toward a class cultural theory

7/27/2019 Toward a Class Cultural Theory

1/34

Sociological Forum, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1997

Toward a Class-Cultural Theory of SocialMovements: Reinterpreting New SocialMovements1Fred Rose2,3

This paper examines the relationship between social class and socialmobilization through reviewing the case of new social movements. Themiddle-class membership of new social movements is well documented butpoorly explained by current New Class, New Social Movement, and CulturalShift theories. The se theories fail to reco gnize the interdependence betweeninterests, values, and expressed ideas. Class culture provides an alternativeframework for interpreting the complex relationships between class interests andconsciousness in these movem ents. Through a compa rison of working- andmiddle-class cultures, it is proposed that social class orders consciousness andshapes the interpretation of interests. Class cultures produce distinct class formsof political an d organizational behavior while no t defining an y particularcontent of movement issues or politics. In particular, the middle-classmembership of new social movem ents is explained by the cultural form of thesemovem ents which is distinctly middle class.

INTRODUCTIONWhat is the relationship between social class and social mobilization?Marx an d Engels proposed a simple and compelling bu t inadequate

1An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the American Sociological Association annualmeeting, New York, August 1996.2Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, 97 Talbot, Medford, Mas-sachusetts 02155.3Address correspondence to Fred Rose, 3 McClelland Farm Rd., Deerfield, Massachusetts01342.

KEY WORDS: new social movements; social movements; working classpolitics; middleclasspolitics; class culture.

4610884-8971/97/0900-046I$I2.50/0 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation


2/34


3/34

conservative, or authoritarian, and advocates of class err by expecting classto explain too much.5Conversely, critics are too willing to dismiss the significance of classbecause its relationship with behavior and ideas is not simple. Rather, Ipropose that social class shapes distinct cultural subsystems that order con-sciousness, organize perceptions, define priorities, and influence forms ofbehavior. The specific content of consciousness emerges through historicalexperiences and action within the framework created by class cultures.Movements reflect the class background of participants even if they do notexplicitly articulate their goals in class terms. This has enormous implica-tions for when and how people from different classes mobilize politically.Methodologically, this paper develops its theoretical position based ona critique of existing theory. The following section critically reviews currentclass-based and nonclass explanations for the middle-class membership ofnew social movements.6 This provides an overview of some ideas about therelationships between class and social mobilization. These theories fail be-cause they lack a framework for understanding the relationships betweeninterests, values, and consciousness. I propose such a framework based onthe concept of class culture which allowsfor a reinterpretation of new socialmovements that resolves many of the ambiguities of existing theories.

The class cultural theory developed here draws upon the theoreticaland ethnographic literature of class as well as my own field research. Iconducted in-depth interviews and ethnographic observations of blue-collarbuilding and metal trades unions and middle-class environmental and peaceorganizations in Washington state over a ten month period during 1991.These were the largest trade union, peace, and environmental organizationsin the state. The working-class membership of the unions offered a clearcontrast with the professional middle-class makeup of the peace and envi-ronmental organizations.7

I studied these movement organizations because they were cooperatingwithin coalitions that crossed class lines. This provided an opportunity tocompare movement differences and to relate these to class experiences as5Working-class authoritarianism is a recurring theme in social science (Lipset, 1959; Kirschtand Dillehay, 1967; McKinley, 1964). Others suggest that the lower middle class is inherentlyreactionary (Warren, 1967; Mayer, 1975). Some observers suggest that the professional middleclass is inherently radical (Podhoretz, 1979). In contrast, others believe that the new serviceclass is inherently conservative (Goldthorpe, 1982; Chomsky, 1969). Others have noted thatthe class politics of the middle class is ambiguous (Wright, 1985:124-126; Harrington, 1979).6I borrow the term "new social movement" from the European literature to refer to a hostof post-1960s, largely middle-class movements such as the peace, environmental and feministmovements. This is a useful shorthand for the subject of this paper; however, I will be criticalof some of the basic tenets of New Social Movement theories.7The membership of the environmental organization was 86% professional middle class, andthe peace organization was 78% professional middle class based on surveys by the author.

463oward a Class-Cultural Theory of Social Movements


4/34

observed in the ethnographic research. More details of this research canbe found in Rose (1993).The observations here are also informed by my own organizing expe-

riences with new social movements, labor unions, and community organi-zations including several cross-class coalitions. I have organized a peaceand labor coalition for military conversion in Washington state, staffed alabor-based conversion coalition in New England, and organized a churchand labor organizing project in Massachusetts that includes both working-and middle-class religious congregations. The details of these experiencesand my own research are not cited in this paper because of space limita-tions. Rather I draw on documented research describing class cultures thatare consistent with my own observations. This conceptual paper cites sup-porting evidence that will be more rigorously examined in future research.

THE MIDDLE CLASS AND NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTS-CURRENT THEORIES

The professional middle-class membership of the mainstream peace, en-vironmental, and women's movements is well documented (Parkin, 1968; Cot-grove and Duff, 1980; Brint, 1985; Kriesi, 1989). Membership will be usednarrowly throughout this paper to refer to participation in social movementorganizations. This does not discount a more inclusive understanding of move-ments as those who identify with a cause, which is generally broader than or-ganizational membership. By measures of occupation, education, and income,membership in new social movement organizations is disproportionately uppermiddle class. In the environmental movement, for example, the NationalAudubon Society has found that its members have a median income of$41,000 with 81% home owners and 64% having attended college. This com-pares with a national median income at the beginning of the decade of $30100with 64% home ownership and 44% with some college education. In a surveyof its members, Greenpeace found that 32% have incomes over $50,000 com-pared with 17% of the U.S. population, and 60% have college degrees com-pared with 19% of the population. Leadership of these movements is drawneven more disproportionately from the professional middle class.Theories to explain this correlation fall into three broad camps. Thefirst, "New Class" theory, argues that these movements; are pursuing dis-tinctly middle-class interests. Thus the class makeup of these movementsreflects the motivations of the movements themselves. The second, "NewSocial Movement" theory perceives these movements as a defensive re-sponse to the encroachment of economics into other cultural spheres. Thisculture-based explanation suggests that the middle class is particularly re-

Rose64


5/34

sponsive to these societywide changes. A third "Cultural Shift" theory, rep-resentative of theories about postindustrial society, proposes that new socialmovements represent a change in values due to the growing wealth of so-ciety. The middle class is the most advanced sector of this societywidechange. The strengths and limitations of these theories are explored below.New Class theory applies Marx's materialist interpretation of historyto the middle class, suggesting that new social movements advance classinterests.8 The new middle class consists of managers and professionals wh ocontrol organizational skills and knowledge through recently expanded in-stitutions within the state, corporate, and non-profit sectors. Professionaland managerial occupations have grown from a minor segment of the work-force in the last century (9% in 1870) to among the largest today (27% in1980; Gilbert and Kahl, 1982; Bruce-Briggs, 1979). While Marx describedhow the capitalist class emerged as a new class within the feudal societythat it later replaced, this theory proposes that the new professional-mana-gerial class could represent the new class that will supplant capitalism.9Alvin Gouldner provides perhaps the most sophisticated variation on therise of the new class, emphasizing both cultural struggle as well as the pursuitof class interests. The professional middle class brings with it a new set of valuesand goals, most significantly its emphasis on rationality and rejection of arbi-trary authority. It creates new forms of hierarchy based on merit, educationalattainment, and rational regulation by experts. The interests of this new classare bound within these new, rationally based institutions. Thus the struggle be-tween the rising professional middle-class and the old capitalist class has botha cultural and material dimension. The middle class challenges capitalist profitmaximization as a goal as well as the material organization of private enterprise.In Gouldner's scheme, new class movements advance class interests intheir emerging struggle for power against the capitalist class. Gouldner pro-poses a general pattern of intellectuals and professionals rebelling againstestablished authorities as they find opportunities restricted and access topolitical power blocked. Movements of the 1960s are seen as elements ofclass struggle against the old dominant capitalist class. Students, blacks,and women sought access to professional middle-class jobs and thus ex-pansion of institutions that employ the new class. Gouldner argues that the8Conservatives also used the concept of a new class to attack liberalism as elitist starting inthe 1970s (Ehrenreich, 1989).9lt is worth noting that Marx was inconsistent in his theory about the overthrow of capitalism,particularly regarding the role of the working class. His general theory of history proposesthat a new class from outside the contemporary economic system will eventually overthrowthe existing dominant class. He then proposes that the working class will be the agent ofchange under capitalism, despite its position within and not outside the existing economicsystem (1848/1948). The former interpretation is the basis of "new class" theories, while thelatter remains the main thrust of most Marxist thinking.



