10. A general framework for studying
class consciousness and class
formation
In one way or another, most class analysts believe that at the core of class
analysis is a relatively simple causal structure that looks something like
the diagram in Figure 10.1. There is, of course, much disagreement about
precisely how to conceptualize the arrows in this causal stream. Do they
mean ``determines'' or ``shapes'' or ``imposes limits upon''? Is there a
clear sense in which the horizontal causal stream in this structure is
``more important'' or ``more fundamental'' than the unspeci®ed ``other
causes''? At one extreme, orthodox historical materialism claimed that
one can broadly read off patterns of class struggle directly from the class
structure, and these, in turn, determine the fundamental course of
history; in the long run, at least, class structures are thought to determine
class struggle and class struggles (in conjunction with the development
of the forces of production) to determine trajectories of social change. At
the other extreme, most non-Marxist class analysts as well as some
Marxists view the class structure as at most providing us with the
vocabulary for identifying potential actors in class struggles; class
structure does not, however, necessarily have a more powerful role in
determining actual patterns of class struggle than many other mechan-
isms (ideology, the state, ethnicity, etc.), and class struggles are only one
among a host of change-producing factors.
In this chapter we will explore the elements on the left hand side of
Figure 10.1: ``Class structure ? class struggle.'' I will propose a general
model of the relationship between class structure and class struggle
which captures both the core traditional Marxist intuition that class
structures are in some sense the fundamental determinant of class
struggles, but nevertheless allows other causal factors considerable
potential weight in explaining concrete variations across time and place.
The core of the model is an attempt to link a micro-conception of the

stituent micro-elements, or weak and rather chaotic, involving few and
Class counts186
Figure 10.1 Simple core model of class analysis.
erratic interactions among those elements. To analyze any unit of
analysis, therefore, is to investigate the nature and consequences of these
relations among its sub-units.
In specifying any hierarchy of nested micro- to macro-levels, therefore,
we need to de®ne the relevant subunits and the nature of the relations
among them. One way of understanding the hierarchy of units of
analysis in sociology is represented in Table 10.1 and Figure 10.2
The micro-level of sociological analysis consists of the study of the
relations among individuals. Individuals are the constituent elements
within these relations, but it is the relations as such that are the object of
study of micro-level sociological analysis. The study of interactions
among siblings or between bosses and workers are thus both micro-level
social phenomena.
The individuals within these relations, of course, can also be consid-
ered ``units of analysis,'' and the relations among their constituent
``parts'' can also be studied. The study of such intra-individual relations
is the proper object of human biology and psychology. The analysis of
individuals-qua-individuals is thus at the interface between sociology ±
in which the individual is the unit within micro-relations ± and
psychology ± in which the individual is the macro-level within which
relations of various sorts are studied.
The meso-level of social analysis consists of the investigation of
relations among interindividual relations. The units characteristic of
such relations-among-relations are normally what we call ``organiza-
tions,'' although looser units such as social networks would also consti-
187A general framework
Table 10.1 Logic of micro- and macro-levels of social analysis

dealing with macro-analyses (as occurs in many historical analyses of
institutional development). Individuals are not inherently more concrete
than ®rms or societies, any more than cells are more concrete than
organisms.
In terms of class analysis, the concept of ``class location'' is a preemi-
nently micro-level concept. Individuals, at least in capitalism, are the
typical units that occupy the class locations de®ned by class structures
(although in special cases families may be the relevant units). The
``capitalist-class location'' and the ``working-class location'' are de®ned
by the social relations of production that link individuals in these
locations together. The micro-analysis of class locations, therefore, should
not be seen as an alternative to the analysis of class relations: locations are
always speci®ed within relations.
To be ``in'' a class location is to be subjected to a set of mechanisms
that impinge directly on the lives of individuals as they make choices
and act in the world. There is some debate, as we will see in section 10.2
below, over what is most salient about these micro-mechanisms attached
to the locations within class structures: should they primarily be thought
of as determining the material interests of individuals? Or shaping their
subjective understandings of the world? Or determining the basic
resources they have available to pursue their interests? In any event, to
develop a concept of class at the micro-level of analysis is to elaborate
the concept in terms of the mechanisms that directly affect individuals
within class locations.
The term ``class structure,'' then, is the way of designating the set of
class relations and locations within different units of analysis. One can
speak, for example, of the class structure of a ®rm. Some ®rms are run by
189A general framework
a single capitalist entrepreneur who hires a few managers and a homo-
geneous set of workers. Such a ®rm has a quite different class structure

production decisions. Class structures are aggregations of all of the
relations among these micro-level class locations at some more macro-
level of analysis.
190 Class counts
Class formation
I will use the expression ``class formation'' either to designate a process
(the process of class formation) or an outcome (a class formation). In both
cases the expression refers to the formation of collectively organized social
forces within class structures in pursuit of class interests. If class structures are
de®ned by the antagonistic social relations between class locations, class
formations are de®ned by cooperative social relations within class struc-
tures. Strong, solidaristic relations in which individuals are prepared to
make signi®cant sacri®ces for collective goals would be one form of class
formation, but class formation can also be more narrowly instrumental,
without strong solidarities binding people together.
Class formations are important because they constitute a crucial link
between class structure and class struggles. Of course, class struggles
may also involve various kinds of con¯ict between people acting strictly
as individuals in uncoordinated ways, but, since the capacity of indivi-
duals, especially those in exploited classes, to pursue their class interests
is so weak when they act alone, people constantly attempt to forge
various kinds of collectivities to enhance their capacity for struggle. In
these terms, class formations are important above all because of the ways
in which they shape class capacities and thus the balance of power within
class struggles.
Understood in this way, the contrast between class structure and class
formation is similar to the traditional Marxist distinction between a class
in itself and a class for itself. The class in itself/for itself distinction,
however, was linked to a teleological notion of the inevitable trajectory of
class struggle within capitalism towards the full, revolutionary formation

