exploracion de clase y consciencia

7/27/2019 Exploracion de Clase y Consciencia

1/21

Explorations of Class and Consciousness in the U.S.

Author(s): E. Paul DurrenbergerReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 41-60Published by: University of New MexicoStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630797 .

Accessed: 17/11/2012 13:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:43:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unmhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3630797?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3630797?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm


2/21

EXPLORATIONSOF CLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSIN THEU.S.1E.PaulDurrenbergerDepartmentf Anthropology,hePennsylvaniatateUniversity,

University ark,PA 16802In the United States there are both classes and a folk model that denies theirexistence.I exploresomeanthropologists'andsociologists' conceptualizations fclass andfolk modelsof class. I thendiscuss thesalience of elementsof these olkmodels thatKatherineNewman outlined as meritocratic ndividualismor somelawyers,paralegals,andsupport taffin a legal agencyandfor some servicesectorunionstewards. concludethat there arepowerfulorces in the UnitedStatesthatoperate againstfolk models thatrecognizeclass, amongthem,thestructuringofeverydayworkplaceexperience by law and administrativepractice that operateagainsttherecognitionof class. Thesameis even more trueof academics,andthatsituationprovides the experientialbasis from which some scholars perpetuatecounterfactualolk models of individualism n theiracademicanalysis.THE PARADOX FSTUDYINGlass in America s the denialof classes--our folkmodels tell us thatthethingwe wantto understand oes notexist. "Socialmobilitybased on characterand hardwork is writteninto our institutionsas well as ourConstitution,ourpopularsayingsandourmyths,"writes Goldschmidt 1999:62).Preindustrial tratifiedsocial orders coded the system of stratification nto theircultures as surelyas ours denies it (Goldschmidt1955, 1999).In her studies of downward mobility, Katherine Newman (1988, 1993)outlines a folk model of "meritocratic ndividualism" that characterizes themanagerialmiddle class who are in positions of command or authority."Theirjob,"BarbaraEhrenreich 1990:133) tells us, "is to conceptualize .. what othersmust do. Thejob of theworker,blueorpinkcollar,is toget itdone."She continuesthat "The fact that this is a relationship of domination-and grudgingsubmission-is usuallyinvisible to the middle class but painfully apparento theworkingclass."I use ethnographicdata to explorethe folk model of meritocraticindividualismamongsuchunquestionablymiddle-class olks as lawyersand suchclearly working-classpeople as union stewards n the service sector.A lawyerwith the Legal Assistance Foundationof Chicago(LAFC)told me:

A literarytraditionis to use a crazy man like Don Quixote to reflectnormalcy and in the end reality is crazy. People who work here aren'tnormative.Reflect society againstus andsee if it makesany sense.

Journal fAnthropologicalesearch, ol. 57, 2001Copyright byTheUniversityf New Mexico

41

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:43:49 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/21

42 JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHIt's not thesame forparalegalsandsecretaries.Attorneyshaveschooling.In a manufacturingob, of importance s working conditions, benefits,

salary. People who workhere have these threethings in common.Peoplehave an agendaand arecrazyenoughto tryto implement t. We're here toprovide equal justice and we actually believe in it. Most jobs, after awhile, you'rejust pushingit through.Here the final outcome is alive andfresh and now.A few daysbeforeIhadbeen intheten-by-tenwaitingroomof atall darkurbanbuilding in Chicago's Loop. The lowered ceiling and wall cuttingthe transomabove the door in half suggestedthatthis anteroomhad once been larger.There

were six chairs,one man in his 30s, anda womanin her20s witha year-oldbabyonhershoulder.Across thespaceinafive-by-eightcompartmenteparatedromusby a glass window were two women incessantlyanswering heirtelephoneswith"LegalAssistance."The travelmagazineson thetablesseemedout of place.A signannounced n Spanishthat the minimumwage was $4.75 per hour. AnotherinEnglishwas aboutfood stamps.I was waitingto talk to paralegals,support taff,andattorneyson the otherside of the door, but, fortunately,not aboutthe legalproblemswith which they areaccustomed o dealing.United Auto WorkersLocal 2320 organizeslegal aid workerswho workforlegal aid foundations hatprovide egalassistance orpoorpeople, especiallywhenthey run afoul of the myriadof bureaucracies hatgoverntheirlives from socialservicesto childandfamilyservices to landlords.UAW Local 2320 represents heattorneys,paralegals, and support staff of the LAFC. What made this localespeciallyinteresting o me is that t hadunited wo bargainingunits(support taffand paralegals,on the one hand,and attorneys,on the other)into one unit.Therationale of the union local was that the employees all had the same interestsrelativeto management.One of the unionorganizersat Local 2320, himself an attorney,explainedtome thatduringthe 1950s, the SupremeCourt had ruled that some workers areprofessionalwhile othersare notand that while professionalscanvote to be in thesamebargainingunitwithnonprofessionals, onprofessionals annoton theirownvolition alone includeprofessionals.When the LAFC was firstorganizedtwentyyears ago, the National LaborReview Board ruled in favor of the employer'spetition hat herenotbe a singlebargainingunit,so therewas one unitforattorneysand one forothers.Theresultwas one union in twohalves,with aunifiedexecutiveboardandequal representationnd ointbargaining.Each unithad therightto voteon its own contractseparately-there were two paralleldocuments.The problemaroseif one unitadopted ts contractand the otherdid not.The support taff tendedto ratifycontractsand awyerstendednot to. In 1994or 1995, when the currentcontractwas being negotiated,funds were cut, andmanagementproposed o postponeraises forattorneys o it would not have to layoff seven of them. Attorneysthoughtthe supportstaff would agree to postponeraisesto save thejobs of sevenfellow members.The unionorganizerat Local2320recalled the situation:



4/21


5/21

44 JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHAs anthropologistseturn o thechallengeof understandinglass in theUnitedStates,one of ourcontinuingproblems s tobe able to see thephenomenonna landwhere thenotion,muchless thediscussion,of class andclassprivilegeis anathemabecause of incessant proclamations of the equality of opportunity, if notachievement. Race, ethnicity, personal initiative, or failure-but not class-explainprivilege, power,poverty,andimpotence(Ortner1998).Inthe UnitedStates,theideologyof theindividualandexperienceof diversitymaskthe realitiesof class (Sacks1989).Thismasking s easyto see in asmall,less-diverse land devoted to egalitarian deology such as Iceland(Durrenberger ndPilsson 1989;Pilsson andDurrenberger 996).It is moredifficultto see ina largediverse land which actively promotes such an obfuscation as official ideology(Ehrenreich1990).Kingsolver(1998) reviewsrecentanthropologicaliterature nthe ways peopleclaim andassertpowerin workplacesbased on gender, ethnicity,age, regional dentity,andownershipof capital.She alsodiscussesanthropologistslike thosewhose work is collected in Lamphere,Stepick,andGrenier 1994), whoconsider the impactof genderandethnicity n the experienceof workersbothonand off the job. Here I focus more explicitly on the folk model of meritocraticindividualism.In my work on shrimpersn MississippiandAlabama(Durrenberger 992a,1992b, 1996), I found a similar folk model of individualism.All agreed that

shrimperswere so independenthat heycouldnotengageincollectiveaction.Thisfolk model is counterfactual.The historyof the rise and fall of the Mississippishrimpers'union illustrates the changes in the political and economic systemwhichmade a unionimpossiblein one configuration,made it possible in another,andmade it impossibleagain in a third.As long as packerscontrolledaccess toschooners for shrimping, ishermenwere unable to organizeunions,though theytriedand carriedout several long strikes(Durrenberger 994). When fishermenbegan to own their own power boats and trawls, packers could not producesufficient shrimpto satisfy their needs without the independentshrimpers,andshrimpers successfully banded together in unions. Their organizationswereeffective becauseof the favorable egal climate of the New Deal andfederal-levelrecognition of their legitimacy and because, even organized, they providedprocessors a more favorable alternative than owning their own fleets. Whenalternativesources of shrimpbecame available to processorsthroughimports,shrimperscould no longer control the flow of raw materials to processors.Shrimpersborrowedheavilyto investin largeGulf boatsandneededtheprocessorsmore than the processorsneeded them. Finally, the union was outlawedunderantitrust aw (Durrenberger 992a, 1992b, 1995).

Anthropology s accustomed o showingthat folk models do not fit realitiesandexplainingwhyandhowthe folkmodelsgainedsalience. Kottak 1999:65),forinstance, says, "By 1965 I recognizedthat the opinions held by some of thesegroups were misconceptions that interferedwith their understandingof whatactuallydetermined ishingsuccess.I hadalso come to realize thatsuchconfusionand misunderstandingwere essential." Gisli Pilsson and I (Pilsson andDurrenberger 983, 1989, 1992a, 1992b;Durrenberger nd Pilsson 1983) have



6/21

EXPLORATIONSFCLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSN THEU.S. 45analyzed how Icelandic folk models of fishing success are misleading andexplainedthemin terms of theirevolving relationshipswith economic systems.Anthropologists an turn o a critiqueof sociological practice o helpus avoidfamiliar pitfalls. The term "American Exceptionalism" has been used bysociologistsfor the official invisibilityof class to ideologistsandsociologistsalikethatOrtner 1998) discussed. This is the idea that while other ndustrial ountriessuch as Britainand Polandhave well-developedclass structures hat arevisible intheir union movements and political organization, the United States is theexception to the rule. Sociologists and others have offered explanations forAmericanExceptionalism.One is that Americansareexceptionalin even talkingaboutequality,while the more general pattern s to accept andexpect inequalitybased on class position (Goldschmidt 1999; Lewis 1993). The exception toAmerican Exceptionalism in sociology is those Marxists representedin thecollections editedby McNall, Levine, and Fantasia 1991), BurawoyandSkocpol(1982), andBonanno et al. (1994).