6/34

student movement was also a struggle for new class interests as studentsrebelled against conditions such as large classes with limited access to fac-ulty and their low pay as teaching assistants (1979: 66-72).10 Consistentwith this interest analysis, Gouldner believes that the environmental move-ment represents "guerilla warfare" against the irrationality of corporatepolluters (1979:17). Th e Vietnamwar was also opposed by intellectuals wh ofelt their access to power blocked (1979:63).These attempts to interpret new social movements as aspects of classconflict fail in several ways. First, they oversimplify the goals of these move-ments, which cannot be understood in the narrow framework of class in-terests. For example, the individual or class benefits from efforts to preserveremote areas such as the arctic or obscure species such as snail darters areinsignificant. In many instances, regulations create substantial costs that in-dustry passes on as higher prices, contrary to consumer interests. Often,the middle-class is not an immediate beneficiary of new social movementactivism. Furthermore, class interest doesn't explain why the environmentalmovement is a middle-class rather than lower-class movement. On the basisof class interests alone, environmental protections could benefit lower classmembers more than the middle class because pollution is disproportion-ately placed in lower income neighborhoods (Goldman, 1993).A related weakness is that New Class theories do not distinguish thequalitatively different nature of new social movement demands from class-interest movements. New social movements pursue universal goals that cutacross classes. Clean air or disarmament, for instance, have distributionalimplications, but these depend on how these goals are enacted. Distribu-tional impacts are often ignored by new social movements, which are no-toriously ignorant of the economic and social implications of theirprograms.11 Gouldner does recognize that the middle class can align withdifferent classes, but new social movements are more ambiguous than this.Different segments of the same movement may ally with different classesor may shift alliances depending on the issue.12 Thus class interests do not10While Gouldner is sympathetic to the rise of the new class, his arguments are similar tothose of critics who condemn new social movements for advancing narrow class interests.See Tucker (1982) and Wildavsky (1979). Advocates for low-income and minority commu-nities also criticize middle-class movements for advancing self-interests. See Bullard (1993).While conservatives and radicals may agree that the middle-class movement is pursuingnarrow class interests, they strongly disagree about the implications of this observation."The environmental justice movement has been highly critical of the failure of the environ-mental movement to address distributional consequences of environmental policies (Bullard,1993; Pulido, 1993). Steven Beuchler documents the bias against class and race inequalitieswithin the predominantly middle-class women's movement (1990: ch. 4).l2This was well illustrated during the 1993 debate about the North American Free TradeAgreement during which environmental groups were divided in their allegiances with labor

or business interests. These alliances changed throughout the course of the negotiationsaround NAFTA as well (Dowie, 1995:185-188).

Rose66


7/34

explain what unifies these movements whose issues cut across class lineswith inconsistent distributional implications.Finally, New Class theory fails to recognize that new social movementschallenge some basic tenets of middle-class society and are not simple exten-sions of middle-class power. Segments of these movements do seek to makesociety more rational as Gouldner suggests. However many of the goals ofthese middle-class movements run counter to the technocratic and bureau-cratic interests of middle class professionals. New Social Movement theoristsrightly observe that these movements rebel against the over-rationalizationof society (Offe, 1985; Melucci, 1980). They promote participatory democ-racy over expertise, personalized lifestyles over institutionalization, and scep-ticism of technology over progress. The movements of the 1960s and theirheirs sought to find alternatives to the rationalized world of their parents andchallenged some key dimensions of established class-based interests. Theydid not seek a more rational socialism,but a more decentralized democracy.13In sum, Ne w Class theories fail to understand the relationships be-tween consciousness and action. They deny the significance of expressedbeliefs and interpret consciousness as a mask for underlying ideological andmaterial interests. They therefore cannot explain many dimensions of mid-dle-class movements that do not advance well-defined class interests.New Social Movement theorists address some of the weaknesses of NewClass theory. This European school interprets these movements as a defen-sive response to structural changes in the economic system. Rather than ashift toward socialism, these theorists perceive a new stage of "disorganized"capitalism (Offe, 1980; Lash and Urry, 1987). Applying Habermas's conceptof life-space, New Social Movement theorists argue that the production proc-ess has imposed new levels of control beyond the sphere of production intoconsumption, services, and social relations. This encroachment is caused bythe growing needs of capitalism to control not only labor power but also com-plex organizational systems, information, processes of symbol formation, andinterpersonal relations. As Alberto Melucci explains (1980:219),

The new social movements are struggling, therefore, not only for thereappropriation of the material structure of production, but also for collectivecontrol over socio-economic development, i.e., for the reappropriation of time, ofspace, and of relationships in the individual's daily existence.Rather than class interests, these movements seek new forms of communityto replace the "formal, abstract and instrumental relationships charac-terizing state and society" (Breines, 1982).13For example, the Port Huron statement says, "But today, for us, not even the liberal andsocialist preachments of the past seem adequate to the forms of the present .... As asocial system we seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation . . . . "



8/34

As their name implies, New Social Movement theorists emphasize thedifferences between these contemporary movements and "old" social move-ments mobilizing around material needs. Claus Offe (1985) contrasts "old"vs. "new" movements in terms of their actors, issues, values, and "modesof action." Older movements, most importantly the labor movement, mo-bilize as socio-economic groups pursuing selective interests, while newmovements promote goals that cut across class lines such as gender, race,and locality. In this view, the values of individualism and material progressare being replaced with priorities of personal autonomy and self-determi-nation. Finally, the formal organizational systems and interest group politicsof older movements are giving way to greater informality, egalitarian struc-tures, and protest politics.New Social Movement theorists provide various explanations for thedisproportionate middle-class participation in new movement politics. Somepropose that while the structural changes that new social movements ad-dress affect everyone, the middle class has the leisure time and security topursue nonmaterial goals.14 Others argue that radicals critical of capitalismchoose careers that reflect noneconomic values (Parkin, 1968). Groups thatare distant from capitalist economic relations are more likely to expressnonmaterialist values (Friberg and Hettne, 1985). A third, self-interest ap-proach suggests that these movements consist of members of society mostaffected by new forms of domination such as middle-class consumers andless powerful groups in society such as women and people of color(Melucci, 1980). Hanspeter Kriesi (1989) proposes that new social move-ment values and attitudes are generated among professional specialistswhose jobs require them to defend clients against impositions from thestate and corporations, or educated young people freed from dying tradi-tions. John Mattausch (1989) makes a related argum ent that it is experiencewithin the public sector tha t leads to the distinct values expressed in newsocial movements. David Croteau (1995) argues that the middle-class hasthe resources and skillswhich the working class lacks to participate innew social movements.15New Social Movement theories have some important virtues that ad-dress weaknesses of class-interest theories. They recognize the qualitativedifferences that distinguish these movements from traditional movements.Most significantly, new movements do not simply advance middle-class in-terests in the way that traditional labor an d com mun ity organizing advancethe immediate interests of their constituencies. NewSocial Movement theo-l4This argument is also made by Ronald Inglehart as discussed below (Ingelhart, 1977,1990).15While Croteau's emphasis on political efficacy and his acceptance of New Social Movementtheory differ from this analysis, his broader framework of class culture and his ethnographic

observations share much with the approach presented here.

Rose68


9/34

rists draw attention to the distinct values, ideologies, organizational forms,and political strategies that characterize new social movements.These theories are also more able to understand conflicts within themiddle class over the goals of new social movements. New Class theoriesfail in this regard because they perceive new social movements as a directexpression of class interests that emerge with this class. Because New SocialMovement theorists see these movements as responses to new develop-ments in the organization of capitalism rather than political expressions ofexisting middle-class interests, they are able to examine divergent responseswithin different segments of the middle class.

