Chapter 20 Concepts of Class in Con

Chapter 20
Concepts of Class in
Contemporary Economic
Geography

David Sadler

The cultural turn in human geography, the re-configuration of the ``economic'' in
economic geography (Thrift and Olds, 1996), and the challenges of postmodern and poststructuralist approaches to social science more generally, posed particularly acute problems for the use of ``class'' as an explanatory concept in economic geography during the 1990s. This was especially notable given that economic geography had been so fundamental in the evolution of Marxist (that is, class-centered) approaches to human geography during the 1970s and 1980s. This chapter summarizes some of these contributions, and explores some of the reasons for and implications of the limited engagement with class as an explanatory concept within economic geography during recent debates.
The chapter starts with a re-appraisal (or perhaps more accurately a re-statement) of the salient features of class as conceptualized within the classical Weberian and Marxist traditions. It then goes on to examine some of the insights brought by the work within economic geography in the 1970s and 1980s which drew heavily on (and began to contribute to) Marxist class theory. This section exemplifies these contributions and their political implications through a consideration of the class- based campaigns in defense of place, and against closures in a number of major industries, which proliferated in Western Europe and North America during the 1980s. The limits to these campaigns, and the issues that they opened up, are also addressed. Third, I describe recent attempts to re-place class in economic geography, which have sought to de-center class yet retain some of the concept's explanatory value. This section also suggests that such accounts could benefit from paying greater attention to the significance of history and the role of political strategy. The chapter concludes by questioning whether class remains of significant actual or potential relevance to contemporary economic geography, or whether it is destined to remain forever silenced.


Classical Conceptions of Class
In essence, the difference between the classical Weberian and Marxist traditions of
class, which have been so influentia

326 DAVID SADLER
upon the properties of individuals versus the structural relationships embodied in
production. A Weberian perspective emphasizes the role of classes as groups or collections of particular qualities and attributes (such as income or occupation) held in a contingent fashion by individuals. A Marxist viewpoint stresses the way in which the relationship between individuals is structured through the process of producing goods or delivering services. This is not the place in which to enter into a detailed exposition of the relative merits of Weberian and Marxist class theory, however. Rather, because of the centrality of the latter to debates within economic geography over the last two decades, and because I want to suggest that there are still merits to such an analytical framework, the rest of this section focuses on the specific contribution of, and debates around, Marxist conceptions of class in eco- nomic geography.
From a Marxist perspective, a key feature of the capitalist system of production is its separation into two classes, capital and labor. Capital is able to appropriate a surplus from the work of labor through ownership of the means of production, whilst labor possesses little more than an ability to perform paid work (see Swynge- douw, this volume). This surplus, or profit, has to be re-invested in further activities if the individual capitalist is not to be overtaken by competitors. In this view of history, there are limits to the long-term stability of the system as a whole, which are set by the contradictory nature of the relationship between the classes. Whilst capital needs labor-power, it also needs to replace it with (more efficient) machinery, creating unemployment. Thus the interests of capital and labor are frequently in conflict. While capital may seem to have the upper hand, its own strategy creates unintended consequences leading to economic crises which in time become increas- ingly generalized and widespread (Harvey, 1982).
There are of course many variants to this highly simplified Marxist account of class relations, and there have also been many different strands of criticism. At one level the original theory is teleological ± it imputes an inevitable trajectory to human existence, even if both practical experience and intellectual debate suggest that there are in fact many different alternative paths. It is functionalist, in that society is held to develop in a certain way because that route is necessary for its existence. Some versions of Marxism are deeply structural, and offer only a limited role for human agency and human consciousness (see, for instance, Althusser, 1969), although others are more sensitive to individual and historical circumstances (see, for instance, Thompson, 1963) ± and much of the debate reviewed below relates pre- cisely to this question. Perhaps the key contribution of a Marxist perspective on class is its recognition of the linkages between individualized expressions and experiences of power and inequality, and broader system-wide processes. This was fundamental to the radical movement within human geography (and economic geography in particular) which developed from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s (see Cloke et al., 1991, pp. 28±56).
It was in this period that some of the most productive work in economic geo- graphy within a broadly Marxist perspective took place. Such research took class relations as a central starting point in explaining patterns and processes of uneven development within and between cities and regions, and (what were often described at the time as) the continued underdevelopment of the Third World and the legacies of imperialism. In some ways these years could be regarded as the highpoint of

