Last week I was talking to a new academic acquaintance, when ‘that thing’ happened: we worked out that we’d both grown up on council estates, within working-class, non-university-attending families.[i] We smiled our smile of mutual recognition, and began swapping stories about how we’d navigated the treacherous territory to where we are now. It’s something that has happened to me a number of times before – though not an especially large number of times, actually, considering that I’m two decades into my career.
That’s not altogether surprising. A survey by the (UK) Universities and Colleges Union this month showed that most working class academics feel their class has affected their career progression, and nearly half believe it affects initial recruitment into the profession. The Social Mobility Foundation has just reported that working class academics earn £5,800 less per year in the UK than their middle-class peers. A third have personally felt discrimination based on their accent.
One problem, perhaps, is the way that a lack of a family financial safety-net restricts your choices, or lead you to appraise your choices differently. Paul Craddock, who has recently discussed the experience of ‘outing’ himself as a working class academic, has spoken of the way a lack of an economic fall-back can lead you to play it safe in terms of publication strategy, and to avoid insecure jobs at all costs. Statistically, working class academics are actually more likely than average to move straight into permanent employment. That resonates with me too: having lived through quite a bit of economic insecurity, and having been financially ‘independent’ from the age of eighteen, getting a permanent contract was more important than anything else. But while the craving for security is understandable, it is also potentially limiting, because the freedom to take up temporary positions will sometimes lead to other networks and opportunities opening up.
There is also the ‘social’ side of entering a fairly bourgeois profession, which has been slow to change. Academics from working class backgrounds often speak of feeling marginalised, and report various forms of petty prejudice.[ii] They often feel on the wrong side of valuable networks, that they lack the requisite folk knowledge about, for instance, the plum jobs to apply for, and just how to maximise their chances of getting them.
I’m aware that in some ways I was actually relatively lucky. When I announced, at quite a young age, that I wanted to make a living by writing and thinking, I had a parent who said “of course you can.” Starting at university in the 1990s, I had a full grant, and I emerged from education pretty much debt-free. That sought-after permanent contract also came fairly quickly. In short, I avoided the life of precarity that many young academics now face. Couple that precarity with growing inequality in the housing market, and the odds on breaking through appear in some ways to be lengthening.
All of this prompts a series of questions. What can / should universities do to make their hiring practices fairer to working class applicants? Another working class academic, Carli Rowell, has suggested that, insofar as hiring or funding committees view candidates who have studied at a number of universities more favourably, this disadvantages working class candidates, who are more likely to stay put. Geraldine Van Bueren has pointed out that tightening time-limits on the completion of PhDs will disadvantage people who need to do paid work while completing them. No doubt there are other practices that also need to be rethought.
Then there’s the question of what individuals who have established themselves as ‘successful’ academics should do. Charlie Rumsby has argued that working class academics are needed now more than ever. Some of her reasons are discipline-specific: if anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists want to understand working class lives, having some kind of ‘cultural competency’ in that milieu is surely an asset. But other reasons are more general. It is important, Rumsby claims, for students to be able to see that people like them can become academics. And even better if they can see that they could become academics without sacrificing values or forms of expression that are important to them.[iii]
Which brings us to the importance of signalling, and a memory that has stayed with me for a good thirty years. Having just started my studies at a very middle class university – I wasn’t, frankly, enjoying the environment very much – I remember going into the library and picking up a sociology book, only to discover that its dedication read “For working-class academics.” It was such a small thing, but it was also exactly what I needed to hear at the time. ‘Blending in’ is often a useful survival strategy. But it has costs too, since every working class academic who has thoroughly ‘assimilated’ means one fewer potential role model for others who might want to follow the same path. For me, that short dedication was really important in opening up new horizons.
There are a whole series of questions readers might want to reflect on. How have the hurdles to entering academia changed over time? Does academic discipline make a difference? (I suspect it does). What, if any, are the responsibilities of those who have made it? And much else besides.
[i] I don’t know all the international equivalents, so let’s say: in apartments and houses built by the government, for the poor.
[ii] Like other forms of migration, this can work both ways: someone making the transition into academia can feel out of joint in the professional middle class milieu of academia, but also untethered from their working class community of origin.
[iii] As Craddock points out, it is also important to be honest about the barriers people are likely to face in moving between these worlds, and to be upfront that surmounting those barriers is hard work.
{ 104 comments }
Matt 11.14.22 at 9:04 am
Some of this post seems really, really, British to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but insofar as that’s so, I think it’s important to see it as such – at least partly a parochial issue about England/the UK, and not a more general issue. That doesn’t make it not a real issue, but I do think we’ll do better if we see to what extent our analysis is connected to local issues.
Someone on twitter the other day was posting about how “working class” isn’t, and shouldn’t be seen as, an identity, but is a fact about one’s relationship to the means of production. I’m not really sure what we should say about the relationship of academics to the means of production, and that seemed a bit reductive to me even beyond that, but I’ll admit that most of the time when someone identifies themselves as a “working-class academic” it makes me want to roll my eyes. Usually what’s meant is that one’s parents were not well-to-do. And that’s sometimes worth noting. Or, that the person doesn’t have family money. That’s also a disadvantage in many ways, no doubt. But the academic her or himself is hardly “working class” in the vast majority of cases. Saying so seems to involve reifying and idenfitying with class in a way that doesn’t seem that helpful to me.
Paul Segal 11.14.22 at 9:29 am
I think economics is an interesting comparator here for the disciplines you mention. My impression is that it is less class-bound than a lot of other disciplines, but that this is because it imposes its own, very rigid, hierarchies instead. It’s not far from Michael Young’s original (and satirical) description of meritocracy, in which those at the top of the hierarchy are even more insufferable because they are so confident that they deserve to be there. (This is all impressionistic and if anyone knows the data it would be interesting to see. My own background is very academic so I have little personal insight here.)
John Quiggin 11.14.22 at 10:06 am
One important barrier is a highly stratified university system, where entry to Oxbridge or the Ivy League is a big step in getting into a career. Australia does better in this respect, I think.
In economics, as Paul suggests the university entry filter isn’t as big a deal. It’s getting into the right graduate program that matters, and that’s easy for the successful to see as the result of merit rather than luck.
Disclaimer: For various reasons, I didn’t make it to graduate school, but I had some other pieces of luck which allowed me to do well in academia, if only in an outlying province.
engels 11.14.22 at 10:43 am
It seems to me that, as with US-style “identity politics”, the motivation behind this is fundamentally liberal and meritocratic (which is not to say it doesn’t matter).
Chris Armstrong 11.14.22 at 11:00 am
@engels. I don’t think our reasons for concern about this situation need to boil down to liberal / meritocratic reasons. For example, in the post I touched on epistemic issues. Would we be content with a society where ‘expert’ knowledge – including expert knowledge about poverty, exclusion, and working class lives – was produced by people who had no direct experience of living in the working class?
Holly Malthouse 11.14.22 at 11:09 am
CORRECTION needed: The Social Mobility Foundation has just reported that working class academics earn £5,800 less per year in the UK than their middle-class peers. A third have personally felt discrimination based on their accent.
The correct amount is £6,718 less.
Please can you correct this as it’s not factually correct?
Thank you
Chris Armstrong 11.14.22 at 11:15 am
Hi Holly. It looks to me like the figure for academics is £5,807, whereas £6,718 is the figure for professionals as a whole.
Phil 11.14.22 at 11:43 am
There are a couple of different things here. I think the precariousness of early-career academia puts a lot of people in a proletarian position – which is to say, holds out the prospect of destitution beyond the next pay cheque – without them seeing themselves or being seen as working-class. In my academic career I never took – or applied for – a fixed-term position unless I was certain there would be paid work beyond it, which I know led to missed opportunities. Even more damaging for my career, I supported myself through my doctorate through freelance writing and consequently didn’t do any teaching until I was actually employed in academia (I did look into postgrad teaching & dismissed it on the grounds that the money was terrible, as of course it was). But – although I carry with me the class hatred I learned from my father (who was the son of a miner) – I don’t think those are working-class experiences, at least not in the cultural sense; more “not having always had a safety-net” experiences.
