Where do scientists and academia stand in relation to class analysis?

[Yazman]

I was thinking about this the other day and for all my research over the years I really couldn't think of the answer.

Where do scientists and/or academics stand in relation to a marxist class analysis? When they are subject to the whims of a ruling class and have little to no control of the means of production I am left questioning their position within the framework of a class society. Where do they lie?

[Jazzratt]

This isn't really an S&E thread, since it's only really peripherally connected to Sciences and the Environment - I'll be moving it to Learning.

[Q]

Most sociologists (I'll take them as a more concrete example as "scientists" is rather vague) agree that we live in a class society, however they give a different meaning to it. Instead of defining a class as an economic entity with social consequences, they abstractly divide it as "you belong to the underclass if you have less than a normal wage, you belong to the middle class if you've several times normal wage" etc. They completely think in different terms and as such they don't really have a class analysis as we know it.

[Luís Henrique]

Most sociologists (I'll take them as a more concrete example as "scientists" is rather vague) agree that we live in a class society, however they give a different meaning to it. Instead of defining a class as an economic entity with social consequences, they abstractly divide it as "you belong to the underclass if you have less than a normal wage, you belong to the middle class if you've several times normal wage" etc. They completely think in different terms and as such they don't really have a class analysis as we know it.

This is bourgeois sociology, of course. Marxist sociology is directly based on the notion of social class, and defines "class" in terms of access to means of production.

But the OP is not, I think, about what scientists think about social classes, but rather about on which social class they belong to. As being a scientist is not related to one's position regarding means of production, it should be clear that they may belong to any social class. Evidently, those scientists who are proletarian are usually part of the upper layers of the class.

Luís Henrique

[Dros]

Scientists and academia are part of the petty bourgeoisie.

[Enragé]

Yea, same "neutrality" when it comes to class struggle and also the first to flock to fascism (or the revolutionary left for that matter..)

[Luís Henrique]

Yea, same "neutrality" when it comes to class struggle

That maybe, but this:


and also the first to flock to fascism (or the revolutionary left for that matter..)

seems pretty forced. Where and when was there a noticeable flocking of scientist towards fascism?

Luís Henrique

[Yazman]

But the OP is not, I think, about what scientists think about social classes, but rather about on which social class they belong to.

Yes, this is what I meant.


Scientists and academia are part of the petty bourgeoisie.

Why?


As being a scientist is not related to one's position regarding means of production, it should be clear that they may belong to any social class. Evidently, those scientists who are proletarian are usually part of the upper layers of the class.

What you say here I find interesting and it does make sense to me that they could appear in any social class.

[Enragé]

@LH you're right, history sure doesnt support that, i just have a simmering hate for the postmodern intelligentsia.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Scientists and academia are part of the petty bourgeoisie.

Oh yes of course, because after all the Petit-Bourgeoisie are just the miscellaneous class we can lump "ambiguous cases" into without having to think :rolleyes:.

[Revulero]

How are scientist part of the petty bourgeosie if some are hired by the govt. and private businesses

[Dros]

Oh yes of course, because after all the Petit-Bourgeoisie are just the miscellaneous class we can lump "ambiguous cases" into without having to think :rolleyes:.

No idiot.

The petty-bourgeoisie is that class which owns property without owning large sections of the means of production. They don't sell their labor power for a wage in the same manner as the proletariat but at the same time, they own property, unlike the proletariat.

Go read a book.

[wallflower]

I think it's crucial, when considering the considerably broad "scientists and academics" category, to distinguish between academics in the Natural Sciences (biology, chemistry, various applications of mathematics in general, etc.) and those in the Social Sciences. My inkling is that each faces a different direction, politically speaking. The products of the Natural Sciences are more applicable to the Military/Industrial Complex and might encourage academics in those areas to sympathize with a government eager to spend on such output.

Now, in the Social Sciences, we do, indeed, see the emergence of a "postmodern intelligentsia", many of whom have acquired fame for decrying "the end of history". But we should keep in mind that these "scholars" are vastly in the minority, even if postmodernism as a paradigm is in the majority. Postmodernism isn't the enemy of class-struggle many Marxists (and even more blowhard-type pretentious so-called "postmodernists") claim. I've recommended Fredric Jameson's text on Postmodernism before, and I will recommend it again.

