39

The tena 'mifldle o laaa*is_a much debated, much

maligned and a auch used teapo ut l l laed hy various aeholara

to Interpret 3ceia3^fbrgia^ena from varioua perapeetivea*

In cofflaon parlance the term 'middle class • se^na to refer

t» an urban phenomenon. However i the question of the * middle

class* as Poulantzaa states»

"stands not only a t the centre of current debates on the class structure of the iizg;)eriallst metropolises« but also of debates on the dominated and dependent •peripheral* formations. . , . I t has . . • assumed a decisive importance, both in the iBiporiallst and in the dominated social formatlon3... ,"1

I t has certainly become a very importeytit aspect of the

Marxist th«>ry of social classes, because most s t r u c t u i ^

functionalist theories att^npt to use the term middle class ' ^ ^ — ^ — • ^

to show that the Mc^xlat concept of social class i s inade­

quate t o d ^ even in the cap i ta l i s t countries because the

occupational structure of society i s changing eaid instead

1. n. Poulantzas, ff?.a#3,^^ ^ Con ep^Boyfiry q^jf^t^Xs^^ SQAjQ^'i p. 193.

ko

of tbe deelin© of the middle olsiss, as Marx had predicted,

a n ^ jsiddld elass I s j»i3liig which does not f i t In with

the elasaical Haralat conception of clagg^*

I t «111 not he out of place here, therefore, to

f i r s t ojake a survey of thoae theories of t^e middle class

which attempt to nul l i fy the Marxist idieory of social

classes, toe can agree with f,^» %ttomore that the two

tnain classes in a society^ the bourgeoisie and the prole­

tar iat^ can he identified easi ly , but the boimdaries of the

aiddlQ class cannot be defined so eas i ly , and i t i s this

fact that has led to so tauch controversy and confusiona in

defining the noddle class*^

We ha: re discussed in Chapter Z hot; cl^ss has been

defined in various ways bjr various groups of scholars to

su i t the needs of part icular social formations. In the sane

way the ter© slddle class has also gone through a wide rsaige

of attempts a t definition* G.D.H, Cole, ^hose work on c lass -

ea and tbe adddle class i s quite often used to support ttie

vie© tha t the nature of classes i s constantly changing in

2, For s l a i l a r views on the Middle Class & i t s impact on the Capital is t aocial Stiuctaire, refer S^Osaovoald, "Old Motions and Hew Problessj In tewreta t ion of Social Struc­ture in fbdem aaclety", in A« Betel l le (ed*), a^clal ;a; ,Qqu ;yi>ty|, B Q I Q ^ ^ ^ ^^^ i^g^ (Lcaidon, 19fc9), pp,86-87} R, Cahrendorf, "Changes in the Class Structure of Indus­t r i a l Societies, Ibid.T pp.106-112,

3 , ^Q T.B. ^ t tos iore , ,a^^afi§. .UU^P^nW. ,^fi^^^.,(Ke^ ^ork, 1966), p , 12,

t*. Q*D.H* Cole, ahudies In Class Strugtuye (London, 1955).

M

society,^ eondludes that there caa be ao penaanent classes

in a society* A3 Cole deflnea i t classes "are not sharply

definable giroiips,.. /"hut are^. ,•• aggregations of persons

around a nufaher of central nucleil. . ." and a group of per­

sona nearest to one nucleus belongs to one cla3S« Further,

Cole holds that i t i s not necessary that every person in a

society he assigned to a class. Proceeding from this prac­

tically non-definition of class he sajrs that Hie term mid­

dle class implies the notion of a society divided into clas­

ses and at leadt suggests a division into three-upper,

ralddle and lower..••*" In Cole's definition the diddle class

in the Industrial capitalists tjho "eaia© to fora, on a

national scale, a conscious taiddle class, or at any rate o

l^e econoffilo nucleus of such a olass "*^ Bie interesting point

to note in Cole*s work is liiat he a eons to have lost sight

of this definition of the middle class ^hen he vent on to

ident ic the main groups vbich compose the middle classes

in "Great Britain and . . . in most advanced countries of the

West.** Cole's vork is of some iaportance to our analysis

here mainly because of his categorisation of the groups whfoh

make up the middle class. The groi^ mentioned by Cole ar@

5» Cole for iKStanee is supported by Andrew Grant, ,apc^^-^S^^„„g^a,)^^^Al^, 9%^^ (Xiondcm, 1958).

