Page 1 :
>R<¢, , Marxism and Class Theory:, A Bourgeois Critique, , Frank Parkin, , Reprinted from Frank Parkin, Marxism and Class Theory (New York: Columbia, University Press, 1979), by permission of the publisher. Copyright © 1979 by, Columbia University Press., , The ‘Boundary Problem’ in Sociology, , T, persistent attractions of Marxist class theory have, almost certainly been boosted by the less than inspiring, alternative offered by academic sociology. In so far as there is any, sort of tacitly agreed upon model of class among western social, theorists it takes the form of the familiar distinction between, manual and non-manual labour. No other criterion for identifying, the class boundary seems to enjoy such widespread acceptance, among those who conduct investigations into family structure,, political attitudes, social imagery, life-styles, educational, attainment, and similar enquiries that keep the wheels of, empirical sociology endlessly turning. Paradoxically, however,

Page 2 :
althoughthe manual/non-manual model is felt to be highly, serviceable for research purposes, it is not commonly represented, as a model of class cleavage and conflict. That is to say, the two, main social categories distinguished by sociology for purposes of, class analysis are not invested with antagonistic properties, comparable to those accorded to proletariat and bourgeoisie in, Marxist theory. This would be less cause for comment if, proponents of the manual/non-manual model normally construed, the social order as a harmonious and integrated whole; but to, construe it instead in terms of conflict, dichotomy, and cleavage,, as most of these writers now appear to do, seems to reveal an, awkward contrast between the empirical model of class and the, general conception of capitalist society., , The strongest case that could be made out for identifying the, line between manual and non-manual labour as the focal point of, class conflict would be one that treated capitalist society as the, industrial firm writ large. It is only within the framework of, ‘factory despotism’ that the blue-collar/white-collar divide closely, corresponds to the line of social confrontation over the, distribution of spoils and the prerogatives of command. And this, is particularly the case in those industrial settings where even the, lowest grades of white-collar staff are cast in the role of managerial subalterns physically and emotionally removed from the, shop-floor workers. Within the microcosm of capitalism, represented by the typical industrial firm, the sociological model, of class has something to recommend it as an alternative to one, constructed around the rights of property., , The drawback is, however, that social relations within the, capitalist firm are a less accurate guide to class relations within

Page 3 :
capitalist society than they might once have been. The reason for, this is that the post-war expansion of the public sector has given, rise to an ever-increasing assortment of non-manual groups in, local government and welfare services that cannot in any real, sense be thought of as the tail-end of a broad managerial stratum, aligned against a manual workforce. Frequently, in fact there is, no manual workforce to confront in the occupational settings, within which these white-collar groups are employed.’ And even, where teachers, social workers, nurses, local government clerks,, lower civil servants, and the like do form part of an organization, that includes janitors, orderlies, cleaners, and other workers by, hand, they do not usually stand in the same quasi-managerial, relationship to them as does the staff employee to the industrial, worker in the capitalist firm., , The usual rationale for treating intermediate and lower, white-collar groups as a constituent element of a dominant class, is that these groups traditionally have identified themselves with, the interests of capital and management rather than with the, interests of organized labour. But for various reasons this, identification is easier to accomplish in the sphere of private, industry and commerce than in the public sector. In the latter, as, already pointed out, not only is there usually no subordinate, manual group physically present to inspire a sense of white-collar, status elevation, but also the charms of management are likely to, seem less alluring when the chain of command stretches ever, upwards and out of sight into the amorphous and unlovely body, of the state. Moreover, public sector employees do not have the, same opportunities as those in the commercial sector for, transferring their special skills and services to different and

Page 4 :
competing employers; all improvements in pay and conditions, must be negotiated with a monopoly employer, and one who is, under close budgetary scrutiny. All this makes for a relationship, of some tension between white-collar employees and the state qua, employer, a condition more akin to that found between manual, labour and management than between white-collar employees and, management in the private sector. Thus, the validity of the, manual/non-manual model as a representation of class conflict, relies more heavily upon a view of the commercial employee as, the prototypical case of the white-collar worker than really is, justified, given the enormous growth of public-sector employment., , What this suggests is that manual and non-manual groups can, usefully be thought of as entities socially differentiated from each, other in terms of life-chances and opportunities, but not as, groups standing in a relationship of exploiter and exploited, of, dominance and subordination, in the manner presumably required, of a genuine conflict model. Expressed differently, the current, sociological model does not fulfil even the minimal Weberian, claim that the relations between classes are to be understood as, ‘aspects of the distribution of power’. Instead of a theoretical, framework organized around the central ideas of mutual, antagonism and the incompatibility of interests we find one, organized around the recorded facts of mere _ social, differentiation. . . ., , The ‘Boundary Problem’ in Marxism, , The variety of [Marxist] interpretations on offer make it more

Page 5 :
than usually difficult to speak of ‘the’ Marxist theory of class. In, some respects the range of differences within this camp has, tended to blur the simple contrast between Marxist and, bourgeois theories; and this is particularly so given the tendency, for Marxists to adopt familiar sociological categories under, substitute names. The most striking example of this is the tacit, acknowledgment of the role of authority in the determination of, bourgeois status. This arises from the need to find some, theoretical principle by which the managerial stratum, in, particular, can be assigned to the same class as the owners of, capital. Although allusions may occasionally be made to the fact, that managers are sometimes shareholders in the companies that, employ them, it is clear that this is a contingent feature of, managerial status and could not be regarded as theoretically, decisive. Managers with and without private company shares do, not appear to be different political and ideological animals., , The exercise of discipline over the workforce, on the other, hand, is a necessary feature of the managerial role, not a, contingent one; and as such it recommends itself as a major, criterion of bourgeois class membership. Indeed, for some, Marxists managerial authority has in certain respects superseded, property ownership as the defining attribute of a capitalist class., According to Carchedi, ‘the manager, rather than the capitalist, rentier, is the central figure, he, rather than the capitalist rentier,, is the non-labourer, the non-producer, the exploiter. He, rather, than the capitalist rentier, is capital personified.’?, , Interestingly, by proclaiming that the supervision and control of, subordinates is the new hallmark of bourgeois status, Marxist, theorists have come surprisingly close to endorsing Dahrendorf’s