Social Class. Yes, No, and Maybe

November 25th, 2007 Posted in Social Invention, Social Class

We approach social class from the theory side. Concepts along with their formulators and advocates are active parts of the reality they attend. It is called praxis, making the word real. Sometimes the new idea is accepted; sometimes an older reality is sustained. Some concepts may not succeed but every idea advanced, no matter how outlandish, is in play. Any line between description and proscription for social life is exceedingly fuzzy if it exists at all.

So the two archaic theories of capitalism and socialism are part of the struggle over the nature and content of social class in our era of industrial production. Throughout the long running Cold War each side strove to establish and maximize its governing vision. They used legislation, propaganda, education, police or military action, and so on. The socialists went for inculcating working class identity and solidarity even among people who were not industrial workers. Capitalists encouraged freedom, enterprise and mobility ambition even among distressed groupings not prepared for industrial discipline.

This is an unusual formulation even though it is widely accepted that social order flows from some combination of social consensus and imposed law and order.

If this is a new idea that you are catching for the first time you might feel slightly dizzy. That’s OK, it will pass quickly. But this vision can itself become a social fact. My saying it puts it into play. If enough of us accept it we will have a new kind of consensus, and in some part, a new social order. We (all of us) no matter how modest or wrong headed are not above the fray.

But how about the possibility of objective description? Are we giving this up? We do not usually open the door in the morning and walk into a new social world. We expect a continuity, a stability. We make appointments. We have schedules.

There are three forms of social reality.

(1) The forms and processes made by man himself through cultural definition and consensus. What is at one moment can be changed by a shared change in consciousness. For example design changes in clothes. These are usually suggested by fashion designers supported by propaganda and advertising and either accepted or rejected by us as consumers. The fashion of the day is man made by being both conceptualized and manufactured.

(2) Other events and processes imposed on man are separate from his consciousness. Man’s sharing belief with others does not bring this kind of fact on or cause it to cease. My favorite example is rain. It does not correlate with our wishes though sometimes we try to control it by ritual and magic. We can respond with shelters and umbrellas and gain some protection but its coming and going is not for us to say.

(3) Sometimes a social form and process is constructed by one segment of society and imposed on another. The consensus of the legislature or the wish of the dictator can make the law that feels ecological (outside his conscious control) to the victim or subject. Once a social class front like the workers versus the bourgeoisie has been established it can have this ecological quality upon those who experience it. It is under the conscious control of a segment of my society but is alien to me and my group. It comes at me like an ecological fact.

We can approximate an objective description of the social ordering of the economic life of a particular society by noting the situations (either established or in active contention) within these three levels of fact.

This is not an easy task but I will begin to sketch in what I see as the current social class situation (or the social organization of economic life) in the U.S.A. in upcoming posts. Only a sketch mind you. Do not expect the holy grail, the final word.