- This is the first one so I'll start. In history, I might give the example of the sans culottes in the French Revolution. The sans culottes were a group of artisans and small shopkeepers who became briefly influential in the revolution in Paris, during the radical phase, 1792-94. They demanded fixed prices which helped them compete and able to earn a living. Because many of them were of this one social level (lower bourgeoisie?), they (or many of them) were objetively a class "in itself." But they also defined themselves as the sans culottes (or, "without breaches") which means that they saw themselves as without breaches and fine stockings which were the clothes of the nobility. This class consciousness meant they were to some extent a class "for itself." In my own life, my father was a junior officer when I was young, so we lived in fairly small houses. But not only did he save his money a rise through the ranks, he inherited a small ranch and stocks. So, even though I did not attend private prep schools, it was unsuprising that I attended and succeeded at a fairly elite college. Shorthand, I was from upper, or lower upper, middle class "in itself," and so my college career reflected that. As far as class "for itself," while in London in the mid-70s living with my parents, I adopted the phrase "ta" (meaning, "thank you, very much"). A British friend of my father's told him that I probably shouldn't use that slang as it was very lower class ("'kyou," pronounced "kew," was probably a bit more elevated). My father's friend, then, seems to have been aware of his class "for itself."
OK, you aren't going to want to go on at that length (and I haven't answered the question of whyI think there is a decline in interest in class), but that is the sort of thing I am looking for. The rules are you should each do one posting for each question. There is no length specified, but this is a blog, so don't go on for pages. There is no time specified for posting, but the rule is your comment/posting must be at least one line longer than the previous one (an incentive for posting early) [ok, too long; at least as long as previous]. We are on the internet, so preferably no names, dates, places for examples from your own life/family, please.
8 comments:
An example of class "for itself" in history can be found by looking at the slave revolt in the French colony of San Domingue in the late 18th century. Slaves and many free blacks banned together to revolt againts the colonists. As a result, France declared slavery illegal (however,out of neccesity rather than choice)and the Republic of Haiti was formed.
An example of class "in itself" in my own life can be found my looking at the relationship between my friend Anna and I. We had gone to school together since 5th grade, growing up in the same small town with parents in the same working class. We weren't not friends (excuse my double negitive), but we weren't really friend either. However, in the fall of 2004 we became great friends when we both found ourselves at the same college. Because so many of the students are from larger cities, we, in a sense banned together with the comman ground of the same social class and upbringing that serperated us from everyone else.
To me, it seems that the idea of class is being dismissed more so simply because class plays such a smalle role in society today because the idea is not so black and white (ie rich and poor) anymore. Today there are so many shades of gray (ie. upper class, upper middle, middle, etc.). I don't feel that class itself has disapeared, but I do feel that its importance has weakened.
A class "in itself" is a class defined solely by its position in the relations of production; including income, wealth, and type of occupation. A class "for itself" is a shared sense of identity consciously formed by a group of people working towards a shared goal.
In my hometown, there is a part of the city called 'Goosenible'. In regards to a class "in itself", Goosenible housed the people that worked at the vinegar plant. These people had the same income, type of occupation, and so on.
As time passed, these people mobilized and consciously became aware of their identity. They began to ask for better housing, income, and treatment. In this sense, they transformed into a group "for itself".
As far as the idea of class being disregarded, I think it is strongly due to the advance in Global Capitalism. I think with markets being made international, Britain is having to adjust to global expectations. Now, a majority of the people have the ability to make something of themselves not based solely on class or hereditry. I believe this undermines the importance of class.
I am going to try to give an example that covers both class "in itself" and "for itself." The Luddites were a group of semi-skilled workers in the early nineteenth century in England. For example these workers, almost exclusively men, were weavers and spinners and other jobs that required some skill. Therefore, these workers all shared similar occupations, relationships to the means of production and were all poor, but not as poor as factory workers. Furthermore, the Luddites were initially concentrated in Nottingham and then moved to other northern industrial towns.
The Luddites became a class "for itself" in 1811. The group's jobs were threatened with the onset of technology. With the emergence of machines, unskilled workers could now perform the Luddites's jobs. In retaliation, the Luddites broke into factories and began destroying machines. The movement spread in 1811 and 1812. Soon the major industrial towns were invaded by Luddites. The Luddites's main objective was to bring attention to the de-skilling of labor and its consequences. The Luddites did not refrain from physical attacks as well. Indeed, some attacks were deadly. In sum, the Luddites were a class "in itself" because of their shared occupations, relationships to the means of production, location, and wealth. However, the group became a class "for itself" when they banded together to attack factories.