Furthermore, New Social Movement theorists rightly dispute the claimthat these movements are advancing socialism, as stated previously. NewSocial Movement theorists correctly observe the search for new forms ofidentity and personal expression, often in opposition to traditional middle-class values of rationality and order.Yet while New Social Movement theories explain aspects of middle-class movements missing from New Class theory, they fail to account forsome important dimensions contained in that theory. First, by taking theclaims of new social movements at face value, they fail to recognize theclass interests that are served by these movements. While peace, environ-mental, or feminist movements may claim to advance universal goals, thebenefits they promote do often serve the middle class. For example, themiddle class has benefited disproportionately from movement campaignsfor draft resistance, protective land use policies, and race and gender quo-tas in the job market (Berryman, 1988:34-35; Heineman, 1992; Frieden,1979; Wilson, 1987). Thus neither the new social movement view of non-self-interested actors nor the new class view of self-interest is adequate.There is some truth to both observations; new social movements advancesome middle-class interests but cannot be reduced to any simple notion ofclass interest.

Second, unlike New Class theory, this theory does not explain ongoingdivisions between working- and middle-class movements and fails to explainwhy new movements remain predominantly middle class. Changes in the or-ganization of capitalism impact both classes, with the working class more re-stricted by new levels of control over consumption and private lives. One mightanticipate that working-class movements would adopt similar issues as well,but instead, labor unions and socialist parties have been suspicious of thesenewer movements and at times outright hostile (Maguire, 1990; Mayer, 1987;Siegmann, 1985). While concern about issues like the environment andwomen's rights is widespread throughout society, participation in new socialmovements is not (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Mohai, 1985, 1990). There-fore, other factors besides the shift in capitalist forms of production are re-



10/34

sponsible for conflicts between working- and middle-class movements over is-sues and politics. New Social Movement theories cannot explain why activistsin these movements remain so predominantly middle class.Several additional limitations throw doubt upon the adequacy of NewSocial Movement theories as well. First, these movements are not as newas this school implies. Many of the themes that characterize the presentenvironmental movement have emerged repeatedly since the rise of indus-trialism and urbanization (Gottlieb, 1993). Middle-class movements fromthe past share important characteristics of the so called new social move-ments. For example, John Gilkeson, Jr (1986) describes how middle-classreform movements have long represented their ideas in terms of the gen-eral public interest as opposed to special interests. Middle-class movementssuch as the temperance movement, Progressive Era reforms, and thewomen's movement have historically been middle class and pursued broadtransformation of values. My point here is not that nothing distinguishesthese movements from so-called old social movements, as Sidney Tarrow(1989) claims, but that middle-class movements have much in commonthroughout American history. I will argue below that what distinguishesthese movements is not their newness but their middle-class origins.Finally, the truth about New Left attitudes toward rationality an d plan-ning again lies between New Class and New Social Movement theories.Peace, environmental, and feminist movements are divided between thosewho seek to make society more rational through government intervention,scientific management, and equal application of laws and those who seethese forms of bureaucratic, scientific, and legal rationalization as a majorcause of the problems they seek to change. On the side of greater ration-ality are world order and international government advocates in the peacemovement and science-based ecology and environmental organizations.Each of these movements also has its spiritual wing that argues that sciencecannot resolve problems already too steeped in rationality.16New Social Movement theories, in sum, again fail to adequately con-ceptualize the relationships between interests, beliefs, and action. They takeexpressed beliefs too literally and ignore unarticulated interests. Without atheory of interests, their explanations for the class make up of movementsis underdetermined. Neither New Social Movement nor New Class theoriesare able to explain the complexity within these movements.Ronald Inglehart's Cultural Shift theory addresses some but not all ofthese difficulties with the new social movement approach (1977, 1990).Inglehart agrees with most of the observations made by New Social Move-16For spiritual perspectives regarding the peace movement see Barbara Epstein (1990). For

a spiritual view from the environmental movement see Bill Devall and George Sessions(1985).

Rose70


11/34

ment analysts bu t proposes a very different explanation for these trends.While New Social Movement theorists perceive these movements as a de-fensive reaction against the encroachment of invasive capitalism, Inglehartproposes that they are a positive affirmation of new values resulting fromgrowing affluence. Capitalist development, therefore, is viewed as a positiverather than negative process. Rather than protecting existing spheres oflife from new encroachments, Inglehart sees a new "postmaterialist" gen-eration discovering new values given their freedom from material want. Agrowing share of the population in industrialized countries is being liber-ated from preoccupation with economics and survival and shifting attentiontoward the search for personal meaning and quality of life. To Inglehart,the more affluent middle class is making this shift first, while those withgreater material needs are still struggling to survive.Th e Cultural Shift approach has the advantage of suggesting why themiddle class is disproportionately represented in new social movements.Indeed, Inglehart argues that the trends he is documenting will be influ-enced by economic conditions throughout society. He also suggests thatmiddle-class movements may have always taken similar forms because oftheir relative affluence.

Inglehart's theory has four significant flaws. First it overstates the shiftaway from material conflicts that have grown more severe in the past dec-ade and remain a major concern for middle-class as well as working classpeople. The 1990 census found 31 million Americans living below the pov-erty line. Wages dropped an average of 9% in the 1980s while people areworking more hours to compensate. These economic concerns have reachedinto the middle class, where young people can expect to earn less thantheir parents for the first time since the Depression. In these and manymore ways, this is not a postmaterialist society. This complication could beconsistent with Inglehart's theory if middle-class movements shift towardmore material goals, but it raises questions about his characterization ofcontemporary society.However, Inglehart's theory applies an ahistorical definition of mate-rial needs that ignores the continued demand for material goods in wealthynations. In his view, human nature defines a hierarchy of needs that arefirst material and then, once these are met, cultural and social. But materialwants are far more elastic than this theory suggests. Greater material abun-dance has not brought the end of wants but rather an ever increasing de-mand for material goods. Needs, therefore, must be understood as sociallydefined, and they change over time. There is no inevitability to the shiftaway from materialism. Thus living in the nation with the highest level ofconsumption in the world, Americans continue to seek new forms of ma-

Toward a Class-Cultural Theory of Social Movements 471


12/34

terial wealth at ever higher levels. Again it is a mistake to describe wealthyindustrialized countries as post-materialist.Third, Inglehart fails to recognize the intimate relationship betweenmaterial interests and values among the middle class just as New SocialMovement theorists do. His survey methods, designed only to measure val-

ues, divorce such values as freedom of speech, autonomy, or antimaterial-ism from material interests. Rather, as Gouldner recognizes, middle-classvalues serve middle-class interests and cannot be understood in an abstracthierarchy. By taking values out of their social context, these relationshipsbetween interests and values are obscured.Finally, Inglehart confuses a correlation with causality. His surveys ofvalues show differences by occupation, age, and education. However, thisdoes not mean that these factors cause this shift in values. If this were thecase, we would expect those with even greater wealth to express postmaterialvalues more strongly. Yet studies of new social movements find that theirmembership is largely middle class with negligible upper-class participation.Wealth alone does not explain values. Nor has the wealthy class advancedenvironmental protection, equal rights for women, or peace in earlier gen-erations despite its affluence. Middle-class movements do not simply reflecta level of affluence but a broad social context in which values are embedded.

CLASS CULTURE: AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

The previous analysis suggests the need for a more subtle under-standing of the relationship between the middle class and new social move-ments. While these movements have middle-class memberships, they donot reflect narrow material interests. Nor are these movements simply re-sponses to new economic developments, given similar characteristics withinearlier middle-class movements. Furthermore, the middle class is not uni-fied in these movements, nor are these movements themselves unified intheir values and interests. Thus their goals cannot be understood as a sim-ple extension of middle-class politics.The resolution of this dilemma requires a more complex understandingof the role of social classes in shaping interests and consciousness. Classes,as Gouldner notes, have distinct cultures as well as interests within thesystem of production. Class culture provides a bridge between the interestanalysis of New Class theory and the cultural analysis of New Social Move-ment and Cultural Shift theories. By class culture, I refer to beliefs, atti-tudes and understandings, symbols, social practices, and rituals throughoutthe life cycle that are characteristic of positions within the production proc-ess (Collins, 1975; Croteau, 1995; Willis, 1981; Gans, 1962).