THE MIDDLE CLASS?The folk model of meritocratic ndividualism hat Newman(1988) describesincludesthe following tenets:* Rewardsgo to those who arereally deserving.* Occupation s a measureof moral worth.* People aremastersof their own destinies.* Those who succeedaremorallybetter.* You wouldn't be in this mess if somethingweren'twrongwith you.* Solutionsare mostly up to individuals.* Individuals can alter their futures versus the idea that individuals aresubordinateo largerforces.* Success is a result of determination ndtalent.* People who don't havejobs haven't been tryinghardenough.* Hierarchy s meritbased.* People get whatthey deserve.* Market forces are more importantthan morality-the market definesmorality.* Inequality s natural.

Newman documentshow this folk model serves middle-class individuals whiletheyhavejobs butdestroys hemwhentheylose their obs andhow the self reifyingdailypracticeand contextfor this folk model explaintheir success or failure.In her discussionof a factoryclosing, Newman indicatesthatworkersdidnothold themselvesresponsiblefor being out of work; instead,they blamed remoteauthorities.Thisperspective,she argues, s grounded n working-classexperience.TherewasnothingpersonalwhenSingerwould hireand ay off hundreds f peopleat a time (Newman 1988:199). She concludes that such experience bolsters a



7/21


8/21

EXPLORATIONSFCLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSN THEU.S. 47thought most people deserve the salary they get. If respondents answeredpositively, I asked a series of furtherquestionsusing paired comparisons.Thesequestionsask people to select which of two items is "more"accordingto somecriterion. n tabulations, he selectedresponsegets 1 pointand the alternative etsnone. The numberof times an itemis selected is its rankorder WellerandRomney1988). For instance,if we wanted to know about the conceptualsize rankingsofelephants, goats, and mice, we could make a paired comparisontest with allcombinationsof the three.If we asked which of eachpairis larger,people wouldprobablyselect elephanttwice (in the pairs elephant-goatand elephant-mouse),goatonce (inthepairgoat-mouse),andmouse never.Thiswould result n arankingof elephant (2), goat (1), mouse (0). One advantageof the pairedcomparisonmethod s thatwhile it can show a ranking f there s one, it does not assume thereis a rankingby asking respondents itherto rank tems or to score themon ascale.Thus thepairedcomparison estcanshow whether here s a scale.Inthisexample,if the results were different from our expectations,we would want to check theethnographyand ourunderstanding f the language.I askedpeoplewho said thatpeopledeservetheirsalarieswhether t is becausetheyhaveconnections,havetalent,havegood luck,have agoodeducation,or workhard.I also asked what is more important n determininga person's chances inlife-race, gender,innateability,or how hardthey work.

Thirty-onepercentof attorneys,67 percentof paralegals,and 89 percentofsupportstaff thoughtthatpeople deserve the salariesthey receive and there wasconsensus on the reasons. Thatless than one-thirdof attorneys,more than two-thirdsof paralegals,andmostof support taff thinkpeopledeservethesalaries heyget suggests that the attorneysare thinkingdifferentlyfrom staff and are lessinclined to the meritocratic ndividualismmodel. Figure 1 shows that attorneyswho agreedthatpeople do deserve their salaries also agreedthatnetworks weremost important,ollowed by education,work,talent,and luck.Paralegals houghtwork was more important ollowed by talent, education, luck, and networks.Supportstaff thoughtwork was most important ollowed by education,talent,networks,andluck. Even the attorneyswho agreewith thepremiseof connectingmeritand salarystress structural eatures(networks)over personalones (talent,work), while paralegalsand supportstaff stress personalcharacteristics work,talent) over structuralones (networks).None of these findings confirmedmyhypothesisthatattorneyswould represent he middle-classfolk model of successthat Newman outlined.They did raise two furtherquestions:(1) What kind oflawyers are these? and (2) Do other kinds of workers share the meritocraticindividualism olk model of success withLAFC staff?

WHAT KIND OF LAWYERS ARE THESE?These findings may say more about these attorneysthan about lawyers ingeneral.One unionrepresentative f the local cautionedme as I beganthis studythatmanyof the attorneyswere ideologicallydriven-that theycouldmake muchmoremoney in otherkindsof practicethanin this work;they did workthatpaid



9/21

48 JOURNALOFANTHROPOLOGICAL ESEARCHAttorneys Paralegals SupportStaff

1.00.90.80.70.60.5 Networks Work Work0.4 Education Talent0.3 Work Education Education0.2 Talent0.1 Talent0.0- ---------------------------

-0.1 Networks-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5 Luck-0.6-0.7 Networks-0.8 Luck-0.9-1.0-1.1-1.2 Luck-1.3

Figure1. LAFC:TheReasonPeopleDeserveTheirSalary(ofThoseWhoThinkTheyDo)At theLAFC,31percent f attorneys,7 percent f paralegals,nd89 percent f supporttaff hinkpeopledeserveheir alaries.

half whatthey couldexpect elsewhere for ideologicalreasons.One attorneysaid:I like fightingfor what seemsrightto me. To tryto balancepower.To trytopromote ustice.I like workingwith clients-individual contact-getting toknow the personand theproblems.If I hadn'tgone into law, I would havegone intosome other social service work.Onething[about]LegalServicesas opposedto publicdefender s thatI feel we're almostalwayson therightside of the case.