CONCEPTS OF CLASS IN ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY 327
Marxist class-based analyses within economic geography. By the end of the 1980s,
however, it was apparent that the tensions created through engagement with social theory ± and in particular the challenges posed by postmodernism's disavowal of broader structures ± had led to fractious disagreement amongst Marxist economic geographers. This was evident if nothing else in the growing frequency of calls for re- establishment of a collective agenda, as cracks and fissures became increasingly evident in an earlier consensus (see, for instance, Walker, 1989). A body of theory often criticized for its ``closed'' assumptions ± its limited accessibility to alternative ideas ± faced a radical challenge in the 1990s, and ± I would suggest ± proved to be slow to adapt to new times and new intellectual concerns. Thus politically charged concepts of class which had gained a ready audience in the 1980s just as quickly fell from the agenda in the subsequent decade.


Class-centered Approaches to Economic Geography in the 1970s and
1980s: Production, Regional Development, and the Defense of Place
In some ways the decline of politically charged concepts of class was unfortunate,
for many useful insights were gained during the period in which Marxist class analysis was commonplace in economic geography. In the course of the 1970s and 1980s, some of the most significant advances within human geography involved engagement with the relationship between systems of production and processes of uneven regional development. I focus on these here (in an admittedly partial fashion) in order to demonstrate some of the contributions made by Marxist-based class analysis to economic geography, and the contributions of geography to class analysis (similar arguments could also be advanced for other strands of research to do with urbanization, development, and imperialism). I argue in this section that Marxist class analysis brought to economic geography a fuller understanding of the implica- tions of class-based contradictions and conflicts within capitalism as a system of production. It also enabled recognition of the social nature of production, involving questions to do with the deployment of labor, its engagement with management, and the range of occupational and technical divisions that might arise within the class of labor in the process of production. In turn, a geographical perspective enhanced Marxist class analysis through a focus on the role of space both in shaping class consciousness and in potentially dividing workers from each other.
The concern with regional inequality was in part a response to the new phase of the global economy ushered in by the recessionary slump of the mid 1970s. It was increasingly recognized that the organization of production was integrally related to questions of location, and that particular local and regional trajectories could only be understood as part of a broader national and international dynamic. At just the same time as the world was becoming economically more inter-connected, so place was ever more clearly of growing significance. Rather than simply conquering space and diffusing development (as earlier formulations would have it), capital was seeking new and more sophisticated means of exploiting and reinforcing the specifi- cities of places, while integrating them into global processes.
One line of enquiry focused on the significance of capitalism as a mode of production, and sought to theorize in the abstract the uneven development of capitalist relations of production. For instance, Harvey (1982) developed a Marxist

328 DAVID SADLER
theory of capitalist crisis with three levels. The first rested upon the fundamental
contradiction between capital and labor, and the tendency for capital's strategies of technical change to result in a falling rate of profit (Rigby, this volume). In the second, the financial credit system wa