That aside, a question: I am a Marxist, yes, but first and foremost a scholar of the Humanities. Where do I fit in regard to class relations?

[bezdomni]

Depends how you define "scientist". The guy who does grunt work in a lab with a B.S. could fall in the upper-strata of the working class, or somewhere in the lower middle-strata.

The guy with a PhD who manages a team of researchers is a petty-bourgeois. The guy with a B.S. and an MBA that owns a pharmaceutical company is outright bourgeois.

LH is right, scientists and academia can fall into practically any class. I would say most people who you would call scientists or academia fall into the middle strata.


The products of the Natural Sciences are more applicable to the Military/Industrial Complex and might encourage academics in those areas to sympathize with a government eager to spend on such output.
I don't like you.

[wallflower]

I don't like you.

Hey, be nice to the newbies! We may not be as adroit as you, but a little respect?

And how else am I supposed to say it? classmates of mine who cared half as much and worked half as hard but just so happened to major in the Natural Sciences are upwardly mobile because the nature of their jobs is applicable to something the government cares about. I chose the alternative and am class-conscious (hence my original question), yet almost flat broke and now actually have the distinct pleasure of paying (via loan payments) for an education no one else considers useful.

I'm not anti-tech; I just think the government has a lot better things to spend on than employing a team of scientists to build an even better gun. And I think, due to their relationship to the means of production, academics in the Natural Sciences have a different take on class issues than your typical pomo English prof.

[Luís Henrique]

No idiot.

The petty-bourgeoisie is that class which owns property without owning large sections of the means of production.

For one who calls others "idiot" so easily, your definition of petty-bourgeoisie is quite lacking.

The petty bourgeoisie is that class who owns means of production, produces for the market, and is unable to accumulate capital.


Go read a book.

Good idea.

Luís Henrique

[Niccolò Rossi]

No idiot.

The petty-bourgeoisie is that class which owns property without owning large sections of the means of production. They don't sell their labor power for a wage in the same manner as the proletariat but at the same time, they own property, unlike the proletariat.

Go read a book.

Even if we do go with your definition (as opposed to LH's for arguments sake), would you care to explain what property research scientists and other academics possess?

I can tell you now I have a relative who lives over in Japan as a researcher in the field of economics and he is not a rich man at all...

[bezdomni]

Hey, be nice to the newbies! We may not be as adroit as you, but a little respect?

Sorry, but you said natural science students find their place only in the military industrial complex. I'm a natural science student, as lots of communists have been historically. I don't think you thought through what you said.


classmates of mine who cared half as much and worked half as hard but just so happened to major in the Natural Sciences are upwardly mobile because the nature of their jobs is applicable to something the government cares about.
Even doing an engineering degree in a half-assed way is much more rigorous and demanding than reading Proust all day and thinking you are doing the world a favor.

Sciences are more useful to humanity than comparative literature?!?!! And here I was, thinking the secrets of the universe were hidden in obscure Shakespeare plays!


And I think, due to their relationship to the means of production, academics in the Natural Sciences have a different take on class issues than your typical pomo English prof.
You are very mechanistic in your way of thinking. I know physics professors who are communist sympathizers and english professors who are pretty right-wing. Subjects of study do not define your class, although your class largely influences your area of study.

For example, first generation college students tend to study in the sciences or engineering...while people whose parents or grandparents and so on had money to go to college tend to study philosophy. Some even have the nerve to study political "science".

[Die Neue Zeit]

For one who calls others "idiot" so easily, your definition of petty-bourgeoisie is quite lacking.

The petty bourgeoisie is that class who owns means of production, produces for the market, and is unable to accumulate capital.

Huh? [And Zeitgeist, I'm surprised that you're rushing to agree with Luis here instead of drosera99.]

There are profitable small-business owners who are able to perform the M -> C -> M function. They start out really small, but accumulate capital before settling within the niche market. Furthermore, even big-time companies at a certain point stagnate and can't accumulate capital.


The guy who does grunt work in a lab with a B.S. could fall in the upper-strata of the working class, or somewhere in the lower middle-strata.