Anotherattorneysaid:



10/21

EXPLORATIONSFCLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSN THEU.S. 49There are differencesamongpeople in thebargainingunit,but it isn't clear.Attorneysareoneway and staff another.Nearlyallattorneysarehere aspartof a mission-not just a job. All of us here make less than the market,butattorneysmake a lot less than the privatesector.To come hererepresentsmore of a sacrifice for attorneys hansupport taff.Staff see it as moreof ajob. Some attorneyswork nine to five. . . . There are paralegals andsecretaries hatwork morethannine to five.

"I wouldn'tdoprivatepractice," he continued."Privatepractice sn't anavenue ojustice?" asked."Idid somegoodwork.AndotherworkI thoughtwasdespicable.I don't holdit againstpeopleinprivatepractice.Theyrepresent lients. But it's notwhatI want to do withmy life. I hated t. It's not that I'msacrificingsomethingI'dratherdo."Later,discussinga recent strikethe unithadparticipatedn and the union,Iaskedwhy attorneysstay in the union:That's an interesting ssue for someone like an anthropologist.Partof whyattorneys tayin theunion-is because it doesprotectourjobs. Itallows meto feel I won't get fired for politics--office politics, not outsidepolitics-if I think [the director] s a jerk, I can say that. You'd always have to bekissing butt without a union.The samereasons all people stayin unions-job protection.Butit's partof thesamereasonwe work atLegalAssistanceFoundation.

"Being?"I asked. "Doing justice. Our having a union here permits economicjustice for supportstaff that would be paid less-they're paid shit, but if [thedirector]had his way, he'd pay less. ... Attorneyswent on strike o ourdetrimentso supportstaff [would benefit]."These views were not uniqueto the attorneys.A receptionist n one of theneighborhoodoffices said:

[The attorneys]areconcernedto representpeople-to get out to see thosepeoplewho are outhere. ... Landlordsaretotallyslumlordsmakingpeoplepay to stay in unsafe places. Unscrupulouspeople tell people they'll getthem a job with an education program and leave them with debts. Autility monopoly. It's deathdefying to people who are slow. They'retheones thatgive us theimpact o stayhereandfight.Therebut for thegraceofGod go I."Doyou like yourjob?"I asked. "I love it.""Why?" continued."Thereare timesyou see people come throughyouroffice andtheyhave tears n theireyes and thepressure s greatandthatburden s lifted andtheycango back to normal ives andsmile. That's a beautiful hingwhen someone caredenoughto help andmake thisbadguy get up off their back."A Hispanicparalegalworkingat a neighborhoodoffice saidthis:



11/21

50 JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHSomeonetoldme about hisjob andI applied.Whentheytoldme thesalary,I said,forgetit. I'll staytwo monthsandgo on vacationandnot come back.ThenI sawwhattheyweredoinghere.Helpingpeopleforfree.I camefromanothercountry-there they don't do those things for anybody.I decidednot to go on vacation.I was going to leave becauseof the salary.Half thesalaryI was makingin a factoryat GeneralElectric.But when I saw whattheyweredoing,I likedit.Helpingpeoplefor free.They'veofferedme otherpositions as I am an interpreterrom Spanishto English and English toSpanishandI havegoodskills as aninterpreter. omeattorneyswho workedhere offered me a job, but I like the idea of helping people. I could makemoremoneyas a secretary or a law firm orinterpreting.t is anice feelingto help otherpeople, especiallypeople who don't have any money.