6. Q.D,H. Col|» ^dj[,g§,i|B, f .. jta7,fft}|t|'g» op. cit., p,1. 7* ^ M . , p« |H» 3* Iplj^., p. oM-. 9. IM^., p. 9 .

s

very closely f o U o w ^ by B, B, Mlara In his boolt on the

Indian Middle (Slaasea, and in any discussion of th© middle

class in India, Hisra crost find a place, Mlsra's book is in

fact the first major ork on the India »aiiddle class*, and

whether bis ^e«s on class foxraation are acceptable or not

it sjust be grsanted that he makes an atteiaapt at locating the

middle classes in Indian societgr, While doing this he leans. 11 heavily on Cole*3 work on class structures" and the groups

which he lists as coHrposing the isdddle elassesnin Great

Britain and the sore advanced countries of the West. One

point which sRist be en^haslsed here is that Cole clearly

states that his concept of the Middle Class:

"fits best.»« a highly industrialised coun­try at a fBiddle stage of capitsaist deve* lopment such as Great Britain had reached during the second half of the nineteenth centuty, or in a quite different way, a rural structure,based on a mingling land-lordiSBi with large and small scale farming, It fits much less well either most forms of relatively primitive society, or ^ e types of society in which feudalism and industrial capitalism are intricately intermingled. •. •«' 12

It is evident from this that Cole's middle class categories

derived ostensibly from hia concept of the middle class are

not suitable for an urwierdeveloped colonial economy like

^3

that of India under British rule because India is the eigh*

teenth and nineteenth centuries «aa neither highly indus*

triallsed nor a fural structure as Cole hai specified •''

It ig, therefore^ difficult to cosiprehend ho« Miapa could

have used Cole's categories in toto to represent the

Indian situati«»j. Moreover, both Mlsr^ and Cole belong to

that genre of social theorists vho develop elaborate frame-

^or&s vhich are only to be forgotten at the time of actually

analysing a social ph^iomenon* fhus, lilse Cole, Misra seems

to have forgotten vhile categorising the Indian raddle clas­

ses his own vords that *'tb© m^abers of the educated prefer*

sions, such as govenjaent servants and lawyers > college

teachers and doctors constitute the bulk of the Indian

Qiddl© class,"* and his groups coisprising the middle Class

in India include i^e industrial banirgeoisie, the oooaerbial

bourgeoisie and the Isoded aristocracy, Misra further states

^at the < ideas and institution of a middle class social

ordey"^ are not indigenous to India but are imported from

13^ ^ e develoisaent of India as a colonial economy imleashed very different forces in Indian society and brought about a political, economic, and social order distinct from Great Britain or highly industrialised societies of the tflest. For a further developmoit of this point, see,

Bombay, 1976)5 B,P. Dutt, JsMoJSs^aS, (Calcutta* 1970)} C« Battelheim, Mif„^^W^<^^gtf ^^^ York, 1968)*

IM , B.B<, Misra, ^p'^^mmlm^f ,m^m^'l ^^QlX QlffWtlft :irH

15, m^*t p* 11*

Mf

lurope,^ Tima In using the tetra middle clasaeg Mlara do©3

not either conceptualise the middle class nor tries to

arrive at a scientific definition of the term, ®Jere id,

in fact, a total confaaion In his \?opk, beginning from his

concept of class which according to hla is an eoonlmlo

concept,'" to his idea of the middle classes, which he des^

cribes on Cole's lines as the hoiffgeoiaie which indludes a

vast oross-aoctio55 of Indian society ranging froQ bureau­

crats to farmers to various fractions of the bourgeoisie.

I e will discuss i^esently that the middle class is distinct

from tas© bourgeoisie and that i t has a separate class entity

combining lis It the econoadc, political and ideological

components ishich are the pre«»requl3ites for class determina­

tion, and therefore I t i s the ^^^l^, ^a^^ and not wSMl&

elaaaea as Mlsra called it«

Misra's classification of the middle class 10 there­

fore not acceptable for our analyses here, although a sec­

tion of ^hat %re shall call the middle class, i s included In

Misra'a l i s t of the Indian Middle Classes s^inly because the

groups tiJhieh he mentions span across such a vide se^ent of tormi'limmmmmtmim

16. Hep© yisra refers to the British policy of creating a group of administi^tors ! bo \Jould be British in every­thing except blood and colour^ ^ e , S^ii^*^ pp»i10-11*

18, See, IbJ^.y pp. 9« t2»13»

Ir^an sodetgr ^at i t peirforce sust ijiclud© aoa© t?ue

mldSi© ola^s elements* ^d gs^ups ¥hieh he oaXlS the mld«

dl© Glasses « the coismereial twiddle olas^, the Induatrial

diddle €X&a3 and «)e landed aslddle dass^^ t ratald, in our

concept of elass, be fraoti^ms of the bottrgeoisie and

feudal el^a^t£>« ^ i s contention of ours could in fact be

subetantlated by Mlsi^*9 own econosdc data which ehow that

t^e **commerclal jalddle class" mid the "industrial middle

class*' were actuaHjr the owners of the means of production

and| therefore^ were certainly not middle class* %us Misra

does not really define the Mddle class. He has merely

lifted Cole*s model and applied i t to the Indian situation.

