MULT10018 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Orthodox Marxism, Vishvarupa, Class Consciousness
17 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Lecture 4: Culture, performance and embodiment
The 3 key questions in the anthropology of class
Orthodox Marxism
Critique of Orthodox Marxism
How is power
maintained (by the
powerful)?
Power is an outcome of class,
i.e. whether one does or does
not own the means of
production
Max Weber
- Class is not a universal mode of
stratification, a universal form of
differentiation between people ranking
them in order, a key means by which
power is distributed
E.g.
▪ Caste, which is significantly different
from class, in India and South Africa is
the fundamental basis upon which
power is distributed. The caste system
is not entirely tied to the questions of
ownership.
▪ Under Apartheid in South Africa,
stratification was very much along lines
of colour; power was contingent upon
what was often referred to as ‘colour’
- Class is not always singularly the salient
form of stratification even in Western
societies (Weber).
- Power is never an automatic outcome of
any structural position. Rather, it has to be
perpetually performed. It doesn’t just derive
from whether you own the means of
production or not—you don’t just have it
because you’re in the structural position of
owning and even if you own, you have to
carefully maintain, work on, and perform
being powerful on a daily basis.
What Weberians and other kinds of
scholars have argued is power is sth that
has to be perpetually performed,
perpetually managed very carefully for it to
work.
How is power
acquiesced to (by the
relatively powerless)?
Base determines
superstructure, including a
society’s ideological
apparatuses. Ideology,
whereby the reality of
Humanist Marxism
- The subordinate class (sometimes)
‘consciously’ acquiesces to power.
Furthermore, it develops a class culture
that is acquiescent. Working class
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
exploitation is represented as
fair, for example, maintains a
condition of class
unconsciousness amongst the
exploited class.
people sometimes develop culture that
very purposely maintain that position of
powerlessness.
- Focussing on the phrase, only ‘in the
last analysis’, the critique stems from a
reading of Marx that questions whether
base determines superstructure, or, in
other words, consciousness is
determined by one’s class position.
How is power resisted
(by the relatively
powerless)?
Through the intensification of
the dialectical relationship
between classes enabled by
the increasing extraction of
surplus value, the exploited
class gradually becomes class
conscious
Humanist Marxism
This isn’t always the case
First question:
Max Weber
Major contributions:
- Regarded as the founder of interpretive social science (accounts for about 1/3 of
social science scholarship)
- Major theorist of modernity, esp. rationalisation, secularisation and bureaucracy
- Major critic of Marx’s Historical Materialism
In critique of Marx’s work:
Class is not always singularly the salient form of stratification even in Western
societies
- Weber identifies 3 forms of stratification. Each of these can be salient in given
contexts:
• Class (an economic category): whether one owns or does not own the means
of production
• Party (a political category): Stratification, or the distribution of power, is based
on a group’s ability to wield influence over the state. According to Marx, it is
the owners of the means of production that wields influence over the state.
But Weber said this is not necessarily so—sometimes you can have political
power without having economic power.
• Status (a cultural category): Stratification based on a group’s articulation of a
valorised lifestyle. In other words, you can get power, not necessarily with
money nor with political clout, but by just kind of the ways of acting that is
considered cool in society, in any point in time. Being powerful on the basis of
being cool.
• Cases where a group’s power relies almost exclusively on only one mode of
stratification:
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o Class: Barrow boys and city traders in East London in the 1970s and
1980s
Barrow boys are guys who work in markets, selling fruit and vegetables.
What was noticed about them is that they have the amazing ability to
calculate quickly on the spot. In the 1980s, the city financial sector of
London was deregulated/deregularized and suddenly there was this
incredible demand for people who could calculate the cost of stocks and
shares as they rose and fell very quickly to work on the trading market.
These guys who were selling oranges and apples were just tailor-made for
the job. They had all the kind of skills of the class of the barrow boys and
took over to their new multimillion pounds jobs. They became an object of
curiosity and snobbish ridicule. Have money (from their new jobs), yet no
class. They were emblematic of the type of people with access to
economic forms of power who did not have cultural basis of power
o Party: The Orangemen of Ulster (Northern Ireland)
Northern Ireland is a place which is being bisect by a divide between
Protestants and Catholics, which is also a political divide with Catholics
being national identifying, desiring unification with England and
Protestants being what is often called Unionists, identifying with a
maintenance of the integrity of the UK. There’s been a vicious struggle
between these 2 sides for many years.
One of the concerns, particularly amongst Protestant Unionists that roughy
liberal types might be sucked away from the extremism of Unionist politics.
There is a group of people called Orangemen, constituted by Orangemen.
They ensured that these roughie liberal types who might go soft on the
political line of hardcore Unionism are kept in check. They’re invariably
working-class, poorly educated guys who have no economic power or
cultural basis for power in the stereotypical sense of appreciating the high
arts and so on—but they have political power. They hold the community
together and the community invests in them to hold the community
together.
o Status: The schoolteachers in France
A person might have power by virtue of that culture without the economic
or political means. One of the key figures is French schoolteacher. They
are paid pretty poorly. They don’t have a lot of economic wealth or political
clout. But they are looked up to as people of immense value because they
are highly educated, and there is a reverence for learning in France.
However, what Weber argues is that most commonly power derives from the
constellation of class, party and status. A key example: the British aristocratic
class through the rise of Capitalism
Background: Based on agricultural wealth, the central means of production in
Feudalism was land. With the rise of Capitalism through the Industrial Revolution,
this became plant and machinery. Consequently, the wealth and power of the
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The 3 key questions in the anthropology of class. Power is an outcome of class, i. e. whether one does or does not own the means of production. Base determines superstructure, including a society"s ideological apparatuses. Class is not a universal mode of stratification, a universal form of differentiation between people ranking them in order, a key means by which power is distributed. E. g: caste, which is significantly different from class, in india and south africa is the fundamental basis upon which power is distributed. The caste system is not entirely tied to the questions of ownership: under apartheid in south africa, stratification was very much along lines of colour; power was contingent upon what was often referred to as colour". Class is not always singularly the salient form of stratification even in western societies (weber). Power is never an automatic outcome of any structural position.
