Week Six Flashcards
Capitalist Class Structure (Marxist critique) – Bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpenproletariat
The following terminology is adapted from the work of Marx & Engels, including Marx’s critique of capitalist exploitation/alienation of labor in Das Kapital (1867)
BOURGEOISIE—owners of the means of production (above the “bosses”– they own the actual factories, stores, mines, shipping companies, data centers, etc.)
PETITE BOURGEOISIE—middle and upper middle class (incl. some merchants, managers, administrators, etc), also known as “the professional-managerial class” (highly trained, often university-educated managers of people, capital, information, etc. This category includes politicians. These people are often “bosses” who directly serve the owners of capital, but do not themselves directly produce value/commodities.
PROLETARIAT—workers (industrial, farmworkers, wage labor, service workers, caregivers, non-administrative educators, domestic workers, food service, etc. As the US has moved away from an industrial economy and toward a service/ information economy, the term has shifted to include a number of non-industrial workers (like baristas and academic workers) that nevertheless do not own the means of production and are often trapped in exploitative work environments.
LUMPENPROLETARIAT—often considered “unemployable masses,” a condition usually cultivated within multigenerational poverty, marginalization, disability and/or addiction, homelessness, victimization from an early age, etc. The lumpen “underclass” etiquette and gnoses (“ways of knowing”) often make it difficult for them to acculturate into the dominant social, and economic structures for a variety of reasons. Due to their ideological instability and predisposition to predatory conduct for survival, they are generally considered “unsafe” or “bad”, and tend to be reviled even by proletarian subjects (ex: criminalizing homelessness, assuming every trans person is also a sexual ‘pervert’, etc). However, in recent years, a number of scholars have pushed back on Marx/Engels’s classic disdain for this sector of society, pointing to the “ungovernable” revolutionary potential, and underclass consciousness possible within a population that has been forced to live on the margins and in the shadows.
Vernacular
“Vernacular” refers to a “common”, often underclass, way of being and speaking. For example, ”inner city” or “rural” aesthetic, “popular” vs. “high” culture, etc. Vernacular ways of speaking, dressing, and interaction are often seen as crude or unsophisticated to metropolitan, formally trained and educated mainstream elites. However, many theories of the vernacular also note how underclass culture, politics, and gnosis (knowledge) is actually quite sophisticated, and tends to be incisive in theorizing culture and power, as well as collective consciousness of broken systems. Some literature/thought on the lumpenproletariat (and its possible revolutionary potential) has followed along similar lines.
“Traditional” vs “Organic” Intellectuals
Traditional Intellectuals—formally trained/educated specialists who use their knowledge to perpetuate (or at least, refrain from undermining) the status quo. They may come from the underclasses, but become complicit—for their own gain, due to mystification, or both—in serving the elite (whether they realize it or not)
Organic Intellectuals—sometimes formally trained, but also sometimes trained in vernacular contexts. These figures seek to use their access to institutions of power (e.g., universities) in solidarity with people and community on the margins of power, to challenge the status quo, and/or to support oppositional political movements.