Mthough Cole has not been raenti(»ied in the pages of l lsam's

oxfe yet ao blindly has he follOT fed Cole that some of his

groups of the Biddle classes are identical with those of 20

Cole's even to the esrtent of being siallar in language, 19* p^*» PP» 70*t*^, 20« One esfflspl© from Cole's and Misra's works tJlll clarify

this point* *'the oM bers of the principal recognised professions; i hetber salaried or working as consultants and remunerated by professional feesf including medical oen^ laiiyers, ministers of religion, officers of the araed services, the upper ranges of ^ e teaching pro­fession and the upper and raiddle ranges of the artistic

«is©, such as lawyers and doctors, lecturers and pro­fessors, the upper and middle ranges of writers and journalists, cnisidans and artists, religions preachers end priests* (B.B,, Misra. ; Q jlt d en .ffl d^^ ,ffl ^^^8

if6

y© have ahowj earlier that Cole»«i Industrial bourgeoisie

is not the miadle ela^a because bourgeoisie and middle

class are ttio separate conceptions. Misra's idea of the

Bidian @iddle classes is not really the middle class but

the rising 3«dian bourgeoisie.

Cole's said Misra's works are thus totally unscien­

tific In their treatment of materials and, «jerefore, lack

a dear theoretical conception of class and middle class.

2hey fall to j?©rcMve class in its totality but see it

onH^ as an econosde category based on income or as mere

oeoi^pational groups• There are other studies also of the

middle class bich regard the middle class merely as an

economic category. For instance, C. tifright Mills in his

work on the American Mddle Class regards only the white

collaif workers as belonging to the middle class (the new

•middle class» as Mills calls the white collar workers)

and thus his oonoept of class is conterminous with ocoupa<*

tional groi^.^^ It is true no do«bt that white collar

workers do form the biggest chunk of the middle class tod^,

but to conceptualise the middle class it is not enough to

merely take em e&mamXQ category,j like the salaried workers

and call th@Q the new middle class* the class position and

the class consciousness of the middle class must be properly

identified to arrive at a definition of the middle class • MIMM»«n<Hi

21. Hefer C. Wright Mil ls . mtf^.^onByJI, ^er,#>,^r;ilfi^^m^a9 Claff^es (Sew IJbrk, 197^ reprint)^ For a similar view of the middle class based on occupational groups, see also J . Raynor, 133e Middle Class (tondon, 19o9)fc

«•?

!fhere are still other sociologiata «ho try to

circws^ent the Issue of ©lass and confuse the concept of

the middle clasa hy trying to draw up theories of elite**^

Sociologists, and political acientiata like C. Wright

Mills, H,D, Ijaaswell, and Redmond Aron have followed up

the elite theories of Pareto said Mosca to suit tiie concept

of political power in the post 1950 period,^^ Hhe idea of

elites, as T^B^ Bottosore also shows*^ was originally

drawn up as an alternative to the idea of sodal classes,

and the e3Lite theorists later tried to refute the Marxist

theory of social classes throu^ their tbeoiy of ruling

elites* Hofeever» the originators of the elite theory,

Pareto and I Iosce, had clearly stated that there are elites

in every sti^attM of society and every group in tiie society

had its own elit^. It is, therefore, evident from their

writings that the elite is not a ol^s, hut merely a frac­

tion of a class* There could he a bourgeois elite and a

proletariat elite (the labour aristocracy) and there could

also he a sdddle class elite* But this does not liaply that

those elites are outside of or parallel to class formation*

22* For origSjial forcmlations of elite theories se© 0. Mosca, 2SaJa2iBS;^3Ma,(^Jew Xorfe, 1939)1 J^ Pareto, ?^^^,]^^^ and arvejtetv i» Vols^ Arthor Livingston (ed.) (Hew York, 19397*

23* For a discussion of the views on elite theory of C. Wright MiHa, B*D, tasswell and Baymond Aron See, T, B*. Bottomore, EijLtea and aaeiety (I5id<liesex, Sngland^ 1976

, reprint), pp, 13»15». aW. See I^M.8 pp. 13*18* aee also E* Leach & 3 13* Mukherjee

(gd.Tni.il®l,M, ^V^m.M%^i (eaiB^ridge, 1970), P* ix.

k8

They are imrely fractions of a class, and ^^i&rsiBm^,*

aOmita tbe eslstesee of fractions> strata and even social

categories,••• Bat this In no ^lay involves groupings

alongside, marginal to of above classes, in other ^©rds

ejfternsa to tJaem,...*'^ fberefor$, in a scientific class

analsrsls of society the elites «ill beoonie fractions of

the classes to hieh they belong and not a separate class

ffl:itlty«

In the period following the writings of Wright

Mills and others o ver© trying to revive elite theories,

a new group of sociologists emerged vho tried to dlffi^©

the whole Marxist conception of social class and class

struggle by developing the th^ry of •embourgeoisisent»»

This theory laaa based on the fact that vith Idle rapid

growth of Ce3>ltall3ni certain superstructural changes had

taken place in bourgeois society, and there vas a fast

increase in the nmnber of non-productive «ag© earners li&e

offlc© vorkers, eoamerclal eegjloyees and banfe workers i.e.