Rose72


13/34

This theory is developed below through a comparison of working andmiddle-class interests, cultures, and movements.17 This comparative approachidentifies class-based differences within the overarching context of Americanculture to which both classes belong. Thus the differences outlined below aredifferences of degree in relationship to the other class. This comparison pro-vides a context for examining the distinguishing features of middle-classmovements. Th e sections below first outline the theoretical framework withinwhich I define class culture then compare the structures of working- and mid-dle-class work within which their respective class cultures emerge, then ex-amine how these class cultural differences are reflected in working- andmiddle-class movements and finally return to a reinterpretation of new socialmovements as an expression of middle-class culture.

CLASS CULTURAL THEORYMy use of class culture draws on Pierre Bourdieu's understanding of

habitus as the "system of dura ble, transposa ble dispositions"(1977/1990:72), of which class habitus refers to dispositions that derive fromsocial position. Like class habitus, class cultures derive from position withinthe production process. Practices for Bourdieu are the products of habitusstrategically applied in particular situations. Cultural forms, produced andreproduced through practice, combine both conformity and resistance tothe structural demands of class. Class cultures, therefore, reflect evolvingstrategies for living within class structures. An understanding of class cul-tures, then, requires an analysis of both the structures within which classesfunction and particular strategies adopted by class members.Class structures culture both through direct experiences within the pro-duction process and through institutions that socialize class members forwork. The influence of production processes derives from both the materialand cultural organization of work. Using similar capital resources, workcan be organized in many different ways depending on management tech-niques and the distribution of informationthat is, depending on culturalvariables.18 Different classes confront distinct forms of authority relation-ships, work organization, and social regulation in the workplace that shapedifferent class cultures. Furthermore, values, beliefs, relationships, and ex-17I use working class and middle class as ideal types in the following discussion. The gener-alizations below describe the most characteristic cases, and the description of middle-classculture provides a good approximation for new social movements whose members drawdisproportionately from the professional middle class.l8Loss of competitiveness of the U.S. in the 1980s drew attention to the significance of cultural

variables for organizing work, particularly in Japan and Western Europe vs. the UnitedStates. See Piore and Sabel (1984) and Hall (1986).



14/34

pectations required fo r class-specific work are taught within families,schools, the media, and other forums outside work. These institutions alsostructure people's lives differently by class.Demands of work and the institutions that prepare people for workstructure bu t never determine practices. However, these institutions definethe conditions which class members conform to or resist in varying degrees(Taylor, 1979; Willis, 1981; Scott, 1986; Thompson, 1991). Class culturesencompass a range of strategies structured by similar conditions, and thussignificant cultural variation can be found within each class (Johnson, 1979;Clarke, 1979). This is well illustrated by Barbara Ehrenreich's history ofthe middle class in the decades of the 1950s-80s, Fear of Falling (1989).Professionalism, youth revolt, and the "yuppie" embrace of affluence rep-resent different strategies that respond to the central dilemmas that struc-ture middle-class life. Class cultures evolve as historic conditions changeand as people's strategies develop in response to members of their ownand other classes over time. New social movements, I propose, representone among this range of related middle-class strategies.Class cultures are therefore both products of structured positionswithin the hierarchy of class and independent subcultures that provideunique resources for adapting to distinct circumstances. Adaptations withinone culture are likely to be misinterpreted from the perspective of another,and middle-class academics have often interpreted working-class culture asinferior because it emerges from a less powerful position in the social hi-erarchy (Bisseret, 1979; Williams, 1970). In order to minimize imposing bi-ased standards on the description of class cultures, the approach here isto describe cultural characteristics that result directly from position in theproduction process, where class is defined. Therefore, many psychologicalcharacteristics about conflict, interests, and ideology that authors such asRandall Collins (1975) attribute to human nature are interpreted here asreflections of the work experience and the cultural and material organiza-tion of production.19 I therefore describe working- and middle-class cul-tures as independent systems equally adapted to their unique conditions.This analysis brackets important questions about the structural relation-ships between the middle class and other classes, and about the developmentl9My approach differs from Randall Collins's theory of class culture in that I define class inMarxian terms within the production process rather than in terms of authority relationshipsin the workplace. I see authority relations as part of the organization of the productionprocess, which defines broad cultural and material social subsystems. Where Collins postu-lates a common psychology of power and deference that governs all individuals, the approachhere is to identify distinct "psychologies" including systems of meaning and perceptions ofinterests that distinguish classes as a result of different positions in the organization of pro-duction. Nevertheless, Collins captures many important class-cultural differences in his de-scriptions, while attributing them to different causes.

Rose74


15/34

of class consciousness versus other ideologies. Whether particular ideas arefalse or real is an open question not addressed here. Rather, this approachbegins with the observation that class is not correlated with any one set ofideas or politics, and efforts to identify the working or middle classes withparticular political beliefs have proven to be of limited applicability. Both thecontent of political consciousness and the makeup of class alliances are con-tested and historically changing. Furthermore, many aspects of consciousnessand culture cannot be reduced to their functions within the class structure.This paper proposes that the forms of consciousness, movements, and politicsare class specific. The content may be manipulated by different classes, butcontent varies within the structure produced by class cultures.Class culture as used here is both socially determined and the productof historical actors, and thus this analysis seeks a middle ground betweenstructuralist and culturalist theories. As Katznelson describes, this interme-diate level, which he terms class2, is distinct from both the structural levelof class defined by the mode of production and the subjective level of classas conscious identification. This view of class "refers to a pattern of socialrelations lived objectively by actual people in real social formations"(Katznelson, 1981:202). Thus, the descriptions of class structures and classcultures that follow derive both from a theoretical understanding of classas described above and from broad empirical observations.For descriptions of working-class culture, I borrow particularly fromthe works of Willis (1981), Gans (1962), Halle (1984), and Shostak (1969).The discussion of middle-class culture draws on the work of Baumgartner(1988), Ehrenreich (1989), Gilkeson (1986) and others. Among comparativestudies I draw on Kohn (1969), Bronfenbrenner (1972), Bernstein (1971),and Collins (1975). This paper draws selectively from these and relatedauthors to reference the most relevant dimensions of working- and mid-dle-class cultures for understanding social movements. More thorough de-scriptions of class cultures are beyond this paper.It is also important to note that class culture defines tendencies that varyaccording to many other competing cultural identities including occupation,gender, race, and family experience. This approach does not discount theseother important dimensions but isolates one cultural subsystem for analysis. Amultidimensional analysis is necessary to interpret the complexity of social life.

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WORKING- ANDMIDDLE-CLASS WORKThis section contrasts material and cultural structures that distinguishworking- from middle-class work. The cultural forms of authority relation-



16/34

ships, work organization, and social regulation differ between classes basedon the control of information and the system of management.Professional occupations are characterized by mastery of a specializedskill through extensive training and creden tialing. Middle-class work entailssome degree of judgement, applying knowledge to unique situations. Thiswork cannot be reduced to mechanical tasks, and thus close managerialsupervision of professionals is ineffective. Professional success is not judgedby performance of individual tasks, but by the quality of results evaluatedover time. Manag eme nt must, therefore, use inducemen ts for success ratherthan mechanical rewards and punishments to motivate the middle class toaccomplish. This system of incentives draws on the middle-class's internal-ized beliefs about accomplishment and success, leaving significant individ-ual autonomy over how tasks are accomplished. Inducements to performmay take the form of material rewards, but just as important to the middle

class is the quality of life. Management, therefore, seeks to keep its mid-dle-class professionals happy throug h providin g amen ities such as flexibility,autonomy, a desirable physical environment, or access to recreation or con-genial communities (Markusen, 1986).By contrast, working-class work entails m an ual labor with limited auton-om y in the work process. Machines and mechanical techniques enable man-agers to routinize production and assert control over the details ofworking-class work (Braverman, 1974; Shostak, 1969). This work is regulatedby direct rewards and punishments that create a culture based on compul-sion. Tasks and expectations are defined by management, and time is gener-ally regulated from the moment a worker punches the clock at the beginningof a shift to the minutes allowed for breaks to the amount of output requiredper day. Failure to meet these expectations is punished by loss of wages, privi-leges, and ultimately one's job. Workers know the rules that they must func-tion within, and the search for some degree of autonomy on the job takesthe form of surreptitious or direct resistance (Halle, 1984). Thus the cultureof the work place is defined by the daily battle with authority.

