14 Class, Culture, Power: Introductory Overview

P. Srikant

1.  Introduction 

In contemporary times, it has become difficult to categorise class strictly within the binaries of bourgeois class and working class as defined by Marx. Class has made dynamic shifts particularly in the modern globalised world. Concomitantly, the space of culture became more conflicting and tense in the backdrop of global economy. Before dealing with these two concepts in the context of power, it is essential primarily to understand these concepts. In the very changing and dynamic world and at a time when concepts like class are losing their charm, it is to the credit of thinkers like Bourdieu and Zizek that the concepts like class are being significantly pursued and reinvigorated.

While class is interplay of domination based on economic stratification, culture too is an arena where power and hegemony are at play. Culture encompasses various aspects of a society ranging from traditions, beliefs, language, habits, tastes, relationships, communication, interactions and other such aspects. Culture is also the space for domination where in institutionalised hierarchies often connect individuals to the community and vice versa. In other words culture embodies power relations in the ‘form of dispositions, objects, systems, or institutions’ (Swartz 1997:  1).

The present chapter discusses the concepts of class, culture and power and the interplay between them. It is important to understand the relevance of class and culture in the context of power in the contemporary times. Several theoreticians have discussed class, culture and power at various levels. In this backdrop this chapter introduces the debate surrounding class, culture and power apart from introducing Bourdieu and Zizek. Both Bourdieu and Zizek are further discussed in the following modules.

2.  Class 

The term class is derived from the Latin word classis. This term was used by census collectors in order to categorise the wealthy Roman citizens. This category was followed in order to determine the obligation of military service upon the citizens (Mann 1983). The concept of ‘class’ gained usage after Marx used it to explain the structure of society. Scholars across the spectrum had used class as a means to understand, explain and analyse various aspects of social science discipline – society, economy, polity, culture. In Marxist interpretation society is divided two classes – the bourgeois class and the working class. The bourgeois class controls the means of production and is the ruling class, where as the working class is that class that sells its labour to the bourgeois class and is under subjugation. According to Marx, power is vested in the class that controls the means of production. Such a class in power determines the form of society, polity and culture (http://www.marxists.org/).

Though class is defined through its relation to the means of production, it necessarily does not explain for instance, the complex hierarchal structures within the bourgeois class. Or for that matter how ‘culture’ plays a role perpetuating the class hierarchy. While Marx gave primary position to economy in understanding the society and argued that aspects like polity, culture, ideology, are shaped by the production process, i.e. economy, philosophers and thinkers of the early and mid-twentieth century attempted to understand society by placing economy in the super structure instead of treating it as the base, like Marx. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_in_Marxist_theory).

Max Weber moves way from Marx in understanding class. He argues that class is determined by the individual’s skills and education rather than their relationship to the means of production. Weber derived his understanding of stratification based on the German society. He looked at many aristocrats with weak capital power but strong political power. Weber discusses the basic determinants of stratification in his ‘Three- Component Theory of Stratification’. In this Weber argues that political power is the interplay of ‘class’, ‘status’ and ‘group power’. It is here that Weber differs strongly with Marx and argues that class is not confined to binaries of bourgeois class and proletariat class. He gives the example of managers who control big level corporations and business houses, in spite of not owning them. The second determinant for Weber that determines political power is ‘status’. Here he argues that many scholars, saints, priests, based on their honour, prestige and fame in the society can always attain political power, with no or little capital value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-component_theory_of_stratification).

The third determinant is ‘power’ or ‘group power’ of a person. In spite of resistance from various quarters still political power is achieved without any capital value. In this case, the person may or may not enjoy the ‘status’, but still will be able to achieve political power through their ability. Weber cites examples religious and ethnic associations that formed based on identity in order to maintain their ‘status’ vis-a-vis their community. Weber offers a critique of Marxian theory, while simultaneously extending the concept of ‘class’. In Weberian perspective, power is not always vested with the dominant class, instead is dependent on economic, market situation or status of individuals.