2$^ t . Pouiantssas« P3i.m , ,r„4i:)i., :fe^mm?r ffy .,^B;l,t^|i|stR» ^, fiSiiU,|«4 p*198» 2c* For a atateaient of this theory see R» Bahrendorf,

Class end Conflict in Industrial Stociety^ m»J^*i

For a cri"Q.q[ae of the th«)ry of ©iabo\irgeois®Qat See v,u ^ i ^ a ^ ^p^^„ ^^7^MLA.^aag;Asl.fl.l^^.aaal^aiT.^> iSffi^fil^*, pp* a8W290^,

tf9

a l l those eategorles vfeleh f a l l vl thin the poptilar nm^

vhite (dollar vorlcepa* tHie rapid growth of these t^hite

OoHar workers, or tb© *n©w* !Bl<3dl« class> had brought

about, the ^sbourgeoistQextt theoris ts sa i4 , a loosening of

class botojdarles and therefore also of class s truggle.

These,theorists sought to pro^o tha t th is *netj» falddle

class had no ^ e e l f i e class position of i t s 9m and ^ a t

I t vas iKltiier a part of the l»>urgeolsie OT of the wox^lng

c lass ,^^ What part of the ndddle class v^ould f a l l into the

bot»geol3ie and vhat part Into the working class was to

be determined "by factors l ike pover, authority and status

and the i r economic position vas ioportant only in so far

as i t s effect on power, authority and s t a tus . Siis theory

therefore tr ied to to ta l ly underadne the concepts of hour*

geoisie, Horklnf class and class s truggle. Dahrendorf had

esp l io l t ly stated these ideas when he wrote thati

"^© eniergenee of salaried employees means in the f i r s t place an extension of the older classes of bourgeoisie and p ro le t a r i a t , i^th classes hsve become, by these extensions, even more complex end jfjeterogenous thaao their decoiaposition has made them In any case* By gaining new elesents , their unity has become, a highly doubtful and precarious feature. White-collar workers, l ike indus­t r i a l workers, have neither property nor

27. For a detailed discussion of th i s See H, Poulantsas,

pp. t93*197»

50

atithoxltyi yet tbey diapisy mmsr ^ooi^ cbaracteristics that are quite imlike t]boae of the oidl «orkins etoss, i^miias?* ly , twr®aucrats dlffei? from th© older r>i3.iiig Glass despite tbeii? siiai?e In the exercise of atttfeo^ty* ^m ©ore tiian the deCos^sltioia of e ^ l t a l and la^upi these fa«ts ®ake i t highly douhtf^ whether the cooeept of ©lass i s s t i l l applicable to the oonfiict frowp^ of post oapltallst eocietie^i In any ease, the parfcloipahts, tss^ies, ajjd pattej^iS of oooflict ha ve ohanged, and the pieasicf sigjpiicity of Mail's ^m of a0eie% hais heoome a non* sensleai eoiisti»tictioi3#^lB