M Caswell 11.14.22 at 12:37 pm
It might be possible get more working class consciousness into higher ed, if schools could become less dependent on the thoroughly professionalized ‘academy.’ I remember a college teacher of mine who had never graduated high school, and had never earned a graduate degree. Very unusual, yes, but totally impossible now.
TM 11.14.22 at 12:47 pm
What are you complaining about Chris? Doesn’t the higher education system already do a magnificent job of making sure that the vast majority of academics are working under the most precarious conditions, with no job security and low pay?
Cutty Snark 11.14.22 at 1:48 pm
Matt @ 1
I would respectfully suggest that there is value in interrogating academic work with respect to both sense you allude to (though it is important not to conflate them).
Firstly, considering “working class” as (if I may generalise and oversimplify) something like “those who have nothing to sell but their labour” (vaguely analogous to “proletariat”, but let’s not get too hung up on labels!), it seems to me that academic positions may be (generally speaking) considered to be working class in this sense. This seems useful if one is considering labour relations, class solidarity, etc. When I was an academic, it appeared that there was a lack of recognition of the need for mutual support within various academic positions (both internally – e.g. between postdocs and senior lecturers, lack of unionisation, etc. – and within the broader context with other university workers). A better understanding within such a framework might lead to greater recognition of where interests should (and in fact do) lie.
With respect to the other sense of “coming from a working class background” (though I’m not sure this is the best label for such a meaning, I will use it in this way to avoid confusion), I think it goes a great deal deeper than wealth disparities (though those may well, of course, matter too). It is not only that someone is disadvantaged by the lack of financial support, but also because they are entering a society who’s language and social mores are often alien. As someone who was “working class” in this sense, it wasn’t only that I had to survive a rather precarious existence, but also that I was unequipped to navigate this world in comparison to others from a different background. My experience might be considered analogous to attending a dinner party for the first time, where you have no idea which knife and fork to use while nearly everyone else does – and also your entire future depends on getting it right, your continually frowned upon for getting it wrong, the person who invited you only did so because they hope to harvest your organs later on, and you have no idea about any of this and don’t even know that you are being judged on this basis in the first place. I wish to be clear that I don’t say this out of a sense of self-pity (I believe in many ways I have been very fortunate, certainly with respect to many other people from my community), but merely to emphasise that this is a great deal more to this than the just the monetary. Luck and connections, it seems to me, have far more of an impact in a supposedly “meritocratic” system than many would care to admit. Moreover, I am unsure that such experiences are not found elsewhere (perhaps those in the US with its legacy students and ivy league might recognise a degree of familiarity? so too might those in any society which has academic hierarchies and a class system, though maybe to a differing degree?). It might also be worth considering that academics do not necessarily remain academics – and similar distinctions of “in groups” seem to exist in a more general sense too (though “markers” may differ, of course)…
This is not to say that these usages are necessarily universally important, but merely to suggest that there is a degree in utility which I think is worthy of consideration.
MisterMr 11.14.22 at 1:51 pm
I think that the points made by Matt @1 and Engels @4 would be better addressed by speaking of “academics of working class origins” rather than “working class academics”.
Years ago I had a very simplified introduction about Weber and I remember Weber using two different terms, translated in italian as “ceto” and “classe”, to refer to the sociocultural stratification (ceto) and the economic one (classe). In english though I always see the two terms conflated (and I have no idea about the original german ones).
In this case though the academics of working class origins retain some (but not all) aspects of the working class “ceto”, but not the “class” (since they will have generally higer incomes than working class: they are professionals).
The “experience of living” Chris Armstrong @5 speaks about is also a “ceto” thing.
It is arguable that “ceto” reflects culturally the reality caused by the economics of “classe”, however probably in a way that is delayed in time (as “ceto” is mostly superstructure), both in general culture and in the life of the specific person.
Chris Armstrong 11.14.22 at 3:47 pm
@Cutty Snark, @MisterMr. Yes, I was primarily thinking of people of working class origins, though it’s an open question these days whether some people might also be working class simply by virtue of being academics. I agree with what you say, Cutty Snark, about the social dimensions of this. Those can linger even once someone has economic security within their career.
engels 11.14.22 at 5:58 pm
I don’t think the epistemic arguments are unconnected to meritocracy because they are giving “working class” social scientists etc CV points for their background so to speak. Arguments of this kind are also very prominent in US-style representational demands around race and gender etc which I was comparing this to. I think a more radical approach would have to question the desirability of knowledge about poverty, exclusion and working class lives being generated by socially, materially and motivationally distant academicians regardless of their class origins.
I wouldn’t want to dismiss it at all because I think it’s neglected in comparison to those other forms of oppression (specially in today’s Americanised debate) but I don’t think it’s centrally what Marxism or socialism are about.
Alex SL 11.14.22 at 6:15 pm
Although I think that class is perhaps the most under-acknowledged factor in deciding career outcomes, even by those who are very conscious of racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc., I have never experienced any downsides to being a “first generation academic”* myself.
The reason was probably best caught by Matt and John Quiggin: I was educated in Germany, and at least at that time the country did not have a stratified university system. How competent, connected, and influential your thesis supervisor was had much more impact than what university you were at or what social stratum you were from.
*) Whether I am a working class academic is a matter of definition – my father was an export salesman who ultimately worked himself up to head of a (ssmall) export department, my mother was a secretary who ultimately worked herself up to office manager, and neither had tertiary education. Does that count?
Susan Ramirez 11.14.22 at 6:42 pm
In Reading Classes: On Culture and Classism in America, Barbara Jensen talks about being an academic from a working-class background in America. Americans who are the first in their families to go to university carry all the handicaps that Chris Armstrong mentions: unfamiliarity with the social signals that mark you as a person worthy of respect; becoming estranged from the culture of your family; having values that clash with the values of the culture you are moving into.
Ebenezer Scrooge 11.14.22 at 7:00 pm
Academic disciplines may differ. The natural sciences are much more working class than the humanities or non-economic social sciences. (Probably engineering is even more so.) Not too many Ivy kids show up in hard-science Ph.D. programs–at least when I was doing my chemistry Ph.D., back in the days of phlogiston. Also, there is much less precarity in academic science than other fields–student funding is much better, and if you can’t make it in academia, industry is likely to want you.
I went to a working class high school. The smart boys mostly went into technical fields–that’s what “being smart” meant back then, if you were a working class boy. Maybe that’s still true today, with a bit more room for girls?
soru 11.14.22 at 7:14 pm
https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=academic
https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=nurse
https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=bricklayer
https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=Dentist
What you see with what are regarded tradiitonally as ‘profession’ is that they have a greater variance of income; both a higher top end and a lower starting point than anything of remotely comparable required supply and demand. There isn’t really a systematic pattern as to whether the median is higher or lower.
To be middle class is to own assets, such as a house or pension, that provide a source of income without neediong to exchange labour for money.
Note that in the UK, in most years, more value is added to the housing stock than earnt by the resident population in wages. Becoming middle class from earnt income alone is still possible. But it increasingly involves swimming upstream against the current of the conomy, requiring either great frugality, or an unusually high salary unusually early.
Maintaing middle class status once you have inherited it from your parents is much easier; you can afford to take the low-income job (or extended traininmg) early on, in return for greater rewards later. The extreme case is the unpaid internships you see in the most competitive occupation, or the multi-year job searches required to become an actor.
The counter to this is unionisation, which flattens salaries and so makes more careers a viable choice for those without inherited wealth.
Chris Bertram 11.14.22 at 7:46 pm
I’m rather surprised at Matt’s comment, given that Jen Morton’s work on higher education and alienation from class and family seems to chime rather well with our experience on this side of the Atlantic and yet is based on US experience.
engels 11.14.22 at 8:36 pm
I seem to remember an ancient CT post about Kate Fox’s book “Watching the English,” which I think illustrates the Brit specificity of much of this rather well.
I went to a working class high school. The smart boys mostly went into technical fields–that’s what “being smart” meant back then, if you were a working class boy. Maybe that’s still true today
No, it means “well dressed”.
