............................................................ CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS, INTERESTS, AND THEIR ARTICULATION AMONG THE ENGLISH WORKING CLASS, 1828-1831 Marc W. Steinberg University of Michigan July 1983 ............................................................ CRSO Working Paper 292 Copies available through: Center for Research on Social Organization University of Michigan 330 Packard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 CLASS CONSCIO~USNESS,IN TERES Ts, AND THEIR. AR TICULA TION AMONG riiE ENGLISH WORKIl\IG CLASS, 1828-1831 by Marc W. Steinberg submitted to: Prof. Charles Tilly Prof. William Gamson , as a requirement for completion , -b. O of the Practicum in Sociology Department of Sociology University of Michigan October. 1982 I. Introduction The central objects of this study are to analyze the class consciousness of workers in early nineteenth-century England, to develop a means by which the writings and utterances of these workers can be tapped as indicators of their consciousness, and to explain its possible variation. To achieve this goal I will focus on the discourse of workers in class struggle in an attempt to elucidate the particular historical manifestations of working-class consciousness as it emerged in late regency England. Through an analysis of the texts of speeches and meetings, handbills and letters, and accounts of riots I will attempt to determine the content of this consciousness, gauge the extent to which there existed commonalities of understanding and vision among disparate working-class groups, and determine the forces that structured their class ideology. While this study is motivated by both particular historical and sociological concerns, it does seek to address certain key problems that both disciplines hold in common. In addition, it is an attempt to demonstrate how historical study can enlighten sociological wisdom. Within the context of this study there are several key problems that permeate both fields which I will try to address. The first problem concerns the nature of group interests, especially with regard to collective action. How the analyst perceives the way such interests are produced and articulated greatly determines his understanding of group behavior. Specifically, whether the analyst takes interests for granted or considers them problematic structures the entire analysis of group action. Michael Burawoy notes the problem succinctly when he observes, ... much of sociology takes interests as given. It is here that we encounter the problem of rationality and irrationality, logical and non-logical behavior, and interests real and false, short- and long-term, immediate and fundamental, arising out of some discrepancy between actual and postulated behavior. Where interests are taken as given, ideology becomes a resource that people manipulate to advance their 'interests' or a cement that contains conflict or minimizes strain. On the other hand, where interests are not imputed, they are empirically discovered or determined in a tautological fashion after the event. ... The problem is to explain interests in any given situation, not to describe them empirically ((1979, p. 19)). Charles Tilly suggests that the two major competing theories of collective action, the Millian and Marxian models, tend to infer interests in opposing fashions. While Millian theories suggest that we "infer the interest from the population's own utterances and actions," Marxian models "infer it from a general analysis of the connections between interest and social position" ((1978, p. 60)). To escape this 'ferocious dilemma1 he suggests that we (1) treat the relations of production as predictors of the interests that people will pursue on the average and in the long run, but (2) rely, as much as possible, on people's own articulation of their interests as- an explanation of their behavior in the short run ((Ibid., p. 61)). Tilly's scheme of judging interest formulation, while clarifying the concept of interest, does not wholly resolve all problems. One particular problem of special concern to this study is how the relations of production can serve as predictors of group interest. This problem is a general one within current Marxist literature, a literature that is anything but unified on the point. As Bertillson and Eyerman have recently suggested, differences within this literature have arisen from varying conceptions of the wedding of theory and practice ((p. 364)). The conceptualization of interests within recent structuralist writings currently popular with many scholars revolves around a 'scientifically' generated concept of objective interests. Among such theorists as Poulantzas and Wright class interest is seen as advantages that would be realized if the working class could cast back the veil of bourgeois mystification and scientifically view its position within society ((Wright, p. 89; Bertillson and Eyerman, p. 361, 370)). In this sense class interest is hypothetical, or as Bertillson and Eyerman label it promissory. Short of a true revolutionary situation developed class interests cannot be said to exist ((Wright, p. 91)). This currently popular perspective suffers from several problems that make its application in research awkward, if not wholly untenable. First, in an attempt to create a science of class any analysis of subjective or articulated interests is relegated to at best a secondary status. As I have just noted in discussing Tilly's formulation a reliance on the actors' own articulations is necessary to understand and explain their behavior. Second, given this predetermined definition of class interest, historical analysis of working-class collective action becomes an exercise in teleological criticism. With little regard to the context of the actions such an analysis can verge on becoming ahistorical. Workaday life struggles, created by the objective conditions of the current social relations of production, are thus belittled as the causes of valid and cogent current working-class interests which can serve as the basis for collective action. Finally, there is a peculiar circularity of argumentation to be found in such a formulation. While struggle leading to a revolutionary situation is said to enhance the working class's understanding of its position, such struggle is at the same time motivated by the very interests it is supposed to be illuminating ((Bertillson and Eyerman, p. 363)). In short, this conception of class interest seems to have little analytical utility, especially in terms of historical applications. In this paper I shall be arguing for and illustrating a different conception of interest that combines the analysis of the subjective and objective aspects of group interest. Instead of emphasizing the contrasts between the two approaches I will show that the two aspects are highly complementary and part of a single analytic process. The linchpin of the argument will be to show how a Marxian analysis of objective (or structural) position can be used to interpret group articulations and thus produce a junction between the analysis of short- and long-term interests. By paying particular attention to the social relations of production, the communal context in which such articulations take place, the fields of power that circumscribe the production of these articulations, and the processes of cultural production that help define the production of articulations, I will outline this analysis within a particular historical context. A more particularized version of the problem of interests concerns the Marxian debate on the determinants and content of class consciousness. This debate has two principle facets. First, there is the debate over true and false consciousness. Heirs of the Leninist and Lukacsian traditions insist that the essential content of class consciousness is a priori determined by the dialectic nature of class struggle. For these theorists class consciouness is realized in revolutionary conflict and nursed to fruition by an enlightened vanguard party of the working class. In this view true (or revolutionary) working-class consciouness can only break the fetters of bourgeois domination when these conditions are met, and this occurs when the bourgeoisie, caught in the contradictory dialectics of the capitalist system, is forced into a crisis situation. Until this juncture workers labor under a state of 'false' or 'subjective' consciousness, shackled by mystification. (For a useful summary of the evolution of these ideas see Eyerman.) What is most important about this perspective is its emphasis on class consciouness as a thing, a tangible and potential set of ideas that form a unique determined ideology. Opposing this deterministic approach are the humanistic Marxists. These theorists suggest that the complex interplay between base and superstructure leaves the content and the determinants of class consciouness problematic to the time and circumstances of its formulation and expression. A premium is placed on the particular historical conditions of class formation and conflict, the partial autonomy of people in making history rather than being solely a midwife, and the open- endedness of the historical process. These theorists reject notions of false consciouness as being ahistorical. As E. P. Thompson suggests, the concept is at best ...a meaningless statement; at worst it is an absurd theoretical construction, which elitists, who know how history ought to have eventuated much better than the actors, shuffle endlessly around university tables. A class cannot