The guy with a PhD who manages a team of researchers is a petty-bourgeois. The guy with a B.S. and an MBA that owns a pharmaceutical company is outright bourgeois.

SP is right here, EXCEPT for the "petit-bourgeois" part (he would actually be a coordinator).

[apathy maybe]

Personally, I find this another example of the [relative weakness of Marxian class analysis (as opposed to what? yeah I know nothings perfect though).

If it were a strong analysis, there would be a lot less disagreement as to which class various professions (teachers, lawyers, scientists, doctors, plumbers, parts of the military and managers are all examples that have caused problems in the past) belonged to.

OK, so the bourgeois own the means of production, and can afford to not work, but instead live purely of profit from that ownership (interest and rent are also profit in this case). I think we can say that generally (but not all the time), the above don't fit into this category.

The petit-bourgeois are those that own some means of production, but are forced to work (generally with their own "means of production") to make up the short-fall. Sometimes they employ others, sometimes not.
Plumbers often fall into this category, and you could argue that certain doctors or lawyers also fall into this category (ignoring that they don't own any "means of production" as such, doctors produce 'health', and lawyers produce 'ideas', neither of which are tangible goods).

Then you get plumbers, teachers and others from the list that fall squarely into the proletariat category. They don't own any means of production, but are forced to work for a living, hired by others (the important part generally).

So, where do scientists fit in? Well, personally I guess mostly they would fit into the last category. That is, if they stopped working, their standard of living would plummet as they can't subsist of any property that they own. But as noted, as soon as they start accumulating property, they move into either the petit or haute bourgeois.

[RedFlagComrade]

Depends how you define "scientist".
Actually it depends on how you define class.
-The working class are the class that sell their labour to create a good or provide a service but with the profit of that labor going to somebody else-like a scientist doing his research for a pharmaceutical company.
-Petit Bourgeoisie own small amounts of commercial property but they dont control the means of production-a shopkeeper etc. or an scientist patenting his invention to sell it.
-The higher classes control the labor force in order to make a profit-a scientist with a lot of underlings who to the manual labor in finding some new scientific discovery but who takes all of the profit himself-dont confuse with a supervior who would only be a worker, working for a corporation that takes the profit he and the workers (lab assistants) under his command helped to create.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Must I point out especially to CC members my article submission on class relations? :(

[wallflower]

I would like to offer the sincerest apology to all lefties in the Natural Sciences whose noses I may have wrinkled with my comments. As SovietPants quite rightly pointed out, my rhetoric was highly mechanistic and reductive in regard to an issue (namely, the '90s "culture war") that is better off buried.


Sorry, but you said natural science students find their place only in the military industrial complex. I'm a natural science student, as lots of communists have been historically. I don't think you thought through what you said

You're right. I generalized and didn't think through what I wrote before posting it. My original intent was merely to offer caution to students of the Natural Sciences that their work is often highly applicable to increased militarization and government surveillance.

Now this?


Even doing an engineering degree in a half-assed way is much more rigorous and demanding than reading Proust all day and thinking you are doing the world a favor.

Sciences are more useful to humanity than comparative literature?!?!! And here I was, thinking the secrets of the universe were hidden in obscure Shakespeare plays!

This is tripe, and fuel for the very "culture war" between the Natural/Social Sciences I feel I may have inadvertently begun.


You are very mechanistic in your way of thinking. I know physics professors who are communist sympathizers and english professors who are pretty right-wing. Subjects of study do not define your class, although your class largely influences your area of study.

Here, you're right, I think. I was making unfair generalizations, though the content of your reply may very well prove I'm not alone in this error. I guess tit-for-tat, no?


For example, first generation college students tend to study in the sciences or engineering...while people whose parents or grandparents and so on had money to go to college tend to study philosophy. Some even have the nerve to study political "science".

Even if you can conjure statistics to prove it, this is still an unfair stereotype. There are no disciplines more welcome to first-generation college students than those in the Humanities. And hidden deep in your reply is your dangerous sentiment that a brain full of equations has greater social use-value than one full of the understanding of the commonalities in humankind that will make the revolution we both agree should occur maybe...a little more inclusive and markedly less physically violent?