Alan White 11.14.22 at 9:09 pm
In addition to Jennifer Morton’s work, there is a FB page First Gen Philosopher’s Club (the first gen refers to first generation college graduates) which includes a lot of people like me in philosophy from working and lower-class backgrounds and currently has 305 members. While it is a private FB group, it is run by Professor Georgi Gardiner of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (my PhD alma mater coincidentally) and I assume that first-gen philosophers could join by contacting her. In my own case I come from poor Southern heritage and my parents never attended high school. Incredible luck that forced my parents to resettle in California with its marvelous public schools afforded me opportunities that eventually led to a wonderful career in the University of Wisconsin system and a very comfortable retirement. But again, if not for incredible luck, I would never have gotten close to any of that if stuck in underfunded rural Tennessee schools throughout childhood.
engels 11.14.22 at 10:21 pm
Kate Fox being the daughter of anthropologist Robin Fox ofc.
Matt 11.14.22 at 10:47 pm
I don’t know Morton’s work that well, so can’t comment on it, but in the US there’s not really anything like the focus on “accent” that there seems to be in England. (There are regional accents, but they play a different role. It’s completely possible to be, and to be seen to be, “upper class” and have a strong southern accent, for example. But it’s also very normal to have a “standard American” accent and have that be no marker of class at all.)
There’s also very significant regional difference. Outside of the NE, most people don’t obsess about the ivy league. Going to the flagship state university in most places, or USC, or something like that, is high-status. And sometimes those universities are the best ones. It’s not that there’s no class in the US, of course, just that it works very differently.
As Alan White mentions, being “first generation” has become a big thing in the US. But, I think it’s also become an “identity” for many people as much as anything. You can see this by the fact that now lots of people make a big deal about being “first generation to get a PhD”. It’s a way to mark oneself off, not something that matters to outsiders in the way that class does.
Being alienated from one’s family by education seems to me to be a different thing too – and also very much a choice.
michael 11.14.22 at 11:28 pm
I live in a small southern university town, where the social structure is writ large in the sorority and fraternity system, and Daddy’s money matters. In the South, working class is always lower class, just not the lowest caste. That distinction is typically reserved for skin color, not lack of social polish.
When I couldn’t find my way in college, I stumbled into working on houses in Boston, and found that artisans are very highly respected in New England society. While much can be learned from books, some things are best learned by the doing … and the academic world has expressly disdained any form of manual work. Only a very few academic disciplines embrace technical skills … music, for example, in which one must not only be able to play well, but be able to play well with others.
engels 11.15.22 at 12:10 am
Are there Facebook groups for people who go in the opposite direction (middle class cleaners, last gen PhDs, etc)? If not, why not?
engels 11.15.22 at 12:38 am
Ah yes, here it is:
https://crookedtimber.org/2005/07/11/the-ironic-gnome-rule/
I once expressed mild surprise at the presence of a garden gnome in an upper-middle-class garden …. The owner of the garden explained that the gnome was “ironic”. I asked him, with apologies for my ignorance, how one could tell that his garden gnome was supposed to be an ironic statement, as opposed to, you know, just a gnome. He rather sniffily replied that I only had to look at the rest of the garden for it to be obvious that the gnome was a tounge-in-cheek joke.
But surely, I persisted, garden gnomes are always something of a joke, in any garden — I mean, no-one actually takes them seriously or regards them as works of art. His response was rather rambling and confused (not to mention somewhat huffy), but the gist seemed to be that while the lower classes saw gnomes as intrinsically amusing, his gnome was amusing only because of its incongruous appearance in a “smart” garden. In other words, council-house gnomes were a joke, but his gnome was a joke about council-house tastes, effectively a joke about class….
The man’s reaction to my questions clearly defined him as upper-middle, rather than upper class. In fact, his pointing out that the gnome I had noticed was “ironic” had already demoted him by half a class from my original assessment. A genuine member of the upper classes would either have admitted to a passion for garden gnomes … or said something like “Ah yes, my gnome. I’m very fond of my gnome.” and left me to draw my own conclusions.
John Quiggin 11.15.22 at 4:56 am
Engels @25 Reading through the comments on that post. I still have the flying ducks!
J-D 11.15.22 at 8:10 am
I have read a book by an English-speaking sociologist writing about an English-speaking country and explicitly drawing on the work of Max Weber for a distinction between ‘status’ and ‘class’, which I assume are English-language translations of the German words which were translated into Italian as ‘ceto’ and ‘classe’.
I’m not saying that people always make a clear distinction between ‘status’ and ‘class’ in English, and I’m not surprised that you haven’t encountered anybody doing so, but I know the phenomenon is not completely non-existent.
TM 11.15.22 at 9:38 am
“In this case though the academics of working class origins retain some (but not all) aspects of the working class “ceto”, but not the “class” (since they will have generally higer incomes than working class: they are professionals).”
You are talking of income groups, not classes. Academics are dependent workers and many of them are working under precarious economic conditions and low pay, hardly different from other working class people (the main difference is actually that non-academic workers have more job options, they rarely move to a different continent just to be able to make a living). Almost all academics nowadays, even the successful ones, spend at least a significant portion of their “careers” in precarity, and many have to leave their field. A subset of academics do get well-cushioned positions but the premise that academics as a group are a privileged class is bullshit.
It’s interesting that academics themselves are highly resistant to realistically understanding their own economic position. It seems that imagining to be something higher up than the rubes provides them a sort of psychic wages that they are not ready to forego. Of course it also matters that the voices of the vast majority who never make it to a professorship are rarely heard.
Adam Swift 11.15.22 at 9:57 am
The best thing I know on this is Friedman and Laurison’s The Class Ceiling. They don’t study academics but lots of what they say about differences in the kinds of cultural capital that help people get on in the different professions they do look at are relevant to differences between disciplines.
engels 11.15.22 at 10:04 am
I still have the flying ducks
Glad to hear it!
engels 11.15.22 at 11:21 am
JD and MM are correct about Weber’s distinction between “class” and “status” but it’s complicated by the fact that other theorists (eg Bourdieu) use “class” for both (and in Britain we seem to do that too).
I haven’t read Friedman and Laurison’s book but I listened to a podcast of the book launch where they acknowledged (iirc) they were both privately educated, which might be glancingly relevant here.
MisterMr 11.15.22 at 12:24 pm
@TM 28
“It’s interesting that academics themselves are highly resistant to realistically understanding their own economic position.”
In case you mean me, I’m not an academic.
“You are talking of income groups, not classes. Academics are dependent workers and many of them are working under precarious economic conditions and low pay, hardly different from other working class people”
The difference that I see is that academics generally have a “cultural capital”, in the form of certified credential not the “status” thing that we are discussing here, not different than a medical doctor on an engeneer. Sure we could call them “very high skilled workers”, but we can also see it as a form of investiment: people from poor economic conditions cannot usually take the risk to make the time investiment to start this career, and therefore said credentials are rare and cause an higer income.
Then again if/when those credentials are not rare anymore they will not cause an increased income and therefore people who have them will just be normal workers.
Maybe we are already at that point: I wouldn’t consider a normal degree a form of “cultural capital” because by now it is too common, but probably 50 years ago it was.
” they rarely move to a different continent just to be able to make a living”
Yeah but then the academics could also switch to a non-academic career as a barista or clerk, I wouldn’t say that academics have literally less options.
“the premise that academics as a group are a privileged class is bullshit.”
I completely agree, as you know I don’t like the use of the term “privileged”, that at best is useful for identities.
engels 11.15.22 at 6:19 pm
the premise that academics as a group are a privileged class is bullshit
If academics aren’t privileged as a group I’m not sure why anyone would care about having a fair chance to become an academic (which was the premise of this entire discussion).
hix 11.15.22 at 7:29 pm
“I don’t know Morton’s work that well, so can’t comment on it, but in the US there’s not really anything like the focus on “accent” that there seems to be in England. ”
There is in Germany unfortunately. Its probably not the most important issue and it is not strictly linear, but it is there. Will never forget that horrible group discussion during my MA where people where argueing that speaking with any accent would be racist, with zero awarness of how classist they just were.