TMa Bahrendorf cilt icised the ^ j ^ ^ t concept of

clasa forBSationa in hot«?g^is society and ^i?ived at the

oonolusi^ that iJ^ the highly developed oapitalist aocle-

ties class polarisatien ^as sot taking place as Marx had

predicted. % denying a apeeifie elass position to the

*new• liilddle class, and making them part of the wotking

class and bourgeoisie Bi^jrendorf has tried to pro've that

class boundaries and class unity of the proletariat and

bourgeoisie hme become extremely loosOi,

fia^ailar criticism of the Marxist concept of class

in bourgeois ssjciety ^ere voioed by the Agaerlcen Socioio**

gists I aayiHour Mpset end Beinhardt Benedix and the french

a3^ lU S^rendorf, ila^s^and.<31aa^-6Q^fliot in ^ ^ a t r ^ ^ j

?1

3oelologi3t| Raymond Aron»^ Bo »'©v«r, in order to make a

proper ovaliaatlon of th© orltioism levelled a t Mars tqr

Sociologists l ike Dahrenctorf, Upse t Benedls and Baymond

AroJif one mmt keep tn sjind the fact that the Marxist

theory of olass analyaea the social r ea l i ty in I ta t o t a l i t y

and does tjot see I t in fyaeticais of sl^taa grofupsj po l i t i c

oal po«©r or eooRotaic liutiiojlty* !rherefore« Hhe division

Into classes precisely aeans both ftom the theozKstlcal and

methodological point of VIOSMI and from that of Soolal r ea l i ty ,

that the concept of aoclal claas i s pertinent to a l l levels

of analysis I the division in to class foms the frame of

reference for every social strat if ieation*"^^

Other aociologlats l ike C» Wright Ullla <«ho, os

^e have disoiassed ear l ie r Identiflea the middle class td.tJi

th© vhite col lar workers), also do not regard the taiddle

class as a separate class but consider i t s conditions more

,^kin_ to the condition of the working c l a s s , ©ieir conten­

tion i s that both the wage earning white col lar i^orkers

and the worsting d a s s do not Q\m the cieans of pro^toHon

29. See 3,J1. Upset & E* Benedix, SQqiai, ff?^i3.ity.„^

5a

and that «bile the \jorkiag class © 1313 Ita labottr power

the ii?hite eoHar woykera sell their services, and theire-

fore, they both helang to the same class category* But,

here i t i s necessary to point ottt that there i s a clear

distinction between a ^age earner and productive labour

and as Mars had written, "©very prodactire labour i s a

imgQ earner, but &7QTy wage earner is not a pTOfttctive

labour."^^ 5!his makes i t clear that merely the fact of lack

of the ownership of the means of production and the earning

of wages does not make a white collar belong to the working

class, because the fonaer's labour is not productive labour*

Only that labour is productive labour which produces surplus

values and)

*»,,. labour perfomed in the sphere of circulation of caj^tali or contributing to the realisation of surplus - value is not productive labour? ^age earners in oosH eree, advertising, marketingi accoun­ting, banking and insurance, do not pro-duce surplus • value and do not for© part of the working class (productivo labour).. I t i s only prcjductlve capital that produces surplus»value,*32

FroJS the aboi?e arguments i t i s , therefore, evi^ei^t

that the caiddle class i s neither the tiorking class nor is i t

merging with the proletariat and tK>upgeoiaie« A scientific

31» K. Kara* g^pJM^ Vol, I {nm lork, 1975), ^pajdix. 32« N.-Ppulantza3", ffls^A,^,^ ,„gi;?n)ff 80y ip:.,.,f? ffa. ' 3itoit

fi2.,..fi|^,, p* 211.

53

analysis of tfce social reality and social olasses «111

prcfv© tfeat the mlddl© class does have i t s own class posi­

tion in the society no matter at what level of capitalist

development that society may lae in, Mbat Hien i s this

e l^a positicm and the class coiis»>3itlon of the middle

class?

the term oiddle class la of quite modern origin

and i t came intx> eommtm use cmly by t je 18M » Before that,

more particularly in the late el^teent* century the tero

•men of a middle conditi<mS «islddle r jk* and ^aiddUng

classes* ¥er© generally tised to describe t^e groti s of peo­

ple between persons of •rank* and the •ccoason people**

fhese g3?oups were al pgrs considered to be of m indeterml-

nate nature and so gradually the Specific ^ord 'ranl(* came

to be replaced Isgr the lijord class which could better define

13ie position of these groups*^^ After the mld^nlneteenth

centufy ^hesn Mail's definitions of social class and his tori*

cal d^elopment began to sake their impact on the existing

methods of social analysis, the concepts of class, bouir*

geoisie, ^rldug class, and middle class also came to specify

definite social groups in definite sKies of production. The

tax© middle class then cam© to be viewed as ijeslcally

31» or a history of the development of the teim middle class ifee n. miigas.^f<m^mkgAJmBPulmr. Q^

9^

consisting of various "social grot js wbich occupy m Inter-

medlary position between tfee proletgtriat and t^e baurgeol^

s l e , " ^ By adddl© class, Iferx had memit the small Indepen­

dent tapoducers and Indep^dent professional taeni and he had

clearly iised taa© tejm in the singular and not in the plural*

"the ioaer taiddle class, tlie small ©anufacturepi the shop­

keeper^ the artisans, the peasant» al l these fight against

the bourgeoisie to ©aire from estlnotion tSjelr existence as

^mSiUm§..f!if«Mn.P4A§X%^>mn*>*>"^^ (©nphasls added), 2!hus

in a bourgeois Society the middle class can be equated tilth

the petty bourgeoisie, isjhlch group xshlle preserving some of

the characteristics of earlier historical development also

specifies a particular category in the society^

liars, yhile vrltlng about the cdddle (^ass or th©

petty boiirgeoisie had analysed tbe existing social reality

in the industrialised societies of nineteenth century Europe.

