The Diversity of ClassAnalyses: ACritiqueof Erik Olin Wright and Beyond STEPHEN RESNICK AND RICHARD WOLFF (University ofMassachusetts) ABSTRACT Class analyses areboth very oldand quite new. This essay arguesthat Marx contributeda new class denition andanalysis focusedon the production,appropriation, and distributionof surplus labor. Yet, that innovative,new class analysis was lost bybeing dissolved into either pre-Marxian conceptualizationsof class in terms ofproperty and power or later social theories in which class was determinedby people’ s consciousness andself-identi cations. In this context, the essay pays special attentionto the recent work ofE.O. Wright. Class analysis basedon the surpluslabor de nition of class is comparedand contrasted with Wright’s differentlybased denition and analysis. Introduction The pages of InsurgentSociologist and then Critical Sociology have been an importantlocus of work, too numerous to list here, inwhichclass analysis featuredprominently and effectively. However,the complexand rich traditionof class analysis thatbore fruit in this work, as elsewhere, also produceda multiplicityof different de nitions of class. The resulthas been adivergencein types ofclass theory informing correspondingly different analytical andpolitical projects. We believe, forreasons outlined below, thatit important henceforth to take intoaccount explicitly the irreducibly basicdifferences in how class is de ned and used. Unfortunately, however, Critical Sociology, Volume 29,issue 1 also availableonline Ó 2003Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden www.brill.nl 8 Resnick &Wolff ² workkeeps appearingin which one or another class de nition and deploymentis used as if itwerethe only orthe ultimateor the universally agreedkind of class analysis. Instead,we propose that henceforth each newclass analysis should(1) acknowledge the multiplicityof possible class denitions and deployment, and (2) offer an argumentfor whichever denition(s) and deployment each uses. Tomake the case forthis sea change inthe methodof class analytical work,we will rstsketch the basicdifferent kinds of class analysis that have dominatedthe tradition.In thiscontext, we willpay special attention tosituating there the recentwork of a well-knowncontemporary class analyst, ErikOlin Wright(EOW). Then wewill sketch akindof class analysis sharplydifferent from those dominating kinds and now rapidly generatinga newclass analytical literature.We willexplicitly arguewhy thiskind of class analysis needs tobe incorporated into a classanalytical traditionnow mature enough to require each newpiece of class analysis tojustify its partisan position within that tradition. The next three articles inthis section apply this new kind of classanalysis toissuesof racism,class strugglesinside modern households, and Third World development. The propertied(rich) versus the propertyless(poor): can one think ofa moretraditional way to conceive of any society’s classstructure? Every day, incasual conversations, journalistic accounts, and academic presentations, peopleacross the politicalspectrum seek tounderstand social issues by analyzing them interms of how those possessing more wealth interact withthose possessing less. They call these twogroups classes. Certainly, noother conception of class played a moreprominent role in twentieth centurysocialism. For that century’ s radicals,socialists and communists, as formany oftheir opponents, altering a society’s structure(distribution) of propertyownership more or less dened a revolutionin its class nature. Indeed,the classication of individuals into the propertyless-poorand the propertied-rich,for all sortsof social purposes, goes back thousands of years inEuropean (and other regions’ ) histories. 1 Over the last century, the classication has evolved intoa developedanalytical frameworkand traditionespecially withinMarxism. 2 1 See,for example,G.E.M. de Ste. Croix’ s discussionof Plato and Aristotle’ s property classications (1981: 70-80). 2 Marxism’s “relationsof production” often are conceived as “classrelations” understood, in turn, tobe property relations(Howard and King 1985: 6-7). Support for aproperty notionof class can befound throughout the Marxiantradition from itsearly beginnings (Engels1976: 181; Kautsky 1971: 43) to its Soviet period (Stalin 1954:683-684; Bukharin andPreobrazhensky 1988:28; Trotsky 1987:248) to its more recent developments(Sweezy 1964:242; Lange 1963: 16; Kuczynski 1971:10; Cutler et al.1977: 243; Hirst 1979:96; Callinicos1982: 149-150; Roemer 1988: 72-89). A relatedbut still different notionis ACritiqueof Erik Olin Wrightand Beyond 9 ² Despiteits venerable standingwithin Marxism – andindeed within socialtheory generally –the propertyconception of class always had criticswho advocated alternative conceptions.Of these, the twobest known have advancedpower and consciousness conceptions of class. From their perspectives,class analysis focusesproperly not on property but rather onpower or on consciousness. For those embracing power theory, what mattersmost is the distributionof power across the populationof any societychosen for scrutiny. 