Never fealt out of place with my own level of accent at university (sure fealt out of place many times, but that is another not very class related topic). However i have just spoken with a psychology graduate of the type you´d usually expect to make an acdemic career today- perfect grades in the shortes possible time, getting lots of responsability as a student aid for the Prof. Her anomaly was that she not only had rural working class parent but also went to lets say poor people school (Fachoberschule), so she did not have an opportunity to acquire the language at school. De facto getting admission from that school type to a psychology program means one has to be at least somewhere in the top 3% in the first place.* She told me she fealt out of place and inferior due to her language initially.
*This is not due to some strategy at admission which is strictly according to school grades – not necessary, grading is simply stricter at that school type.
Cutty Snark 11.16.22 at 7:51 am
“If academics aren’t privileged as a group I’m not sure why anyone would care about having a fair chance to become an academic”
Could be many reasons to object to unfairness in access to endeavours, which don’t necessarily require that the role have associated privilege. One that springs to mind is that being an academic is a form of labour – “unfairness” in this way could be conceptualised as an artificial and unjustifiable constraint on the ability of someone to engage in such work, which then hinders the ability of people to self-actualise their labour in a fulfilling manner (e.g. the ability to determine and execute productive actions), thereby increasing alientation.
engels 11.16.22 at 8:40 am
Curry Snark, you’re right ofc. It would be unfair if, say, gay people couldn’t becoming bin collectors, even though bin collecting isn’t seen as a “privileged” role. Still I think in reality it’s pretty clear the heat generated by this (like “access to the professions” etc) is because academic careers are considered desirable. (I don’t think the language of alienation precludes talking about privilege as it seems plausible some forms of work are less alienated than others and those who get to do them are privileged relative to others, all other things being equal.)
David in Tokyo 11.16.22 at 9:55 am
Tm wrote: “It’s interesting that academics themselves are highly resistant to realistically understanding their own economic position.”
This resonates here because my pet theory of what “academics” is, is that it’s a Ponzi scheme. The number of academic positions is essentially fixed, and the only way an open academic position is created is for an academic to croak. But each academic cranks out several students a year. Only one of whom over that whole academic’s career will ever have an academic position to fill.
In the US top-ranked schools it’s especially egreegious. The US population has doubled since my day (undergrad class: ’76), but MIT, Yale, Harvard et. al. still have the same incoming class sizes, the same number of profs. The US lesser-light schools have been increasing to serve the growing population, and the growing percentage of the population that feels the need for an undergrad degree (a good thing, but I put it this way for the sake of the snark). But those are largely served by untenured servant-class labor. It’s not even working class. (In comp. sci. in my generation (dropped out of a PhD program in ’85 or so) the lesser-light schools were pretty good deals freshly minted PhDs.. But still relatively limited number of positions.)
(Truth in advertising: MIT has been growing their comp. sci. department something fierce, and Yale’s comp. sci. department now is several times larger than it was when I was there, so there is growth. But I’m pretty sure comp. sci. is an extreme outlier in the academic universe.)
But speaking of moving working class to acedemia: I had a rough time in high school. It was completely my own fault: I was (and am) a space cadet. But when one of the only two people I remember from my graduating class of 600 (all but one of whom went on to college) hit me up for a donation for a 40th anniversary class gift, I muttered about not having had fun there. He said: “You are a complete idiot. Your parents both went to college, you grew up a rich kid. Boston Public Latin School isn’t about you, it’s about me and most of the students there, who come from families from which we’re the first to go to college. And it gets us in.”
I coughed up a donation.
TM 11.16.22 at 9:58 am
MisterMr 32: “academics generally have a “cultural capital”, in the form of certified credential”
A credential, yes, but “capital”? A few points. First, nowadays in many countries, 30 to 60% of a cohort go to university, so a higher education credential isn’t all that special or valuable any more. Ok academics in general have higher than normal credentials, usually a PhD. But in many fields there is an oversupply of PhDs. On the other hand, there are also “credentials” outside of academia, not so much in anglo countries but in German speaking countries most workers have some sort of professional credential that is actually considered desirable and increases their job market chances.
“Yeah but then the academics could also switch to a non-academic career as a barista or clerk, I wouldn’t say that academics have literally less options.”
You forgot to mention taxi driver. It is often in such discussions assumed that the higher or rarer credential somebody has the more options they must have. To that I say it depends. Sometimes credentials open doors and sometimes the opposite. Quite a few highly credentialed workers hide the PhD in their job applications outside academia because many employers will consider them overqualified and overspecialized. Many academics find it hard to switch to a nonacademic career after many years in academia. Most nonacademic careers require training and job experience. It’s simply not the case that academics who don’t make it in academia can just easily turn to the nonacademic job market.
Which brings me to engels 33: “If academics aren’t privileged as a group I’m not sure why anyone would care about having a fair chance to become an academic”
The first answer is that most academics are not motivated by economic considerations. They may consider themselves lucky to have the chance to learn and do research in the field they are passionate about. If that is a “privilege”, it’s not in the economic realm.
The second answer is that in my understanding, the OP is concerned with fairness within academia. “Still I think in reality it’s pretty clear the heat generated by thisis because academic careers are considered desirable. Academia is a highly stratified, hierarchical community. The positions higher up are highly coveted and are the ones that generate most of the heat. What often happens in debates about “academia” is that these top positions are taken as representative. The fact is that most academics do not have professorships and have little chance of ever getting one, and many academics are laboring under precarious conditions.
Cutty Snark 11.16.22 at 10:25 am
engels 36 – fair point, well made. Sorry to make only a very quick reply, but think your comment is important to consider (though I may not do justice):
Fully agree discourse about alienation does not preclude privilege, particularly as we live in capitalist society (unfortunately!) and that could well drive more interest in access to “good jobs” than “bad jobs” (within society’s current conceptualisation – e.g. salary, pension, perceived status, etc.). While issue is partly consequence of meritocracy (in the Michael Young sense!), motivation regarding interest in these specific roles can likely be result of perceived desirability.
As a personal anecdote – my understanding of what academic role would be (e.g. trying to understand things, sharing knowledge, etc.) was strong motivation to pursue and to stay. Of course, job also carried benefits of being considered a “good job” – but wasn’t the main reason I was interested in academia specifically rather than other “good jobs”. When role was not what I naively expected (unfulfilling labour – possibly partly as a consequence of commodification of education system, but that is a digression), I became dissatisfied (alienation) and ended up quitting academia entirely. I think there is a sense that one key “perk” is perception that there is some degree of freedom to pursue interesting work (e.g. self-realisation), and that some (many?) academics tolerate alienation partly because of “promise” (even if not fulfilled) of meaningful labour (even if they don’t think of it in that way). I have impression this is quite common and that anecdotally many academics seem to view work in terms of emotional attachment to being able to direct own work (though as you rightly highlight that does not mean there is no motivation regarding privilege associated with role too!).
Seems to me there is a broader implication re understanding of species-being, e.g. academia should be easy to conceptualise within socialist perspective of the importance of labour fulfilment. My main point, I suppose, is that I thought this should be clear to fellow academics when I was one, and was surprised when it wasn’t! As often the case, whenever there is a social issue it can be best understood within socialist framework – and clearly I’m no expert, so would think if it is obvious to me it should be to everyone…
Sorry if this is a bit of a muddled response, but basically I think we have some broad agreement here. I appreciate your thoughtful response!
engels 11.16.22 at 10:35 am
most academics are not motivated by economic considerations. They may consider themselves lucky to have the chance to learn and do research in the field they are passionate about. If that is a “privilege”, it’s not in the economic realm
It very much is in the economic realm because such an “lucky” opportunity is only possible if other people (dare I call them workers) are putting food on one’s table (perhaps literally at a conference dinner etc)
engels 11.16.22 at 11:26 am
Agree (possible relative) lack of alienation is important and isn’t just a form of privilege; it may be important politically (I think David Graeber proposed once that socialism is “an alliance of the most oppressed and the least alienated”).
TM 11.16.22 at 12:56 pm
“It very much is in the economic realm because such an “lucky” opportunity is only possible if other people (dare I call them workers) are putting food on one’s table (perhaps literally at a conference dinner etc)”
I’m sure you have checked how often the average adjunct instructor gets to enjoy free conference dinners. But more to the point: Does the dustbin collector grow their own food? Do they design and build the houses they live in, teach their own children, design and build the transportation and communications systems they rely on, develop the medicine they take, treat themselves when they are sick?