For both the working and middle classes, there is a direct correspon-dence between the physical organization of the production process and thecultural demands of the workplace. These material and cultural dimensionsare related through the secondary factors of production: knowledge andmanagerial control.20 Working-class jobs generally involve manipulatingthings, require conformity to rules, and are subject to standardization andexternal regulation. Members of the working class participate in work that20I borrow from and extend E. O. Wright's (1985) analysis here. While Wright perceivesknowledge and managerial skills as secondary factors needed for production that are con-

trolled by the middle class, I propose that these are also elements of every work process.The forms these take structure work as much as material determinants.

Rose76


17/34

is routine and repetitive over which they have very little control. This work-ing environment is culturally characterized by demands for conformity, def-erence to authority, physical skill, and stamina but limited intellectualengagement, and accommodation to redundant tasks. Middle-class workgenerally involves some intellectual tasks, is free from close supervision,and requires self-direction and internal regulation. The professional middleclass is especially distinguished by higher education and broad flexibility inthe work process, while still lacking control over the products of labor. Themiddle class is organized around a culture of autonomy, personal respon-sibility, intellectual engagement, variability, and change.The cultural characteristics and interests of the middle class emergefrom the cultural and material organization of the work process. Toachievethe necessary level of expertise and internalized values of success, the mid-dle class must devote enormous energies to education and accreditation.Internal forms of regulation are taught from an early age (Kohn, 1969;Gecas and Nye, 1974; Bronfenbrenner, 1972). Young people are rewardedfor developing their ow n interests and advancing their skills. Thus one'slife chances as a professional result from self-developmentthat is, devel-oping a sense of self-confidence, initiative, autonom y, and expertise to excelwithin a profession. Working-class culture and interests contrast with thoseof the mid dle class in man y respects. W hile middle-class education emp ha-sizes internalized values, the working class teaches its young to survive byknowing how to work within or around rules.21 Where the middle classdevelops a sense of self-worth tied to meaningful work, this is less true forthe working class. Because work is often mechanical, tedious, and dictatedby others, the working class tends to invest more me aning in home life andleisure activities (Halle, 1984; Gans, 1962). Work is something one doesbecause one must make a living.

CLASS CULTURE AND THE STRATEGY OF JOININGSOCIAL MOVEMENTS

Working- and middle-class social movements represent particularstrategies that respond to the structured and cultural environments of eachclass. Movement activism is a particular kind of strategy that has common21Melvin Kohn's research documents the working-class emphasis on teaching conformity torules rather than independence (1969; Bronfenbrenner, 1972). This emphasis on conformityto rules has often been misinterpreted as a working-class value in contrast with the mid-dle-class value of self-direction. Conformity for the working class is a skill required to survivein a hierarchical work and social environment in which they are at or near the bottom.Working-class parents do not value conformity in its own right but as a norm necessary fortheir children's success and survival.



18/34

features across classes. Activism is characterized, among other things, bydeveloping a collective identity and sense of group solidarity (Gamson,1992), by defining existing conditions as unjust and attributing problems toa culpable source (Snow and Benford, 1992), and by attaining a sense ofefficacy about change (McAdam, 1982). These attitudes, beliefs, and un-derstandings combine within the practices of activists, distinct from thestrategies pursued by others within either the working or middle classes.

However, movement strategies take different forms within each classthat emerge from their respective class cultures. Each culture producescharacteristic beliefs about human motivations, politics, and social changeas well as unique forms of organizationand association.22 These differencesare evident in the models of organizing advanced by each movement. Insum, working-class people live in a system of enforced authority, and theytend to approach social change through organizing around immediate, per-ceived interests. Professional middle-class life is regulated by internalizednorms, ambitions, and responsibilities, and these movements tend to seechange as a process of education about values. These differences producetwo distinct class-based forms of politics and social movements. These dif-ferent approaches to organizing also are reflected in the issues that work-ing-and middle-class movements pursue. Working-class labor andcommunity-based movements generally focus on the immediate economicand social interests of members, while middle-class movements more oftenaddress universal goods that are non-economic. These generalizations applyto the majority of working and middle-class movements, with importantexceptions that are further explored below.23Before examining working- and middle-class organizing in more detail,one caveat is critical. While the forms of class-based movements differ, bothinterests and values intertwine in the motivations of each class. While work-ing-class movements tend to appeal to interests, these are based in a dis-tinctive class system of values. And while the middle-class frames its goalsin the language of values and education, these relate to distinct, class-based22A variation of these same observations is made by Croteau (1995), although with less em-phasis on class-cultural forms of movements. While Croteau asks why the working class isnot part of new social movements that are responses to the impositions of changing capi-talism and forms of domination, this approach asks how new social movements are them-selves expressions of the middle class, that is, how class culture produces the form of socialmovements.23There are of course important exceptions to this generalization. See the section, "HybridMiddle-Class Movements," in this paper. Also some movement organizations are developingagendas that bridge working- and middle-class issues for political reasons. For example,some European social democratic parties incorporated peace, environmental, and other new

social movement issues into their programs over time. See Maguire (1990), Clark and Mayer(1986), Taylor (1987), and Olofsson (1988).

Rose78


19/34

interests as well. All social groups are motivated by both interests and val-ues, despite the cultural forms within which classes express themselves.It is also important to note that the analysis here is one of causalitybut not necessity. Movement organizing represents one of a diverse rangeof strategies adopted within each class. The argument here is not that allworking- or middle-class people conform to the patterns described here.The different strategies of activist vs. inactive segments of each class aresignificant. Nor are the politics of these movements determined by class,and movements may be progressive, conservative, or reactionary. However,when class members do mobilize, their movements take forms that are dis-tinctly class based.The form of working-class organizing is a direct outgrowth of the ex-ternal regulation of the working class. Workers experience opposition totheir wants and needs from the power of outside groups that control thesystem of rewards and punishments (Gans, 1962; Rubin, 1976; Bernstein,1971). (Interests are not restricted to material goods, but include such in-tangibles as fairness and respect.) In this power struggle, the working classachieves its interests through winning against the interests of others.The structure of working-class society reinforces this sense of interestcompetition by defining a clear division between members and outsiders.While members expect others within their peer group to take their interestsinto account, makingthe relationship more important than object goals, theylearn that outsiders, be they bosses, teachers, police, or others, do not operateby the same values. The common interests that apply within the group areoften violated by outsiders wh o place their ow n interests over personal rela-tionships. Thus working-class members tend to distinguish their behavior to-ward members of their ow n group from attitudes an d behavior towardoutsiders. They come to assume that outsiders act for their own advantage,and government and business appear to be run by people motivated by per-sonal gain (Gans, 1962; Parkin, 1968; Cohen and Hodges, 1963).Consistent with their class experience of social regulation, working-class movements interpret politics in terms of interest competition also. In-dividual and group interests are evident in a system of external authority.Such interests as fair working conditions, job security, reasonable processesfor dispute settlement, improved benefits, wages and working hours, andpersonal safety are representative of the goals of the labor movement andthe interests of working people against the interests of management.The appeal to interests is appropriate among the working class whosemembers generally join organizations to improve some immediate conditionor as an extension of peer group networks. This contrasts with the middle-class's motivations for joining organizations to advance personal or profes-sional beliefs and development. The working class joins far fewer



20/34

associations, and when its members join, it is generally for pragmatic rea-sons (Hyman and Wright, 1971; Gans, 1962).The working-class appeal to inte rests does not discount the use ofmoral language, and this is particularly true in religious-based movements.Every social movement, like any successful political actor, must frame itsgoals in moral terms that appeal to the wider com munity. However, thesemoral arguments are generally extensions of interest claims. Social justice,equality, and claims of rights justify these interests as legitimate, in contrastwith groups in power whose interests are illegitimate. This distinction be-tween the interests of people who are oppressed and of those who areexploiting, of those who lack and those who wield power can only be madewith reference to moral language. However, this is an appeal to legitimateinterests, which is very different from the value claims of middle-classmovements. The appeal to values by working-class movements is consistentwith the interest model of organizing described here.Labor organizing and its counterpart comm unity organizing illustratethese characteristics of working-class organizing. These strategies are ex-plicit in the training literature of community organizers. The Midwest Acad-emy, training institute for the Citizen Action network, states that the threeprincipals of organizing are "to win real and immediate improvements inpeople's lives . . ., give people a sense of their ownreal power. . . , [and]alter the relations of power between people's organizations and their realenemies" (1987:10). These principals define politics as a competition overinterests polarized between workers and bosses, haves and have-nots, op-pressors and oppressed. The strategy of building powerful unions or com-munity organizations is a response to deprivations imposed by controllinggroups in an externally regulated society.

