Contradictory Class Locations

The following is a summary of Erik Olin Wright's theory of contradictory class locations. Wright began studying class in the late 1970s, with the intention of demonstrating the continuing relevance of Marxist thought. Scholars had become increasingly critical of Marx's conceptualization of class structure, and its inability to accommodate the growing middle class of the twentieth century. Wright extended Marx's theory by situating the middle class in contradictory class locations — locations which are torn between the basic class relations of capitalist society. The article will further define these positions and introduce three specific types of contradictory locations. Criticisms of the theory will be addressed, as will Wright's response to these criticisms.

Keywords Bourgeoisie; Class Structure; Control; Exploitation; Petty Bourgeoisie; Proletariat; Relational Class Structure

Contradictory Class Locations

Overview

The notion of class is a fundamental conceptual tool in the social sciences. And yet, as Beckert and Zafirovsky explain, "there is no general consensus among sociologists about how best to define the concept or about the broader theoretical framework within which it should be studied" (2006, p. 62). Some theorists follow closely in the footsteps of Max Weber, others adhere to the tenets of Marxism. Within these larger theoretical landscapes, more specific topics emerge: class location, class structure, class consciousness, and class struggle to name just a few. What unites those who study class, however, is a firm belief in the significance of class in explaining a wide variety of social phenomena (Wright, 1997a).

In the late 1970s, one young scholar — Erik Olin Wright — began what would become a lifelong commitment to the study of class. His original research was motivated by the desire "to demonstrate to non-Marxist social scientists that Marxist categories mattered" (Wright, 1978, p. xix). And he intended to do so through a quantitative study of income inequality and class. What Wright soon discovered, however, was that class — although a central concept in Marx's work — was "never systematically defined," even by Marx himself (Wright, 1996, p. 6). Furthermore, he realized that Marx's conceptualization of capitalist societies as comprised of two increasingly polarized classes — those who own the means of production, or the bourgeoisie, and the working class, or the proletariat — was inadequate. What was needed was a more nuanced understanding of class structure that would allow theorists to differentiate among the growing "middle class." Wright introduced his theory of 'contradictory class locations' as a way to fill the gap.

The Original Theory of Contradictory Class Locations

In the nearly four decades since Wright first introduced his theory, he has continually attempted to revise it. As he explains, "the process of concept formation is a continual process of concept transformation. New solutions pose new problems, and the efforts at resolving those problems in turn generate new solutions" (Wright, 1996, p. 92). As a result, the theory of contradictory class locations as it exists now differs in significant ways from its original presentation. We'll look at the theory as Wright first introduced it in the 1970s, then explore some of the arguments of his critics, and finally, look at the ways in which he has attempted to revise it.

In his 1978 publication, Class Structure and Income Determination, Wright's initial task was to present the concept of class from a Marxist perspective. Wright begins by recognizing that "Marxists have defined class primarily in terms of common structural positions within social organizations of production" (1978, p. 4). According to this definition, classes do not constitute groups of people, or statistical aggregations, or social organizations. Rather, classes represent common positions within a hierarchy; importantly, it is the positions themselves which are the primary unit of analysis, not the individuals who occupy those positions. For Marx, the primary positions in the class structure were the capitalists or bourgeoisie, and the proletariat or workers, although he did identify others too, such as the petty bourgeoisie.

Further Insights

Before characterizing these positions further, Wright provides a broader context for his discussion of class by further distinguishing Marxist and non-Marxist perspectives. First and foremost, Wright argues, Marxists view class as a relational concept as opposed to a gradational one (1978). In the latter approach, classes are often defined in terms of spatial relationships — for example, upper and lower class — and members of one or another class typically have more or less of something, such as income or status. In relational definitions, on the other hand, classes are defined in terms of qualitative differences rather than quantitative ones — according to functions performed in work, for example, rather than in terms of income accumulated. In addition, relational definitions of class emphasize change over stasis; that is, according to Marxists, class structures provide the basis collective action and class struggle.