I guess the point you are really wanting to make is that academic work is not socially useful, that our complex society and economy could just as well function without all the teaching and research work going on at academic institutions. I don’t think that is a plausible take but if that is your opinion, why not be explicit about it.
engels 11.16.22 at 1:28 pm
most academics are not motivated by economic considerations
Judging from Twitter they’re primarily motivated by formal status (whether to put “professor” or “doctor” in their handle) but just on this thread there are various people bragging about how rich they are (“very comfortable retirement” etc). Within-group interesting is important but doesn’t preclude the group as a whole being advantaged relative to other groups.
engels 11.16.22 at 2:48 pm
Another interesting wrinkle (if we’re interested in the international dimension of class) is how many of today’s echt global oligarchs blossomed from leafy, liberal, learnin’-lovin’ world of the US college campus, Sam Bankman-Fried being a notable recent example.
I guess the point you are really wanting to make is that academic work is not socially useful
The issue (for class identification) is whether it is productive and I think that depends. What did Robert Nozick or Milton Friedman produce?
TM 11.16.22 at 3:26 pm
“Judging from Twitter…” Whatever you say…
“doesn’t preclude the group as a whole being advantaged relative to other groups.”
Depends on what metrics you use and what groups you compare. But sure you are right, some workers and groups of workers are on average better off than others, that is a trivial observation that has nothing to do with academia in particular.
Alan White 11.16.22 at 4:01 pm
I really take offense at my description of a “very comfortable retirement” as bragging–I was merely saying that, unlike many seniors, I do not have to scrape by. I do know the difference between wealth and relative middle-income comfort, which is my station. My whole point is that given my heritage, I was extremely lucky to be where I am with an academic career. I don’t suffer delusions of boot-strapping myself into what I have.
engels 11.16.22 at 4:14 pm
“Within-group interesting” s/b “inequality” and “international dimension” s/b “intergenerational” dimension (in case anyone cares).
MisterMr 11.16.22 at 4:27 pm
@TM 38
Ok, so what is the average income of an academic, what that of an average white collar worker, and what that of a blue collar worker?
My impression is that academics would still be a bit above the average. Do you think that I’m wrong?
Not saying that this is a “privilege”, just that some jobs are more specialised and high paying than others.
//completely OT but Taxi Driver is actually a small owner occupation in Italy because there is a strict licensing system, taxi drivers sell each other these licences, and said licences now cost in the hundred of thousands of euroes. When the government proposes to print more licences the curret owners are ultra pissed off because they expect to resell said licences and that is their retirement plan, so they absolutely don’t want said licences to fall in value. This is a case of small capital ownership IMHO.
engels 11.16.22 at 4:41 pm
The problem is it’s not clear they’re workers but you’re right that the issue isn’t unique to academia: it applies to a large swathe of credentialed, salaried positions in the rich world, from bankers and solicitors to spin doctors and human resources strategists. Aka the PMC or as we in Britain used to simply call it “the middle class”.
MisterMr 11.16.22 at 4:57 pm
It is also possible that academics used to be middle class but today, due to the fact that there are more and more people with high credentials, they are not anymore; however I just think that we are not there yet.
TM 11.16.22 at 5:38 pm
MisterMr: “My impression is that academics would still be a bit above the average. Do you think that I’m wrong?”
You might be right; it depends on how the comparison groups are defined and measured. An important caveat: academics tend to spend many years in training during which they have little or no income, respectively even go into debt to pay for the “privilege”. Any meaningful comparison must take that into account.
You propose comparing the average academic to the “average white collar worker” and “the average blue collar worker”. To me that makes no sense. Academics are a subgroup of white collar workers, not some distinct category, and some groups of white collar workers (e. g. in finance) are probably better off (but then, do we compare the hedge fund manager to the bank teller?) I’m just pointing out that the generalizations so common in this kind of debate are really not helpful, or at least we need to be clear and explicit what we are comparing, and for what purpose. (Even within the category of blue collar workers, it’s easy to point out that there are groups (e. g. unionized public service workers) who are better off than the average. Are they “privileged” for having halfways decent jobs?)
But coming back to my original comment: all of the above is talking about income groups, not economic classes. Even if academics may on average be among the better paid workers, they are not a class apart. It always amazes me that I have to point this out.
engels 11.16.22 at 5:50 pm
#50 Yes, I think it’s complicated and I’m open to the idea that some are and some aren’t, I just find the idea they obviously are (because they’re employees, duh / not as well-paid as [insert-sibling-in-law’s profession here]) annoying.
#46 Apologies for any offence.
engels 11.16.22 at 7:38 pm
all of the above is talking about income groups, not economic classes
It’s talking about cultural capital, credentials, status, social milieu, economic capital (pensions and houses), expectations of progression, leisure, job security, workplace autonomy and the nature of the activities for which they are paid, among other issues.
Alan Peakall 11.16.22 at 7:53 pm
Is it, perhaps, the case that we reward people who work at higher levels of abstraction by according them higher status, even if they are not rewarded with dramatically higher remuneration? If we ask why working at a higher level of abstraction should be so rewarded, the answer could be that working successfully at a higher level of abstraction is a marker for greater integrity because there is less immediate feedback for the quality of one’s output. If organizational dysfunction makes the assessment of success progressively more problematic, then people will seek to work at ever higher levels of abstraction for the sake of the status alone, in the assurance that their integrity will not be tested.
engels 11.16.22 at 8:10 pm
all of the above is talking about income groups, not economic classes
Nice higher than average income you got there, shame if someone were to… convert the surplus into money capital.
Chris Armstrong 11.16.22 at 8:15 pm
@29 Thanks Adam, that book looks very interesting so I’ve just ordered it
engels 11.16.22 at 9:59 pm
Describing a hedge fund manager as a “white collar worker” is utterly insane.
MisterMr 11.16.22 at 11:36 pm
@TM 52
The question is if the credentials do count as investiment/capital or not.
In an absolute sense they do not because they can’t be sold/inherited etc., they are not property.
On the other hand, to the degree they cause an increase of income, they are in a certain way a sort of capital.
This is why I used the term “professionals”, because they have, in my opinion, a sort of pseudo capital (but not capital proper, so they are not small burgoises).
Put it in this way: if everyone had a PHD, phds would be worthless: this is what happened to high school diplomas and what is more or less happening to degrees.
So to the point a certain credential can cause an increase in income because of its scarcity it is a form of pseudo capital, when it doesn’t anymore it isn’t anymore.
@Alan Peakall 55
There is no law that says that abstract work must be payd more, and anyway there is no way to know how much conceptual work is done between different jobs (the amount of skill needed for “low skill” jobs is usually underrated IMO). I think that the difference in pay is mostly due to scarcity.
reason 11.17.22 at 5:11 am
MrMister @59
I think you are 100% correct here.
1. There is no such thing as an unskilled job. (Try an “unskilled” job at which you have no experience for 1 day to confirm that.)
2. However, society as a whole benefits from having a more educated workforce because they are more easily trained (and hopefully will be better voters, consumers and parents).
Conclusion. Expecting the market (which rewards scarcity) to provide sufficient training (if they cannot put bonds on their trainees) is foolish. Note also that when people have to pay for their training they are taking two risks:
1. They do not know how successfully they will complete the training
2. They do not know what the market value of the qualifications will be when they complete the training and afterwards.
These risks will influence how many people engage in certain sorts of training (as the OP points out).
My general view of this of this given all this is that I would prefer to live in a world that heavily subsidized training and provided some sort of an UBI (my preferred term National Dividend – a dividend to subsidize citizens for the necessary theft of the commons and for the risk of specialization) to try to produce a more educated workforce.
engels 11.17.22 at 8:31 am
Expecting the market (which rewards scarcity) to provide sufficient training (if they cannot put bonds on their trainees) is foolish.