Essentially, the debates on class in sociology are dominated by these two schools of thought – Marxian and Weberian. Contemporary analyses of class are mainly shaped around these two viewpoints with neo- Marxians and neo-Weberians debating with each other as to what consists a class. The overall debate between neo-Marxians and neo-Weberians is further discussed below.

2.1. Neo-Marxians and Neo-Weberians on Class

Class analysis in the post-industrial societies appears to be major concerns of both Marxians and Weberian sociologists. Of these the prominent models of class process are developed by Wright (1982; 1985) and Goldthorpe 1987). Wright’s model of class is based more on the model of Marx, where he defines class based on four structural properties – 1. classes are relational; 2. class relations are antagonistic; 3. class antagonisms are rooted in exploitation; and finally 4. exploitation is based on the social relations of production (http://www.markfoster.net/struc/nm.html). For Goldthorpe class relations are based on employment relations that in turn condition the class position in modern society. Though both Wright and Goldthorpe draw from both Marx and Weber, Wright has more Marxian elements, while Goldthorpe depends more on Weber (Li and Singelmann 1999).

Neo-Marxists can be divided in to three categories: 1. Minimalists or Structural Marxists; 2. Maximalists; 3. Intermediaries. However, all three stress class as the most significant social cleavage. Structuralists such Althusser as argue that only manual workers are working class, where as all others traditionally seen as working class are categorised as petite bourgeois (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser index.htm). Maximalists believe that a broad band of middle class that is in tune with the interests of the working class is better, as they are squeezed by the bourgeois class. Intermediaries argue that many fall within contradictory class position owing to their different identities and allegiances (Wright 1985).

Neo-Weberians articulate that class categories are generated by the way market operates. Based on Weber’s argument, neo-Weberians too argue that class is not solely based on economic value but is influenced by various other elements surrounding the individual. One of the seminal contribution, in understanding contemporary class structure, comes from neo-Weberians where they go beyond the conventional category of two classes. Middle class becomes important component in understanding class as they become very important playing dual roles – at times they play the role of propertied class while controlling a company or an industry, at the same time they are also part of the working class as at certain level they are also exploited.

The following table summarises the distinctions between neo-Marxians and neo-Weberians on the question of class.

Table 1: Neo-Marxists and Neo-Weberians

Neo-Marxists	Neo-Weberian
1. Class   divisions   generated   by   relations   of production.	1. Class divisions generated by operation of market.
2. Classes unified by exploitation.	2. Classes fragmented by markets
3. Conflict   between   classes   dominates      social relationships.	3. Conflict  within classes as important  as conflict between them.
4. Middle classes linked to one of major classes.	4. Middle  classes  are  autonomous  groupings  as significant as the propertied and working classes.
5. Consciousness arises from relations of production.	5. Consciousness has many different sources.

Source:  Brown,  D.F.,  (2006),  “Social  Class  and  Status”,  in  J.L.  Mey,  ed.,  Concise  Encyclopedia  of Pragmatics, pp. 952-58.

2.2. Bourdieu on Class

In more contemporary times, Pierre Bourdieu had strongly articulated the question of stratification by bringing in culture in to the question of stratification along with class. Bourdieu draws heavily from Max Weber in distinguishing between class and status. Bourdieu makes a strong critique of economic interpretation of social class and attempts to conceptualise primarily in relation to means of production (Bourdieu 1985: 723). Social space that is multi-dimensional, therefore, cannot be reduced to a single causal mechanism like that of economy in the Marxian theory.