[bezdomni]

Even if you can conjure statistics to prove it, this is still an unfair stereotype. There are no disciplines more welcome to first-generation college students than those in the Humanities. And hidden deep in your reply is your dangerous sentiment that a brain full of equations has greater social use-value than one full of the understanding of the commonalities in humankind that will make the revolution we both agree should occur maybe...a little more inclusive and markedly less physically violent?

Beh. The most gentle person I know is a chemist, one of the most harsh people I know is a history student. Both the humanities and the natural sciences suffer immensely from bourgeois influences. To the frustration of science, it is often limited in its discoveries because of the need for investigation to be profitable. Also, the militaristic applications of scientific discoveries are a big hindrance as well. We discover a principle of nature, figure out how to make it blow people up, and then play around with it for a few decades before we even really start to figure out what it does. No real scientist would find that acceptable. Communism has been the most consistent and persistent pro-science movement in the whole last century. After all, Marxism itself is a science.

For the same reasons, bourgeois society stagnates the humanities. The need for ventures to be profitable naturally limits artists to full-time employment in anything from bagging groceries to thinking up jingles for pizza commercials, depending on their class background. Bourgeois cultural hegemony is also a much more substantial problem in the humanities than it is in the sciences.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Zeitgeist, I'm surprised that you're rushing to agree with Luis here instead of drosera99.

I don't agree with Luis' definition, neither did I myself put forward a definition of the petit-bourgeoisie. I simply criticized drosera99, as did Luis who I acknowledged, for calling unpropertied "mental proletarians", petit-bourgeoisie which they are certainly not (something you acknowledge in your definition).

Certainly you Jacob don't agree that academics and the intelligentsia are members of the petit-bourgeois? By your own class structure system they would fall under the category of working class, would they not?

[Invader Zim]

No idiot.

The petty-bourgeoisie is that class which owns property without owning large sections of the means of production. They don't sell their labor power for a wage in the same manner as the proletariat but at the same time, they own property, unlike the proletariat.

Go read a book.

I don't see how the intelligentsia really fits into that. They don't control any part of the means of production, and they do sell their labour. Academics sell their labour and expertese to their departments who task them with teaching students and performing research.

I guess it becomes a bit different with the highly successful academics who publish highly popular books, from which they can derive a substancial living, but for the most part lecturers are unlikely to find themselves being read by those outside of academia.


Even doing an engineering degree in a half-assed way is much more rigorous and demanding than reading Proust all day

Having not done a degree, like English literature I don't think you really have enough experience for that judgement to be accurate. It is also well worth noting that plenty of those who study the natural sciences study meaningless crap of no use to anybody. It is the same as in any subject, and I have no doubt that a lot of people would consider my current research as somewhat fruitless. As soon as you start going into any depth on a subject it seems so esoteric that it is pointless.


And here I was, thinking the secrets of the universe were hidden in obscure Shakespeare plays!

In fairness, it seems likely to me that more people care about Shakespeare than they do about Zodiacal light, or whatever.



For example, first generation college students tend to study in the sciences or engineering.

My own experiences of university contradict that trend, but if you have some statistical evidence I will consider myself contradicted.


while people whose parents or grandparents and so on had money to go to college tend to study philosophy.

Like above, evidence?


The most gentle person I know is a chemist, one of the most harsh people I know is a history student.

You get assholes in every department; I am not sure if any single disipline is worse than another for it.


To the frustration of science, it is often limited in its discoveries because of the need for investigation to be profitable.

This is the same for all faculties, and the sciences typically recieve the largest funding by a vast degree. The AHRC (The Arts and Humanities Research Coincil) is the research body with the least funding; because apparently topics such as the holocaust, etc, are less important than the occassional trace element of cadmium in soil.

I guess this debate comes down to which you think is more important, understanding humanity or understanding the enviroment in which humanity resides. Something of a pointless, and answerless, debate wouldn't you agree?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't agree with Luis' definition, neither did I myself put forward a definition of the petit-bourgeoisie. I simply criticized drosera99, as did Luis who I acknowledged, for calling unpropertied "mental proletarians", petit-bourgeoisie which they are certainly not (something you acknowledge in your definition).

