and recent literature
on class culture, action, and social organization. A wider and deeper synthesis
would surely be required to address the many theoretical and empirical gaps
in our understanding of class consciousness and class formation in the United
States. But with stratificationismn o longer enjoying a monopoly, the scope of
investigation has broadened, moving us toward a conceptualization that is
collective, rather than individual, that is dynamic rather than static, and that
treats class ideation in its natural (and historical) habitat of cultural practices,
collective action, and social organization.
Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.
1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: [email protected]
Literature Cited
Abercrombie N, Hill S, Turner BS. 1988. The
Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. London:
Penguin
Acker J. 1989. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender,
Class and Pay Equity. Philadelphia:
Temple Univ. Press
Alexander JC, Seidman S, eds. 1990. Culture
and Society: Contemporary Debates, ed. JC
Alexander, S Seidman. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Appelbaum R. 1979. Born-again functionalism?
A reconsideration of Althusser's structuralism.
Insurgent Sociologist 9:18-33
Aronowitz S. 1993. Roll Over Beethoven: The
Return of Cultural Strife. Hanover:
Wesleyan Univ. Press/Univ. Press New
Engl.
Beynon H, ed. 1985. Digging Deeper. London:
Verso
Blackburn RM, Mann M. 1975. Ideology in the
non-skilled working class. See Bulmer 1975,
pp. 131-60
Bottomore TB, ed. 1973. Karl Marx. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bottomore TB. 1976. Sociology As Social Criticism.
New York: Wm. Morrow
Bottomore TB, Rubel M, eds. 1961. Karl Marx.
London: CA Watts
Boudon R. 1993. Paul F. Lazarsfeld: On Social
Research And Its Language. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD. 1992. An Invitation
to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Bulmer M, ed. 1975. Working-Class Images of
Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Burawoy M. 1979. Manufacturing Consent:
Changes in the Labor Process Under MoFROM
CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 285
nopoly Capitalism. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Burawoy M. 1985. The Politics of Production.
New York: Verso
Burawoy M, Lukacs J. 1992. The Radiant Past:
Ideology and Reality in Hungary's Road to
Capitalism. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Calhoun C. 1982. The Question of Class Struggle.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Case HM. 1955. Marxist implications of Centers'
interest group theory: a critical appraisal.
Soc. Forces 33:254-58
Centers R. 1949. The Psychology of Social
Classes: A Study of Class Consciousness.
Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
Clawson D, Fantasia R. 1983. Beyond
Burawoy: the dialectics of conflict and consent
on the shop floor. Theory & Soc. 12:
671-80
Clawson D, Neustadtl A, Scott D. 1992. Money
Talks: Corporate PACs and Political Influence.
New York: Basic
Clawson M. 1989. Constructing Brotherhood:
Class, Gender, and Fraternalism. Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Press
Cookson PW, Persell CH. 1985. Preparing for
Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools.
New York: Basic
Cornfield DB. 1986. Declining union membership
in the post-World War II era: the United
Furniture Workers of America, 1939-1982.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Am. J. Sociol. 91:1112-53
CornfieldD B. 1987. Labor-managemenct ooperation
or managerial control: emerging patterns
of labor relations in the U.S. In
Workers, Managers, and Technological
Change, ed. DB Cornfield, pp. 331-53. New
York: Plenum
Coser LA. 1975. Two methods in search of a
substance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 40:691-700
Davis N, Robinson R. 1988. Class identification
of men and women in the 1970s and
1980s. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53:103-12
Delgado HL. 1993. New Immigrants, Old
Unions: Organizing Undocumented Workers
in Los Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple Univ.
Press
Domhoff GW. 1990. The Power Elite and the
State. New York: Aldine De Gruyter
Domhoff GW, Dye TR, eds. 1987. PowerElites
and Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Dudley KM. 1994. The End of the Line: Lost
Jobs, New Lives in Postindustrial America.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Eysenck HJ. 1950. Social attitude and social
class. Br. J. Sociol. 1:56-66
Fantasia R. 1988. Cultures of Solidarity: Consciousness,
Action, and C'ontemporary
American Workers. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Fantasia R. 1993. The assault on American
labor. In Social Problems, ed. C Calhoun, G
Ritzer, pp. 663-79. New York: McGraw-Hill
Fantasia R, Clawson D, Graham G. 1988. A
critical view of worker participation in
American industry. Work Occup. 15:468-88
Foster J. 1985. The declassing of language.