I have no quantitativedata on ideologicalmotivationsexcept the summationof suchinterviews,but lest it be concluded hatbecausetherewas littleconsensuson the answers to these questionnairequestions,therewas no consensus amongthese people, I want to emphasize again Fantasia's (1988) caveat about thedifferencebetweenabstractquestionsandpractice.In the summerof 1997whenIdid this study,this unit hadrecentlycome througha thirty-four-daytrikeagainstmanagement.Myinterviews ndicated herewas no unanimousudgmentabout hestrike-whether it had been useful, necessary, successful, or well handled.Allagreed it had been stressful. And they had won their bargainingpoint. Theimportant bservation s thatthey hadparticipatedn the strike.This is not to saythatstrikesare thebe-allandend-allof negotiationor the labormovement.Currentlegislationandpolicy make certainthat is not true (see Durrenberger nd Erem1997a). In spite of differing opinions, these units mergedinto one by theirowndecision, they consideredthe needs of othercomponents n theirnegotiationandpractice,andtheyremaineda coherentbargainingunit.On thosepointstherewasunanimity.When I discussedthese questionsof a partnern a private aw firmin a largeMidwesterncity, she said:They are completely impractical. 'm paid by the hour. These peopledon'tcare. It doesn'tmatter o them. Let me see if I can sayit better.I havetodeliveraproduct o aclientat a rate heycanpay.I have to tailor t to whata client is willing to pay. These guys don't have thatconstraint.They canpursuestuff forever.Theydon'tcare f they'repaidor not.Theyspendmoretime and money than we would. They are unwilling to enter into any

compromise.Lawyersaregovernedby codesof professional onduct.[Herspouse,alsoanattorney] inds--he is a memberof abargainingunit--he isn't surewhathe'd do if the bargainingunit struck.He's not sure he'd strike,he feelsconflicts withhis obligationto representa client.[Herspouse] characterizes her]firm from outside-the overwhelmingmotivation s greed.



12/21

EXPLORATIONSFCLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSN THEU.S. 51We like what we do andalso wantto get paidfor it.

Six of hercolleagues (20 percent),all attorneys,completedthe samesurveyIused for the LAFC. Of these, 66 percent say that most people deserve the salarythey get. The two whodisagreedcommented,"Thepay scales aredictatedmorebypolitics thanmerit,both in the case of undercompensated ndovercompensated"and"Manypeople getcomfortablen their ob tothepointof notworkingveryhardanddoingthe minimum o get by."Thefirstmightbe a structuralesponse,but thesecond is individual.As Figure2 shows, those who agreedthatpeopledeserve thesalaries they get also agreed on the reasons-principally hard work and talentfollowed by education, uck, andnetworks.This is quitea differentconfigurationthanFigure 1 shows for the LAFCattorneys.

Private racticeAttorneys1.2 Work1.11.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1 Talent0.0----------------0.1

-0.2-0.3 Education-0.4 Luck-0.5-0.6 Networks-0.7-0.8-0.9-1.0-1.1-1.2-1.3

Figure . PrivateAttorneys:heReasonPeopleDeserveTheirSalaryofThose66 PercentWhoThinkTheyDo)



13/21

52 JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHOnthescales,five of the six lawyersagreethatpeoplemake theirownluck,allagree(five at 4 and one at5) thatsolutionstopeople's problemsareupto them,butfive of six disagreethatpeopleshouldrespectthemarketandeconomic facts more

than ideas of morality, while one is neutral. On the other items there is noconsensus.To the questionon reasons for success, these attorneysagreethatworkis themost importantelement, followed by ability, and that race and gender are lessimportant.Neitherattorneys,paralegals,orsupport taffof the LAFC showedanyconsensus on this question. This small exercise would lend credence to theconclusionof the interviewsthatLAFC workersmaybe different n outlookfromotherlegal workers.THE WORKING CLASS?

To get a more clearrepresentation f working-classviews, I administeredasurvey to the 1998 annual meeting of stewards of the Service EmployeesInternationalUnion (SEIU) Local 1 in Chicago. One hundred and forty-eightpeoplereturned heirsurveys.Of these, 51 percentwerefemale,46 percentmale,and 3 percentunreported ender. They were 35 percentBlack (the term used 2.6times more frequently than the alternative "African American"), 16 percentHispanic,22 percentWhite, 15 percentPolish, and 12 percentunidentified.Themeanagewas forty-sevenwith a meanof 11.2yearsat the currentob. At that ime,this local representedworkers in three sectors: Industrial and Allied Sector,includingschool bus driversworkingfor contractors, actoryworkers,cemeteryworkers, and others; Public Sector, including workers in schools and othermunicipalfunctions such as public worksdepartments nd fire departments; ndBuildingServicesSector, ncludingdowntownand suburbananitors n office andapartmentbuildings.Iaskedaseriesof questionsIderived romNewman'swork,similar o the onesI askedof theLegalAssistanceFoundationworkers.Theyincluded he samefive-point-scalejudgmentsof agreementwith the following statements:

* People's success or failureis prettymuchbeyondtheir control.* People make theirown luck.* Hardwork s not the mainthingthatexplainsthe success of peopleinhigherpositions.* People in higher positionsaremore talentedor able than others.* People who make baddecisions deserve to get into trouble.* Solutions to people's problemsareup to them.