I wonder if this is why HE used to be free.
engels 11.17.22 at 8:37 am
I think the discussion above misses the fact that it’s not really PhDs who so “privileged” (again as you can quickly learn from Twitter) but (some) academics. So if anything is to be analogised to capital it should probably be the job itself rather than the qualification (and this seems especially apt for senior academics who do seem to personally “own” their roles and can’t be booted out of them).
Alan Peakall 11.17.22 at 8:37 am
MisterMr@59: I don’t think we disagree that more abstract work is not necessarily better paid, but even when devaluation of credentials or structural change erodes the financial privilege, the erosion of the status gap at least lags, if not, persists. The scarcity point is, of course true, but I was attempting to address the question of the source of the intuitions underlying the assumptions being made.
TM 11.17.22 at 8:56 am
“The question is if the credentials do count as investiment/capital or not.”
In my view, too many credentialed people in precarious circumstances belie the claim that “credentials are capital”.
Higher education used to be an elite thing. Up to about the 1960s, it was only a tiny percentage of the population. That has changed dramatically. Higher education has changed dramatically, academia has changed dramatically. It’s amazing that much of the discourse around academia still very much excludes the experience of the many if not most academics who nowadays have far worse career prospects than those in a similar situation would had 50 years ago.
engels 11.17.22 at 9:41 am
In my view, too many credentialed people in precarious circumstances belie the claim that “credentials are capital”.
Are you aware what can happen to petty capitalists who make the wrong investments?
engels 11.17.22 at 9:49 am
“Postgrad degrees = crypto for masochists” Discuss.
Cutty Snark 11.17.22 at 10:06 am
engels 50 – sorry, but not sure I fully agree with this. PMC isn’t clear term, but think originally meant “salaried mental workers” (so still workers who don’t own means of production) but who are said to have “objectively antagonistic relationship” with working class as function of work (reproduction of capitalist society) and high status. But am not convinced this is useful analysis – are academics (and other PMC-designated groups) really separate class? Seems to be confusing function with class position – yet in reality it is important not to think distinctive function separates class (and ultimately interests). Privileged, skilled, autonomous workers are still workers, whose privileges, skills, and autonomy are effectively held hostage by capitalists – want to be clear am not saying there aren’t differences (function of direction, social agglomeration, etc.), or that these differences don’t have political consequences, but merely am unconvinced this isn’t best conceptualised as differences within the collective of labourers rather than as distinct class. Not trying to be picky, but feel danger of PMC-style concept is it actually reinforces capitalist understanding – strengthens misconception of “not real workers” amongst “PMC” encouraging obstacle to finding common cause with other working class, notions of moralistic guilt to hinder collective organisation (e.g. can I strike for better conditions if already better off than “the real working class”?), creates fracture within organisation of working class (designated PMCs must be excluded because interests supposedly antagonistic), etc. Contrary, if properly understood as workers – albeit workers with privilege, some of which depends on fealty to system – emphasises shared class interests and which advantages ought to be given up for common good (e.g. trading “wealth”, “status”, etc. for self-realisation through meaningful labour could be a deal many “PMC” would accept). In short, point is that not sure PMC itself is such a useful concept – highlights relational differences within working class, but implies unbridgeable divide (e.g. a teacher cannot share same interests as binman); but surely real challenge is for working class to organise so everyone acts in each other’s interests (and think PMC actually hinders this by muddying waters and class consciousness). Similar but different objections to middle class usage too – in brief, also hinders clear understanding by conceding ground to capitalist arguments; as Marx and Engels (the OG one!) argued, subsummation into proletariat occurs as relatively small capital not exists at scale to compete with large capitalists, and specialised skills become obsolete by new methods of production. Think this seems to be largely the case in “middle class” – e.g. considering academia, commodification of Unis has led to becoming “production line”, and measures of success (e.g. no. papers published, grants accepted, students taught, etc.) are arguably not intrinsically linked to specialised skills, and those specialised skills are no longer inherently measured. Consequently feel problematic terms to use as again reinforces notion that there is a “middle class” which allows people to rise to and allow people to become part of capitalist class, but this may be largely illusory and presupposes existence of class society. In reality, for “middle class” to improve situation probably relies on not self-emancipation but emancipation of working class. Realise this is a controversial point, and not necessarily saying PMC style ideas should be entirely discarded (can highlight important tensions, as previously mentioned), but just wanted to throw out alternative perspective that this may not be a generally useful framework of understanding…
MisterMr 11.17.22 at 10:08 am
@TM 64
I totally agree, however many academics today got their jobs 30+ years ago, so we can’t know what will happen to people who are starting an economic career today, we mostly speak of people who started it many years ago and this probably skews up the perception.
@Alan Peakall 63
Apart from the scarcity, there is the fact that said scarcity comes at least in part from the need of X years of training, that one would expect to be rewarded (though how much rewarded is an open question).
There is also, IMHO, a psychological aspect where the sort of “expertise hierarchy” that is created tends to exalt the ones with the higer credentialed expertise.
For example, I do some judo and in judo, like in many other asian martial arts, there are official ranks. If some dude has a 6th dan rank (pretty high but not unbelievable) he’s considered the most expert, he will generally host the study groups, he is supposed to know what he says so he can tell you how you should do this or that move (even if you do that all the days in another way that in your experience works better) etc.
At an interpersonal level this is a form of hierarchy, a sort of parent-child relationship if you want, even if in the real world it counts nothing (who cares for judo ranks, seriously?).
In academia and with the concept of credentials something like this happens IMHO, that thing where since I’m an engeneeer/doctor/whatever I can tell people what is “the truth”, which on an interpersonal level is a form of hierarchy.
Cutty Snark 11.17.22 at 10:12 am
(as PS, should emphasise agree with idea no such thing as unskilled work – “not a light bulb shines, not a wheel turns, not a telephone rings, without the kind permission of the working class”)
engels 11.17.22 at 11:12 am
CS apologies if I don’t have time to do this justice. I don’t really like the term PMC or everyone who uses it but I do think there is an objective antagonism. I think if you downplay it you end up with an anti-capitalist movement that is dominated by those strata. I don’t think they’re a distinct class but I think the boundaries between classes are fuzzy near the top. M&E(thefamousone) emphasized the tendency for petty bourgeoisie to proletarianise, they didn’t say it exist. I agree academia is prooetarianising, with lower strata similar to FE lecturing perhaps, but the obnoxious treatment of younger members is a feature of other clearly bourgeois professions. And then I do think there is a genuine issue about whether much of the “labour” is (re)productive or ideological, or at the elite end is better seen as a form of paid leisure.
TM 11.17.22 at 11:24 am
@engels: „Unter Arbeitskraft oder Arbeitsvermögen verstehen wir den Inbegriff der physischen und geistigen Fähigkeiten, die in der Leiblichkeit, der lebendigen Persönlichkeit eines Menschen existieren und die er in Bewegung setzt, sooft er Gebrauchswerte irgendeiner Art produziert.“ (https://marx-forum.de/marx-lexikon/lexikon_a/arbeitskraft.html)
One could argue that a credential is separate from the inherent skill of a worker and therefore can be considered as some sort of economic capital. That seems problematic insofar as credentials (not always but typically) have the function to certify a skill and can’t be bought or sold. But leaving that aside, if educational credentials are capital, then many more workers must be reclassified as petty capitalists (which I think is a position that some right wing libertarians actually take to muddle the divide between workers and capitalists). Even a highschool diploma should count as capital. And it may be difficult for anglos to understand but outside the anglo world, educational credentials are not necessarily academic. In Germany, most workers have either a university degree or a Berufsausbildung (really no good English translation), which is not a few weeks of job training but a two to four year apprenticeship ending with a highly respected credential. So either you are willing to classify the majority of the population as capitalists or you have to come up with a criterion for why some credentialed workers are capitalists and others aren’t.
I’d still be interested to know whether you consider academics per se as parasites doing no actually productive work at all, as you seemed to suggest at 41?
SamChevre 11.17.22 at 11:31 am
On status vs income/tangible wealth–here’s a thought experiment:
Let’s take two people, both in their early thirties: one has a PhD, and is working as an adjunct professor of psychology near where he grew up, after going to college and to grad school elsewhere. The other dropped out of high school and still lives in the town he grew up in, and works for construction company, cleaning up and repairing after kitchen fires/burst pipes/etc. Both of them earn about the same amount, and have similar debts/assets.
