~Johnny Yen Class and the Communication of Anarchism Further Comments on an Anarchist Model of Class and Class Consciousness In Raven 11 ('Class, Power and Class Consciousness') I claimed that the concept of class is useful to anarchists because it is useful to the oppressed majority'. I based this claim on my argument that, since subjective class consciousness (basically, how -- and if -- you categorise yourself according to class, and act according to that self-categorisation) is partially independent of economic and political factors, 'revolutionary working class solidarity can develop among the large majority of people who do not own or control the means of production'. I now want to qualify these rather bald statements by discussing empirical evidence on the current status of the label 'working class', and psychological theories of the processes involved in self-categorisation. This, I hope, will help to suggest just how useful the label 'working class' is, and therefore what degree of reliance we should place on it in our propaganda. The end of class as an explanatory tool? According to Gordon Marshall (1987), sociologists are in agreement that the working class is changing; the changes are usually seen in terms of the decline of traditional proletarian occupations and communities, the growth of working class affluence, the decline of manual occupations, the growth of non-manual occupations (particularly in the service sector), the professionalisation of some non-manual jobs, the routinisation ('deskilling') of some non-manual jobs and the increasing participation of women in paid employment. These changes have been interpreted by sociologists in very different ways. But what matters to us is how they are interpreted by the vast majority of people. It has been suggested by some of a Fabian persuasion (eg Steven Lukes, Eric Hobsbawm, Ivor Crewe) that new forms of social stratification are evolving, based, for example, on consumption rather than work; people are said to identify with what they buy (eg home ownership) more than with what they do. It is implied that what many Marxists (and anarchists) re~ard as the dynamic of social change (ie people's relationship to the means of production) is no longer salient. Instead,here are many subgroups with a variety of interests; if people do organise collectively it will be on the basis of these subgroups rather than on the basis of class membership, it is argued. On the other hand, in 'Social Class in Modern Britain', Marshall, Newby and Rose claim that class remains an important source of identity in Britain and across the world; it is still the most important indicator of voting intention, for example. This claim is based on an international research project consisting of thousands of interviews on the topic of class consciousness. But since many people for whom class membership is a more salient source of identity than patterns of consumption call themselves middle class rather than working class, we are still left with the problem of building unity between culturally distinct groups. Further, even if a majority of people continue to classify themselves as working class, it does not mean that they interpret this label in the same way. For example, in 'The Blackcoated Worker', David Lockwood identified three types of working class consciousness: 'traditional deferential','traditional proletarian' and 'new privatised'; each sees the role and interests of the working class as different. Optimistically, one could argue that if we promote anarchism successfully among the 'traditional proletarians' then many of the others might come to identify more closely with us when the anarchist counter culture looks like supplanting the old system. But this assumes that the 'proletarian' group are the largest; as I argued in Raven 11, the 'middle classes' are beginning to outnumber productive manual workers; and by the time our revolution gathers pace, 'traditional proletarians' may not exist at all in some nations. The fastest growing group of manual workers are the 'privatised' working class. These are those who are 'affluent', often self-employed, often in high-tech industnes, often not unionised, who vote for whoever would seem to give them the best deal economically; in other words they have no traditional allegiances and have a more individualistic ethos than 'proletarian' workers. It is to them we must increasingly turn with our anarchist propaganda; yet, depending on how we characterise the rationale for anarchism, we could meet the same difficulties here as we might encounter when trying to communicate with the lower middle classes. Despite the fact that many first-generation middle class think of themselves as working class, many others are glad to categorise themselves differently. Similarly, many manual workers simply don't use the label 'working class' and don't want to for the same reasons as the first-generation middle classes. The label 'working class' has many historical associations which will not easily disappear that make it an unattractive self-categorisationor many people; and if manual workers reject it, how likely are non-manual workers to adopt it on a wide scale? If, as the neo-Marxist Andre Gorz argues, work is no longer going to dominate our lives, how can we hope to help people to unite by using a verbal label so inextricably linked to the concept of work, and manual work in particular? As things stand, it seems to that the label 'working class' is highly accessible to certain groups and highly inaccessible to certain others. Therefore, if the term is employed equally across the population in anarchist (or other) propaganda, we might even be helping to promote only a futile conflict between those oppressed who categorise themselves as working class and those oppressed who categorise themselves as middle class; in other words, divide and rule. This will not be the result of us using too narrow a definition of the term 'working class'; this term already has certain meanings for people however we define it. These meanings will be consistent with or in contrast to certain values which people are not likely to give up easily since they will be closely related to their self-concept. This is why using pro-class tracts (like my