Thejudgmentsshowed no consensus for any categoryof respondents.Whethergroupedrespondentsby sector,race,orgender, herewas no consensus.Therewassubstantialagreement(at 4 or 5) that people make their own luck; there wasdisagreement at 1 or 2) thatpeople in higherpositionsare more talentedand(at 1or2) thatpeoplewhomakedecisionsdeservetoget intotrouble.Thesefindingsare



14/21

EXPLORATIONSFCLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSN THEU.S. 53similar o theresultof similarquestionsI askedof theLegalAssistanceFoundationworkers.To further xaminethesalience of structural ersuspersonal actors,I includedthis pairedcomparisonitem: "Please circle the thing in each line that is moreimportantn determininga person'schancesin life,"followed by all combinationsof race,ability,gender,and how harda personworks.Therewasastrongconsensusamongall stewards togetherandby sectors) hatabilityis most important,ollowed by work andgender,with race least important(Figure3). Therewas also consensusby ethnicityandgender.While there s somevariation,as Figure4 shows, all agreedthatpersonalfactors are more importantthan structuralones. Thus, by this measure,these union stewards are using themeritocratic ndividualist olk model that Newmanoutlined.

Industrial Public BuildingServicesAll Sector Sector Sector1.51.41.31.21.11.00.9 Ability0.80.7 Ability Ability Ability0.6 Work0.5 Work Work0.40.3 Work0.20.10.0---------------------------------

-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5 Gender Gender Race/Gender Gender-0.6-0.7 Race Race-0.8-0.9-1.0 Race-1.1-1.2-1.3-1.4-1.5

Figure . SEIULocal1:What sImportantnDeterminingPerson'sChancesn Life(bySector)



15/21

54 JOURNALOFANTHROPOLOGICAL ESEARCHBlack Hispanic White Polish Female Male

1.51.41.31.2 Ability1.1 Work1.0 Ability Ability0.90.8 Ability0.7 Ability Work0.6 Work Work0.5 Ability/Work0.4 Work0.30.20.10.0-----------------------------------0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5 Race/Gender Gender Gender

-0.6 Gender Race-0.7 Gender-0.8 Race-0.9 Race-1.0 Race-1.1 Race-1.2 Gender-1.3-1.4-1.5Figure . SEIULocal1:What sImportantnDeterminingPerson'sChancesinLife(by EthnicityndGender)In 1999 I administered he same surveyto a sampleof twenty-eightstewardsof Chicago'sSEIU Local4, a muchsmaller ocal whosememberships focused onresidentialcare facilities. Of these, 14 percent dentifiedthemselves as White,78percent as Black (of the 78 percent, these comprised 72 percent) or AfricanAmerican(27 percentof the 78 percent),4 percentas Hispanic,and4 percentdidnot identifythemselves.Seventy-eightpercentwere female, 18percentmale, and4 percentunidentified.The mean age was forty-nine,with a mean of 13.0 yearsworking n the sameplace.On the dimensionsof meritocraticndividualism, herewas strongconsensusthatpeoplemake theirown luck,but none on the others.Therewas also consensusabout he reasonsforsuccess-work, talent,race,gender, n thatorder, n apatternvirtually dentical to that of the stewardsof Local 1 taken as a whole.2



16/21


17/21


18/21

EXPLORATIONSFCLASSANDCONSCIOUSNESSN THEU.S. 57everydaypracticeandcultural onceptualizationDurrenberger997;Durrenbergerand Erem1997a;Durrenberger ndErem1999).Why are the realities of class hidden in the United States?If Goldschmidtcould so accuratelyand lucidly outline the realities of class in America half acenturyago, why are we still discussingit in anthropologyas thoughwe had noclue about class or class dynamics? Everyday structures and structuralrelationshipsproduce the daily realities that people code as cultural.Law andmanagementpractice determine the everyday realities of workplaces. In theserealities,the practiceand conceptionof class-based or union relationshipsmeetgreatresistance.Ehrenreich (1990) details the class bias and ideological co-optation ofsociologists. Vanneman and Cannon (1987) agree and elaborate"RestrainingMyths" following Richard Hamilton. These are reality-definingparadigmaticassumptionsthat limit the sociological imagination, ncludingthe conventionalsociological wisdom such as AmericanExceptionalism.They arguethat selectivecitation and ignoring of disconfirmingwork reinforce this view. Echoing theprevailing wisdom, the organizationsthat claim to represent working peoplethemselvesdeny the relevanceof class. Finally, sociologists misrepresentdata toconfirm the conventional wisdom. Anthropologistsare not immunefrom theseprocesses(Durrenberger 995).Universities, the institutions that replicate the managerial middle class(Ehrenreich1990), encode meritocratic ndividualism n the ideology, if not thepractice, of merit pay raises for instructors,promotioncriteria for professors,grading ndividualstudents n classes, andtakingseriouslyvariousexam scores asmeasuresof merit, f not virtue.University olkexperienceanincessant mmersionin this fallacious folk model as daily practice. There is little wonder thatanthropologistsparticipaten theperpetuation f anappropriateolk model of andfor the middle class and the institutionswe serve.The wonderof it is that so manyanthropologistshave providedalternativeviews.