There’s a disagreement over how history should be remembered in the town’s historical markers, public schools, team names, etc, on which both have strong feelings. (Think indigenous/settler relations, or Civil War history, or something similar.) Which of them is more likely to get favorable coverage in a “normal” national newspaper? Which is more likely to see things move at least somewhat in their preferred direction?
One slight disagreement: while the US may not have as strong of a class/accent correlation as England, it still has a quite strong correlation. I’m from Appalachia, and rapidly learned that sounding like myself/my family got me treated as stupid in a lot of professional settings; after a decade of conscious effort, I sounded “professional” instead of “redneck”, and my career went much better from that point on.
engels 11.17.22 at 11:32 am
I think the priority for the left should be reversing the marketisation of HE rather than bailing out the market losers (or winners).
engels 11.17.22 at 11:48 am
In academia and with the concept of credentials something like this happens IMHO, that thing where since I’m an engeneeer/doctor/whatever I can tell people what is “the truth”, which on an interpersonal level is a form of hierarchy.
Yes, and it’s striking how much cruder it’s becoming. 20 years ago (in England) someone with a PhD insisting they be addressed as “doctor” by non-academics would be a laughing stock; now there’s a whole section of “progressive” Twitter campaigning for it.
engels 11.17.22 at 11:53 am
Ofc that could be a symptom of status insecurity/declining value of credentials as much as anything.
TM 11.17.22 at 12:46 pm
engels 74: “20 years ago (in England) someone with a PhD insisting they be addressed as “doctor” by non-academics would be a laughing stock; now there’s a whole section of “progressive” Twitter campaigning for it.” Another important Twitter development I regretfully missed. I do remember a debate some time ago when a bunch of sexists claimed that a certain public figure shouldn’t use her doctoral title in public because she wasn’t a physician and only physicians supposedly use their doctoral title, except obviously tons of males who are not physicians also use a doctoral title but that’s different because the point is to accuse an uppity woman of class snobbism and defending an educated upper middle class woman against sexist attacks is showing disdain for the working class, check mate libs.
You are not alluding to that now are you?
engels 11.17.22 at 1:15 pm
Not exactly what Dolly Parton had in mind I think:
CUNY to pay Paul Krugman $225,000
‘During year one (2015-2016), you will not be expected to teach or supervise students,” said a letter to Krugman… “Instead, you will be asked to contribute to our build-up of LIS and the inequality initiative and to play a modest role in our public events.” In year two and thereafter, Krugman, a New York Times columnist, is expected to teach one seminar per year, the letter said.’
MisterMr 11.17.22 at 2:05 pm
@engels
Well Krugman got a Nobel prize so using him as a reference for academics is like using olympic medal winners as an example of local coaches.
On the plus side, here in Italy “dottore” refers to everyone with a degree, so I’m officially Dottore MisterMr, thanks to my master degree in media studies. It’s a legally protected title to boot. (I think Germany is similar).
engels 11.17.22 at 2:11 pm
either you are willing to classify the majority of the population as capitalists or you have to come up with a criterion for why some credentialed workers are capitalists and others aren’t
I didn’t say they were capitalists but in case you hadn’t realised US+EU is not the world.
I’d still be interested to know whether you consider academics per se as parasites doing no actually productive work at all
No, I don’t.
You are not alluding to that now are you?
Wouldn’t dream of it.
engels 11.17.22 at 2:19 pm
I didn’t mean to suggest Krugman was typical, I mentioned him to illustrate the point that elite academic jobs may be “better seen as a form of paid leisure”. A typical tenured Ivy League prof doesn’t make much less I think although they do have to teach.
TM 11.18.22 at 1:50 pm
engels: “I mentioned him to illustrate the point that elite academic jobs may be “better seen as a form of paid leisure””
Arguing from anecdotal edge cases is always helpful I’m sure…
Let me be clear, the structure of your sloganeering is identical with perennial right-wing complaints about various sorts of workers (always workers, never bosses or business owners!) who are allegedly having it too good. Tenured professors are an easy target but by no means the only one. Right wing discourse is full of claims that school teachers are overpaid and have too much vacation time, public sector workers are wasting tax-payer money, unionized workers of any kind are lazy incompetents making too much money and can’t be fired thanks to union protection, which is why unions need to be shut down, public services need to be privatized, tenure abolished, useless academic institutes closed, etc etc. etc. For these right wing shills, only a miserable workers is good worker. Job protections, worker rights, above poverty wages are an insult to the free market.
I get the impression that this is exactly your crowd and your masquerading as a class conscious leftist is really just masquerading. It’s a bit insulting that you abuse the name of one of the major class theorists for pushing this reactionary pseudoleftism.
TM 11.18.22 at 2:01 pm
engels: “I didn’t say they were capitalists”. But you did compare unsuccessful academics to “petty capitalists who make the wrong investments”.
Economic class is about power, about control over the means of production. Class is not income, it’s not status, it’s not family background or cultural background or accent, it’s power. Even an exceptionally influential academic like Krugman does not have economic power. None. How frustrating if that has to be pointed out, even in leftist circles, among people who supposedly have some faint familiarity with Marx’ theory. Why do we have such crappy class discourse?
TM 11.18.22 at 2:03 pm
engels: “I didn’t say they were capitalists”. But you did compare unsuccessful academics to “petty capitalists who make the wrong investments”.
Economic class is about power, about control over the means of production. Class is not income, it’s not status, not education, not credentials, it’s not family background or cultural background or accent, it’s power. Even an exceptionally influential academic like Krugman does not have economic power. None. How frustrating if that has to be pointed out, even in leftist circles, among people who supposedly have some faint familiarity with Marx’ theory. Why do we have such crappy class discourse?
engels 11.18.22 at 6:32 pm
Class is not income, it’s not status, it’s not family background or cultural background or accent, it’s power
Also worth noting that this economism would make the entire argument of the post we are commenting on impossible. What are “means of production” in academic philosophy btw?
engels 11.18.22 at 7:12 pm
Possibly a British word for cigarettes which sounds like a homophobic slur in US English caused my previous comment to be automatically zapped but the principal point was if Prof “Nothing To Lose” Krugman doesn’t own a single means of production what did he do with the million dollar Nobel prize money?
engels 11.18.22 at 9:19 pm
“Class is strictly a production relationship” (American liberals)
Eton College apologises after allegations pupils jeered visiting state schoolgirls
David in Tokyo 11.21.22 at 12:45 am
Since this thread is still going, you all might enjoy “Picture a Professor: Interrupting Biases About Faculty and Increasing Student Learning”, a new book edited by Jessamyn Neuhaus.
Long story short: the review in the 28 October 2022 issue of Science is seriously positive, and makes it sound like a must read for all of you agonizing about the trials and tribulations of the less-well-heeled end of the professorial profession.
David in Tokyo 11.21.22 at 3:07 am
Oops. That didn’t come off as intended.
” the trials and tribulations of the less-well-heeled end of the professorial profession.”
That snark was intended to be light jesting aimed at people here. The book itself talks about serious problems; again, the review in Science makes it sound really good. To briefly quote said review:
“By shedding light on these harsh realities, Picture a Professor does a service to all who would prefer a different path, offering realistic strategies to engage students in undermining scholarly stereotypes with innovative course design, … and more.”
Cutty Snark 11.22.22 at 7:10 am
[1/3]
Some quick thoughts – sorry if muddled, but just want to offer up rough perspective on thread as have (some little) time. Don’t claim “correct” – and am open to alternative thoughts – is just to offer my current thinking.