Relational definitions of class can be further differentiated from one another along a second dimension — whether relations are situated in the market, or in the production process itself. Those who subscribe to a Weberian conception of class concentrate on market relations, or the exchange that occurs between sellers and buyers. Marxists, on the other hand, place class analysis firmly in the sphere of production, and the relations between the actors who participate in the production process. Definitions of class grounded in the sphere of production branch once again; some theorists characterize production relations in terms of the division of labor, some in terms of authority, and others in terms of exploitation. For Marxists, exploitation is the central organizing concept, and occurs when those in dominant positions appropriate the labor of the people they dominate. Based on these key elements — relations, production, and exploitation — Wright proposes a Marxist definition of class as "common positions within the social relations of production, where production is analyzed above all as a system of exploitation" (1978, p. 17).

Although Wright was able to bring some clarity to Marx's interpretation of class, the outline sketched above proved inadequate, especially for those wishing to investigate class empirically, and not just conceptually. Theoreticians had difficulty categorizing a growing segment of society into any of the class positions Marx identified — that is, they seemed to be neither capitalists nor members of the working class, or they seemed to have characteristics of both at the same time. Although many critics of Marx interpreted this classification difficulty as evidence of the inadequacy of Marx's theory, Wright believed differently. He writes, "Many critics of the Marxist framework have argued that…ambiguities in the class structure negate the value of the Marxist perspective on classes altogether. This is equivalent to saying that because the platypus has webbed feet and a bill, the concept of 'mammal' is useless" (Wright, 1978, p. 41). Instead, Wright decided to reevaluate the assumption that every position within the class structure has to fall into one and only one class. "If we drop this assumption," he writes, "an entirely new kind of solution to the problem of conceptually mapping the 'middle class' becomes possible" (Wright, 1996, p. 43).

As a result of dropping this assumption, Wright stumbled upon the notion of contradictory class locations. The new middle class, he argued, largely occupied such positions. In presenting his argument Wright first had to distinguish contradictory class locations from other classes, which he recognized as inherently contradictory in and of themselves. "In a sense all class positions are contradictory, in that class relations are intrinsically antagonistic social relations" (1996, p. 26). The bourgeoisie and proletariat, for example, are not only defined in relation to one another — that is, the existence of one class presupposes the existence of the other — but also in opposition to one another. The bourgeoisie exist only to the extent they can dominate and exploit the proletariat. "Thus, the class interests defined by this class relation are fundamentally opposed to each other. It is in this sense that there is an intrinsic — as opposed to purely contingent — contradiction between classes" (Wright, 1978, p. 22).

Contradictory class locations, on the other hand, represent certain "'empty places' in the class structure [which] constitute doubly contradictory locations: they represent positions which are torn between the basic contradictory class relations of capitalist society" (Wright, 1978, p. 26). Rather than using what he calls a cumbersome expression — contradictory positions within the basic contradictory class relations of capitalist society — Wright simply refers to such positions as contradictory class locations. In order to further distinguish them from other class positions, he discusses how contradictory locations arise in specific circumstances; for Wright, understanding the notion of control and the three separate dimensions of social relations of production are critical to understanding contradictory class locations (1978).

Again, the difference between class positions and the individuals within those positions becomes critical in Wright's analysis. Importantly, individuals themselves do not have control; rather "it is by virtue of being in a particular position within a social relation and not by virtue of being an 'individual human being' that capitalists have control" (Wright, 1978, p. 25). Control itself implies the capacity to make decisions or to utilize some kind of resource. Within the social relations of production, Wright argues, there are three specific types of control: control over money, control over the physical means of production, and control over labor. It is precisely because these three types of control function independently of one another — that is, one class position might be characterized by control over labor but not money — that contradictory class locations arise. Wright writes, "The three processes that comprise capitalist social relations of production do not always perfectly coincide. This fact is the key to understanding the class position of the new social categories that are labeled 'middle class'" (1978, p. 26). According to Wright, three specific clusters of contradictory locations — managers/supervisors, semi-autonomous workers, and small employers — are most prominent within the class structure (1978).

