A review of "Farewell to the Leftist Working Class". I was apparently still very leftist when I wrote this back in 2010, but the review does raise interesting points of obvious relevance today, so here it is...
This book was something of a disappointment. I had expected
it to contain some kind of sophisticated explanation of why large segments of
the working class vote for right-wing parties at election time.
While it does contain some salient material on this, most of the book is preoccupied with an intra-mural debate between sociologists on the exact proportion of "class voting" as opposed to "cultural voting" in various regression analyses of statistical material. The authors reach the conclusion that class voting hasn't declined. Rather, cultural voting has increased while class voting has remained constant. The two influences cancel each other out in statistical material, leading to all kinds of confusion.
Maybe.
However, the authors have a fairly simplistic definition of "class" and "cultural" voting. Class voting is about economic egalitarianism, so workers who vote for leftist parties are class voters. Cultural voting is about "authoritarianism" versus "libertarianism". A worker who votes for a right-wing party because they are tough on immigrants, gays or the undeserving poor is a cultural voter. He "should" vote for a leftist party that redistributes incomes from the rich to the workers, but for somewhat nebulous "cultural" reasons chooses not to.
These neat definitions are unconvincing. The working class as it actually looks like today, is split. It doesn't necessarily have common interests. In the United States, White workers may have different interests compared to Black or Hispanic workers. Their interests may even be counterposed. A White working class vote for George Wallace or Ronald Reagan may in this sense be a "class vote". It's a vote for continuing White skin privilege. Or take another example. Native workers might feel that migrant workers threaten their wage levels or live at the expense of the taxpayers. Thus, a native working class vote for a nativist and racist candidate might be a "class vote". The fact that many workers are culturally "authoritarian" might be based on their perception of a "class" interest.
I'm not saying that the authors are completely oblivious of this. They point out that many right-wing parties combine (demagogic) economic egalitarianism with authoritarianism, thereby tapping the working class vote. However, they never analyse the question in depth. The chapter on the United States doesn't mention it at all!
The authors have a strangely "Marxist" analysis of voting behaviour, according to which workers "should" vote for leftist parties which support redistribution, while middle class groups "should" vote for right-wingers who oppose it. However, the only explanation the authors offer for authoritarian cultural values is "lack of cultural capital", in plain English that workers are thick. (So are peasants, apparently.) This, of course, is a typical middle class prejudice. Do the authors really believe that authoritarianism cannot have material roots?
It's also interesting to note that the authors give short shrift to the argument that leftist middle class voters are "class voters", too. Personally, I consider it obvious that middle strata rooted in the expansive state bureaucracy vote leftist for "class" reasons (you don't bite the hand that feeds you) or that middle class women might vote for a "feminist" party if this party really represents the interests of middle class women in particular. If our authors are to be believed, it really all boils down to how many books you read or how many theatre plays you attend. Have they never met a well-articulated authoritarian? Frankly, sometimes "cultural voting" is sheer hypocrisy, as when middle class people vote for culturally tolerant parties while isolating themselves in ethnic enclaves (White ethnic enclaves!), or when people vote "Green" while continuing with their lavish lifestyles.
There is yet another variable which complicates matters further. Leftist parties might be authoritarian. Social Democratic and Communist parties in Western Europe have sometimes pandered to anti-immigrant sentiments. The French Communist Party and Faelles Kurs in Denmark used to be notorious on this score. Some right-wing authoritarians are economically egalitarian in deed, not just in word. Remember Adolf Hitler? Indeed, the whole point of Nazism is to create greater economic equality, but (naturally) only within the "master race". Finally, some right-wing parties might be culturally libertarian. The Libertarian Party in the United States is a case in point. It's also interesting to note that the anti-Muslim right-wing populist Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands (where this book was written) was openly gay!
To sum up, then, "Farewell to the working class" doesn't seem to understand that cultural voting may have "class" roots, that workers may vote for authoritarian parties for "class" (material) reasons, that the thickness theory of authoritarianism is a middle class prejudice, and that both leftists and populists come in all shapes and sizes. One of the book's chapters have the heading "Class is not dead - it has been buried alive". How true. I believe Houtman, Achterberg and Derks are the undertakers!