Social space, in Bourdieu’s writings, provides the major break from the conventional class theory of Marxists. In that sense social space attains very distinct position in Bourdieu’s notion of class. In his book ‘Distinction’ (1984), Bourdieu attempts to understand the relationship between social class and lifestyle or status in the Weberian sense. Here he argues that position in class structure is causally related to a subjective system of dispositions, which he terms ‘habitus’. Thus, he replaces the class structure with the notion of social space (http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-and-habitus/). Bourdieu looks at the social space through statistically analysing the available data consisting of various indicators like that of the economic, cultural and social capital of individuals. The individuals are further categorised based on their occupation and the origin of their families. There are three orthogonal axes – the first axis consists of total volume of capital in terms of economic and cultural capital associated with each occupational position as per division of labour; the second axis represents the composition of capital in proportionate to each other or in terms of ‘ratio’ of one type of capital composition to the other; the third axis explains the class and fraction location of the family of origin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu.htm)

2.3. Zizek on Class

Another thinker who vociferously articulated class based stratification in the recent times is Slavoj Zizek. Zizek’s concept of class deviates from the classical Marxian understanding of class. Zizek relies heavily on Lacan. Zizek’s first publication in English language, ‘The Sublime Object of Ideology’, provides a combined fusion of Lacan and Hegel in understanding and explaining the theory of ideology. For Zizek there is no antagonism between classes. Hence, he argues that the communist politics must be dissociated from the issue of antagonism between classes and calls upon for focusing on actual antagonisms.

Zizek raises the question whether is there enough and powerful antagonism in contemporary global capital so that it can prevent the indefinite reproduction of capitalism. Going beyond the Marxian notion of class antagonism, he argues that there four such antagonisms. They are, according to Zizek:

1.  threat of ecological catastrophe

2. the inappropriateness of the notion of private property for intellectual property,

3. socio-economic implications of new techno-scientific developments and

4. new forms of apartheid new walls and slums (Ahmad 2012: 52-3).

There is no place for class antagonism in Zizek’s notion of social antagonisms, while he places private property as inappropriate only in the context of intellectual property. Since, there is no class antagonism in Zizek’s concept of social antagonism, there is no class struggle too. However, Zizek identifies three different arenas of struggle based on the social antagonisms. They are, the commons of culture, the commons of external nature and the commons of internal nature. These three threats make in a way entire human beings into proletarians.

It is with reference to the above ‘commons’ that Zizek justifies the revival of the notion of communism. Also for the same reason there will be no particular social agent to bring in the new emancipatory politics, but there will an explosive combination of different agents. Thus, Zizek replaces Marxian notion of class with a different notion of ‘commons’.

Zizek ignores the Marxian concept of class, first, by refusing to acknowledge class antagonism. Second by identifying different set of social antagonisms in the contemporary world, he denounces class struggle too. In order to contain the reproduction of global capitalism, Zizek calls in for a combination forces based on new and completely different set of antagonisms. Since, all human beings are part of one or the other social antagonism that Zizek has identified, everybody becomes proletariat in the struggle towards solving antagonisms.

3.  Culture 

Culture consists of beliefs, language, tastes, behaviour, characterstics, norms that are common to a group a people or a particular society. Culture is the product of social phenomena. It is through the culture that the members of a society interact with each other. However, such interaction is often not on equal terms and is hierarchal in nature. Social interaction has to take place between different classes and among themselves. As class hierarchy is structurally ingrained, interaction through culture has inequality inbuilt in to it. For instance, neo-Marxists argue that culture legitimises oppression in addition to the economic factors that Marx originally emphasised.

Marx emphasises that culture justifies inequality at the societal level. Culture was chiefly used as a tool of analysis by Marxists particularly Gramsci (http://www.marxists.org/archive/ gramsci/) followed by Frankfurt School of Marxists (http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/ index.htm). Weber through the concept of ‘status’ argues that it is status that differentiates culture. Further, for Weber there is no objective analysis of culture, because knowledge about culture’s reality is made from particular view point. Durkheim argues that though humans are inherently egoistic in nature, culture – values, beliefs, norms – which he terms as ‘collective consciousness’ is what integrates them in to a society. Groups and individuals interact create their own culture and attach powerful emotions to it. Just as culture shapes individuals, individuals too through their interaction shape culture. Durkheim is one of the pioneers in Sociology who gave primacy to the question of ‘culture’.