Managers and supervisors occupy the first contradictory class location between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As Wright acknowledges, some contradictory locations will be closer to one boundary or another (1978). Foreman or line supervisors, for example, occupy a contradictory location closest to the working class. They have control over labor in that they supervise workers, but they have little control over the physical production process, and have no control over capital. As organizations have become increasingly bureaucratic, such positions have lost some of their authority, moving them even closer to the working class. Other middle managers who have more technical or professional expertise may occupy a position closer to the bourgeoisie, or a position more equally torn between the two. Middle managers may participate in investment decisions, for example, and have control over parts of the labor process but rarely control physical production itself.

Semiautonomous workers occupy a contradictory location between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie. According to Wright, this contradictory location is a direct by-product of the attempt by capitalists to exert increasing levels of control over the labor process, or what is referred to in Marxist terms as the proletarianization of labor (1978). Within this ongoing struggle, some workers — semiautonomous workers — have managed to maintain a level of control over their immediate labor process. To the extent they are no longer self-employed nor supervise the work of others, they are members of the working class. However, to the extent they control their own work — even to a small degree — they are petty bourgeoisie. Wright acknowledges that a significant amount of ambiguity remains in defining the boundaries of this location; how much control and/or autonomy is needed to classify someone as semi-autonomous is unclear (1978).

The last of the contradictory locations — small employers — inhabit a position between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. This location, Wright argues, is conceptually simpler because it involves a single mode of production rather than different modes (1978). That is, petty bourgeoisie participate in simple commodity production because they produce their own goods and rarely employ others to produce for them. As a result, they cannot appropriate surplus labor through exploitation of others. However, when a small business begins to hire help, the social relation of production changes and exploitation — even if on a small scale — is now possible. Such employers, although still largely petty bourgeoisie, now inhabit a position that shares characteristics with the capitalist class. The number of employees needed to tip the balance, so that the smaller business owner identifies more closely with the bourgeoisie rather than the petty bourgeoisie, will vary across different kinds of technologies and historical periods (Wright, 1978).

Viewpoints

Criticism & Evolution of the Theory

In his 1996 publication, Classes, Wright himself gives voice to many of the criticisms of his original formulation of contradictory class locations. From the start, he acknowledges, there were some conceptual problems with his theory. The four issues he believes deserve the most attention are introduced below.

Contradiction

Perhaps most significantly, critics have taken issue with the use of the term "contradiction" itself. While some of the contradictory class locations Wright identifies may indeed have intrinsically antagonistic interests, other positions may be better described as having heterogeneous rather than contradictory interests (Wright, 1996). Managerial positions, for example, are arguably contradictory — it's impossible to be both a capitalist who appropriates surplus labor through exploitation of laborers, and be a member of the proletariat, the recipient of the exploitation, at the same time. "At a minimum," Wright argues, "it makes sense to describe the interests of managers as internally inconsistent" (1996, p. 52). On the other hand, semi-autonomous workers and small employees — who inhabit contradictory locations between modes of production rather than within modes — might have competing interests but not necessarily internally inconsistent interests. Wright suggests these latter locations would be better described as inhabiting "dual" or "heterogeneous" classes (1996).

Autonomy

The use of autonomy as a class criterion has been problematic, from a conceptual as well as empirical standpoint. Conceptually, critics have questioned whether the distinction between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat in terms of autonomy is a useful one. Do the petty-bourgeoisie — farmers, shop-keepers, independent artists — truly have more autonomy than wage-laborers? Some argue the petty bourgeoisie are equally constrained in their production choices by forces in the market, contracts, and credit institutions, for example. Wage-laborers, on the other hand, continue to make decisions and utilize judgment even in the most routine jobs. Self-employment, rather than autonomy, may be what distinguishes the classes most (Wright, 1996). Autonomy has also been difficult to operationalize. Wright explains, "If autonomy is defined in terms of control over what one produces and how one produces it, then many janitors in schools who also perform a variety of 'handyman' tasks will end up being more autonomous than airline pilots" (1996, p. 55).