I think engels is correct to highlight antagonism, and agree it should not be downplayed – important political implications! However also need to be careful as antagonism =/= opposition (antagonism exists within working class too, after all!). While is true class not only means of production, means of production is foundational & must be included in class analysis. Accent, studying at Eton, studying at Oxbridge, etc.; seem not inherently class, but more “class indicators” (useful shorthand to gatekeep and prevent “class interlopers”, helps reinforce class hierarchy in modern dispersed world). Salary more complex as higher salary represents privilege that can be lost, and can facilitate becoming (petty?) bourgeois, but does not necessitate it (e.g. C-M-C vs. M-C-M). However, consider (numbers approximate from lack of data, but seem roughly in range, and in keeping with quick search on jobs.ac.uk) median UK full time salary is ca. £33k (according to ONS), academic (e.g. researcher to UK lecturer) seems to be £35 – 50k (anecdotally know one lecturer paid less than when was postdoc due to having “more stability”), while “senior academic” (e.g. associate prof/prof) seems to be £50 – 90k (though no upper limit; reported that some can reach £150k, but seems highly dependent on discipline, location, etc.). Fair to argue, depending on level, (some) academic “levels” may be antagonistic to interests of working class? Probably (but need to avoid over generalisation wrt. “academic class” due to internal stratification). But not sure fair to argue academics in general not working class wrt. means of production.
Cutty Snark 11.22.22 at 7:10 am
[2/3]
To me, means of production within academia not entirely clear, as production of academia not entirely clear (differences in views as to what “purpose of university” is). E.g. One position: philosophy department production is new philosophy, therefore means of production may be non-labour support of this (e.g. access to old philosophy – such as books and journals, lessons on existing ideas – and things which help develop new philosophy such as networks of other philosophers to see current state-of-art ideas). Another position: philosophy department production new philosophers, means of production non-labour (e.g. accreditation framework, system of students, buildings/books/lesson plans/etc.). Probably many others, and possibly mixture of many (sometimes competing). Regardless, difficult to see in what way academics “own means of production” in meaningful sense? Arguing that academia is inherently bourgeoisie profession seems odd to me (academics can become bourgeoisie, of course, if use money in that way – salary can facilitate, but not necessarily necessitates; money is not necessarily capital). Of course, may be missing the obvious here – am open to other perspectives. Think must be careful to offer fair analysis and focus on appropriate class understanding. My main objections to UK academia as it is: alienation, “meritocracy” (Young sense, creating false hierarchy), tendency to reinforce existing society (thus supporting capitalism), has become commodified, etc. Problems are common to wide range of endeavours under social system. Should “management class” be regarded with caution due to privileges of position incentivising maintaining system? Absolutely. But must remember that capitalism is true problem, not workers in more privileged/comfortable position. Anything else is risking getting into identity politics, and potentially leading to working class splintering.
Cutty Snark 11.22.22 at 7:11 am
[3/3]
In short: my current thinking is that academia has significant problems (as any system under capitalism). Should not ignore these, or relationship of academics within system (as true for everyone). OTOH, need to avoid overgeneralising, confusing relationships with capitalism in socialist sense with “class indicator”, and possibility of overlooking fundamental problems (yes, also need to avoid downplaying real antagonisms too!).
Personal opinion: need to spend most effort on practically forming strong working class socialism within UK (and internationally) as will lead to better conditions for those who sell labour regardless (e.g. praxis leads to awareness, awareness to solidarity, solidarity to empowerment). Paraphrase Marx – it isn’t enough to interpret world; point is to change it (ofc correct interpretation critical to change, but most important when in service of it).
engels 11.22.22 at 12:10 pm
Lots of good points, Dr Snark, which deserve a serious reply. Unfortunately it’s a bit off-putting when longer comments seem to vanish for no reason (not criticising anyone, I assume it’s the software) but I may take a punt later.
difficult to see in what way academics “own means of production” in any meaningful sense
To be clear I’m not arguing this—which would make them classical petty bourgeois—I’m arguing that it’s difficult to see them as classical proletarians (propertyless producers). Philosophy may be an extreme example but I think the resources needed to do it are widely available outside of universities, even if we don’t as far as Descartes:
engels 11.22.22 at 12:39 pm
Admittedly I suppose prior to the Enlightenment it was more of a closed shop. Boats against the current!
TM 11.22.22 at 3:51 pm
Some people on the internet (well at least one, what do I know) are complaining about Twitter employees who refuse to work overtime for free:
“It’s hard to explain to people in the laptop class just how bizarre this all sounds to blue collar workers. You’re being asked to show up to work and you tell your boss no—and you’re the victim here?”
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/11/bari-weisss-working-class-whisperer
“Laptop class”, how cute (the person writing this nonsense most assuredly is not doing any manual work…) Just offering this as an example for how “class” nowadays can mean whatever.
engels 11.22.22 at 7:14 pm
I think we should agree to disagree at this point, TM; thanks for your passionate interest in defending Marxist class politics from interlopers and deviationists…
Cutty Snark 11.23.22 at 8:31 am
engels – thanks for reading/responding + clarification. Apologies am not fully following your train of thought (think might see, but don’t want to misinterpret). If/when convenient, would be possible to elaborate re “difficult to see them as classical proletarians (propertyless producers)” wrt. private and personal property (ideally with example)? To clarify, am not (dis)agreeing – just not sure appreciate perspective yet, and want to make sure properly understand before forming thoughts.
TM 11.23.22 at 11:04 am
engels: The deviationists are always the worst you know…
engels 11.23.22 at 12:13 pm
Sorry I wasn’t clear.
Classical Marxism: 1 capitalist class, 2 petty bourgeoisie, 3 working class
I’m saying academics aren’t clearly 3, I’m not saying they’re clearly 2.
Working class: 1 producers 2 who do not own the means of production 3 who are forced to sell their labour power to owners in order to live
I don’t think these apply straightforwardly to many academics (objections scattered above) although they do to some degree and it varies according to position.
I think the differences with more typically proletarian situations (especially in poorer countries) justify treating some of them as a special subgroup of the working class at least, or as an intermediate class parallel but distinct from the petty bourgeoisie, or possibly, for those with lots of people working under them/lots of leisure/money/political power, part of the bourgeoisie.
engels 11.23.22 at 12:14 pm
Ymmv.
Cutty Snark 11.23.22 at 1:28 pm
engels – thanks for explanation; appreciate your taking time for positive interactions + interesting arguments!
Tm 11.23.22 at 10:41 pm
“What are “means of production” in academic philosophy btw?”
“Every Saturday somebody must have poured gold and silver out of a leathern purse into their ancient fists, for they had their beer and skittles presumably of an evening. An unending stream of gold and silver, I thought, must have flowed into this court perpetually to keep the stones coming and the masons working; to level, to ditch, to dig and to drain. But it was then the age of faith, and money was poured liberally to set these stones on a deep foundation, and when the stones were raised, still more money was poured in from the coffers of kings and queens and great nobles to ensure that hymns should be sung here and scholars taught. Lands were granted; tithes were paid. And when the age of faith was over and the age of reason had come, still the same flow of gold and silver went on; fellowships were founded; lectureships endowed; only the gold and silver flowed now, not from the coffers of the king, but from the chests of merchants and manufacturers, from the purses of men who had made, say, a fortune from industry, and returned, in their wills, a bounteous share of it to endow more chairs, more lectureships, more fellowships in the university where they had learnt their craft. Hence the libraries and laboratories; the observatories; the splendid equipment of costly and delicate instruments which now stands on glass shelves, where centuries ago the grasses waved and the swine rootled. Certainly, as I strolled round the court, the foundation of gold and silver seemed deep enough; the pavement laid solidly over the wild grasses.”
https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/online-ebooks/virginia-woolf/room-of-ones-own/complete-text.html
Tm 11.23.22 at 10:50 pm
engels 98: Perhaps we have to agree to agree. Some academics have high incomes and workers with high enough incomes reach a point where they don’t necessarily have to sell their labur any more to survive, which obviously is a relevant socio-economic distinction. But that isn’t a function of being an academic per se.
I’m not against making distinctions, but often the wrong ditinctions are made based on misleading generalizations. To that I object.
engels 11.25.22 at 10:32 am
Thanks guys. Back on the topic of upward mobility this seems quite amazing:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2022/nov/24/i-was-sent-for-therapy-to-get-rid-of-my-working-class-accent
engels 11.25.22 at 6:30 pm
Btw another great recent book recommendation on this general topic which no one seems to have made is Didier Eribon’s Returning to Reims.
Comments on this entry are closed.