While it does contain some salient material on this, most of the book is preoccupied with an intra-mural debate between sociologists on the exact proportion of "class voting" as opposed to "cultural voting" in various regression analyses of statistical material. The authors reach the conclusion that class voting hasn't declined. Rather, cultural voting has increased while class voting has remained constant. The two influences cancel each other out in statistical material, leading to all kinds of confusion.
Maybe.
However, the authors have a fairly simplistic definition of "class" and "cultural" voting. Class voting is about economic egalitarianism, so workers who vote for leftist parties are class voters. Cultural voting is about "authoritarianism" versus "libertarianism". A worker who votes for a right-wing party because they are tough on immigrants, gays or the undeserving poor is a cultural voter. He "should" vote for a leftist party that redistributes incomes from the rich to the workers, but for somewhat nebulous "cultural" reasons chooses not to.
These neat definitions are unconvincing. The working class as it actually looks like today, is split. It doesn't necessarily have common interests. In the United States, White workers may have different interests compared to Black or Hispanic workers. Their interests may even be counterposed. A White working class vote for George Wallace or Ronald Reagan may in this sense be a "class vote". It's a vote for continuing White skin privilege. Or take another example. Native workers might feel that migrant workers threaten their wage levels or live at the expense of the taxpayers. Thus, a native working class vote for a nativist and racist candidate might be a "class vote". The fact that many workers are culturally "authoritarian" might be based on their perception of a "class" interest.
I'm not saying that the authors are completely oblivious of this. They point out that many right-wing parties combine (demagogic) economic egalitarianism with authoritarianism, thereby tapping the working class vote. However, they never analyse the question in depth. The chapter on the United States doesn't mention it at all!
The authors have a strangely "Marxist" analysis of voting behaviour, according to which workers "should" vote for leftist parties which support redistribution, while middle class groups "should" vote for right-wingers who oppose it. However, the only explanation the authors offer for authoritarian cultural values is "lack of cultural capital", in plain English that workers are thick. (So are peasants, apparently.) This, of course, is a typical middle class prejudice. Do the authors really believe that authoritarianism cannot have material roots?
It's also interesting to note that the authors give short shrift to the argument that leftist middle class voters are "class voters", too. Personally, I consider it obvious that middle strata rooted in the expansive state bureaucracy vote leftist for "class" reasons (you don't bite the hand that feeds you) or that middle class women might vote for a "feminist" party if this party really represents the interests of middle class women in particular. If our authors are to be believed, it really all boils down to how many books you read or how many theatre plays you attend. Have they never met a well-articulated authoritarian? Frankly, sometimes "cultural voting" is sheer hypocrisy, as when middle class people vote for culturally tolerant parties while isolating themselves in ethnic enclaves (White ethnic enclaves!), or when people vote "Green" while continuing with their lavish lifestyles.
There is yet another variable which complicates matters further. Leftist parties might be authoritarian. Social Democratic and Communist parties in Western Europe have sometimes pandered to anti-immigrant sentiments. The French Communist Party and Faelles Kurs in Denmark used to be notorious on this score. Some right-wing authoritarians are economically egalitarian in deed, not just in word. Remember Adolf Hitler? Indeed, the whole point of Nazism is to create greater economic equality, but (naturally) only within the "master race". Finally, some right-wing parties might be culturally libertarian. The Libertarian Party in the United States is a case in point. It's also interesting to note that the anti-Muslim right-wing populist Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands (where this book was written) was openly gay!
To sum up, then, "Farewell to the working class" doesn't seem to understand that cultural voting may have "class" roots, that workers may vote for authoritarian parties for "class" (material) reasons, that the thickness theory of authoritarianism is a middle class prejudice, and that both leftists and populists come in all shapes and sizes. One of the book's chapters have the heading "Class is not dead - it has been buried alive". How true. I believe Houtman, Achterberg and Derks are the undertakers!
No comments:
Post a Comment