However, «ite t^e development of the means of ^eduction

and the rapid groTtftti of eapltaUsa, changes began to take

place in the capitalist social formation, and these chsmges

helped the cai.tie3 of Marx to argue that Marx*s theory of

class and class struggle was inadeqiiate to understand the

3 . 3.13• Hadei, sffufiXM^f p.87. 35» 5. Marx & F, Bngela, J^i|:<^^.'^„„^ „t|?§„qopaffl;i; ^ ,g^y^

(Moscow, 1966), pp* 55i^*

55

complex reality ©f a^^anced industrial society* One such

oompXex pbenosenon, the critics pointed out, was the

grow«j of the new *ffliddle class*, l bls new middle class

consisting of "office workers, supervisors, managers,

technicians, scientists and many of vhom are employed In

providing services of one kind or another.••• manifested

the greater complexity of social stratification in modem

Industrial societies*','' and it, therefore, posed

"difficulties for Harx's Theory^.^^ The actual fact is,

however, that if one clearly understood the economic*

social, ideological and pelltAcal dimensions of the Marxist

concept of claas^ the class analysis of the advanced capl*

talist countries would not pose any prohlesn, and the

growth of the new middle class JoUld not mean that Marx's

prediction of class polarisation had been proved wrong.

the difficulties for Marxist theory «ere created toy the

hourgeois sociologists, like the structural functionalists,

¥ho, as e have discussed in Chapter X earlier, «itb their

gtatu3»<iuoist theories tried to disprove the dynamics of

social ch^ge as enunciated in class analysis. They based

their study of soci©^ on status groups and social strati­

fication instead of on social classes and class different

stations, and they used the term class to mean either mere 11_ »<ni II ^ w — — r rill I mini Ml • iiim ii n u ii i H HI , « > m m w i i i m n

36, T.B.Botto!aore, m.aiggp,;JU\., 9^^m,. ^a., .1 , op«.cit.p.2U. 37«. JfeM* I PP* 23*257;

56

^ oBQEQio o^tegottBa or atatws groups* Wills amcls a eoBcept

of class i t woaia indeed be diffteiaM to analyse, on

admtiStQ l ines, sociaJL <^|ian^ in any Society.

On© point hii^ammi m^t fed %^m into aseotast her©,

#jat tliere i s a $m in Mai*^3t ttoeoretieai ^idtings in

reiation to tfe© d©v©Xo|>Hi€SJt iM th^ de-veloi ing and \aid©ip»

developed cotmtrie^, fhe fa^ilt i s of eours© not of Marxist

ttoesfy ag 9«ch tsut of tlaota taaeOreticiansi and GCftolars, who#

in the hundred y©3i after ^ s * • Q dea^ #hcrta3,d IhaT© deve*

loped a elea^ ^ i en t i f i e ^eoret ioal approach to analyse

developfaeots in ^es© cotuitries, Hhere can l?e no aygtusent

about the faet that elaas Felatidns gnd clagg 9tj?uggl© are

tbe basic deteioinanta In the hia toxical d©i?elopae»t of

tbeae imdepdeveloped economies, But **lt i s , . * cleaa? that

the e^js^am im^pl^ad in l^ese yelationa are In $pm^ m$ov

^ays different or ©f diffai?ent istportane© fijoia tbo^e in

advanced capltaiist-societiesit. , .*'^ I t ahoi<^ Stlso be

mentioned here that not ^ l y the relatlona and it^i^eroc©

0f variolic <^a33e9 may be diffe^^nt but even the oharaetep

of ceaNiain c loses g ^ be diffei^nt in conditi^is of tmder*

developtaent or ejEt^fe^ capitalist doMna^toi* fhu^, the

iffipoytance of the lalddl© claaa, as we have shown ixt omt

r<l>!li>Mli*«t>inr

%BA B ^ • mMbamy i H a i i ^ ^ ^ r ' ^ ^ i ^ i l ^ ^S^J^^t V^^4

?7

istroduetioii to tfeia votJe, ia of a different natya?© In

India and partlciHarSiy I s ^saaa> fro® tbat In adroneed

6apltsll3t S0Oleti«i3. I t Is true tli&t Kapxlst theories

MQT^ primarily foymiilate^ in end foi? a boiB'gtol3/ca^t&«

Ha t context and therefore have to he adapted to the veiy

diffes^^nt conditions intruded in the Idea of taiderdev©lop»

tneatr" Wt the stain Harsist theoretical fonaol^tions foJ?

the deterffiination of classes in hourgeoie/capltailst aocie^

t ies will be \jf and large the same e?en for the \mdeTd©ve*

leoped coiant^les because those forsulations are h^ed on

scientific definition of class lAieh vie^is class as a toi^l

entity, !Sa?srefot^| tihile detejsaining the class position of

the stlddle class in \m^eyd©veloped ca\intries i t is possible

to follow tfeo saSn lines of class analysis in advancerl capl»