Certainly you Jacob don't agree that academics and the intelligentsia are members of the petit-bourgeois? By your own class structure system they would fall under the category of working class, would they not?







Most (not all) modern "intelligentsia" would indeed fall under the category of "professional workers" (still within the working class), even if one were to discount elementary- and high-school teachers, as well as a lot of bachelor-degree profs (barring those semi-retired former execs or former coordinating accountants in business school :D ). A lot of intellectuals outside the education system would indeed be part of the working class (employed scientists), and not even in the "labour aristocracy."

Academia

The tricky question is when you start going up into those profs teaching master's degree programs and especially PhD programs.

They write TONS of books and other papers (and make $$$ from them on top of their salaries); they're kinda like artisans ("Class #2" at the very least) and commissioned salespeople (who usually are petit-bourgeois, like the more tenured among commissioned insurance agents). The difference is that, unlike artisans, these higher-up profs do enable the development of society's labour power and its capacities.

Also, what if they have their own small publishing company, or what if the publishing company they have arrangements with is VERY "friendly" with them (most of the sales goes to the writers themselves)?

It's a hard question, but they could be either part of the "labour aristocracy" within the working class or part of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Corporate researchers


The guy who does grunt work in a lab with a B.S. could fall in the upper-strata of the working class, or somewhere in the lower middle-strata.

The guy with a PhD who manages a team of researchers is a petty-bourgeois. The guy with a B.S. and an MBA that owns a pharmaceutical company is outright bourgeois.

Replace the word "petit-bourgeois" with the word "coordinator," and that would be my exact position on them.



KARL KAUTSKY TIME (see my edited article on class relations, quoting this portion of [i]The Class Struggle):

There is still a third category of proletarians that has gone far on the road to its complete development – the educated proletarians. Education has become a special trade under our present system. The measure of knowledge has increased greatly and grows daily. Capitalist society and the capitalist state are increasingly in need of men of knowledge and ability to conduct their business, in order to bring the forces of nature under their power […] Under this system education becomes a merchandise.

A hundred years or so ago this commodity was rare. There were few schools; study was accompanied with considerable expense. So long as small production could support him, the worker stuck to it; only special gifts of nature or favorable circumstances would cause the sons of the workers to dedicate themselves to the arts and sciences. Though there was an increasing demand for teachers, artists and other professional men, the supply was definitely limited.

Since those days the development of higher education has made immense progress. The number of institutions of learning has increased wonderfully, and in a still larger degree, the number of pupils.

[…]

The time is near when the bulk of these proletarians will be distinguished from the others only by their pretensions. Most of them still imagine that they are something better than proletarians. They fancy they belong to the bourgeoisie, just as the lackey identifies himself with the class of his master. They have ceased to be the leaders of the capitalist class and have become rather their defenders. Place-hunting takes more and more of their energies. Their first care is, not the development of their intellect, but the sale of it. The prostitution of their individuality has become their chief means of advancement.

[bezdomni]

I guess this debate comes down to which you think is more important, understanding humanity or understanding the enviroment in which humanity resides. Something of a pointless, and answerless, debate wouldn't you agree?Yes. Although I imagine aptitude plays a significant factor as well.

I don't want to give the image that I hate the humanities. I read philosophy and "classic literature" a lot, I just never take classes in them if I can help it. I've taken one philosophy class in college, and it was loaded with pretentious cocks who never made sense when they said anything. I know not every philosophy student is a pretentious cock, but yah...I'm unfairly projecting my own experiences onto the world in general.

EDIT: I also can't find any documentation on my "first generation college students tend to study science" claim, which is weird because I know I read that somewhere else (although maybe it wasn't cited). A disproportionate amount of engineering majors I know in Houston are first generation (and work ridiculously hard), which is probably why I didn't question that when I read it.


Replace the word "petit-bourgeois" with the word "coordinator," and that would be my exact position on them.
What is the difference and why does it matter?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Please read my chapter-article (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html). Coordinators form a separate class, and the modern petit-bourgeoisie is not the "umbrella" class that it used to be. [And please note my Kautsky quote on educated proletarians, especially now that my desired avatar is on display. :) ]