- 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."
Saturday, May 19, 2007
pre-departure query two (on Cannadine, Introduction)
For the second of the four pre-departure questions (you should already have read, Cannadine, "Chapter One, Introduction: Beyond Class - Forward to Class?"), I am basically repeating one I made last year about Marx's concepts of class "in itself" and "for itself" (summarized in Rise and Fall of Class in Britain, 1999, pp. 2-4). What does Marx mean? Give two examples [either "in itself" and "for itself" from either history or private life; or either "in itself" or "for itself" from both history and private life, or....] of what he means. That is, can you describe an example from history that shows class "in itself" at work or as a factor, one from history that shows class "for itself," one from your own life or that of your family that shows class "in itself," or from your own life/family that shows class "for itself." Those drawn from British history would be nice, but not necessary. Finally, why do you think historians have become less interested in class explanations since 1980?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am not quite sure if I am understanding the assignment here but I'll give it a try.
*As I am not a scholar on British history I will use an example of American history instead. In the early 1900's when workers had no rights and no benefits and were completely controlled by the bosses and owners of companys. Some people within the lower class began a movement towards socialism, now while this obviously did not work, they were in a class (the lower class) which was a class "in itself". However those that were in the lower class and started a socialist movement were in a class for itself as well. As far as why class has not been as much of a hot topic since the '80s I believe that Cannadine was right in saying that first off what we believed to be the quentisential (sp?) class structure, as developed by Marx, had to little flexibility and too often in life are the lines between what group you are associated with are blurred. Also the fall of communism, which was the basis for the argument of class, and also people like Margaret Thatcher gaining power and working to not focus on class and the class struggle so much I believe has made class more of a backdrop in histroy rather than history itself.
Since I do not feel like diving into the depths of my personal history, I will extract an example of class “in itself” and “for itself” from history.
Since I have not had a British history class in a few years my example is being taken from the other side of the world—Korea to be specific. My example is the Tonghak (Eastern Learning) Movement. Tonghak started as religious movement that focused on cleansing Korea of foreign influences. Its members were comprised of the lower echelons of Korean society. After the imprisonment and execution of their founder and increasing corruption of the Min oligarchy the movement grew into an armed peasant uprising. The support for Tonghak grew under the banner of societal change. These peasants lashed out against the government, yangban class—educated, elite class in Korean society.
The peasantry, which later formed Tonghak, started as a class “in itself” a collective group of individuals who were economic equals. Their anti-government, anti-foreign and anti-yangban plight turned rebellion shows an example of class “for itself.” The participants had a self-realization, which allowed them to collectively succeed in achieving social reforms.
In the introduction, Cannadine outlines many reasons for the lack of interest in class: the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe at the end of the eighties; the advent of women’s studies and the debunking of the grand, linear master narrative, as well as the much loved “linguistic turn.” All these factors played a part in Marx, and the ideology of “class” to be shuffled into the corner—not forgotten—but not stable enough to be brought out to play again.
I guess I'll give this one a shot...
In Russian history there is a binding together of what Marx would consider the "bourgeoisie" in the December Revolution. Three Thousand officers from the Royal Army went in front of the Winter Palace in December of 1825 after Constantine, the next in line for the Tsar, abdicated. This meant that the hopes of the Social Liberals, the literate middle to upper classes in Russian society, would not be realized under Nicholas, a hard-lined reactionary and a known anti-constitutionalist. In this combined effort to overthrow the Tsar, the Decemberists lost and the Monarchy lived on until Nicholas II was killed in the Russian Revolution of 1917. However, this binding of the class into a solidarity movement demonstrates a class out in itself.
Given that the fall of Communism and the seeming end to the Cold War has occured after Cannadine wrote his book, I think it is right in one sense to say that the question of social class took a back seat. Also, since he emphatically proved that Margaret Thatcher dismissed a lot of notions of class struggle and put the focus on other ideas. Also, even within the sociological community, Marx's models for class are seen as too narrow given their invention in the early stages of Industrialism. This fact, and the phenomenon of a socially dominant middle class/middle class mentality has helped to push back the questions of class struggle into the background.
The concept of class "in itself" and "for itself" has been very influential on historians who study classes. I think when working in British history there was a time when both of these came into the forefront of individuals minds. The Industrial Revolution, around the beginning of the 19th century, changed the class structure in Britain forever. Before the revolution there was a class "in itself" in the extreme lower class. This class had a shared way of life in the slums struggling to get by. When the country industrialized, it opened up new jobs for this class, and allowed them to make money. Granted there were some negative sides to this but we're not debating the effects of the Industrial Revoultion yet. This industrialization allowed them to become a class "for itself". It helped them to organize and become major players in Britain at this time. The workers were now not necessarily the poor class, but were known as the working class. Eventually you would have the Labour Party as well, a reflection of them becoming a clss "for itself". The Industrial Revolution helped to mold this class into a group, and also is great reflection of Marx's concept of classes.
I suppose I will use another example from French history, in this case the printer's apprentices in reference to the Great Cat Massacre. These men were of the lower classes, although there was the possibility for upward mobility if they ever achieved the rank of master. These men banded together on a few occasions and would put cats on trial and execute them. This is an example of class in itself because these men were all of the same social and economic standing, and shared the same hardships and degradations of their stations. This is an example of class "for itself" because by killing these cats these men were, according to Robert Darnton, acting out against the bourgeoisie who were able to afford luxuries like cats who ate and lived better than the apprentices. By attacking these cats these men were attempting to grab back a sense of self worth and pride that had been denied them by their economic and social position.
While Britain was undergoing its transformation from a feudal economic system to laissez-faire market capitalism the cost of bread along with other items was on the rise. Peasants up until this point were given a just price for bread considering their economic standing. This puts the peasants in a class "in itself" tied by their economic standing. Whent he peasants felt their social pact had been broken they began to riot. These bread riots represented an economic struggle that thrust them into class consciousness thus bringing them to a class "for itself."
An example of class "in itself" is the lower class American workers of the late 19th and early 20th century. They were an objective social class, as the lower class and sometimes lower middle class. They were wage workers who shared the same economic identity, but not a social identity. The class became more "for itself" through the work of Eugene V. Debs and other socialist activists aware of class identity. Debs helped organize the Woblies as they were called, which united a variety of workers under a single class identity. Once they acknowledged themselves as a class and as a political power, they were able to successfully negotiate change in some cases, such as the Pullman strike.
Post a Comment