Given the role of universitiesas purveyorsof meritocraticndividualism,wehave to returnto Goldschmidt's (1950:492) methodological question and askwhetherour methodsaren'tsimply projecting hepredilectionsof anthropologists.When we see such attentiondevotedto issuesof identityandculturaldefinitionsofthe middle class, when groups of experts are empaneledto discuss their high-school class reunionsand the symbolismof the middleclass, we can wonderwhywe aren'tmorebusily investigating he realitiesof historicaldynamics,power,andcontrolof resources hatdetermine he natureof structuralelationships ather hanreproducing hem,or the structures f the daily workplaceexperiencethat createcultures.I think we need to do what Wolf (1999) suggestedand standoutsideourstructureso betterunderstand herelationshipsbetweenthemand ourthought, oexplain the relationshipsbetween our folk models of class and the realities ofpower.



19/21

58 JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ESEARCHNOTES

1. I gratefully hank hemanyindividualsof the two locals I discuss herefor theirhelpwith this project.UAW Local 2320 organizersRobertT. (Tim)Yeagerand JohnBowmanmade the LAFC study possible. PasqualeLombardomade possible my interviewswithLAFC attorneys,and Daniel Romero helped with the surveys. SEIU Local 1 presidentDouglasL. Hart,vice-presidentsNancyCrossand RodBashir,andJayCannon,as well asthe otherofficers, staff, reps, stewards,and membersof Local 1, madethe work with thatlocal possible. I thank hem all for theirassistancewith this study.I thankSuzan Erem forherhelp andsupport hroughout.Without t none of this workin Chicagowould havebeenpossible.2. Methodologicalpuristswhohavepersisted o thispointdeserve someanswers o thenecessaryquestionsabouthow to interprethe surveyworkIreporthere.The 148 stewardsof the sample from Local 1 are those who came to the annual stewards'meeting andcompleteda survey nstrument.The instrumentwasquitelong,consistingof someseventy-one questionson eightpages.Thesurveywas available n three anguages:English,Polish,andSpanish.Membersspecifiedwhichversionthey wanted.The surveywas administeredat a time set aside for it in the programwhen all the people at the meetingwere sittingattables in a singlehall.Most,but notall, of thepeopleat themeetingcompletedsurveys;notall who completedsome of the survey completedall of it. Between 83 (51 percent)and 148(100 percent)of thepeople completedthe items I reporton here.So, the stewardsarenot arandom ampleof the stewardsof thelocal,and those who completed hepartsof thesurveyI reporton are not a randomsampleof those who attended he meeting.We do not knowwhat sources of bias there may be in this two-tier self-selection process. However, theselection of stewardsatthemeetingis beneficialas these arethe mostmotivatedand activeof the stewards,the ones most involved in the programsof the local, and it is just thosestewardswho are of most interesthere.The survey of stewards of Local 4 was sent to all stewards,about fifty, of whomtwenty-eightreturned he completed surveys.The LAFCsurveyconsistedof twenty-eightquestions n Englishon five pages. It wasdistributedo support taff,paralegals,andattorneysandwas returnedhrough he worksiteunion structures.Again, the sample is self-selected, and the sources of bias remainunknown.Thirtyemployees responded.Thirteenwere attorneys,nine were supportstaff,andeight wereparalegals.Rather hanmaking anyelaborateclaimabout hepurityof these samples,it is best torecognizetheirlimitations, o suggest that the findingsare consistent with otherevidence,to indicate the impossibilityof getting any bettersamples, and to use these results as afoundation or further hinkingandobservationandperhapsmoreadequate tatistical ests.Whenthe cost of samplingpurity s the studyitself, insistence on optimalsampling s self-defeating.

REFERENCES CITEDBonanno,A., L. Busch, W.H. Friedland,L. Gouveia, andE. Mingione, 1994, FromColumbus o ConAgra:The Globalizationof AgricultureandFood. Lawrence:UniversityPressof Kansas.Borgatti, S.P., 1996, Anthropac 4.0 Methods Guide. Natick, Mass.: AnalyticTechnologies.Bronfenbrenner,K., S. Friedman,R.W. Hurd,R.A. Oswald,and R.L. Seeber, 1998,



20/21

EXPLORATIONSOF CLASS AND CONSCIOUSNESS N THEU.S. 59Introduction.Pp. 1-15 in Organizing o Win:New Researchon UnionStrategies ed. by K.Bronfenbrenner,S. Friedman,R.W. Hurd,R. Oswald, and R.L. Seeber). Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.