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Chương 20 Các khái niệm của các lớp học trong Kinh tế đương đại Địa lý David Sadler Văn hóa các biến trong thể loại của con người, cấu hình lại của kinh tế '''' ở địa lý kinh tế (tiết kiệm và Olds, 1996), và những thách thức của hậu hiện đại và phương pháp tiếp cận poststructuralist để thêm khoa học xã hội nói chung, đặt ra các vấn đề cấp tính đặc biệt cho việc sử dụng các '' lớp '' như là một khái niệm giải thích trong địa lý kinh tế trong thập niên 1990. Điều này là đáng chú ý đặc biệt là cho rằng địa lý kinh tế đã như vậy cơ bản trong sự tiến triển của chủ nghĩa Marx (mà là, lớp-trung tâm) phương pháp tiếp cận để các địa lý của con người trong những năm 1970 và 1980. Chương này tóm tắt một số trong những đóng góp, và khám phá một số trong những lý do và tác động của trận chiến giới hạn với các lớp học như là một khái niệm giải thích trong địa lý kinh tế trong cuộc tranh luận tại. Chương bắt đầu với một đánh giá lại (hoặc có lẽ chính xác hơn là một tuyên bố tái) của các tính năng nổi bật của lớp học như hình thành trong các truyền thống cổ điển Weberian và chủ nghĩa Marx. Nó sau đó đi vào để xem xét một số những hiểu biết đưa ra bởi các công việc trong địa lý kinh tế trong thập niên 1970 và 1980 đã thu hút rất nhiều trên (và bắt đầu để đóng góp cho) lớp học thuyết Marxist. Phần này exemplifies những đóng góp và của ý nghĩa chính trị thông qua việc xem xét các lớp-dựa chiến dịch trong quốc phòng của địa điểm, và chống lại đóng cửa trong một số các ngành công nghiệp, proliferated ở Tây Âu và Bắc Mỹ trong thập niên 1980. Các giới hạn cho các chiến dịch, và những vấn đề mà họ mở ra, cũng được đề cập. Thứ ba, tôi mô tả tại nỗ lực để tái đặt lớp trong địa lý kinh tế, đã tìm cách để de-Trung tâm lớp nhưng vẫn giữ lại một số giá trị giải thích các khái niệm. Phần này cũng cho thấy rằng các tài khoản có thể hưởng lợi từ lớn chú ý đến tầm quan trọng của lịch sử và vai trò của chính trị chiến lược. Chương kết luận bằng cách đặt câu hỏi cho dù lớp vẫn còn đáng kể thực tế hoặc tiềm năng liên quan đến địa lý kinh tế hiện đại, hoặc cho dù nó được mệnh để vẫn im lặng mãi mãi. Các quan niệm cổ điển của lớp Trong bản chất, sự khác biệt giữa Weberian và chủ nghĩa Marx truyền thống cổ điển của lớp học, trong đó đã là rất influentia326 DAVID SADLER upon the properties of individuals versus the structural relationships embodied in production. A Weberian perspective emphasizes the role of classes as groups or collections of particular qualities and attributes (such as income or occupation) held in a contingent fashion by individuals. A Marxist viewpoint stresses the way in which the relationship between individuals is structured through the process of producing goods or delivering services. This is not the place in which to enter into a detailed exposition of the relative merits of Weberian and Marxist class theory, however. Rather, because of the centrality of the latter to debates within economic geography over the last two decades, and because I want to suggest that there are still merits to such an analytical framework, the rest of this section focuses on the specific contribution of, and debates around, Marxist conceptions of class in eco- nomic geography. From a Marxist perspective, a key feature of the capitalist system of production is its separation into two classes, capital and labor. Capital is able to appropriate a surplus from the work of labor through ownership of the means of production, whilst labor possesses little more than an ability to perform paid work (see Swynge- douw, this volume). This surplus, or profit, has to be re-invested in further activities if the individual capitalist is not to be overtaken by competitors. In this view of history, there are limits to the long-term stability of the system as a whole, which are set by the contradictory nature of the relationship between the classes. Whilst capital needs labor-power, it also needs to replace it with (more efficient) machinery, creating unemployment. Thus the interests of capital and labor are frequently in conflict. While capital may seem to have the upper hand, its own strategy creates unintended consequences leading to economic crises which in time become increas- ingly generalized and widespread (Harvey, 1982). Tất nhiên có nhiều biến thể cho trương mục này rất đơn giản hóa chủ nghĩa Marx của lớp quan hệ, và hiện cũng đã là nhiều sợi khác nhau của những lời chỉ trích. Ở một mức độ lý thuyết ban đầu là teleological ± nó imputes một quỹ đạo không thể tránh khỏi để tồn tại của con người, ngay cả khi kinh nghiệm thực tế và cuộc tranh luận trí tuệ cho thấy rằng trong thực tế có nhiều con đường khác nhau khác. Nó là functionalist, trong đó có xã hội được tổ chức để phát triển theo một cách nào đó bởi vì tuyến đường đó là cần thiết cho sự tồn tại của nó. Một số phiên bản của chủ nghĩa Mác cấu trúc sâu sắc, và cung cấp chỉ là một vai trò hạn chế cho các cơ quan của con người và ý thức con người (xem, ví dụ, Althusser, 1969), mặc dù những người khác là nhạy cảm với hoàn cảnh cá nhân và lịch sử (xem, ví dụ, Thompson, 1963) ± và hầu hết các cuộc tranh luận được nhận xét dưới đây liên quan trước khi cisely cho câu hỏi này. Có lẽ góp phần then chốt của một viễn cảnh Marxist về lớp là sự công nhận của nó của mối liên kết giữa các biểu thức cá nhân và kinh nghiệm của quyền lực và bất bình đẳng, và quá trình toàn bộ hệ thống rộng hơn. Đây là cơ bản để phong trào cấp tiến trong thể loại của con người (và các địa lý kinh tế đặc biệt) phát triển từ cuối thập niên 1960 để các thập niên 1980 (xem Cloke et al., 1991, pp. 28±56). It was in this period that some of the most productive work in economic geo- graphy within a broadly Marxist perspective took place. Such research took class relations as a central starting point in explaining patterns and processes of uneven development within and between cities and regions, and (what were often described at the time as) the continued underdevelopment of the Third World and the legacies of imperialism. In some ways these years could be regarded as the highpoint of CONCEPTS OF CLASS IN ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY 327 Marxist class-based analyses within economic geography. By the end of the 1980s, however, it was apparent that the tensions created through engagement with social theory ± and in particular the challenges posed by postmodernism's disavowal of broader structures ± had led to fractious disagreement amongst Marxist economic geographers. This was evident if nothing else in the growing frequency of calls for re- establishment of a collective agenda, as cracks and fissures became increasingly evident in an earlier consensus (see, for instance, Walker, 1989). A body of theory often criticized for its ``closed'' assumptions ± its limited accessibility to alternative ideas ± faced a radical challenge in the 1990s, and ± I would suggest ± proved to be slow to adapt to new times and new intellectual concerns. Thus politically charged concepts of class which had gained a ready audience in the 1980s just as quickly fell from the agenda in the subsequent decade.