Theorists like Lukacs that initiated a more cultural analysis of Marxian framework. For Lukacs history was a product of mediation between economy and society, hence cultural forms are best understood and analysed in their milieu. This milieu is the mode of production, class and class conflict. Gramsci, Italian Marxist opened up new vistas of cultural analysis within Marxian framework. He argued that culture creates hegemony in the society and this dominant class uses culture in order to obtain the consent for the dominant groups to rule.

Scholars of Frankfurt School or Critical Theory did study culture largely through Marxian framework. However, critical theorists differed from Marxian analysis of economy (material) creating and determining culture (ideal). Instead scholars of Frankfurt School looked at how culture determined the super structure or how culture was used to control other aspects of super structure and base (economy). As a result new concepts like ‘popular culture’ found place in sociology.

In contemporary times culture is driven by networks at times with culture determining and shaping networks. Also network itself is a form of culture given the contemporary internet based social media like that of facebook, twitter, and blogging among others. Scholars like Bourdieu in the traditions of Weber and Durkheim have viewed culture as a form of capital.

3.1. Bourdieu on Culture

Moving away from the traditional Marxian concept of capital as economic value, Bourdieu has other forms of capital that can be converted in to economic capital. Bourdieu mentions four types of capital — 1. economic capital; 2. cultural capital; 3. social capital; 4. symbolic capital. For him capital implies valued resources and hence does not accord primacy to economic capital. Thus for Bourdieu all forms of capital assume different forms in different fields giving rise to a social order. Hence, it is possible to locate and identify these different forms of capital as they continuously create distinct form of social hierarchies and power (Navarro 2006: 17).

Cultural capital includes education qualifications and other associated forms of culture; for instance, how to wear clothes, how to occupy space, striking a dinner conversation and presenting one self and other associated manners all constitute cultural capital. Concomitantly, social capital consists of networks and acquaintances.

Cultural attributes are internalised by children at a very early age onwards and are thus guided in their appropriate social positions in terms of their behaviour and position in the social axis. For instance, a doctor’s child becomes a doctor in order to concretise the position in social hierarchy primarily. Also this position of doctor is acquired through combination of various forms of capital – economic, cultural, social and symbolic. Thus, the doctor’s child turned doctor knows the attributes of a doctor better than a first generation doctor. Bourdieu claims that, ‘one has to take account of all the characteristics of social condition which associated from earliest childhood with possession of high or low income which tend to shape tastes adjusted to these conditions” (Bourdieu 1984).

All forms of cultural attributes are indicators of class. The possession of cultural capital is closely related to the social origins. As mentioned in the above example a doctor’s child is well informed about the medical practice mainly because of the social origins of the doctor’s child. Between classes and hierarchal social order it is the struggle between various fractions is what dominates exchange rate of each capital.

Bourdieu argues that the distinction between the dominated class and dominant class offers the dichotomies of cultural criticism. Class struggles are often played within the domain of culture. In other words culture becomes one of the crucial elements in Bourdieu’s concept of power. Thus, Bourdieu can be located within the Weberian tradition.

3.2. Zizek on Culture

Zizek attempts at understanding global capitalist culture through Lacanian psychoanalysis. Zizek is one of the few prominent cultural critics that attempted to bring advocacy for socialism back in to the mainstream discourse by analysing capitalist social relations of exploitation. Zizek looks at culture little differently from that of traditional Lacanians. For instance, Lacanians in general look at culture ‘simply as the symbolic system’. This symbolic system has a limited meaning linguistically.

However, Zizek goes beyond and adds two more aspects – what consists culture? and what is happening to culture today? One is that culture is what one does at times of excesses of embarrassment, shock and such related things. The expression during such excesses is one aspect. Two, today everything is encompassed by culture and cultural studies. Zizek argues that at least humanities and even hard sciences are being considered as sub-themes of cultural studies. Therefore he questions the contemporary obsession with culture (Chance 2014).

