Reflections on Class, Class Consciousness, and

OWS
Class is a touchy subject in American political parlance. Any talk of class apart from the purely
descriptive sense of the term whose main purpose is taxonomical, to tell you where you stand along the
American hierarchy of values and our peculiar measure of success is bound to be disturbing because it
runs counter to the American Spirit, the idea that we can become whomever we want to become, that
theres no stopping us if were ambitious and enterprising enough, that the sky is the limit. But you know
the rest. The American Dream writ large is the incarnation.
So no, Im not speaking here of our middle class or of our lower middle-class, not even of our upper class
and beyond. These are taxonomical categories; and when so used, theyre denotative of our standing in
society. And given upward mobility, another indispensable element of the American Dream, its no wonder
these terms are uncontroversial. In fact, they perpetuate the myth of belonging, the myth that were all in
the same boat, that only our abilities, determination and hard work separate one from the other. And given
equality under the law, we surely must live, or so the story goes, in the best of all possible worlds. Legal
protection, coupled with unlimited potential for individual success, surely must sound like a dream come
true. Indeed, its the unique accomplishment of liberalism, classical or modern, that it perpetuates this
dream.
Which is why whenever class is used in any way other than as a taxonomical term, denoting our present
status in society, with a mind, of course, to our unquestioned assumptions as to social fluidity, it is bound
to evoke a negative response for it strikes at the very core of our beliefs. Class warfare is the extreme
form of the adverse reaction, and were surely familiar with the accusation: its un-American, were told,
undermining the very spirit and principles upon which this nation was founded, inciting violence at worst,
social unrest at best. And given that weve shed all pretense at class by virtue of either birth or privilege,
unlike some of our Continental brethren for whom the vestiges of the Old World, its arguable, still remain,
no wonder were getting incensed. For its our creed, our article of faith, that not class but meritocracy
rules, no ifs, ands or buts. And that if anyone doesnt make it the American way, its their own damn fault.
Thus the myth is kept alive.
There are indications this is about to change. In any case, so think Barbara and John Ehrenreich, the
authors of a seminal article in Mother Jones, The 1 Percent, Revealed, and their identification of OWS
as the catalyst. Now we know beyond any doubt, say the authors, what kind of people comprise our ruling
class, the despicable 1 percent:
[Its] the bankers [stupid[, hedge fund managers, and CEOs targeted by the Occupy Wall Street movement. They
have been around for a long time in one form or another, but they only began to emerge as a distinct and visible
group, informally called the superrich, in recent years.

One only wonders what took us so long to have ever come to this realization. Did we really need OWS to
bring things into sharper focus? But lets suspend our disbelief for a moment and try to embrace the
stance of extreme naivet.
Aside from the growing income and wealth disparity which have come to afflict well nigh every segment of
our society which trend, by the way, has long been in coming, certainly before OWS was a figment in
anyones imagination the Ehrenreichs build their case by deconstructing another fashionable term of
late, the liberal elite. [By liberal elite, they mean academics, media figures, well-educated middle
managers, highly trained engineers, trial lawyers, teachers, doctors and social workers in short, the
professional managerial class but you get the idea.]
The argument is two-prong. First, the liberal elite took a hit just like everyone else has; consequently, it,
too, is bound to join the ranks of our disenfranchised. Second, and more important, it has always been a
make-believe category, a political rather than sociological construct.

And here, the Ehrenreichs are at least partly correct to credit our Right with this spurious construction (I
say partly because our Left hasnt exactly endeared itself to the hoi polloi) so as to create a diversion
which consisted of pointing to an imaginary rather than the real enemy. With the help of OWS, however,
the authors argue, this illusion has been shuttered. Now we know who the real enemy is, the [despicable]
1 percent, revealed. To which I say, what a bunch of malarkey!
I had better preface what Im about to say by declaring that apparently, I have a far greater faith in the
intelligence of the American people than the Ehrenreichs do, even if that intelligence is unarticulated most
of the time. They speak of distraction as though a major impediment to attaining class consciousness;
and on face value, of course theyre right. But cmon now, distractions are part of life. If we make use of
em, its only because they serve their purpose. Its not exactly as though distractions were supposed to
take over and supplant our entire thinking processes. And if we make use of them, its only because we
find them convenient insofar as they enable us to hold on to our biases, our age-old prejudices and stale
ideologies, their function being none other than to provide us with an excuse, a perfect pretext.
Which is to say nothing yet of the authors greatest omission, excluding from consideration all those for
whom distraction, apart from being a factor, any kind of factor, isnt even a part of their vocabulary. Yes,
what I mean here is our growing underclass, our poor and our invisibles, our Niggers, our homeless, our
gays, even our women, all those who no longer have any stake in America because America had failed
them time and again, all those whose main business of living is sheer survival, nothing but making do,
may the devil take the rest. None of those folks give a damn about who exploits whom or why. Its a fact of
life to them , plain and simple; besides, they havent the luxury. All they need to know, its the Man.
Its rather ludicrous the Ehrenreichs and their ilk should be pontificating from their bully pulpit so. Id the
last person to deny anyone the faculty of hope, but I cant help but detect a major disconnect here
between the authors guarded optimism and the underlying realities, realities theyre so out of touch with
that they are not even acknowledged, let alone considered. As a result, not only is the growing bulk of the
American public excluded from their analysis; to make matters worse, even those who by all means ought
to be affected by the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions our dwindling middle class facing the
imminent threat from foreclosures, shrinking incomes and job loss end up being minimized: diversion is
being posited as having been a major barrier to attaining class consciousness while the root causes are
conveniently ignored. Now that the bubble is burst and we know who the real enemy is, a brighter future
awaits us all, were told.
Theres no question OWS has been and continues to be a great many things to a great many people.
Thus far, it has attracted the homeless and the marginalized, the most disaffected members of unionized
labor as well as the government employees, even some of our intelligentsia,I daresay; and with a bit of
luck, its appeal may become more universal. But for the Ehrenreichs to claim the movement has reached
anything like a widespread support simply flies in the face of the facts. Indeed, for all the genius behind
the OWS slogan, We are the 99 percent, the emblem of the Occupy movement, isnt it rather revealing
that by and large, the bulk of the American public, the very people who ought to have embraced the OWS
message as though their own and run with it, remains unconvinced? In fact, most are repelled by it. Id be
the first to say the reasons are many and varied, but surely, some of it has got to do with the fact were
not all that comfortable yet with this class thing.
Which again goes to show you can never trust a member of the intellectual elite to offer a valid selfcritique, not as long as theyre still bona fide members of the elite. Come to think of it, an open rebellion
by the scribes, taken as a class, has been a rare thing indeed. True, there have been incidences in
ancient China, but dont forget: Confucius was a conservative and the arch defender of the imperial rule
and the status quo. What few intellectuals have come to lead and join the masses in their struggle Marx,
Lenin, Trotsky, and one may as well include Prince Kropotkin here and Count Tolstoy if only for good
measure theyve always done so at their own peril by disavowing their class membership: they acted as
individuals.
What then are the major impediments, then, to adopting the Ehrenreichs rather rosy picture of love
reigning supreme and class solidarity in abundance? What are they willfully or ignorantly unaware of?