Historical Experience

A third and perhaps more fundamental criticism of Wright's theory, and Marxism more generally, is the degree to which actual historical experience has provided contradictory evidence. Marx argued, unequivocally, that socialism was the only logical trajectory for capitalists societies; what has emerged instead, some suggest, are post-capitalist societies.

Rather than an increasing proletarianization (e.g. de-skilling) of the labor force, post-capitalist societies are characterized instead by increasing technical expertise and professionalism, or a de-proletarianization of the workforce (Wright, 1997b). As Wright admits, "the conceptual frameworks adopted by Marxists for analyzing classes in capitalist societies do not contain adequate criteria for systematically understanding post-capitalist classes" (1997b, p. 55). While Wright concedes that capitalism may have changed in ways unanticipated by Marxists, he also poses two challenges to the contention that class structure has become post-capitalist (1997a). Possible measurement bias — or more specifically, an overestimation of the size of the working class in the 1960s and a concomitant underestimation of the size of the working class in the 1990s — may call the de-proletarianization trend into question (Wright, 1997a). Without concrete evidence, however, Wright entertains a second possibility — namely, that the narrow lens through which many study capitalism (e.g. the national lens) distorts their perspective. "A second line of response is to accept the results but to argue that the transnational character of capitalism in the world today makes it inappropriate to study transformations of class distributions within single national units. The Marxist theory of proletarianization is a theory about the trajectory of changes in class structures in capitalism as such, not national units of capitalism" (Wright, 1997a, p. 110).

The last criticism, and the one which Wright (1997b) has addressed most fully, is a criticism introduced by fellow Marxists. Even though Wright's theory of contradictory locations was developed within a Marxist framework, and therefore reaffirmed the relationship between exploitation and class, Wright concedes that his theory rests on the notion of domination more so than exploitation. The important distinction between the two, Wright argues, is that domination does not imply that the two actors have inherently contradictory interests (1997b). Exploitation, on the other hand, occurs when "one person's welfare is obtained at the expense of the other" (Wright, 1997b, p. 65). Wright builds upon Roemer's notion of exploitation in order to reconfigure his theory of contradictory class locations (1982, as cited in Wright, 1997b).

According to the reconfiguration, the "new middle class" is characterized by complex exploitation relations; that is, "there will … tend to be some positions which are exploiting along one dimension of exploitation, while on another are exploited" (Wright, 1997b, p. 87). Professionals, for example, are exploited by the bourgeoisie because they lack capital, but they exploit the skills of others. Wright's reconfiguration also makes a distinction between different types of exploitation among non-wage earners — exploitation of what he calls organization assets and skill/credential assets. This shift allows him "to distinguish within this framework a whole terrain of class-locations that are distinct from the polarized classes of the capitalist mode of production " (Wright, 1997b, p. 87). The exploitation-based conceptualization of contradictory locations also makes it easier, Wright argues, to determine alliances — whether managers, for example, will side with capitalists or workers in a class struggle (1997b). Although the reconfiguration solves some conceptual problems, Wright acknowledges that other issues remain — how to conceptualize interactions among forms of exploitation, for example, and the nature of relationship between skill exploitation and class (1997b).

Conclusion

Wright, of course, is not the only person to recognize the shortcomings of his own theory. He has been criticized by others as well, including Meiksins, who argues that Wright's exploitation-based theory of contradictory locations fails on three grounds (1989). First, Meiksins argues that Wright's conceptualization of exploitation runs counter to the original Marxist definition (1989). For Marx, exploitation was defined as the appropriation of surplus labor; Wright's argument rests upon the idea that multiple exploitations exist. Secondly, Wright suggests that the existence of multiple exploitations might lead to the development of a post-capitalist class (1997b). Meiksins (1989) questions again whether such extensions are logical within a Marxist framework. "It is important to ask whether this makes sense as an analysis of capitalist class structure" (p. 178). Finally, Meiksins criticizes Wright's conceptualization of the relationship between class structure and class formation (1989). In the end, Meiksins calls into question whether the notion of contradictory class locations is helpful at all in conceptualizing the growing middle class (1989). He writes, "Undoubtedly, the complexities of contemporary class structure pose many problems for Marxist theory; many questions do remain unresolved. However, it is not at all clear that the theory of contradictory class locations helps us to understand these complexities" (Meiksins, 1989, p. 183).