Zizek answers this question of obsession by arguing that the liberal multicultural ideology is at work and hence this overarching engagement with culture and therefore cultural studies. He argues that the global capital for its expansion has utilised multiculturalism as an ideological tool, where in ‘culturalisation of politics’ has taken place. He argues, for instance, that issues ranging from political differences to economic inequality are ‘naturalised and neutralised’ in the name of cultural differences. Therefore these ‘cultural differences’ are to be tolerated and cannot be overcome (Zizek 2008: 660). This he terms in Benjiminian terms as culturalisation of politics to politicisation of culture.

Zizek criticises Huntington’s formulation of ‘clash of civilisations’ strongly based on the premise of how culture has come to replace political and economic inequalities. Hence, Zizek looks at culture as the ultimate source of barbarism. By identifying oneself with a particular culture it renders that person intolerant towards other cultures. Zizek argues that culture by definition is ‘collective and particular, parochial, exclusive of other cultures’.

Liberalism makes individual as the centre of the culture sphere. The West is individual centric society and it opposes any inequality in the name intolerance and violence, while ignoring the basic systemic inequalities. Since the Western capitalist culture accords primacy to individual autonomy over collective solidarity, it therefore preaches intolerance in the name of culture. Similarly, liberalism also privileges by showing a strong bias towards a particular culture. In this case, it privileges the modern Western culture. Thus, the liberalism strongly opposes when individuals in other cultures are not given enough freedom or autonomy. For instance, clitoridectomy, child brideship, infanticide, polygamy, family rape, are all seen with contempt and are considered as highly intolerant by the liberal capitalist culture, whereas it ignores the compulsions of women to undergo plastic surgery, cosmetic implants, and Botox injections in order to remain competitive in the sex market.

Only by preaching tolerance liberal multiculturalism can legitimise military intervention as a mode of fighting others’ intolerance. In other words the culture pushed through global expansion of capital is the dominant culture and it tends to justify the capitalist culture apart from legitimising the West’s imperial power. Thus, for Zizek, culture is an arena of hegemony, where one culture attempts to dominate other cultures. In that sense Zizek can be contextualised within the neo-Marxian framework.

4.  Power 

Power is one of the key concepts in sociology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political). Max Weber contributed a great deal in understanding the concept of power from sociological viewpoint. For Weber, power is the ability to control resources, events and making something happen in spite of obstacles and hurdles created by others to prevent. To quote him, ‘the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realising them’ (http://sociologytwynham.com/2013/06/04/webers-definition-of-power/).

– a. charismatic; b. traditional and c. rational-legal.From the above definition, Weber identifies two types of power – 1. Authoritative; 2. Coercive. Authoritative power is legitimate and hence it is effective because the people/subjects that are subjected to authoritative power do so with consent. On the other hand, coercive power is used through force without legitimacy and hence is often resisted. Further authoritative power manifests, according to Weber, in to three different forms

In contrast for Karl Marx power rests with the class that owns the means of production. Power, therefore does not exist in the relationship between individuals. Thus Marxian scholars view power in relation to social classes and social systems rather than individuals. Another prominent view point on power comes from Talcott Parsons. Parsons argues that power is not a matter of social coercion and domination, but instead flows from social system’s ability and potential to coordinate human activity and resources in pursuit of goals.

4.1. Bourdieu on Power

Understanding of power varies according to the understanding or perception of a society and social relations that are embedded in that society. Thus, Bourdieu’s understanding and analysis of power stems from his notion of habitus and field. Bourdieu asserts that power is a combination of different capitals and operates within the habitus and the field. Thus, Bourdieu’s concept of power is sourced from his ‘theory of society’.

For Bourdieu power is culturally and symbolically created, and constantly re-legitimised through interplay of agency and structure. Habitus is the main aspect of this power, where in it contains socialised norms or tendencies that determine our behaviour and thinking. This habitus over a period of time changes in relation to its context and the social patterns that are created are transferable from one context to another. Thus, for Bourdieu power also differs from one context to another and changes over a period of time, just like habitus.