By contrast, the professional m iddle class tends to experience the bar-riers to change not as opposing powerful groups, but as people's values,norms, and understandings. This reflects the way that middle-class workand social life are regulated, which is through internalized ideas and values.In the framework of middle-class work, new values and ideas do translateinto tangible change; a teacher, lawyer, or other professional who developsa new conception of goals or values would alter his or her practice accord-ingly. Thus th is cultural, consciousness-driven conception of hum an actionis a direct outgrowth of the life experience of the professional middle class.Middle-class interests are directly tied to both the form and substanceof personal ideas and social values. These interests take two forms. First,the middle class has an interest in maintaining an orderly society with clearprocedural rules and standards for accomplishment and reward, as Gould-nei notes. That order is necessary for ensuring the success that comes fromaccreditation and the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Many middle-

Rose80


21/34

class social movement goals such as equal rights, ecological sustainability,and the peaceful resolution of conflict reflect the search for a fair andorderly worlda world in which internally regulated individuals can pros-per. But not all middle-class individuals support the preeminence of ra-tional standards nor need they for this to remain the dominant form ofmiddle-class success.Second, individuals have an interest in advancing their ow n ideas,skills, and beliefs as an affirmation of personal identity and self-worthand/or to advance their personal careers. Individuals do not gain from thecontent of their ideas per se but from positioning their ideas relative toothers. Ideas and opinions about particular issues are the currency withwhich professionals negotiate their positions in society. This view differsfrom Alvin Gouldner's in that it recognizes the class basis of middle-classgoals without assuming that these advance class interests. Middle-class in-dividuals pursue their own identities and careers that are not necessarilytied to advancing middle-class institutions or class interests. Class definesthe form but not the content of individual interests.Middle-class faith in expertise-based change is encouraged by the factthat the people who run government are generally professional and middleclass like the activists in these movements. They are friends, family, peers,and even members of their movements. The bureaucracy, then, appears farmore benign and accessible to these groups than to the working class. Pro-fessionals have access to government and a sense that they can influenceits decisions. Thus they are in a position to use persuasion and ideas toinfluence those in power.In sum, this analysis proposes that middle-class movements often areavenues for the personal and/or career development of the professionalmiddle class. Movements provide an alternative context in which profes-sional-class individuals develop specialized ideas and knowledge, exercisejudgment and express values, associate with a society of similarly mindedpeers, and establish a personal identity based on accomplishment, knowl-edge, and affiliation.24 Thus movements do serve a variety of material, so-cial and psychological interests. Middle-class movements, therefore, tendto perceive change in terms of education about values and ideas as expres-sions of these middle-class cultural characteristics.The peace movement provides an example of this middle-class ap-proach to social change. In a survey of peace movement strategies, JohnLofland, Marry Anna Colwell, and Victoria Johnson (1990) identify six ap-proaches to change (Rose, 1995). Three are pure expressions of the mid-dle-class approach to value and education-based change. Transcender24These are characteristics of professions. See definitions in Waddington (1985) as well as thedefinition of profession in the Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley Act).



22/34

theory assumes tha t wars are generally the result of misunderstandings, andso honest discussion will cause a rapid change in consciousness favoringpeace. Educator theory similarly seeks to instruct about the facts regardingthe threats of war, bu t with an ongoing com mitme nt to providing the mostcurrent information to evaluate the best course of action. Intellectual the-ory emphasizes not only providing facts but formulating insights and frame-works for understanding as the basis for moving policymakers to change.The other three approaches to change supplement educational approacheswith some form of other political action. Protesters seek to disrupt the nor-mal flow of society in order to gain attention for the ideas that they es-pouse. Politician theory supports working through the legislative process topersuade politicians of the rightness of a cause. Finally, prophet theoryemphasizes personal transformation rather than persuasive ideas, promot-ing personal acts of responsibility such as civil disobedience with the hopeof persuading others to follow this example. While there is significant vari-ation in these approaches to change, all focus on changing ideas and/orvalues as the basis for mob ilizing peop le an d achiev ing their goals.Among the six theories listed above, politician theory comes closestto an analysis of interest politics. Middle-class activists certain ly do partici-pate in traditional interest politics in order to promote legislative and elec-toral change. However, even pragmatic goals such as winning votes orelections are often seen as aspects of a broader educational agenda. Votesare viewed as a reflection of people's beliefs and convictions. As one peaceactivist explained,

The important thing is not to see electoral work as some kind of a panacea, becauseyou can only do effective electoral work if you've buil t up a sizeable organizationand if you've heightene d the pu blic's consciousness on peace issues. If you've gota public out there that thinks building bombs is just great, they're not going toelect candidates who want to get rid of all the bombs. You've got to do the publiceducation and organization building in order to make change. And the publiceducation and organization building are valuable in and of themselves, but they'realso an essential precondition for doing effective electoral work. (Director of theMaine Peace Campaign, interview by author, July 1991).

MIDDLE-CLASS CULTURE AND NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTS

Class-cultural analysis suggests a more coherent interpretation of newsocial movements. This approach supports the distinction between "new"vs. "old" movements but rejects the claim that these differences are dueto either the rise of a postmaterialist society or to a new stage of capitalistintrusions in people's lives. Rather, the post-1960s movements are a reflec-tion of the professional middle class from which most of their active mem-

Rose82


23/34

bers originate. Class shapes these movements not through some abstractcollective interests in wealth, resources, or opportunities, but through classculture. Ne w social movements reflect middle-class origins even thoughthey do not explicitly articulate their goals in class terms.The actors, issues, values, and "modes of action" identified by New SocialMovement theorists can now be seen as direct expressions of middle-class cul-ture. The middle class's political activity is an extension of personal convictionand personal or career development, in contrast with the working class. It isthrough work, either paid or voluntary, that the middle class develops its senseof identity, purpose, and meaning. Movement activity is part of that work forthe middle class. This is clearest for the fraction of middle-class activists whofind careers in movement organizations. Yet even for others, political activityextends chosen areas of interest through which individuals define themselves.Issues of personal identity are therefore as central to new social move-ments as they are for the middle class in general. Middle-class movementsreflect the middle-class struggle to define oneself through one's work andknowledge. Middle-class interests are directly related to this search for per-sonal identity that decides one's work, occupational success, friendships,and status. For those who reject the standard career-based identities thatare available to them, movements offer an alternative avenue for self-defi-nition. These movements seek to establish new forms of identity as legiti-mate options in society. This movement goal extends middle-classdevelopmental processes which require individuals to choose an identitythrough that they define their work and positions in society.

The search to define oneself through social action and beliefs distin-guishes middle-class from working-class movements more than any particularset of issues. Working-class organizations do address issues such as the envi-ronment, peace, or women's rights, but working-class segments of thesemovements do not fit the New Social Movement model. This is graphicallyillustrated by the emergence of the anti-toxics movement that has mobilizedworking-class and low-income communities around environmental issues, al-though with a very different conception of the environment than the middle-class movement. Anti-toxics advocates argue that concern for environmentalissues is widespread among their constituents, despite the fact that they havegenerally not joined mainstream organizations. The anti-toxics movement fitsmany characteristics of "old" social movements in that it addresses issues ofimmediate need, challenges the distribution of benefits in society, and isbased in a class of people in society acting for its own needs and benefits.Social movements based in non middle-class communities can clearly be verydifferent from middle-class movements despite addressing common issues.The forms of new social movement organizations also emerge directlyfrom middle-class culture. Middle-class movements must be flexible and



24/34

egalitarian to accommodate many individuals searching for their ow n iden-tities and seeking a sense of purpose tied to their knowledge and actions.Th e emphasis on equality is an acknowledgment of the value placed onthe individual quest to define one's own direction. Since most people jointhese organizations as volunteers based on internalized purposes, these or-ganizations rely on individual initiative to succeed. This also leads organi-zations to emphasize egalitarian roles with few means to compel membersto participate. Rather, these movement organizations provide avenues forindividuals to act based on their own sense of purpose.