Ive already alluded to some of the factors which continue to mitigate against class consciousness and a
sense of greater commonality in American political and social experience methodological individualism,
the atomistic, Lockean conception of the individual as though (still) in a State of Nature, along with the
emphasis on rights and rule of law aimed at protecting those rights as though the epitome of our
freedoms, the legalistic conception of equality. Need I say more?
Lets face it! American society is still riddled with divisions along racial and ethnic lines in order for the
sense of solidarity to take hold. Equally prohibitive is the philosophy of methodological individualism, just
spoken of, which inscribes the American psyche more so than any other human society, past or present.
The most vulgar rendition of it is, individual success at all cost; a more benign one, putting ones own
interests above the interests of the community.
Even Rome, the most imperialistic state ever conceived, a template for all imperialistic states to follow,
had better sense than that. But then again, the Romans hadnt the benefit of the liberal ideology which
posits the individual as though in a never-ending conflict with all other humans and the forces of nature,
though in a state of conflict they most definitely were. Yes, even the Romans, irreligious as they were by
todays or the ancient standards, werent altogether taken in by the myth of individualism and the resultant
hubris. Even they, the conquerors of the world, have known their rightful place in the larger scheme of
things. For better or worse, they have always been humble enough to pay homage to Destiny (or Fortune,
as the case may be, if gods happened to smile their way). Its but a reconstruction of a civilization long
gone, Id be the first to admit it, an aid to understanding. One can never be certain, of course!
There have always been classes as far as human societies go, a ruling class, a priestly class, the scribes,
the workmen, the artisans, the peasants and the slaves. Perhaps the Solons and Cleistheness Greece
was the only exception insofar as public officials were elected by the casting of lots, the term of office not
to exceed one year; and in that respect, everyone was equal. Of course we must make an allowance here
for the existence of slaves, which made the entire enterprise we call direct democracy not only possible
but suspect as well.
It was the economic necessity, someone always had to work in order to provide another person with their
leisure, the least of which being, tending to the affairs of the state, so says the conventional wisdom. Its
preordained, so were told.
So how are we to free ourselves, in that case, from this age-old pattern, this troublesome meme which
appears so engraved in our hearts and minds that we cant seem to think beyond taking advantage of
others as a way of securing our own freedoms? And how are we do this in this land called America, once
conceived as the Great Experiment but which, as a matter of fact, presents the greatest obstacle ever
because the premises were all wrong? How are we to do this when individual rights end up masquerading
as our freedoms and the rule of law that unique expression of the will (or mere acquiescence, as the
case may be, on the part of) the ruling class as (distributive) justice?
If youre looking for philosophical underpinnings which ground these conclusions, youll do well to give a
cursory look at Charles Taylors article, The Nature and Scope of Distributive Justice, in Philosophy and
The Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers 2 (see the featured selection). Meanwhile, if youre looking to
practical solutions, I cant improve on Marxs definition of class, bourgeois edition, which ties the concept
to the ownership of the means of production: until the producers have full control over the disposition of
their product, therell never be a classless society. And assuming now that a classless society is a
desideratum for any democratic society worthy of its name, a condition whereby only meritocracy rules,
whereas birth, rank or privilege are of no account, this ought to be our greatest aspiration.
The Ehrenreichs open their provocative article with a quote from E. P. Thompsons The Making of the
English Working Class:
Class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the
identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and
usually opposed to) theirs.

Its a fairly straightforward definition, no doubt about it. I hasten to add, however, it hasnt happened yet.
Weve got a long way to go.
Perhaps Bell Hooks essay, Love As The Practice Of Freedom in Outlaw Culture: Resisting
Representations, another featured selection, should serve as a fitting conclusion. Let me cite the opening
paragraph:

In this society, there is no powerful discourse on love emerging either from politically progressive radicals of from the
Left. The absence of a sustained focus on love in progressive circles arises from a collective failure to acknowledge
the needs of the spirit and an overdetermined emphasis on material concerns. Without love, our efforts to liberate
ourselves and our world community from oppression and exploitation are doomed. As long as we refuse to address
fully the place of love in struggles from liberation we will not be able to create a culture of conversion where there is a
mass turning from an ethic of domination.