ta l is t coimtries,

Proceeding froia this basis i t can be stated that

the oeneeptuallaation of the adddle elass that developed in

Colonial eeonoaies like that of Ihdia ^ ^ 1 be s la i la r to

the conceptualisation of ^ e alddle class in advanced capi*

t a l l s t co\3ntides, for after aH , ©olonialiaia i s but an

e^en^ion of eapitalisas. I t i s no doubt true that the teira

39* See IMOi*.* PP, 28-29*

?8

petty bourgeoisie Is nop© faiailiar tftau Middle elaaa in

Mayxlat circles* and i t i3 alao tree that the tera oiddlo

class oT w&MlQ classes I m ims ho&n vtaed ty boisrgeols

social soientiats, i s unsclentifio beoauae i t is founded

on an umcisntin^s concept of cXaas,^ But l^is in no way

mesns thnt in a #eientlfie class analysis of soc l e^ t^e

te«a falddle claaa cannot be used and in f act, the term

has been used in the Maai feato of the Comamniat lar ty to

si^cify the va?io\i3 fractions which coapyiae the middle

c l ^ s « ^

13s© fraotitms of the Edddle class OP |>et^-bouii»-

geoiaie mesitlcmed by Harx • th© small*-scale producera and

owners, tase liidep^adent craftsmen and traders «• are threa­

tened ^ t h (Ktinetion ^Jli^ the development of eapitall&m,

Kiia p0tty»boyrgeoisie ha3 been called the •traditional'

petty-bourgeoisie by Poul^tsjas in his book glfiagea-ln

.<fOfl. ?r !?orarT ^l?lrW^?^» to distinguish i t from %e ^ige

earning groups * the managerial staff, bureaucrats and

other servlcef^ ^iployees • which grew with tiie development

of cap!talis®, 5hi3 'new* middle class Poul^itzaa has called

thQ *nm^ pett3?y-bourgeoi3ie* I t i s new only Jn the aense

i*0» 3se QJf. Had^, Iffia-gl;*., pp,88-91* M, gefer K, Mais a F, ^ g e l s , fs^%fe^%fi^ff^ ,%m,.ii9mWiU%

£aS^> 62*^3^*» PP*55-?6» Us. lefer iC^^aantaaa, ^tea^#„;j,a.,i;^,^{BPt>rary, P^pJlWl ffi*

59

that It 19 not faced w^tb th© threat of extlftctiott as

es^3.talism-groiJ0 but is destined to groy men ftirther wit*

the extension of c&pitaXism. '' Tb^ qae3tXon that iBssedtate*

ly arises at this point is^ hm/ ean t^o fi<}elal grouping,

the tjpBuIitlenal potter howgooisle end the n&a petty-

houpgeoisie, whleh are 30 different in eeonoaio relations,

belong to the same class i«e. the petty«bo\jrgeoi3ie?

fo ?ind a scientific answer to this question one

caast again recall that in a social analysis based on the

Marxist Concept of cla0s^ the definttlon of class is based

not merely on economic determination but oigtalfa the entire

gamut of politlcaly social^ and Ideological deterBjinants*

therefore, "if certain groupings vhich at first sight ae&m

to occiJpy different places in econotaic relations can be

considered as belonging 1k> the same class, this is because

these places, although they are different, nevertheless hsv©

the same effects at the political and ideological level.**^

Ufae traditional petty bourgeoisie and the new petty-bour­

geoisie no doubt have different eeonosic relations but even

in this difference they have sme thing in comon - they

belong neither to the bourgeoisie nor to the proletariat,.

if3» Hefer IfeM*,, p» 209* ^ * |b|ji», p* 206,

0

Althox^h tbia is entirely a negative criterion a«d i t canndt

Ise coHverfced into a pofi^ve cm© by merely looking at i t

froa the polut of v%&^ of class polarlsatiffli^ yet ^ ia

0^1u9ion fro® the two hmie ©lasaea in society*^* •• indica-

tea mm at t*e leireX of econoaic relations, the outline of

t^elr places, ^hich ape reaffirmed by the politieal and

ideological relatlon8»*'^ Foar the stmctasfal class detenai-

nations of any social gf up in t^e society t^e ideological

and political relati<m haire to be ascertained side by side

«ith t*ie i?etations of prod^otiom. ?feese ideological and

politieal relations are even ii©re indispenslble in deter-

sdning the class position of the petty-bourgeoisie, parti*

cidarly in |»wridlng a foundation for the coOTJon class ffi©m«»

beirahip for the traditional and new petty-boiirgeoiale and

in grasping the relationship between the ne^ petty^bour-

geoisie, the boutgeodsje. "*. eaid the proletariat* Ehls of

course does not mean that ideological and political relations

are not iaportant for tAie ola^s detenainaticfla of tfee prole­

tariat and ^ e bourgeoisie, but In the oase of the petty-

bourgeoisie these are GK>r© important t^eause the traditional

and the new petty-boui'geoisie not being at t^e centre of

dominant relations of ©itploitatioB '^....imdsrgoes a polarisa*

tion that ; ;produces very cooplex distortions and adaptations

5» iMd«» P* 206.