Class-centered Approaches to Economic Geography in the 1970s and
1980s: Production, Regional Development, and the Defense of Place
In some ways the decline of politically charged concepts of class was unfortunate,
for many useful insights were gained during the period in which Marxist class analysis was commonplace in economic geography. In the course of the 1970s and 1980s, some of the most significant advances within human geography involved engagement with the relationship between systems of production and processes of uneven regional development. I focus on these here (in an admittedly partial fashion) in order to demonstrate some of the contributions made by Marxist-based class analysis to economic geography, and the contributions of geography to class analysis (similar arguments could also be advanced for other strands of research to do with urbanization, development, and imperialism). I argue in this section that Marxist class analysis brought to economic geography a fuller understanding of the implica- tions of class-based contradictions and conflicts within capitalism as a system of production. It also enabled recognition of the social nature of production, involving questions to do with the deployment of labor, its engagement with management, and the range of occupational and technical divisions that might arise within the class of labor in the process of production. In turn, a geographical perspective enhanced Marxist class analysis through a focus on the role of space both in shaping class consciousness and in potentially dividing workers from each other.
The concern with regional inequality was in part a response to the new phase of the global economy ushered in by the recessionary slump of the mid 1970s. It was increasingly recognized that the organization of production was integrally related to questions of location, and that particular local and regional trajectories could only be understood as part of a broader national and international dynamic. At just the same time as the world was becoming economically more inter-connected, so place was ever more clearly of growing significance. Rather than simply conquering space and diffusing development (as earlier formulations would have it), capital was seeking new and more sophisticated means of exploiting and reinforcing the specifi- cities of places, while integrating them into global processes.
One line of enquiry focused on the significance of capitalism as a mode of production, and sought to theorize in the abstract the uneven development of capitalist relations of production. For instance, Harvey (1982) developed a Marxist

328 DAVID SADLER
theory of capitalist crisis with three levels. The first rested upon the fundamental
contradiction between capital and labor, and the tendency for capital's strategies of technical change to result in a falling rate of profit (Rigby, this volume). In the second, the financial credit system wa