Burawoy,M., and T. Skocpol, 1982, MarxistInquiries:Studies of Labor,Class, andStates.Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress.Durrenberger,E.P., 1992a, Psychology, Unions, and the Law: Folk Models and theHistoryof ShrimpersUnions in Mississippi.HumanOrganization 1:151-54.Durrenberger,E.P., 1992b, It's All Politics: South Alabama's Seafood Industry.UrbanaandChicago:Universityof Illinois Press.Durrenberger,E.P., 1994, The Historyof Shrimpers'Unions in Mississippi, 1915-1955. Labor'sHeritage5(3):66-76.Durrenberger, E.P., 1995, Mississippi Unions Again: Facts, Figures, andMisrepresentations.HumanOrganization54(4):474-77.Durrenberger, .P., 1996,GulfCoastSoundings:People andPolicy in theMississippiShrimpIndustry.Lawrence:UniversityPressof Kansas.Durrenberger,E.P., 1997, That'll Teach You: Cognition and Practice in a ChicagoUnion Local. HumanOrganization56(4):388-92.Durrenberger,E.P., and S. Erem, 1997a,Gettinga Raise:OrganizingWorkers n anIndustrializingHospital.Journalof AnthropologicalResearch53(1):31-46.Durrenberger,E.P., and S. Erem, 1997b, The Dance of Power: Ritual and Agencyamong Unionized American Health Care Workers.AmericanAnthropologist99(3):489-95.Durrenberger, .P., and S. Erem, 1999, The WeakSuffer WhatTheyMust:A NaturalExperiment n Thoughtand Structure.AmericanAnthropologist101(4):783-93.Durrenberger,E.P., and G. Pailsson, 1983, Riddles of Herring and Rhetorics ofSuccess. Journalof AnthropologicalResearch39:323-35.Durrenberger,E.P., and G. Pilsson, 1989, The Anthropologyof Iceland. Iowa City:Universityof Iowa Press.Enrenreich,B., 1990, Fearof Falling:The InnerLife of the Middle Class. New York:

HarperPerennial.Fantasia,R., 1988, Culturesof Solidarity:Consciousness,Action, andContemporaryAmericanWorkers.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Goldschmidt, W., 1950, Social Class in America: A Critical Review. AmericanAnthropologist 54:483-98.Goldschmidt, W., 1955, Social Class and the Dynamics of Status in America.American Anthropologist57:1209-15.Goldschmidt,W., 1999, Dynamics and Statusin America.AnthropologyNewsletter40(5):62, 64.Kingsolver, A.E., 1998, More Than Class: Studying Power in U.S. Workplaces.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.Kottak,C.P., 1999, Assaulton Paradise:Social Changein a BrazilianVillage. 3rded.Boston: McGraw-Hill.Lamphere,L., A. Stepick,and G. Grenier,eds., 1994, Newcomersin the Workplace:Immigrantsand the Restructuring f the U.S. Economy.Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress.Lewis, M., 1993, The Culture of Inequality. 2nd ed. Amherst: University ofMassachusettsPress.McNall, S.G., R.F. Levine, and R. Fantasia, eds., 1991, Bringing Class Back inContemporary nd HistoricalPerspectives.Boulder,Colo.: Westview Press.



21/21

60 JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHNewman, K.S., 1988, FallingfromGrace:The Experienceof DownwardMobilityinthe AmericanMiddleClass. New York: The FreePress.Newman, K.S., 1993, Declining Fortunes:The Witheringof the AmericanDream.

New York: Basic Books.Ortner,S., 1998, Identities: The Hidden Life of Class. Journalof AnthropologicalResearch54(1):1-17.Pailsson, G., and E.P. Durrenberger,1983, Icelandic Foremen and Skippers:TheStructureand Evolution of a Folk Model. AmericanEthnologist10:511-28.Pilsson, G., and E.P. Durrenberger,1989, Systems of Production and SocialDiscourse:The SkipperEffect Revisited. AmericanAnthropologist92(1):130-41.Pailsson, G., and E.P. Durrenberger, 1992a, Icelandic Dialogues: IndividualDifferences in IndigenousDiscourse. Journalof AnthropologicalResearch48(4):301-16.Pilsson, G., and E.P. Durrenberger, 992b,Rhetoricsof Skill andSkillful Rhetorics.

AmericanAnthropologist92(2):452-54.Pilsson, G., andE.P.Durrenberger,996,Imagesof Contemporaryceland:EverydayLives andGlobal Contexts. Iowa City:Universityof Iowa Press.Romney, A.K., 1999, Culture Consensus as a Statistical Model. CurrentAnthropology40 (Supplement,February):03-15.Rubin, L.B., 1992, Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working-ClassFamily. New York:Basic Books.Sacks, K.B., 1989, Toward a Unified Theoryof Class, Race, andGender.AmericanEthnologist 16(3):534-50.Vanneman, R., and L.W. Cannon, 1987, The American Perception of Class.Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress.Weller, S.C., and A.K. Romney, 1988, SystematicData Collection.NewburyPark,Calif.:Sage.Wolf, E.R., 1999,EnvisioningPower:Ideologiesof Dominanceand Crisis.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

exploracion de clase y consciencia

Documents