Class-Cultural theory resolves the ambiguities and contradictions foundin New Social Movement, New Class, and Cultural Shift explanations. It pro-vides a more inclusive understanding of new social movements by acknow-ledging that interests, values, an d consciousness play important roles inmotivating behavior. New Class theory fails to take the explicit goals of mid-dle-class movements seriously whileNew Social Movement and Cultural Shifttheories take them too literally and fail to perceive unstated class interests.Middle-class culture, however, teaches the middle class sincere devotion toideas, but this devotion also serves important interests in defining one's po-sition in society. This interrelationship derives from the nature of professionallife in which one's expertise shapes one's career and life chances.

Class-Cultural theory provides a more consistent understanding of thenew social movement emphasis on values than previous approaches. WhereNew Social Movement theorists see a response to a new form of capitalism,and Cultural Shift theorists see a post materialist world, Class-Culturalanalysis suggests continuity with the past. Middle-class movements have al-ways framed their issues in moral terms, and working-class movements willcontinue to frame their issues in terms of interests. Middle-class movementsexpress their issues in terms of values as a reflection of the cultural back-ground of those who join these movements. Thus new social movementsreflect a continuity with society rather than some dramatic schism.It is also clear from this analysis why new social movements draw theirmembers from the middle class. Since these movements take middle-classforms, they fail to address the concerns of other classes and pursue politicsin ways that are alien to them. This explains the ongoing tensions betweenmiddle-class and other-class movements, again as evident by the environ-mental justice movement. People of color and low-income people consis-tently express their sense of alienation from middle-class movementorganizations. This reflects the cultural and material gap between their livesand the forms that middle-class movements take.2525For charges of racism in the environmental movement see letters sent to the "big ten" en-

vironmental organizations by several environmental justice groups, reprinted by Friends ofthe Earth (1990).

Rose84


25/34

An understandingof middle-class culture also illuminates the complexrole of expertise and instrumental rationality in new social movements. Nei-ther New Class theories, which see these movements as a simple extensionof middle-class interests in expertise, nor New Social Movement theories,which see a rejection of this same kind of rationality, can explain this com-plexity. New social movements are divided within themselves between thosewho reject and those who embrace rational and scientific solutions to theproblems they address. This tension exists within the middle class broadlyin which romantic ideas about nature, art, and aesthetics vs. ideas aboutrationality and science have never been resolved. Individuals can developcareers and personal identities within either tradition, but the forms ofthese convictions remain middle class. Thus again, there is continuity be-tween movement and nonmovement actors.

Divisions over the role of rationality and expertise in new social move-ments also reflect tensions within the middle-class search fo r identity andmeaning, confined as it is by the existing political and social system. Move-ment participants must decide how much to work within existing institutionsin their search for ways to express their identities in middle-class society.If one chooses to work within the existing political system, one is forcedto utilize rational and technical means. If one chooses to operate within acountercultural group, then one is able to reject technical means and seekculturally based change. These dynamics reflect competing strategies inmiddle-class society that are expressed in new social movements and arenot simple rejections of or alliances with some uniform class heritage.

HYBRID MIDDLE-CLASS MOVEMENTS

Not all middle-class movements follow the above pattern of new socialmovements that are extensions of middle-class personal and vocational de-velopment. Some variations result from the diversity within middle-classculture. Business managers, for instance, often function in a more hierar-chical system of authority relationships than those described above. Theirwork is infused with the interest-based ideology of capitalism. This subcul-ture often conflicts with that of professionals (Raelin, 1985). As a result,business people rarely participate in new social movements (Kriesi, 1989).Other forms of middle-class movements reflect the fact that profes-sional experiences are not uniformly defined by the cultural norms of mid-dle-class life but are themselves embedded in capitalist social relationships.Universities and schools, hospitals, government agencies, research institu-tions, courts, and other institutions in which professionals work are botharenas of professional practice as well as incorporated businesses (or mod-



26/34

eled after corporations in the case of government and nonprofits). Thusprofessional and managerial organizational forms, authority relationships,and cultural patterns blend as people carry ou t both their professional andmanagerial/employee roles.Professional associations exemplify this hybrid form of organization asthey struggle to balance the needs of their members as both professionalsand employees. This tension has grown as unemployment and inflation un-dermined professionals' quality of life beginning at the end of the 1960s.Th e "Guidelines to Professional Employment for Engineers and Scientists"developed by the National Society for Professional Engineers and the En-gineers Joint Council in 1972 illustrates this middle-class form of labor or-ganization (Conference Board, 1976). As professionals, they soughtmanagement recognition of their commitment to the public interest andprofessional ethics, of their autonomy as professional employees ("It is in-appropriate for a professional employee to use a time clock to record ar-r ival and departure"), of the principle of merit-based evaluation("Economic advancement should be based upon a carefully designed per-formance review plan"), and of their growth and development as experts("The employee and employer share responsibility for professional devel-opment of the employee"; Conference Board, 1976:23-26. These profes-sional middle-class goals are similar to middle-class movement goals thatpromote universal values, autonomy, and personal growth.While pursuing these professional goals, societies also borrow tacticsfrom the labor movement to represent their members in parallel, interest-based struggles with management. For example, the American Associationof University Professors' "Statement on Collective Bargaining" seeks to pro-tect faculty "professional and economic interests" including representation ingovernance, tenure, fair grievance procedures, and the right to strike. Theseinterests, consistent with "old," working-class movements, reflect the statusof most professionals as salaried employees that are at times treated like anyother form of labor. Within this management/employee relationship, profes-sional movement organizations maywell act like "old" social movements, asillustrated by the strike by the American Association of University Professorsat the University of Cincinnati in 1993. Strike issues included pay and bene-fits, faculty role in setting working conditions, and job security. In such strug-gles professionals act as employees, and organizational actions resemblethose of working-class unions in negotiation with management.Hybrid social movements, therefore, reflect the complex and at timesconflicting roles of the professional middle class as both hired labor andautonomous professional. Middle-class life is therefore often a hybrid inpractice also. While the analysis above described two ideal types of middle-class and working-class cultures, members of the middle class may experience

Rose86


27/34

elements of both depending on individual experiences and circumstances.Some professionals, such as corporate middle managers, experience theirroles as employees more than others, which will be reflected in their owncultural practices. New social movements are an expression of middle-classculture absent other institutional constraints. Therefore, new social move-ments are found in their purest form when the middle class is least engagedin narrow interest competition in the workplace or community.

CONCLUSIONSThis paper proposes tha t social class shapes social movemen ts throughthe medium of class culture. Class cultures encompass a range of histori-cally evolving strategies that adapt to the structural conditions that confront

each class. Movements represent one form of strategy that reproduces andreflects class culture while adapting its resources for collective action di-rected at class-relevant forms of change. Therefore, distinct class culturesproduce characteristic forms of movem ents and kinds of change. In general,working-class culture teaches pursuit of personal interests in the struggleagainst others who would advance their interests at one's expense. Work-ing-class movements are often a direct outgrowth of this struggle, centeredaround the pursuit of immediate interests through building sufficient po-litical power to oppose those allied against one's group. By contrast, mid-dle-class culture teaches development of personal skills and commitmentsin order to excel in a system judged by the quality of one's work. Middle-class movements tend to pursue universal goals through education aboutvalues and beliefs as a direct outgrowth of their class-based experiences.Interests remain central to this understanding of class, but interestsmust be interpreted within the distinct contexts defined by different classes.Middle-class advancement, for instance, is tied to developing expertise andan internalized sense of accomplishment within a particular discipline. Theresulting interest in asserting the value of this professional or personalknowledge and purpose cannot be understood simply on the level of directmaterial gain. The values expressed by members of the middle-class arereal motivators of behavior on their own terms, as they are for middle-classmovements. Furthermore, the search for identity, which is an importantdimension of middle-class life and movements, represents a critical interestthat is again expressed at the cu ltural level. Class interests and values in-tertwine in movement politics.The study of class forms of social movements contributes to an un-

derstanding of class cultures. Comparing movements across classes isolatessimilar strategies of collective action applied within different class contexts.