Terms & Concepts

Bourgeoisie: Karl Marx identified two primary class locations in capitalist society — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, also referred to as capitalists, own the means of production and employ wage-laborers. Marx argued that the bourgeoisie exploit the surplus labor of the proletariat.

Class Structure: Class analyses typically address many different aspects of class — class structure, class formation, class consciousness, and class struggle. According to Wright, however, understanding class structure is a necessary first step in this analysis. Marxists, in particular, define classes as common positions within a hierarchy or structure. It is the positions themselves which are the unit of analysis, not the individuals who occupy such positions.

Control: Within the social relations of production, Wright argues, there are three specific types of control: control over money, control over the physical means of production, and control over labor. It is precisely because these three types of control function independently of one another — that is, one class position might be characterized by control over labor but not money — that contradictory class locations arise.

Exploitation: The concept of exploitation is central to Marx's, as well as Wright's, analysis of class structure. An exploitive relationship occurs when one group has inherently contradictory interests with respect to another; that is, when one's groups well-being is obtained at the expense of another group. The bourgeoisie's wealth, for example, depends on their exploitation of the labor of the proletariat.

Petty Bourgeoisie: Petty bourgeoisie occupy a position in the hierarchy between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. They are often self-employed individuals who produce their own goods, rather than relying on other wage-laborers. They are one of the key positions around which contradictory class locations emerge, according to Wright.

Proletariat: Karl Marx identified two primary class locations in capitalist society — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The proletariat, also referred to as the working class, has no ownership or control over the means of production; as a result, they must sell their labor in order to live.

Relational Class Structure: Marxist definitions of class are relational in nature, rather than gradational. Gradational definitions conceptualize class in quantitative terms — in terms of differences in the amount of income accumulated, for example. In relational definitions, on the other hand, classes are defined in terms of qualitative differences — according to functions performed in work, for example. In addition, relational definitions of class emphasize change over stasis; that is, according to Marxists, relational class structures provide the basis collective action and class struggle.

Bibliography

Beckert, J., & Zafirovsky, M. (2006). Class. In The International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology (pp. 62–68). New York: Routledge Press. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/selected-published-writings.htm#ARTICLES

Meiksins, P. F. (1989). A critique of Wright's theory of contradictory class locations. In E. O. Wright (Ed.), The Debate on Classes (pp. 173–183). New York: Verso.

Williamson, T. (2012). Emancipatory politics, emancipatory political science: On Erik Olin Wright's Envisioning Real Utopias. New Political Science, 34, 386–395. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79246694

Wright, E. O. (1978). Class structure and income determination . New York: Academic Press.

Wright, E. O. (1979). Class, crisis, and the state. New York: Verso.

Wright, E. O. (1997a). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, E. O. (1997b). Classes. New York: Verso.

Wright, E. O. (2012). Discussion forum: Erik Olin Wright, envisioning real utopias: Taking the social in socialism seriously. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 386–402. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=79710565

Suggested Reading

Buroway, M. (1989). The limits of Wright's analytical Marxism and an alternative. In E. O. Wright (Ed.), The Debate on Classes (pp. 78–99). New York: Verso. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/selected-published-writings.htm#ARTICLES

Wright, E. O. (1996). The continuing relevance of class analysis: Comments. Theory and Society, 25, 693–716. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9708135530&site=ehost-live

Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. New York: Verso.

Wright, E. O. (2013). Transforming capitalism through real utopias. American Sociological Review, 78, 1–25. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85191831

Wright, E. O., & Dwyer, R. E. (2003). The patterns of job expansions in the USA: a comparison of the 1960s and 1990s. Socio-economic Review, 1, 289–325. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/selected-published-writings.htm#ARTICLES