I think historians do not pay much attention to class now because class distinctions have become muddled. Today, with instant celebrity, the media, the lottery, and so forth anyone can become rich. If a couple that lives in a trailor park from Kentucky wins the lottery and milions of dollars, do they instantly jump to being upper-class? I would argue no because there is more to class than just money. Thus, there has to be new definitions of class and it seems historians are either not interested in redifining class or just as confused as I am.
When Marx defined class in separate ways as "in itself" and "for itself" he was making a distinction between groups of people clumped together because of a commonality in circumstance and groups of people who used those circumstances to enact change in them. One is an objective description and the other is a subjective discription. Just as the Army, during the seventeenth century Civil War in England, was as class in itself--there is only an objective pairing of individuals. They all had a common ground of being in teh army and were grouped together because of it. The Army, however, became a class "for itself" when it began to seek change wiithin the government outside of the change that the army leaders were requesting. A modern day example for teh difference in class "for" and "in" itself is students. Students are a group of individuals linked by their common circumstances. Until students find common ground and try to change things and form a common goal and strive towards that goal, they will remain a class "in itself" and never "for itself." The students that do things such as alternative spring break are those that are forming a class "for itself."
Historians since the 1980s have become less focused on using the explanations of class for differing reasons. Foremost among them is the defining of the classes. Now, the classes are not really defined as one big amorphous solid waddling towards a common goal. The emphasis is on the differences in people of the time and the fact that there isn't just a poor class and a rich class but varying degrees of both. Class has become less appealing to historians because it is not easy to define any more.
Following Cannadine's definition and usage of Marx's ideals of class, a prime example of class "for itself" would be the Sans Culottes political movement during the French Revolution of 1789. The Sans Culottes were mostly working class and shared not only similar status, but also had a similar level of wealth. The name itself, Sans Culottes, is derived from the working class style of pants that the leaders of the movement wore. The leaders of the Sans Culottes disdained the breeches and flashy garb of the elite of France. While the political views of individual Sans Culottes were often varied, they most certainly would have viewed themselves as arrayed against the rich.
As for class "in itself" a good example gleaned from contemporary history would be that of street gangs. Almost exclusively from poor, urban backgrounds the organized street gangs of America were populated mostly with poor minorities. These gang members have similar social status as well as similar economic status. However, these gangs do not organize into a politically cohesive unit to instigate social or political change.
Why has class fallen to the wayside in historical studies since the 1980s? One explanation could be the decline and fall of the Soviet Marxist experiment. Perhaps more accurate would the rise of other types of historical inquiry. The number of racial and gender studies has grown very rapidly in order to try to fill the master narrative with voices that have since been silent.
The above excerpt printed by "anonymous" is actually authored by me.
An example of class "for itself" in history could be that of the "Cavaliers" of the South banning together to start up the Civil War. Though other classes were involved, it seems like it brought Southerners together under a common flag (so to speak) to fight for their states' rights. I suppose that this could be used either way, due to more classes being involved, but one hears more about the upper class' involvement in the South during this time, with novels such as "Gone With The Wind" romancing this period.
Class "for itself" could be looked at in an educational setting, such as forming a union in a school system. There are many people involved, working both at the same place, making around the same amount of money, and doing the same things. I happen to know a little about this, being the daughter of an elementary school teacher and a granddaughter of a couple working for another school district.
A class that is 'in itself' can be described as one that is grouped together on the basis of a common identity as well as other economic factors. A class that is 'for itself' is one that feels oppressed or pushed outside of the norm and feels the need to better their situation. In a very modern example, a class of smokers has arisen in past years. While a 'smoking class' has been in existence since tobacco started to be grown, the smoking class today is getting smaller and smaller with the non-smoking class trying to better themselves. While it is understandable that non-smokers don't like having smoke around because it is very unhealthy, there is no reason to look down upon smokers just because they choose to harm their own bodies. Many restaurants nowadays have non-smoking bans in place and are moving in on bars or pubs (whatever you choose to call them). There are many non-smokers that believe that smokers have the right to stay inside in the heat during the winter and smoke a cigarette.
Post a Comment