28/34

This controls an important variable among the diverse strategies that co-exist within each class culture. A comparison of working vs. middle-classmovements highlights the values, interests, organizational forms, and ideasthat characterize each class culture.Class, therefore, delineates the form that movements take rather thanany particular political content. New social movements include organiza-tions that exhibit a wide spectrum of politics that may be aligned with work-ing- or owning-class groups. What unites these movements is theirclass-based memberships, focus on universal issues, emphasis on middle-class values, and their use of education and value approaches to socialchange. This analysis suggests that the particular content of movement poli-tics is determined by specific experiences and circumstances interpretedthrough the lens of class-culture. Thus the content of politics cannot beread from class position, but the form of politics can to a large degree.

A class-cultural framework resolves many of the contradictions andambiguities in other theories about the role of values, interests, and ex-pressed ideas in shaping movement behavior; about the role that class playsin movement politics; about the reasons for the class makeup of move-ments. New Class theories that interpret new social movements as self-in-terested class actors ignore the role of beliefs in motivating middle-classbehavior. They are also unable to explain the tensions between these move-ments and the mainstream of the middle class. New Social MovementTheories appreciate the cultural struggles of these movements but ignorethe interests that these movements serve. By taking movement goals at facevalue alone, they overlook the continuity between these movements andthe class from which they emerge. Cultural Shift theory also suffers fromignoring the interests disguised by the language of values. Middle-class in-terests can only be understood in the comprehensive framework of mid-dle-class life as they are integrated with beliefs and values. Class-culturaltheory provides a framework that links culture and interests as they emergewithin the work process, which is where class is defined.From a class-cultural perspective, new social movements can be un-derstood as contemporary examples of middle-class movements. They ad-dress moral issues as an extension of middle-class forms of internalizedsocial regulation. Change is pursued through raising consciousness and af-fecting lifestyles because the middle class defines its own activities by itsideas and beliefs. Organizations are informal because middle-class partici-pation is voluntary and based on personal motivations. These and manyother qualities of new social movements reflect middle-class cultural prac-tices and interests.

Class cultural theory has important implications for movement micro-mobilization, consciousness and identity formation, strategies and politics.

Rose88


29/34

Micromobilization theory has not distinguished between different class, race,gender, or cultural groups in its analyses of recruitment and movement par-ticipation. Rational choice theories assume uniform standards of judgementacross social groups (Olson, 1965; McCarthy and Zald, 1977), and mobiliza-tion theories assume that social ties function by the same dynamics regardlessof who is involved (McAdam et al., 1988). The theory presented in this papersuggests that particular social groups nave characteristic motivations for join-ing movements and distinct forms of social networks and relationships. Thispaper outlines the different motivations of working-and middle-class move-ment participants, and similar analyses are needed to elaborate the uniquedynamics between other socially defined groups.

Social movement theory about identity politics and consciousness has like-wise failed to recognize the unique cultural forms that movement participantsbring to their activism. Studies of how movement actors construct meaning havegenerally assumed shared cultural frames throughout society and failed to dis-tinguish meanings by class, race, gender, or other social differences.26

At the level of individual movements, existing theory is too specific ratherthan too general. Observers have viewed social action frames and collectiveidentity formation as unique processes within movements without recognizingpatterns among class movements and other social groupings (Tarrow, 1992).

The analysis of class and other sub-cultural forms is vital for under-standing movement strategies and politics as well. Movement repertoires arenot uniform across society despite the homogenizing impact of mass media.An understanding of class, race, and gender cultures could contribute to un-derstanding the ways that strategies and political action emerge from the dis-tinct life experiences of social groups. The content of movement politicscombines external political conditions and the internal cultural forms of themovement. While considerable attention has been paid to political opportu-nities and external influences, far less has been written about the definitionimposed by internal movement forms. In this, much can be learned fromfeminist theory and studies of the women's movement, which have basedtheir analyses on cultural and social understandings of difference. This kindof analysis needs to be extended to class and race differences.27

Finally, class-cultural theory has vital implications for the developmentof social movement theory broadly by integrating structural, social construc-tivist, and rational actor approaches. European emphasis on structural analy-ses and American focus on rational actor approaches have recently been26Ronald Inglehart (1977, 1990) illustrates this tendency. While he notes that affluence willhave impacts on values, he assumes that different social groups will respond to affluencethe same way. Thus he does not distinguish between distinct subcultures with different formsof consciousness.27For an excellent example that compares the roles of class and race in defining movementdemands, see the work of Celene Krauss (1994).



30/34

490 Rosecomplemented by social constructivist approaches. A larger integration of allthree has yet to develop. Class culture provides a context for such a largersynthesis by recognizing structural sources of interests, meanings and values.Class cultures shape the form of movement politics but not the specific con-tent that emerges from particular circumstances and experiences. Thus cul-ture structures action with significant space for agency. This paper has arguedthat movement behavior must be understood within the framework of classand other structuring cultural subsystems. These implications of class-culturaltheory require further development and investigation.

REFERENCESBartley, Robert1979 "Business and the new class." In B.

Bruce-Briggs (ed.), The New Class?:57-66. New Brunswick, NJ: Transac-tion Books.Baumgartner, Mary1988 The Moral Order of the Suburb. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Bernstein, Basil1971 Class, Code and Control, Volume 1.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Berryman, Sue1988 Who Serves? Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.Beuchler, Steven1990 Women's Movements in the UnitedStates: Women Suffrage, Equal Rightsand Beyond. New Brunswick, NJ: Rut-gers University Press.Bisseret, Noelle1979 Education, Class Language and Ideology.Boston: Routledge and Kagen Paul.Bourdieu, Pierre1990 Outline of a Theory of Practice.(1977*) New York: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.Braverman, Harry1974 Labor and Monopoly Capital. NewYork: Monthly Review Press.Breines, Wini1982 The Great Refusal: Community andOrganization in the New Left: 1962-1968. New York: Praeger.Brint, Steven1985 "The political attitudes of profession-als." Annual Review of Sociology11:389-415.Original publication date.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie1972 "Socialization and social class." In

Paul Blumberg (ed.), The Impact ofSocial Class. New York: Crowell.Bruce-Briggs, B.1979 "Enumerating the new class." In B.Bruce-Briggs (ed.), The New Class?New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionBooks.Bullard, Robert D.1993 "Anatomy of environmental racismand the environmental justice move-ment." In Robert D. Builard (ed.),Confronting Environmental Racism:15-39. Boston, MA: South End Press.Chomsky, Noam1969 American Power and the New Man-darins. New York: Pantheon Books.Clark, Susan and Margit Mayer1986 "Responding to grassroots discontent:

Germany and the United States." In-ternational Journal of Urban and Re-gional Research 10:410-416.Clarke, John1979 "Capital and culture: the post-warworking class revisited." In JohnClarke, Chas Critcher, and RichardJohnson (eds.), Working-Class Cul-ture: 238-253. New York: St. Martin'sPress.Cohen, Albert and Harold Hodges1963 "Characteristics of the lower-blue-col-lar-class." Social Problems 10:303-334.Collins, Randall1975 Conflict Sociology. New York: Aca-demic Press.Conference Board1976 Unionization of Professional Societies.New York: The Conference Board.


31/34

Toward a Class-Cultural Theory of Social Movements 491Cotgrove, Stephen and Andrew Duff1980 "Environmentalism, middle class radi-

calism and politics." The SociologicalReview 18:333-351.Crotoeau, David1995 Politics and the Class Divide. Philadel-phia, PA: Temple University Press.Devall, Bill and George Sessions1985 Deep Ecology: Living as if NatureMattered. Salt Lake City, UT: Pere-grin Smith.Dowie, Mark1995 Losing Ground. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.Ehrenreich, Barbara1989 Fear of Falling. New York: HarperCollins.Epstein, Barbara1990 "The politics of moral witness: religion

and nonviolent direct action." In SamMarullo and John Lofland (eds.),Peace Action in the Eighties: SocialScience Perspectives: 106-124. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.Foley, Douglas1990 Learning Capitalist Culture. Philadel-phia: University Of Pennsylvania Press.Friberg,

toward a class cultural theory

Documents