class model in Raven 11) as popular propaganda is unlikely to persuade large numbers of people to unite as 'members of the working class'; people will simply resist such a self-categorisation, irrelevant of the merit of the arguments. Although I believe that class consciousness is partly independent of economic factors, I do not deny that pure and simple 'objective relations to the means of production' (ie the type of work one does) is generally the most important determinant of a person's class self-categorisation (if any); this appears to be the conclusion of Marshal al. There is no guarantee that at some point in the future, the pattern of industry and employment will not change again, enabling the label 'working class' to become easily accessible to the vast majority once more. But it must be said that this does not seem likely in the near future. Therefore, since the meanings of the label 'working class' and objective economic relations facilitating the use of that label are unlikely to work wholly to our advantage, we must find other ways of building unity among the majority of people. Recent developments in social psychology have investigated the processes underlying group action. It seems that the existence of a goal that cannot be achieved individually, but only co-operatively, is not even necessary for social cohesion (and thus mass action); simply the awareness of shared categoty membership is enough. Although research has principally focussed on small, nominal groups in laboratory settings, 'self-categorisation' and 'social identity' theories have also been used to explain action on a wider scale, such as the Black Power movement in the USA. Social categorisation: a general phenomenon If it is assumed that our mental representations of ourselves take the form of categorisations, then categorisations will always be with us. Inthis case, even if the label 'working class' is dropped there will be other ways of enabling the majority to see their aims as shared and thus to encourage mass activity against capitalism and the state. Self-categorisations exist on many different levels; the most superordinate (for our species) is 'human being', the most subordinate is anything you regard as idiosyncratic about yourself. Given a self-classification or self-category existing in the head as a latent entity, a person can act more in terms of this social identity than the (more idiosyncratic) personal identity, depending on the situation and the relative importance to the person of that self-classification (ie accessibility). The category needn't be an explicit verbal label, though this certainly helps when communicating in words. If it is verbal, it can be as simple as 'us' and 'them'. By highlighting the difficulty for most people of becoming owners and controllers of capital and state, we are already creating a distinction between 'them' and 'us', which in turn can lead to increased ingroup solidarity, and a need to redress a perceived imbalance among valued dimensions (ie the political and the economic). Conclusion The concept of working class is useful to the vast majority contingent upon there being a good 'fit' between people's interpretation of the verbal label on the one hand, and their representation(s) of themselves on the other. Therefore I am not advocating the abandonment of the label 'working class', but I am suggesting that we don't need to rely on it exclusively. Clearly, there are many situations where it is invaluable in enhancing political consciousness; in many industrial conflicts, by raising their awareness of class membership, workers can see more clearly the intrinsic conflict of interests betwee them and the capitalist/employer class. In these cases, the label is useful partly because of its (historical) associations; but in other cases, the meanings associated with the term render it counterproductive. If people for whom the self-category working class is important become introduced to a perspective that advocates the abolition of class,capital and employment (ie anarchism) they may realise that others who share a common enemy with them are not to be regarded as counter-revolutionary simply because they personally reject the label 'working class'. Simply the recognition of a common aim, if it is important enough, is sufficient to facilitate a shared identity and thus strengthen our solidarity. Although categorisations are always with us, there will be times when they are not salient. In such cases, Moscovici (1976) believes that the confidence, consistency and style of negotiation of the person advocating a minority view can bring about a fundamental attitude change in those s/he is addressing. But when social categorisations are relevant to the situation, Turner (1987) argues that social influence is most likely when one disagrees with someone with whom one expects to agree. One expects to agree with them because one categorises oneself with them on the relevant issue. So, for example, if two Yorkshire miners are talking politics and one begins espousing anarchism, this is more likely to make the other think about anarchism much more seriously than if the anarchist was categorised in advance as dissimilar along the relevant dimension. Sociologists continue to provide evidence that class remains an important explanatory tool, though its salience appears to have declined since the war. I contend that we should continue to use it in analysis, propaganda and practice wherever it is useful, but that where it is not seen as relevant to people who are oppressed and exploited (who should thus be receptive to anarchism), we must use other ways of creating a superordinate social category to unite against the state and capitalism. References Gorz, A. (1982). Farewell to the Working Class. London: Pluto Press. Lockwood, D. (1958). The Blackcoated Worker. London: Unwin. Marshall, G. (1987). What's happening to the working class? Social Studies Review 2 (3). Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Acadernic Press. Turner, J.C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorisation Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. (This volume is particularly recornmended for those interested in how riots can function to bring about new ways of thinking.)