Since there is no clear demarcation of class, according to Bourdieu, the hegemony is exerted only through symbols – in this case culture. Culture is not only the space for individual interaction, but also a significant terrain of domination. Thus, bringing back the notion of power in to mainstream sociology is one of the major contributions of Bourdieu (http://www.ku.lt/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2002_nr_02.116-124.pdf).

4.2. Zizek on Power

Zizek argues that there is no class antagonism as class itself has become very fluid in the sense that everybody becomes a proletariat in the emancipatory struggle. The emancipatory struggle is essentially aimed against the commons. The contemporary global capitalism through commodity fetishism poses threat to all the human beings and hence it necessary to resist the commons. The threat posed by the commons makes class a redundant concept as all the human beings turn to be exploited and thus become the proletariat in the ensuing emancipatory struggle.

Power is immanent with resistance. In other words, power produces its own resistance as it is transgressive in nature. Zizek claims that state power itself is split from within and it has a spectral underside. Like Bourdieu, for Zizek too culture is one of the major sources of power. The arena of culture creates hierarchies between the Western individual centric culture and other collective forms. Further, culture is also used as a source for intervention in other countries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5mMlf8hefs).

In other words culture by excluding other forms of culture creates hegemony. Culture also helps in negotiating other forms of dominance and equalities like that of political and economic inequalities. Such inequalities are appropriated as ‘cultural differences’ there by advocating tolerance, rather than offering any resistance. This Zizek terms it as multicultural ideology of liberal capitalism. Power therefore operates on the basis of capital driven culture.

In the backdrop of contemporary global capitalism, Zizek argues that emancipatory struggles as the major opposition to power. Unlike traditional Marxians favouring class, Zizek places the responsibility of emancipatory struggles on environment movements, indigenous movement, and anti-race movements.

Political power, for Zizek, is primarily symbolic in nature. By symbolic, Zizek means it is important to understand politically the roles, masks, mandates of the public authorities under scrutiny rather than issues like their relation with their spouse or family. Modern regimes exert far more power than their previous regimes that is far less visible but has greater reach. Here, Zizek is in tandem with the notion of power proposed by Foucault and Marx. The major agency for Zizek in modern regimes is ‘knowledge’ (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/07/the-power-of-nonsense/).

5.  Conclusion

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber have given different analysis of the various concepts like class, culture and power. Much of the debate and discussion surrounding these three concepts is either in the Marxian tradition or in the Weberian tradition with deviations and modifications. In this backdrop, it is important to locate and contextualize Bourdieu and Zizek in the Weberian and Marxian traditions respectively.

6.  References

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou.” Social Scientist 40, No. 7/8 (2012): 43-59.
2. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinctions: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Richard Nice, Harvard University Press, 1984.
   1. –     “Social space and the Genesis of Groups.” Theory and Society 14, no.6(1985): 723-44.
3. Brown, D.F. “Social Class and Status.” in J.L. Mey, ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, (2006): 952- 58.
4. Chance,   Kerry.   “On   Culture   and   Other   Crimes:   An   Interview   with   Slavoj   Zizek”   on   URL http://ucexchange.uchicago.edu/interviews/zizek.html (accessed on 13th September 2014).
5. Goldthorpe, J. H. Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
6. Li, Jiang Hong and Joachim Singelmann. ” Social Mobility among Men: A Comparison of Neo-Marxian and Weberian Class Models.” European Sociological Review 15, No. 1 (1999): 1-23.
7. Mann, M. Student Encyclopaedia of Sociology. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1983.
8. Navarro, Zander. “In Search of a Cultural Interpretation of Power: The Contribution of Pierre Bourdieu.” IDS Bulletin 37, No. 6(2006): 11-22.
9. Swartz, David. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
10. Wright, E. O. Classes. London: Verso, 1985.
11. Zizek, Slavoj. “Tolerance as an Ideological Category.” Critical Inquiry, 34 (2008): 660-682.