New Left Rev. 150:29-45
Giddens A. 1973. The Class Structure of the
Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson
Gilbert D, Kahl JA. 1993. The American Class
Structure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 4th ed.
Goldfield M. 1987. The Decline of Organized
Labor in the United States. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Goldthorpe JH, Marshall G. 1992. The promising
future of class analysis: a response to
recent critiques. Sociology 26:381-400
Gordon M. 1963. Social Class in American Sociology.
New York: McGraw-Hill
Grenier G. 1988. Inhumane Relations: Quality
Circles and Anti-Unionism in American Industry.
Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
Gross N. 1953. Social class of identification in
the urban community. Am. Sociol. Rev. 18:
398-404
Halle D. 1984. America's Working Man: Work,
Home and Politics among Blue-Collar Property
Owners. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Hamilton R. 1972. Class and Politics in the
United States. New York: Wiley
Hodge RW, Treiman D. 1968. Class identification
in the U.S. Am. J. Sociol. 73:535-47
Hodson R, Creighton S, Jamison CS, Rieble, S,
Welsh S. 1993. Is worker solidarity undermined
by autonomy and participation? Patterns
from the ethnographic literature. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 58:398-416
Jackman MR, Jackman RW. 1983. Class
Awareness in the United States. Berkeley:#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Univ. Calif. Press
Joyce P. 1991. Visions of the People: Industrial
England and the Queston of Class, 1840-
1914. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Kahl JA, Davis JA. 1955. A comparison of
indexes of socioeconomic status. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 20:317-25
Kasarda JD. 1989. Urban industrial transition
and the underclass. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit.
Soc. Sci. 501:26-47
Katznelson I. 1981. City Trenches: Urban
Planning and the Patterning of Class in the
United States. New York: Pantheon
Katznelson I. 1986. Working-class formation:
constructing cases and comparisons. See
Katznelson & Zolberg, pp. 3-44
Katznelson I, Zolberg I, eds. 1986. Working-
Class Formation. Princeton: Princeton Univ.
Press
Kaye HJ. 1984. The British Marxist Historians.
Oxford: Polity
Kaye HJ, McClelland K, eds. 1990. EP Thompson:
Critical Perspectives. Philadelphia:
Temple Univ. Press
Kerbo HR. 1991. Social Stratification and Inequality.
New York: McGraw-Hill. 2nd ed.
286 FANTASIA
Kimeldorf H. 1988. Reds or Rackets? The
Making of Radical and Conservative
Unions on the Waterfront. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Kingston PW. 1994. Are there classes in the
United States? Res. Soc. Strat. Mobility 13:
3-41
Klandermans B, Oegema D. 1987. Potentials,
networks,m otivations,a nd barriers:s teps towards
participation in social movements.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 52:519-31
Kluegel JR, Smith ER. 1986. Beliefs About Inequality.
Now York: Aldine De Gruyter
Langford T. 1994. Strikes and class consciousness.
Labour/Le Trevail 33:107-37
Leggett JC. 1968. Class, Race and Labor:
Working-Class Consciousness in -Detroit.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Lipset SM. 1960. Political Man. New York:
Doubleday
Lockwood D. 1966. Sources of variation in
working-class images of society. Sociol. Rev.
14:249-67
Lukacs G. 1973. Class consciousness. See
Bottomore 1973, pp. 92-101
MacLeod J. 1987. Ain't No Makin' It: Leveled
Aspirations in a Low-Income Neighborhood.
Boulder, CO: Westview
Manis JG, Meltzer BN. 1954. Attitudes of textile
workers to class structureA. m. J. Sociol.
60:30-35
Mann M. 1973. Consciousness and Action
Among the Western Working Class. London:
Macmillan
Marshall G. 1983. Some remarks on the study
of working-class consciousness. Polit. Soc.
12:263-301
McNall SG. 1988. The Road to Rebellion:
Class Formation and Kansas Populism,
1865-1900. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
McNall SG, Levine RF, Fantasia R, eds. 1991.