locations, typically the petty bourgeoisie (especially small farmers in the
American case).
Class practices
Class practices are activities engaged in by members of a class using
class capacities in order to realize at least some of their class interests.
``Practice'' in these terms implies that the activity is intentional (i.e. it has
a conscious goal); ``class'' practices implies that the goal is the realization
of class-based interests. Class practices include such mundane activities
as a worker selling labor on a labor market, a foreman disciplining a
worker for poor performance or a stockholder buying stocks or voting in
a stockholders' meeting. But class practices also include such things as
participating in a strike or busting a union.
Class struggle
The term ``class struggle'' refers to organized forms of antagonistic class
practices, i.e. practices that are directed against each other. While in the
limiting case one might refer to a class struggle involving a single
worker and a single capitalist, more generally class struggles involve
collectivities of various sorts. Class formations, not atomized individuals,
are the characteristic vehicles for class struggles. Class struggles, there-
fore, generally refer to relatively macro-phenomena. Given the antago-
192 Class counts
nistic nature of the interests determined by class structures, class
practices of individuals will have a strong tendency to develop into
collective class struggles since the realization of the interests of members
of one class generally imply confrontation against the interests of
members of other classes.
Class consciousness
I will use the concept of class consciousness to refer to particular aspects
of the subjectivity of individuals. Consciousness will thus be used as a
strictly micro-concept. When it ®gures in macro-social explanations it

``class consciousness'' to the class of workers as a collectivity, not to the empirical
individuals who make up that class. For a discussion of Luka
Â
cs' views on this see
Wright (1985: 242).
193A general framework
accessible is to say that by an act of will people can make themselves
aware of it. When people make choices over alternative courses of action,
the resulting action is, at least in part, to be explained by the particular
conscious elements that entered into the intentions of the actor making
the choice. While the problem of consciousness is not reducible to the
problem of intentionality, from the point of view of social theory one of
the most important ways in which consciousness ®gures in social
explanations is via the way it is implicated in the intentions and resulting
choices of actions by actors.
This is not to suggest, of course, that the only way subjectivity is
consequential is via intentional choices. A wide range of psychological
mechanisms may directly in¯uence behavior without passing through
conscious intentions. Nor does the linkage of consciousness to intention-
ality and choice imply that in every social situation the most important
determinants of outcomes operate through consciousness; it may well be
that the crucial determinants are to be found in the processes which
determine the range of possible courses of action open to actors rather
than the conscious processes implicated in the choice among those
alternatives. What is being claimed is that in order to fully understand
the real mechanisms that link social structures to social practices, the
subjective basis of the intentional choices made by the actors who live
within those structures and engage in those practices must be investi-
gated, and this implies studying consciousness.
Given this de®nition of ``consciousness,'' ``class'' consciousness can be

A potential point of terminological confusion needs to be clari®ed at
this point. It is common in Marxist discussions to distinguish between
workers who ``are class conscious'' from those that ``are not class con-
scious.'' The generic expression ``class consciousness'' in such usage is
being identi®ed with a particular type of class consciousness. In the usage
of the term I am proposing, this would be a form of class consciousness in
which individuals have a relatively ``true'' and ``consistent'' under-
standing of their class interests. I am thus using the term class conscious-
ness in a more general way to designate all forms of consciousness with a
class content and class-pertinent effects, regardless of their faithfulness to
real or objective interests. In order to speci®cally indicate the presence of a
particular type of class consciousness, therefore, it will be necessary to
employ suitable adjectives: proworking-class consciousness, anticapitalist
class consciousness, revolutionary working-class consciousness and so
forth. When I use the unmodi®ed expression ``class consciousness'' it will
always refer to the general domain of consciousness with a class content
relevant to class practices. There will be no implication that such
consciousness can always be evaluated as ``true'' or ``false.''
This way of understanding class consciousness suggests that the
concept can be decomposed into several elements. Whenever people
make conscious choices, three dimensions of subjectivity are implicated:
2
1. Perceptions and observations
In one way or another, conscious choice involves processing information
about the world. ``Facts,'' however, are always ®ltered through categories
2
These three dimensions are derived from Therborn's (1982) analysis of ideology as
answers to three questions: what exists? What is possible? What is good?
195A general framework
and beliefs about ``what exists.'' Some workers believe that their

in terms of the material bene®ts to the person, but there is no necessary
restriction of preferences to sel®sh or egotistical evaluations. Preferences
can also involve deep commitment to the welfare of others based on a
sense of shared identity and meaning. ``Class identity'' may therefore
®gure as a salient aspect of class consciousness insofar as it shapes the
extent to which an individual's preferences include a concern for the
well-being of other members of a class.
196 Class counts