The first and main thing, I think, is just to remark that I don't think there *is* class theory in the same way that there's race and gender and sexuality theory. There's theories of class formation and conflict and of class as process, but I really kind of think that class as identity category isn't often theorized in a way analogous to the other formations. I can think of exceptions, but I don't think 'class theory' is a body of work in the same way. However, if I were to imagine a body called 'class theory' I think the most crucial part of it would be a distinction between consensus-based and conflict-based models of class.
When I say consensus-based, I mean an understanding of class stratification that sees different classes as necessary, people as comfortable in their class identity, class as something that just is. Conflict-based is seeing class as something that comes out of, well, conflict. The wealth and leisure of the upper strata comes off the back of the lower strata, etc. Of course, as someone deeply influenced by Marxist theory I am powerfully on the conflict side myself; but I know it's more complicated. Marxist theorizing about ideology and hegemony (Gramsci, especially) is basically about how the working classes come to consent to their own exploitation, to perceive working for someone else's profit as something that benefits them.
I'm not sure that classism is analogous to racism and sexism precisely because, to me, some kind of consensus-based view is a precursor to understanding class as analogous with race and gender (and anyway I'm not exactly convinced of that analogy's universal validity either :) ). Then again, a deep analysis of race and gender sees them as conflict-based systems powered by hegemonic systems that produce consent, too, in many ways, so perhaps it's more useful than I'm inclined to think.
Okay, I guess that's my theoretical standpoint on class. More in a second! (I have an insanely long comment to break up in chunks here...)
comment of great density the first.
The first and main thing, I think, is just to remark that I don't think there *is* class theory in the same way that there's race and gender and sexuality theory. There's theories of class formation and conflict and of class as process, but I really kind of think that class as identity category isn't often theorized in a way analogous to the other formations. I can think of exceptions, but I don't think 'class theory' is a body of work in the same way. However, if I were to imagine a body called 'class theory' I think the most crucial part of it would be a distinction between consensus-based and conflict-based models of class.
When I say consensus-based, I mean an understanding of class stratification that sees different classes as necessary, people as comfortable in their class identity, class as something that just is. Conflict-based is seeing class as something that comes out of, well, conflict. The wealth and leisure of the upper strata comes off the back of the lower strata, etc. Of course, as someone deeply influenced by Marxist theory I am powerfully on the conflict side myself; but I know it's more complicated. Marxist theorizing about ideology and hegemony (Gramsci, especially) is basically about how the working classes come to consent to their own exploitation, to perceive working for someone else's profit as something that benefits them.
I'm not sure that classism is analogous to racism and sexism precisely because, to me, some kind of consensus-based view is a precursor to understanding class as analogous with race and gender (and anyway I'm not exactly convinced of that analogy's universal validity either :) ). Then again, a deep analysis of race and gender sees them as conflict-based systems powered by hegemonic systems that produce consent, too, in many ways, so perhaps it's more useful than I'm inclined to think.
Okay, I guess that's my theoretical standpoint on class. More in a second! (I have an insanely long comment to break up in chunks here...)