Bringing Class Back In: Contemporary and
Historical Perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview
Meiksins-Wood E. 1986. The Retreat from
Class. New York: Verso
Melucci A. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Movements and Individual Needs in
Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple
Univ. Press
Milkman R. 1987. Gender at Work: The Dynamics
of Job Segregation by Sex during
World War 11. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
Newman K. 1988. Falling From Grace: The
Experience of Downward Mobility in the
American Middle Class. New York: Free
Nisbet RA. 1966. The Sociological Tradition.
New York: Basic Books
Orr JR, McNall SG. 1991. See McNall et al
1991, pp. 101-17
Ostrander SA. 1980. Class consciousness as
conduct and meaning: the case of upper class
women. Insurgent Sociologist 9:38-50
Ostrander SA. 1984. Women of the Upper
Class. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
Reitman S. 1991. The politics of the Western
Federation of Miners and the United Mine
Workers. See McNall et al 1991, pp. 203-22
Roy D. 1991. The organization of the corporate
class segment of the US capitalist class at the
turn of this century. See McNall et al 1991,
pp. 139-63
Schreiber EM, Nygree GT. 1970. Subjective
social class in America. Soc. Forces 45:348-
56
Scott JW. 1988. Gender and the Politics of
History. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Scott JW. 1991. The evidence of experience.
Crit. Inquiry 17:773-97
Shostak AB, Skocik D. 1986. The Air Traffic
Controller's Controversy: Lessons From The
PATCO Strike. New York: Human Sci.
Simpson I, Stark D, Jackson R. 1988. Class
identification processes of married, working
men and women. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53:284-
93
Stedman Jones G. 1983. Languages of Class:
Studies in English Working-Class History
1832-1982. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Steinberg M. 1991. Talkin' class: discourse,
ideology, and their roles in class conflict. See
McNall et al 1991, pp. 261-84
Steinberg M. 1993. "The labour of the country
is the wealth of the country... ": class identity,
consciousness and the role of discourse
in the making of the English working class.
Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Sci. Hist.
Assoc., Baltimore
Stinchcombe AL. 1990. Information and Organizations.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Szymanski A. 1978. The Capitalist State and
the Politics of Class. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop
Therborn G. 1983. Why some classes are more
successful than others. New Left Rev.
138:37-55
Thompson EP. 1968. The Making of the English
Working Class. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin
Thompson EP. 1978. The Poverty of Theory
and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Rev.
Thompson EP. 1991. Customs In Common:
Studies in Traditional Popular Culture. New
York: New Press
Tucker CW. 1966. On working class identification.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 31:855-65
Tucker RC, ed. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
New York: WW Norton. 2nd ed.
Vanneman R, Cannon LW. 1987. The American
Perception of Class. Philadelphia: Temple
Univ. Press
Wacquant LJD. 1991. Making class: the middle
class(es) in social theory and social structure.
See McNall 1991, pp. 39-64
Wacquant LJD, Wilson WJ. 1989. The cost of
FROM CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 287
racial and class exclusion in the inner city.
Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 501:8-25
Weakliem D. 1993. Class consciousness and
political change: voting and political attitudes
in the British working class, 1964 to
1970. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:382-97
Wellman D. 1995. The Union Makes Us
Strong: Radical Unionism on the San Francisco
Waterfront. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Wiess H. 1973. Karl Marx's "enquete ouvriere".
In Karl Marx, ed. TB Bottomore, 12:
172-84
Wilensky H. 1970. Class consciousness and
American workers. In American Society,
Inc., ed. M Zeitlin, pp. 423-37. Chicago:
Markham
Wilson WJ. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged:
The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public
Policy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Wright EO. 1985. Classes. London: Verso
http://www.mythingswp7.com/dissertation_writing/Yarrow M. 1991. The gender-specific class
consciousness of Appalachian coal miners.
See McNall 1991, pp. 285-310
Zeitlin M. 1980. On classes, class conflict, and
the state: an introductory note, In Classes,
Class Conflict, and the State, ed. M. Zeitlin,
pp. 1-37. Cambridge: Winthrop