61

of tb© p o l i t i c k ati& Ideological relations i s vbiofe i t is

plaeea." Tbis ii^portanc© on the Ideologidal and poli t ic

eel relations In the case of the petty-bourgeolale should

Rot also be taken to aeajs that the class dietsi^8iiia^i>n of

the pettjr.bo«pgeolsle poses a dllfflcia^ for the Marxist

d r i t ^ l a of eoonotslc detersslnlsiB* The only reason \shy they

ha^e to be stressed In this case is because ^classes are

only detersaiijsfi in class struggle" ' and the ideological

and poli t ical situation of the petty-bourgeoisle wi^in the

capitalist social ordar deteraines i t s place tn ^le class

straggle tsithiSfi that order*

iHthou^ the ney petty-twsurgeoisle occtipies a

different position from that of the traditional petty-

bourgeoisie, so far as eeonosic relations are conceitied,

yet where the ideological effects of their econoBde rela­

tions are concemed there i s an analogy, ^ e petty-boiar-

geois ideology i s similar in ^ e ease of both the n&s p e t ^ -

lK)urgeoi3le and «ie old petty-bourgeoisie* I t is this

coiamon ideological effects of their different economic

positions vhich lead tso a s ioi lar i ty of class positions of

the tso groupings of the pet%"*'bourgeoisle* I t can therefore, oi*———*«—*—II11 •mill !•«—I—Willi m i l im^mmimmmmmttt^immmmmmmimmitmmmmmm-^iitmmmmmmmmmmmtmmmmm*

m^ For a co^le te discussion of the for© of petty-boiB'geoisie ideology, see, H, ^ t l an t za s , £si^*, pp, 290-294^

6a

t>© aald that "tbeae tuo gswapiuga tooth form part of the

3GmQ class I the potty hourgeolaie***^^ But It moat bo

rsa^hered that t^e pett3r*hoi:Qrgeoi3ie la not a cli^s like

th© two basic classes of the capitalist mofie of production,

the bourgeoisie nd the pi^oletdrlat| and i t does not have

the unity ^hlch ^eae ©lasses have. For instance, the

relationship bett een the traditional petty*»bourgeol3ie and

the new petty-bourgeoisie i s not like the relationship that

eslsts bet^eeii the eoomieroial capital and the banking eapl«

tal of the bourgeoisie, T©t the two groixpinga of the petty

bourgeoisie ca© be said to be belonging to one class pre­

cisely because classes are deteirained in class struggle

only^ and in the polarisation of class struggle the tradi­

tional and new petty-rbourgcolsie occupy ^he same place vis*

a*vis the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

It is"this iDtei«aediato class, the petty-bourgeoisie,

consisting of the traditional end the ney petty-lwurgeoisie,

^it^ ^hlch ve ^h^Ll be e^^^uaively dealing with in our analy­

s is of Socio-econoialc developments in Assaia in the second

half of the nineteenth and early twentieth! century. ^ we

have ®0ntl<ajed earlier the term petty-bourgeoisie i s more

eoiamonly used, particularly in Harzist circles, but the use

m

of th© term sdddl© class i s more stdtafeXe fbip oiir analysis

of AssasesQ s o d e l y ^eesuse I t feas tfce advantage of eocos**

passing l)Otfc tfee t3?a4itional petty^bourgeolale that Hars

^roto about J a»d the a ^ pettyi-lsourgeoiaie oocrprialng the

ncfW wage»eaynifjg p«t^p3 tha t developed in the l a t e r decades,

AlsOf i s th& study of h is tor ica l developaent of the Asaameaa

society the term middle clas^ has cooe to have 3oine popular

connotations, and i t has heen widely used to identify cer­

tain important forcea in the Asseffijese society. "Ehese forces

have played a vexy cmaeial role in the socio-ijolitical*

economic developments of Assam, I t i s , therefore, iraperatlve

tha t iJi© exact class position of this middle class in

Assffluese aoQi^^ he deternrlaed in order to assess the Irapor-^

tanee of t*e role of various forces in the h is tor ica l deve»

lopment of Asaaa, In order to do this i t i s necessary to

imdertake a proper class analysis of Aasames© Society by

oakijis a sc ient i f ic analysis of the socio»ccano!aic develop-

m^ts in Assam in the nineteenth century and early tsentletti

century* ^he introduction of British Msdnistration in

Assaa in the nineteenth century brought about a ^hole ser ies

of changes in the h is tor ica l developmeat of Ma^m^ ^o com­

prehend fully the iiapact of Brit ish Colonial pol ic ies , and

the emer^Sfice of net? c l a s s y in Assam, i t i s absolutely

6V

nece^saxy t^at the cracldUig up of the existing s o ^ i c

econoialo fois^Moa In Assam undej' the flrdt on^latsgbt

of colonial rule i s analysed in i t s entirety.

In the next chapter therefore, «e shall^ as the

f irs t step to the study of the Assasiese siiddle elaas as

coneeptaalisod in tdsls ehapter, esaoine ho^i \jitb tije

IntKjdttctiosi of neij British econocdc poUcieSj the old

order in As^^ began t@ erec^ and finally tumhled do«n

to give plape to a ne r colcmial sooio«»economie order*: