Strategies of Social Closure in Class Formation

8/13/2019 Strategies of Social Closure in Class Formation

1/12

EXPLORATJ.0NS IN S O C I O L O G ~- A series under the auspIces ofThe British Sociological AssQs:iation

I Race and.Racialism< e d i t ~ d bySami iUbaidaII Knowledge Education and Cultural Change

edited by Richard BrownIII Deviance and Social Control

edited by PaulRock and Mary McIntoshIV Sociology and Development

edited by Emanuel de adt and Ga n Williams

/, ,

IIfjJ

.. '\...

r

The SO ciill A.na/Ysis o-Class I Siruciurell .' ,

I II -edited hY . ;:.l ' . t. ....FRANK PARKIN

\ .r I , .

I 1 1 . r( .

TAVISTOCK .PUBLicATIONS


2/12


3/12

r

\

/

,,1'

IIt FRANK: PARKINStrategies ~ f Social (;(osufe,

n ' C l a ~ Form:ationAlthough soCial relatit>IlS' -hoth -tvithin 'and between classes or'stratllcould be said to form part of a unitary stratification scheme they areC'onventionally treated as' entirely diiferent'plIerlomenal or the roostpart, inter-class' relations 'lU'e,viewed an expression of certain' genericfeatUres of he soCial systetp.;whetherconceived olin ternts of propertyrights, authoritY relationS, 'br'tIte division of labour. Typically, classesare t ' e p r e l ; e n t e d ' a s ' p ~ d ~ logicallY'exhaustive categories - propertiedantlpfupertyless, superordinate and .subordinate, manual and non::'manual - dichotonties' tlttlt' seek" to r e v e a 1 the fuudameJttal l i n e .ofcleavage or'llttuctural f a u l t ~ i n 'the s'tratification order:

Divisions withirt classes 011 the other han d are not normally coristruedin terms of limilar systentic priticiples; an ulea st orall are such divi rionsrepresented s an extension of'the.same p r i n c i p l ~ s that goverlTinterclass relations. the intrlr;..class distinctions commoiUy.emplbyed appea:cto take shape under the imprint" of Purely. national' condit ions and laCKthose u n i v ~ r s a l properties that chtu-acterize tHe relationship betweenclass 1md class. Thus, in the socialogy of he working class the term.iD.ology of affluenf and ttaditional; 'new and"old,'1rough,itnd respectable;S'ecular and. deferential, ahd So fortli, set op- CliAtin'ctioDs that appear toderive more from the British version of inodem tkpitalism than fromits 'univ rsal, syStematic features. 1 This eapitalisII1:...in-one-cot'lntryapproach Serves' pernaps 'as a' more acceptable framework for theattalysis 'Of it1ternal' class 'relations th an bf he relations between classebecause of he striking ct>ntrast n what" is' aKen: t ~ ; b e sotiofogicallyproblematic in the two cases. Inter-class relatioUS' are conceived of asinherently antagonistic, a condition only to be c o m p ~ h e n d e d , t iroilgh:the idiom of dichotomy and' conflict. 'Aeth-e mtra. class level, however,the elnphasis upon 'Competitive struggle gitres Wa j to a rather blanderconcern with the niceties of social '


4/12

rankParkinlife-style and social consciousness or (among the middle class) variationsin the social composition and recruitment of elites. Sociological ingenuity is directed to mapping out the social contours of a territory inwhich a truce has been. declared-in the omnium bellum contra omnes.Social differentiation within a given class, moreover, is analysed byreference to. conceptual categories that generally. do n?t correspond toexistentially based"groups with the capacity for mobilization; even lesscould they be said to constitute social collectivities in mutal o m p e ~ t i o nfor scarce resources. It is this q lntrast between the use of e#stentially

g r ~ u n d e d social categories and purely formal or analytic categories thatdemonstrates the extent to which inter-class and intra-class relationsare regarded as distinct phenomena requiring different c9nceptualtreatment.

The emphatic shift from conflict to social differentiation as the guidingprinciple of intra-class analysjs is largely attributable to the powerfulassumption t hat social' action cannot be explained in terms of itsconflictual' elements unless it is set within a framework of dichotomy.Where class is defined by reference to dual, logically exhaustivecategories it follows that such antagonisms as occur within any givencategory cannot properly be understood as manifestations of classconflict in the accredited sense. A further difficulty stemming from thedefinition of class as a procrustean dualism is encountered in theanalysis of the crucial middle levels of the stratification system. Theassignment of social groups to one of two inclusive categories is highlyproductive of anomalies in the shape of hose groups whose acticms andbeliefs depart from the standards identified as typical for the class as awhole. Thus, within the manual/non-manual definition of class t h ~inclusion of lower ~ h i t e - c o l l a r groups within the ranks of the professional middle class is nbt easily reconciled with those political andeconomic activities t hat 'lend credence to the thesis of ,white-collarproletarlltnization. This problem is of course even more acute for t h ~Marxist classificatory scheme in which the salaried bourgeoisie islocated. on the p r o p e r t y l e ~ s side of the capill.. ..labour divide. Suchanomalies necessarily arise from the use of- a definitional frameworkin which the complexities of clasS" are squeezed into a simple zero-suml,llodel' on the grounds that only. this type of scheme is capable. ,ofcapturing the conflictual essence of class. rOne final difficulty willi current.usages is that the vocabulary of classdoes not ~ d i l y lend itself to the analysis of stratification and c l e a v a g ~associated with membership irr,racial, ethnic, religious, and linguisticcommunities. Communal divisions are normally seen as an outgrowth;

I ij IJ

,I

Strategies o Social Closure in Class Formationof cultural diversity in which antagonisms between those of differentcolour1 faith, or language are treated 'as the. produc t of historicallyspeCific factors and not as'inherent attributes of the social system.2 Thecommon properties of hese diverse cleavages are not accorded the sametheoretical weighting as the common properties of class; indeed,because class is characteristically held to be a systemic and u n i v e r s ~feature of industrial society, and hence irreducible to specific culturalattributes, the temptation has been to treat communal antagonisms as'll-distorted version of class conflict or as residual, anachronistic.featuresof an otherwise modern society.3Alternatively, the acceptance of communal antagonisms as having areality sui generis is generally accompanied by a theoretical recommendation to treat ascriptively based cleavages as fup.damentally.different innature froJll the cleavages of class, such that the two phenomena..needto be understood through the use of i s ~ n c t sociological vocabularies. 4The appeal of such a position could hardly fail to feel upon the inadequacies of current definitions and usages of class, given tha t communalconflictis not easily aligned with the.prevalent treatment of intra-classrelations as mere social differentiation.In brief then, it may be suggested that the conceptualization of l ~ sin .tenl}s of dual, logically exhaustive categories (whatever particularform this classification takes) raises certain: difficulties in the analysis ofintermediate levels of the-stratification system as well of intra-claSsrelations, particularly those of a communal nature. An alterru\tiveapproach to class,analysis which preserves the tradi tional and necessaryfocus on dichotomy without its constrictive zero-sum accomPaWments,is contained in embryo form at l ~ s t in Weber's' concept of socialclosure.

y social closure Weber means the process by which soCial collectivitiesseek to maximize r.ewards by restricting access to rewards and oplicinuiiities to a l imited circle of eligibles. This emaTIs the smglirig out of~ i d ~ ~ ~ c i l or physical attributes as the iustificatory baSIS

_ 0 l f ~ i c l . i i S f o n . 'WebeL suggests that virtually any group a t t r i b u t ~ - race,language, social origin, descent - may be seized upon provided it cab beused for the monopolization of specific, usually economic opportunties'W e b ~ 1968: 342). :This 'monopolization is 'directed against om Ipetitors who share some positive or negative cllarilt,w'S1k'4 t . . p 1 l I l l Q S ~

Tsiilways the c 1 o s u r ~ _ of social and economic 0 ortunities to outsiders(WebeJ: 1968). Social closure can be effected by groups located.at anylevel in the stratification order, although the criteria adopted for


5/12

4 Frank Parkinexclusion purposes by any given group are likely to depend upon itsgeneral location in the distributive system.Surprisingly, Weber's elaboration of the closure theme is not linkedin any immediate way with his ot her main contributions to stratificationtheory despite the fact that techniques of inclusion and exclusion cimproperly be conceived of as an aspect of the distribution of power,which for Weber is practically synonymous with stratification. As a

.result the usefulness of the concept for the study of class becomesconditiori.al upon the acceptance of certain refinements and enlargements upon the original usage. An initial step in this direction is toextl nd the notion of closure to encompass 'other forms of competitivesocial action designed to maximize collective cl ims to rewards andopportunities. Strategies for laying claim to resources would thusinclude not only practices of social exclusion but also those adopted bythe excluded themselves as a.direct response to their status as outsiders.It is in any case hardly.plausible to consider the effectiveness of exclu-

'sion practices without due reference to the coUntervailing actions ofsocially defined ineligibles. As Weber points out,_ 'such group actionmay provoke a corresponding reaction on the part of hose against whomit is directed (Weber. 1968). In other words, collective efforts to resist apattern of dominance governed by exclusi9n principles can properlybe regarded as the other half of the social closure equation. This usage'is in fact employed by Weber in his discussions of.'community closure''which, as Neuwirth; (1969) has shown, bears directly upon those forms,of collective action nioun ted by the excluded - i.e. 'negatively privilegedstatus groups'. The se briefremarkswill have to suffice as ritual clearancefor tainpering with the original usage however unsatisfactory they arebound to seem to those who equate theoretical practice with textualexegesis.

The suggestion offered above to the effect that social closure refersto two distinct,' reciprocal types of action can now be restated moreformally as. a distiliction between two generlil strategies for stakingclaims to resources: those based upon the power of exclusion and thosebased upon the power of solidarism These may be thought.of as the twomain generic forms of social closure; the former harbouring certain'sub-types, shorilyto be identified.

Strategies of exclusion may be regarded as the predominant modeof'Closure in all stratification sysfems. The common element in thesestrategies is the attempt by a given social' group to..maintain or enhfUlceits privileges by .the process of subordination - i.e. the creation ofanother ,group or stra tum of ineligibles beneath it. Where the latter in

[

{II

1II

Strateges o Social losure in lass Formation 5their turn also succeed in closing oft access to remaiiling rewards andopportunities, so multiplying the number of sub-strata, the stratificationorder approaches that condition of political defusion that represents thefurthest point of contrast. to the Marxist ptodel of class polarization.The traditional caste system and the stratificationof ethnic communitiesin tfie United States provide the clearest illustrations of this type ofclosure pattern, though similar processes are easily detectable in societiesin which class formation is paramount.

Strategies of closure referred to here by the generic term solidarismmay be regarded as collective responses of excluded groups which arethemselves unable to maximize resources by exclusion practices. Thecrucial distinction between these two'modes of closure is that techniquesof exclusion exert political pressure .downwards, as it were, in thatgroup advantages are secured at; the expense of.:collectivities that Ca1Jsuccessfully be defined as inferior; whereas strategies of solidarismdirect pressure upwards in so far as claims upon resources. threaten todiminish the share of more privileged strata. Thus whereas exclusion isa form of closure that stabilizes the stratification order, solidarism is onethat contains a potential challenge' to the prevailing system of distribution . hrough the threat of usurpation.

,All this indicates the ease with which the language of closure can.betranslated into the langUage of power. Modes of closure can be,thoughtof as a different means of mobilizing power for purposes of stakingclaims to resources and opportunities, To conceive of power as a built-inattribute of closure is at the very least to dispense with these fruitlesssearches for its 'location' inspired by Weber's more familiar but compJetely unhelpful definition in terms of the ubiquitous struggle betweencontending wills. Moreover, to speak of power in the light of clospreprinciples encourages a reconceptualization of class along the lines of adichotomy which, as will be made clear in due course, is. not subjectto the inflexibilities of current models. At this stage, however, all thatneeds to be said by way of illustration is that the division betweenbourgeoisie and proletariat, in its classic as..well as its modern guise, may'be understood as an expression of conflict be tween collectivities.,definednot specifically in relation to their place in the productive process but inrelation to their prevalent modes of closure: exclusiofl. andsolidarism.From this angle, it is possible to visualize the fundamental cleavage inthe stratification order as that p Oint where one set of closure strategiesgives way to a radically different set. To make the same point differently,the main structural fault in any stratification system falls along the linewhere power undergoes change in its organizing principles 'and its


6/12

6 rank Parkindirectional flow. This play with metaphor can now make way for arather more concrete expositionof he argument:

SOCI L CLOSURE AS EXCLUSIONAs previously noted, strategies of exclusion are the predominant formof closure in all stratification systems. Historically, the rise and consolidation of ruling groups has been effected by the restriction of accessto valued resources, such as land, esoteric knowledge, or arms, to aJ limited circle; of eligibles marked out by certain social characteristics.t ~ l Aristocratic domination control of resources through the rules of~ v descent is the obvious example from recent European history of this

. , 1 ~ ( \ \ t y p e of closure. ~ e u r eois forins of exclusion, by contrast do~ ~ ~ y r ~ J l p o n . - t h e . . . e s t t i c t i . I D . L escent 0 , 'teria...f.Q t ~ ~ v . e u e s s ; - h l l t more upon what Weber calls the 'rational

~ c o m m i t m e n t to values'. Forms of exclusion based on such a commitment can be said to Characterize those c l ~ formations whoseyam O ~ t l ~ ingredii"nt is _the ~ . I ] . o m j p a t e SJKCesSO;rather wIto 'ensUre the transmission of statuses to ,lineal descendants..., The'In.eaieviilCliurCIi ana the Soviet communist party provide examples ofruling groups whose criteria of recruitment aIld exclusion are designedto' ensure continuity through the nomination of suitable r ~ l a c e m e n t sand not by the simple transfer of positions to kith and kin. S 'Classes ofnomination' are thus the product of exclusion rules that single out thespecific attributes of ndividualnather than the generalized attributes of.social collectivities. By contrast, exclusion practices centred upon thecollectively defined qualities of men are strategies of closure typicallyadopted by 'classes of reproduction', since the emphasis upon groupas against individual characteristics is the most effective way of trans-.

mitting privileges to one's own, whether defined by lfueage, colour,religion, language, or whatever.This suggests that the contrast ,between classes of nomination andclasses of reproduction is best thought of as expressive. of a moregeneral distinction: that between individualist and collectivist rules ofexclusion,6 Such a distinction fefers not only to the processes underlying class recruitment and succession but also the means by whichaccess to public goods and social resources in general is similarlymonitored. It is not.altogether sdfficient to define class in terms of thedenial ofaccess to productive property, whether as ownership or control,since this.form of exclusion.is not necessarily coterminous with restricted access to political and civil rights, ~ o u s i n g , education, and public

. .

Strategies o Social losure in lass Formation 7resources extemal to the division of labour. At any rate, the actualextent to which the collectively derived status of worker", arising fromproperty exclusion, operates to disqualify men and their families fromaccess to other social resources and opportunities is an emPlricalquestion the answer to which is certainly open to historical and nationalvariation. In many respects, changes in class conditions over the pastcentury or more can be seen as representing a gradual shift fromcollectivist to individualist forms of exclusion, such that class stigmataare less consequential for social relations' beyond the workplace.Chang


7/12

Frank arkin'application of'universal rules thus cannot'guatantee the liberal.conditions of justice as long as the state tolerates the intrusion of sociallyinherited handicaps and easements that directly affect the individual'scapacity to perform. This situation bears close' comparison with thecondition of political exclusion in the nineteenth century. 4Qmission to,~ W . a s s ; m j l a c l ~ t 'bI individualist es

.of ro 'e and residential qualifications and not by the 0 en resumption of class membership. Workers. able to meet the registrationements were admitted to the suffrage whilst "men of bourgeoisorigin who could not were excluded. Political exclusion thus appeared

'wholly compatible with the bourgeois rejection of collectivist discri mination. However the justice of such an arrangement was dependentupon the tacit disregard of those inequalities of condition that ensuredthat only a predictable> few 'would be "able to meet the standards ofpolitical entry.7a This is not simply analagous to the modem case of

~ d u c a t i o n a l exclusion through selective tests but an extension of, thesame principles. Involved in each case is an interpretation of distributivejustice in which the ~ x ~ o f i n W ~ _ g ~ i s m and the principles of class

. . . . o o m i n a t i ~ the processes of de facto collectivist e x l u ~class reprOOuction.]~ t e r e s t i n g l Y ' , the liberal critique of his situation has shown a similar

consistency of principle. The essence of he liberal view is that the rulesof exclusion conform to the standards of justice only in S O far as theysucceed in discriminating between individuals on the basis of tnosecapacities and performances that are not attributable to the facts ofsoci ll inheritance. The campaign by liberal reformers for the removalof the franchise qualification thus finds its modern equivalent in thevarious campaigns for 'compensatory education' to aid the disadvantaged young in the competition for certificates agaitist their middle-classrivals. Both are inspired by the wish to ensure that exclusion' practicesare truly compatible with the tenets of bourgeois individualism bycounteracting or negating those human endowments that are strictlysocial in character, so corresponding to that Durkheimian ideal in which'social inequalities -exaCtly express natural inequalities' (DurkheimI964: 377)In so far as exclusion practices vary along an individualist-collectivistdimension it should follow that the social chanicter of excluded groupsis related to the predomiruince of one or other of these tendencies. Inideal-typical terms, wholly collectivist rules of closure would producea communal situation, characterized by a total negative status, of which'the apartheid system is the clearest example, although the condition

Strategies of Social losure in lass Formation 9dfltll social groups whose exclusion rests largely on the peculiarities ofcolot1r;religion, or language will approximate the commuhal pole. ThedppOsite extreme is represented by closure practices based wholly OIlindividualist criteria, so giving rise to'a condition of segmental stattlses -a model implicit in representations of the classless SOcietY as one ofdifferentiated status groups. In non-fictional societies individualist andcollectivist moctes of eX'c1usion always co-exist, i tt different colhbina'"tioris, so that-the Ilctual r lOge of' possible class situations varies rustoriCally and nationally between the limits set by the cominunal'and statusgroup polarity."Changes in the overall class s1tUlltion of.the proletariatduring the past century could thus be portrayed as a shift awayfiom thecoohnunal towards the status group pole; that is, a "Situation in whichthe colle-ctive category '\\Yorker' becomes less encompass;ng in itsnegative social consequences. 'I A n . < ? . l : l : . e I ~ ~ o.putting this is to say that chagges in'llie predominantmo'de of exclusion are eg,uivalent to changes in the legal and political. j j d a t i O i l s C i f exp1oitatUu :. Exploitation is the term here applied to, those institutional practices .by' which social groups seek 'to maximize

, rewards by closing off resources and opportunities to others, on whatever1 baSiS'. Whethet the chosen criterion of exclusion is property ownershipi 01 control, or examination certificates, or pigmentlltiolI, or faith, theprocesses involved are gefletically of a kind that exhibits tlie defininghallmatk ot e'Xploitation : namely, the exercise of power in a downwarddirection to produce a' ct>ndition of group subordination. To defineexploitation in t is way, as an Inherent feature of exclusion'prattices, isto,draw the sharpest possible contrast with solidaristic strategies ofclosure, the general aim of which is usurpation.

SOCIAL CLOSURE AS SOLIDARISMS o l i d a r i ~ m is a genetic term designating the closure attempts of excludedgtoups, ",l1ether of a class or communal nature. Because they generally.lack legal or state suppor t, solidaristic efforts are ;heavily' dependentupon the capacity for social mobilization on the part of he excluded:. :Asblsen (1965) has argued, there are special difficulties in mobilizingmdividuals for comn1on goals finder conditions of purely voluntarYass6ciation. Rational calculus lliways poses athreat to solidaristic actions,.so that the effectiveness of t is mode of closure is always dependent inthe last resort upon the exercise of physical or other fmnctions upon

1 recalcitrants. The power of solidarism is thus perhaps more,fragile thanthe power of exclusion in so far as it incurs heavy costs of Organization


8/12

1 rank Parkinand soch\l control which the other does not, partly because the socialcosts ofexclusion are borne mainly by the state and not directly by thosewho benefit from them. Exclusion practices in any case do not demandthe same intensity of social collaboration because they do not generatethe same degree of tension between individual aqd group i n t e r ~ twithin excluding groups the problem of blacklegging is somewhatremote. his suggests the hypothesis that forms of closure based uponexclusion would generally be considered preferaQle to solidaristicpractices, such that the adoplJon. of the tatter would be expected toresult from an inability to maximize opportunitieuhrough exclusionstrategies.

Solidaristic efforts are always directed at the usurpation of resourcesin the sense that claims to.rewards, if successful, will normally result insome diminution of the share accruing to superordinate groups. Thrange of possibilities here extends of course from marginal redistribution .to total- dispossession. But whatever the intended scale ofusurpation it is an aim that generally implies alternative standards ofdistributive justice to those solemnized Y the rules of exclusion. Forexample, acts of social closure on the part of communal minoritiesgenerally contain a challenge to the monopoly of resources held by themajority group through an attempt to replace collectivist by individualist rules of exclusion. Civil rights movements by minority groupsexemplify this form of action, in which the goal of social inclusion callfor the dismantling of he structure of privilege-resulting from collectivediscrimination. Because these claims articulate well with the indiv idualist tenets 'of liberalism, integrationist demands' by the communally:excluded tend to be regarded as completely legitimate, at least inprinciple, by influential sections of the dominant majority;8 thephenomenon of 'white liberalism' has its analogue in all situations ofcollectivist exclusion, whatever its basis.

Under purely class situations, solidaristic closure tends to bifurcatealong .industrial and political lines. The formal political expression ofsolidarism is of course the mass party, a movement whose social programme is generally nqt dissimilar from classic liberal ideals of justiceas enshrined in the slogan 'equality of ()pportunity'. Indeed, socialdemocracy can without too much exaggeration be regarded as theinheritor 'of that political tradition which seeks to establish the ,preconditions for a proper system of class nomination - a goal not unrelated to the presence of a credentialist stratum within its ranks.On the industrial front, solidarism is confined almost exclusively tothe redistributive conflict between capital and labour and with the

irJ1IJii

Strategies o Social Closure in Class Formationcontainment of managerial authority. It would appear that the long,term decline in the communal components of class is accompanied by acorresponding increase in the importance of industrial over politicalaspects of closure. The -long-term shift away from purely collectivistrules of exclusion tends to produce a class situation in which the totalizing character of communal status, with all its potentiality for a whollyshared political identity, gives way to a somewhat more fragmentedcondition in which the inevitability sectional interests arising from thedivision of labour come to 'provide the main inipetus for action. Partlyin response to this situation, and partly as a result of hose autonomousdevelopments described by Michels, the ability of the mass politicalparty to' act as the conscience collective of the excluded class is throwninto question - a condition in which the industrial forms of solidarismare likely to become increasingly important as elementary forms of thepolitical life. However, even though the incorporation of he mass partyinto the political apparatus and assumptions of the excluding class mayincrease the likelihood of he industrial f ront it self becoming politicized,there are definite limits to the extent to. which industrial solidarism caflfill the political vacuum. The main challenge from this quarter is notone of a constitutional Kind but one that in effect.questions the marketsystem of distributive justice. Industrial solidarism relies increasinglyfor its effectiveness not simply upon the capacity for social mobilizationbut also upon the 93pacity for social and economic disl9cation. Althoughthe threatened withdrawal of labour has always been the main form ofleverage available to organized, workers, it seems likely that the increasing interdependence of functions under conditions of advancedtechnology has endowed certain groups with an unprecedenteq degreeof bargaining power. Workers in a.number of key industries now enjoya forin ofleverage arising from their 'disruptive potential' which is quitedistinct from the social facts oforganizational unity. In other words, i\ anot merely the potential for collective action that governs the effectiveness or otherwise of solidaristic forms of closure but. also the purelycontingent features of production. Given the apparently increasingimportance of system location over specifically social elements oforganization, leadership, militancy, etc., there may well be a case foradding this as a fourth dimension to Lockwood's tripartite definition onclass (Lockwood 1958). At least it does now seem necessary to highlightthe distinction between claims to rewards based upon market criteriasuch as scarce skills, and those based upon disruptive potential. The,two sets of claims entail sharply opposed principles of allocation asdramatized by the efforts of excluding groups to anathematize these


9/12

12 Frank Parkineffective forms of solidarism as blackm3.il.9 This is 'because usurpationcarried out under the threat of economic and social dislocation challenges not only market principles of distribution but, indirectly, all thevarious strategies of exclusion that both feed upon and reinforce theseprinciples. It is in this indirect challenge that the main political significance of ndustrial solidarism'lies.

Interestingly, the lack of any formal articulation of. thiS positionprobably reflects. the uncertainty among organized labour as to theacceptability of'disruptive potep.tial as an alternative standard of allo.cation, if'only because this would produce similar or possibly greaterdisparities within theworking class than those generated by the market:It is the contrast between productively central and productivelymarginal groups that underlies those analyses of the current situationin'terms of a radical cleavage within the working class - between thoseable to effect social closure and the new 'pauper class' unable to e x e ~ipdustriru leverage. 10 Whateveneservations may be felt about this typeof analysis it does serve to highlight the extent. o which purely in .dustrial forms of solidarism are not easily translated into political actionon behalf of an entire excluded class. Significantly, there are few signsof any concerted attempt to use industrial leverage for, any overtassault upon the institutional apparatus of exclusion itself - as againstits mere distributive consequences - a fact which might be thought tohave some bearing on the stability of social inequality.

,DISCUSSIONThe" argument advanced in this paper is:that the basic line of cleavagein the stratification system is that resulting from the opposition betweentwo -contrasting'modes 9f social closure, excltision and solidarism . Thissuggests that the distinction between, for example, bourgeoisie andproletariat may be conceptualized in terms 6f contrary principles ofsocial 'action, rather than as differences in the' formal attri butes of'collectivities. T ~ c e p t o f closure refers to the processual features g -class, thereby ~ attention to the r ~ s llDderly.ing ..dass.---

_ - = o r m a . o ~ .processual emphasis gives due acknowledgement tothe essential fluidity of class 1U rangements, something not readilycaptured by. standard dichotomies. The assignment' of particulargroups to one of two dttegories creates anomalies in the shape of thosegroups whose actions and beliefs deviate significantly from the generalpattern considered typical for the class .as a whole. These anomalies'arise not only within the o n t e ~ o f Marxist property categories but alsO

Strategies o Social losure in lass Formation.within. the more -conventional manual/non-manual schema, mo reespecially in analyses of the middle. levels of the. str ttification r d C f rThe- dilemmas arising fFom this procrustean n-eatment' are felt, per-haps, ,to be an ~ c c e p t a b l e price to pay for the theoretical .benefitsaccruing from the Use of .dichotomous models in highlighting' theconflictua1 elements o(class. The aband6nment of such models-wouldseem to be equated with the virtual dissolution of the l ~ s concept andits replacement by one of,mere status differentiation .with all it& oVer::tones of ntegratipnand consensus.

The: position adopted in this paper is that dichotomy is indeed. aproper device for the analysis of class hut that the use of logicallyexhaustive categories is not an essential requiremen t of this p r o c ~ d u r e - .To ckfine classes by reference to the processes of social closure is i i factto adopt the necessary idiom of conflict without resorting to the rigiditiesof formal dichotomy. It should be recognized that social- c o l l e c t i v i t i e ~can, and commonly do, adopt dual strategies of l o s u r e in seeking ,tomaximize claims to resources. Although the class charactO'o f any gJ.:O,upis determined by its primary. mode of l o ~ u r e this-by no means r e c l u d ~ sthe possibility of its adopting supplementary strategies of the contrarytype. Indeed, the -apparent' anomalies of class may be, s ~ n .to ~ . < ?precisely from this tendency for 'Certain groups to tesort to the practicesof both solidarism and exclusion. For example, the special posjtion Qfthe labour aristocracy in the. class str ucture result'S .from the, use ofcertain exclusion techniques, such as the apprenticeship system,designed to restrict entry to skilled trades, in combination with closurestrategies of a p1Irely solidaristic kind aimed the rea,llocation Qfresources between Capital and labour. 11

The ambiguities in the class position of the 'white-collar Pfoletariat'may similarly be understood in terms of heir adoption of dual strategies.Here the reliance upon exclusion devices of a cre.dentialist kin.dsepitomized .by the efforts to a ttain professional status, is generallysupplemented b y the purely solidaristic tactics of r g a n i z e ~ labour. Thisresort. to dual closure strategies is altogether characteristic o( -intermediate groupS' in',the stratification order; moreover, certain of t h ~political tensiorls withiri theSe groups arise froin this very attempt .toreconcile contrary modes of closure in the. search for an optitnal p ~ w e rstrategy.12

An illustration of this same tendency is p r o v i d ~ d n the case ofintra-class. c l ~ v a g e s occuring along communal lines. Social closureon the part of white or Protestant workers ,against blacks or Catholicsis' a classic illustration of- the use of exclusion'techniques by social


10/12

14 Frank Parkingr01lps that are themselves'denied access to resources and opportunitiesby bourgeois rules of ptoperty and credentialism. Solidaristic responsesto this latter condition appear to be fully compatible with the employment of exclusion tactics against minority groups, despite the apparentconfusion of conventional political symbols. 1 3 Although the exclusion01 minority groups is based predominantly on collectivist criteria,whereas bourgeois forms of closure are typically weighted towardsihdividualism, this should not obscure their 'essential comparability.Exclusion practices justified by reference to faith, pigmentation, orlanguage are generically similar to those sanctified by property rights orcredentials in so far as they represent exploitative forms of social actionin the sense already defined.

The adoption of dual modes of closure is indicative of the fact thatconflictS' over the distribution of resources occurring withiti classes arenot phenomena of a separate order from the struggles between classes.The objection to defining classes as logically exhaustive categories is thatit seriously inhibits such an approach; i conflict is.treated as an aspectof zero-sum relationships, such antagonisms as occur between groupswithin one of the diametrically opposed categories must have a differentphenomenal status to that of pure ' conflict. It is perhaps partly for thisreason that the sociological treatment of intra-class affairs concernsitself largely with categdrizing elements of social differentiation fromwhich the con'9'entional vocabulary of conflict is conspicuously absent.

The crux of the problem here is that the use of zero-suin categoriesprecludes acknowledgement that the attributes by which one class isdefined may also be possessed in lesser measure by the opposing class.Current usage requires us to treat collectivities as either manual or nonmanual, propertied or propertyless, subordinate or superordinate; it isnot logically possible to be pariia11y manual, partially propertyless, orpartially subordinate. And because classes are defined as logicalopposites, relations within and relations between must refer to differentorders of reality. Now it gives no affront to logic or common sense tostate that a given social group may adopt strategies both of solidarismand exclusion; in other words that it possesses characteristics that arenot merely typical of the opposing class but that are the very featuresdistingUishing it as a class. Because it is entirely plausible to speak ofprimary and supplementary, or simply dual, closure PYlctices it ispossible to retain 'the necessary principle of dichotomy without theencumbrances of a zero-sum classification. Moreover, the emphasisupon modes of social action permits a definition of class that is sensitiveto the possibilities of long-term changes in the position of different

I

Jrategies of Social Closure in Class Formation ISgroups or strata. To .treat, for example, die ,increasingly iinportantlower white-collar groups as part of the 'non-manual' class does littleto highlight the transformations that have takeI\ place within thisstratum over the past century; whereas the fOClls upon closure practicesdoes point up t he changing fortunes and ,character of these groupsthrough time in which the ir non-manual status h s remained constant.In summary, Weber's concept of social closure recommends itself asa means of defining class in terms of those stratagems by which collectivities lay claiin to and seek to justify rew under changirig m t ~ i lconditions: By'focussing upo class a; process is somewhat l:iettersuiled to captur ing the elements 0 ux am 19hityin class f o ~ m a t i o nthan are standard classifications. Finally, the vocabulary of closure is

r ~ d i 1 y translatable into the language of power - nO,t through theportrayal of power as. a mysterious something extra whose uncertainlqcation complicates the stratification. s y s t ~ m but as a metaphor fordescribing the very operation of his system.

Notes1 Giddens has pointed out for example that the notion of the 'newworking class' appears to have different meanings in different nationalcontexts. In French sociology t refers predominantly to qualifiedtechnical workers, whereas for American writers it is used to refer tothe 'ethnic poor'. In British studies it appears to designate the 'nontraditional' segment of the working class.See Giddens E1973: 192-7; 215-222). Nso Horning (1971).2 See the d i ~ s s i o n of this point by Lockwood (1970.)3 The view of racial and ethnic cleavages as anachronisms is of course an

integral par t of the convergence thesis:lThe dift'erentil:ltions among groups of workers that characterizethe pre-industriaf 'society - racial and ethnic groups;' sex,residence' and fanly - teIl;d to be destroyed. A new set ofpriorities and differentiations is created based upon a wide range ofoccupations and job classifications, nationality or membership inlabor organizations.' (Kerr, et al. 1962: 250)

For a critique of this position in the field of race relations'see Blumer(1965)4 The notion of 'plural society' is the obvious example of an alternativeapp,l'oach to class analysis. See agaitrLockwood(I970).


11/12

16 Frank Parkn'5 Orwell makes this pOUlt in lUs discussion of communist party oli .garchy:.' 'Tne'es'sence ofoligarchial rule is not father-to-son inheritance, butthe persistence' of a certain wol'ld-view' and a certain w:ry of life,impose'd by the dead upon the l i v i n ~ . A ruling group is a rulinggroup long as it can nominate its succeSSors. The Party is notconcerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating

itself.' Orwell (1949: 215)6 This' seepls -a p r e f e r a b l ~ distinction to }he more f a m i l i ~ contrastbetween.ascription and achievement. 'Ascription' s u g g e s ~ s e x ~ u s i o non the basis of certain fixed social or physical attributes (colour, age,s e ~ etc.) whereas. 'collectivist' carries a more general me aning ofexclusion justified by reference to an individuals's assumed groupmembership of whatever kind. ,

The term 'achlevemrnt' is particularly unsatisfactory in so far itimplies a mode of social selection based on standards of justice-whichare 'non-discriminatory'. So much so that for many Vvriters the shiftfrom ascription to actuevement values is tacitly understood as a markof moral progress. This obscures the fact that what is actually in-volved in this shift is a change in the criteria employed for discriminatory purposes.

7 Bourdieu (1973) argues that in France, ' the academic market tendsto sanction and to reproduce the distribution of cultural capital byproportioning academic success to the amount of cultural capitaloequeathed by the family (86). The middle class monopoly of thee d u s : a t i o n ~ system is 'conceale d beneath d ie. cloak of a' perfectlydemocratic method of selection which takes into account only meritand talent . (85) . See also Jane a r c e a ~ contribution tothisvolume, 'Education and Social Mobility in France'. 1

7a Moorhouse (1973) has drawn attentiOn to the rec1tniques by which alarge section of the industrial working class' was excluded from the'franchise until 1918, d ~ s p i t e the political rhetbric'of universal mHesuffrage.8 This is not of course the sole political response likely to occur amongexcluded' communal groups; attempts at secession from the existing

n a t i ~ n state are also a recurren t theme, as testifiedby separatist movements ~ o n g minorities in Ulster, French Canada, Belgium, and theUnited States.Interesru;,gly, however, the main politica1.effect of these movementsappears to have been the granting of certain integrationist concessions

on the part of the dominant group.9 See for example Professor Roberts ' recent condemnationof the 'c::rudeexercise of power bargaining 'based up on the capricious ability toinflict damage on industry and the commuruty' (Robetts- 1972: 269).