3 Who has whatkind of authority/ control overwhom? Instead of the richversus the poor,power theorists of class juxtaposerulers and ruled. In furthercontrast, theorists of class who stressconsciousness push property and power into the backgroundof their investigationsin favor of primary attention to the consciousnessdisplayed bysocial groups. Classes only exist forthem if,when, and to the extent thatindividuals think ofthemselves asa classuni ed in speci c waysand differentiatedfrom others in specic ways. 4 Howanyone undertakesa classanalysis andwhat conclusions he/ she reaches dependupon which de nition of class – property,power, or consciousness– the personuses as his/ her “entry point”into social understanding.By entry pointwe mean the focalconcept(s) around which adiscourseis organized (Resnick andWolff 1987: 25). For example, in asocietywhere radical change transfersthe ownershipof the means of productionfrom private shareholders to the stateas representative of all workers,that change willcount as a classrevolution for those who de ne classin property terms and who make thatde nition an entry-pointinto socialanalysis. However,those who use class as an entry pointbut de ne classdifferently – say, asa radicaldemocratization of power – may well reacha differentand even oppositeconclusion about that same change in the socialdistribution of property. Should they ndthat power was merely transferredfrom one elite (private)to another (state), then the property change falls farshort of aclassrevolution for them. Class-qua-consciousness theorists,if they ndthat the consciousnessof social groups was little altereddespite changed distributions in property and/ orpower, would thereforeargue that no class revolution was achieved despitethose changed Elster’s (1986:319-397) conception of class in terms ofindividuals’ access to a broadly dened notion of “ endowments”(property, skills, and still other “cultural traits”). This notionis presentedin andused by Eric OlinWright toformulate his notion of the “middle class”(1997a: 22-23). 3 Formulationsof class in terms ofpower are in Dahrendorf (1959:137), Mosca (1939: 50ff)and Mills (1956: 3-20; 1962: 106ff). Marxists also understand class in terms ofpower conceivedas struggle: Laclau (1977: 106), Przeworski (1987:67), and Jessop (1980: 63). 4 Thompsonpresents what wecall belowa compositenotion of class but in the end reducesthat notionto consciousness (1963: 9-10). 10 Resnick &Wolff ² distributions.Property, power, and consciousness – like the differentclass conceptsthey inform– areneither equivalent,nor interchangeable, nor linked inany xed way.A change inany onecan occur together with asimilaror opposite or no change inthe others.Class analyses and classstruggles have, fora longtime, re ected a rangeof irreducibly differentconcepts of class. What seems tous long overdue is an explicit recognitionand discussion, among class analysts, ofthose differences and the theoreticaland political stakes inselecting amongthem. The intense globaldebates over the contentand signi cance of the Soviet,Chinese, Cubanand similar revolutions were, in large part, confrontationsof scholars,activists, and others deploying different concepts ofclass among their respective entry points.No small confusionand frustrationcharacterized those debates in large part because the debaters wereso often unaware of their differences at the basiclevel ofclass denition. They typically spokeand wrote about class and class con ict asifeveryone sharedroughly the same denition. As weproposeto argue here, becausebasic differences in classde nition exist andhave important analytical,political, and social effects, they need tobe acknowledged and debatedas such. How anyone denes classshapes how social action is understoodand engaged: the theoreticaldebate over class is a practical matterfor activists no less than forsocial theorists. Beyond the contestingproperty, power, and consciousness de nitions ofclass,further problems bedevil classanalysis. Afterall, the innite char- acteristicsof human beings have providedinnumerable ways to disaggre- gate them intogroups, quite literally to classify them:into age, education, prestige,status, productive skill, “life chances,”ethnic, and many other classes. Moreover,the multiplicityof de nitions of classover the years has inspiredmany tocombine various singular conceptions into composites. Thus,for example, onecan undertake a classanalysis bygrouping