)j

Strateges of odal Closure n Class Forma on 17Under conditions of advanced technology involving high capitallabour ratios, low levels of intetn}ediate stocks, an d ever more closelyintegrated production and distributive processes, the balance ofbargaining power has tipped in favour of groups who are prepared toexploit this critical strategic situation' (266)., Hence The reallycritical question' is can, society stand the- strain of the extension ofuninhibited collective bargaining' (269). Interestingly, no similarconcern is felt Alver the use of bargaining power deriving fromcredentialist or property closure .

10 For a cleat'> statement of this view see iJ:rparticular Jordan (1973).I I Mackenzie describes the variety of exclusion practices used by in-digenous American craftsmen against the'immigrant workers. Theseincluded the setting of examinations which large numbe rs would fail,prohibitive ,initiation fees, and formal citizenship requirements(Mackenzie:1973: 173). See also his contribution to this volume, T h ~AfHuent Worker Study: n Evaluation and Critique'. .12 The adoption of.solidaristic tactics by white-collar groups appears tooccur only after the inability to secure closure along purely credentialist lines has; become acknowledged. This is well docnmentedin thecase of the technicians by Roberts, Loveridge, and Gennard (1972). It

would seem' exceptional for any occupational groups to givepriorityto solidaristicforms of closure over credentialism where the latterremains a feasible strategy.13 Gray's work on tl e labour anstocracy shows similarly that thosewhose industrial strategies were highly exclusionist neverthelessplayed a crucial part in fostering solidarism at the politi


12/12

IS Frank ParkinGRAY, R. 1973. Styles of Life, the 'Labour Aristocracy' and ClassRelations in Later Nineteenth Century Edinburgh. InternationalReview o Social History 18, Part 3: 428-452.HliRNING, K. H. (ed.) 1971. Der neue Arbeiter: zum Wandel sozialerSchichtstrukturen. Frankfurt: Fischer.JORDAN. B. 1973. Paupers: The Making o the New Claiming Class.London: Routledge Kegan Baul.kERR, c., DUNLOP, J. J . HARBISON, F. H. and MYERS, C. H . 1962.Industrialism and Industrial Man. London: Heinemann.LOCKWOOD, D. 1958. The Blackcoated Worker. London: AllenUnwin, - 1970. Race, Conflict and Plural Society. In S. Zubaida (ed.)Race and Racialism. London: Tavistock.MACKENZIE, G. 1973; The Aristocracy o Labour: The Position o SkilledCraftsmen in the American Class Structure; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.MILLER, S. M. 1960.'Comparative Social Mobility. Current Sociology 9

(I).1967. Breaking the Credentials Barrier. New York: Ford Foundation.

MOORHOUSE, H. F. 1973. The Political Incorporation of the British. Working Class: n Interpretation. Sociology 7 (3), September:341-359NEUWIRTH, 1?69. A Weberian Outline of a Theory of Community:Its Apphcatlon to the Dark Ghetto'. British Journal o Sociology,20 (2), u n e ~ 148-163.OLSEN, M. 1965. The Logic o Collective Action. Harvard: HarvardUniversity Press.O,RWELL, G. 1 ~ 4 9 Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Seeker Warburg.ROBERTS, B. C. 1972. Affluence and Disruption. In W. A. Robson (ed.)Man and the Social Sciences. London: Allen Unwin.ROBERTS, B. C., LOVERIDGE, R., and GENNARD, J. 1972. ReluctantMilitants. London: Heinemann.WEBER, M. 1968. Economy and S o ~ i e t y (eds. G. Roth and C. Wittich)New York: Bedminster Press.

IIIII

jJI

ROBERT Q. GRAY

The Labour ristocracy in theVictorian Class Structure

Discussions of the working class in western societies have drawnparticular attention to recent economic, technological, occupational,and social. development (see, e.g., Mann 1973). These changes mlJst,however, be analysed in a wider historical context; their impact waSfelt, not by 'some nondescript undifferentiated raw materialof humanity'(Thompson 1968: 213), btlt by working people who had, over a centuryand more of history, developed particular cultural patterns, institutions,modes of in.dustrial and political action. Thus Goldthorpe and Lockwood (1963: 142) refer to a far-reaching adaptation and developmentof he traditional working-class way of ife' . Yet the ' traditional workingclass' has been rather less thoroughly investigated than the variousgroups of the. 'new working class'; too often, it seems, sociologistshave been content with a 'sociological past . . linked to the presentnot by carefully observed and temporally located social interaction butby inferentially necessary connections between concepts' (Abrams 1972 :20). In particular, it is important to realize that the accommodation ofthe working class to capitalist society is no recent phenomenon: Theconstriction of revolutionary perspectives in working-class i ~ e o l o g y .is not simply the product of developments since 1945 but represents theworking out of an historical tendency visible in the second half of thenineteenth century' (Birnbaum 1971: 104). 'Equally, the inhibitingeffect on working-class consciousness of structural differentiation is,.social historians are well aware, a phenomenon visible throughout thehistory of industrial capitalism. Indeed, from even the most cursoryexamination of that history, it becomes apparent that the twentiethcentury has, jf anything, seen an increase in the homogeneity andindustrial and urban concentrationof he proletariat.The. r ~ e n t paper d d r e s s ~ itself to h ~ s crucial historical dimensionin the study working-class consciousness. It.will be arjWed that ananalysis of stratifi,cation and cultural differences within the workjng class

Strategies of Social Closure in Class Formation

Documents

Transcript of Strategies of Social Closure in Class Formation