Published on this SlideShare account are six reading commentaries that I wrote for a seminar titled “Class, Culture, and Power,” taught by Professor William Hoynes in the Sociology Department of Vassar College during the autumn 2008 term. This seminar met every Monday afternoon during which time we discussed, among other related topics, the assigned readings for the week. Our regular writing assignment for this seminar was to write commentaries on those readings. I generally wrote my commentaries by hand on loose-leaf paper and, over the years since then, not all of them have survived. Fortunately, over a year ago, I recovered the ones that I did find among my assorted papers from university. Realizing that they were still readable and of at least some merit, I retyped and edited these commentaries and repurposed them as “concept pieces.” The changes I made are mostly “cosmetic”—generally changes in wording and sentence structure along with deletions of anything I found extraneous. Source references have also been added where possible. Looking back, nine years on, although these commentaries and topics they covered were certainly worth writing, I can better appreciate their meaning and significance now as the aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis drags on, ever-widening socioeconomic inequality comes to the fore as a major issue of our time (although strictly speaking, it was always an issue—lately, the problem has become significant enough so as to warrant mainstream media and political attention), and as I work at my present day job as a member of the legal staff for an immigration law office. Most of the clients that my office takes on tend to work in the “service” industries. Furthermore, the electoral victory of Donald Trump by way of right-wing populist and neo-fascist politics provides more reasons for reflection on the still-important issues of class, culture, and power. Of course, for leftists, “left-liberals,” social democrats, and assorted “progressives,” none of this is anything new. But for the corporate “New” Democrats in the United States as well as Tony Blair’s “New” Labour in the United Kingdom, it is very new indeed. As for these commentaries, or concept pieces, I will try to build on the concepts and topics discussed in them for future writing on political, social, and economic matters. Expanded versions of these commentaries may also follow. Stephen Cheng November 5, 2017

1. 1
Sociology (SOCI) 365.01: Class, Culture, and Power
Professor William Hoynes
Six concept pieces written during the autumn 2008 term
A brief introduction
Published below are six reading commentaries that I wrote for a seminar titled “Class,
Culture, and Power,” taught by Professor William Hoynes in the Sociology Department of
Vassar College during the autumn 2008 term. This seminar met every Monday afternoon during
which time we discussed, among other related topics, the assigned readings for the week. Our
regular writing assignment for this seminar was to write commentaries on those readings.
I generally wrote my commentaries by hand on loose-leaf paper and, over the years since
then, not all of them have survived. Fortunately, over a year ago, I recovered the ones that I did
find among my assorted papers from university. Realizing that they were still readable and of at
least some merit, I retyped and edited these commentaries and repurposed them as “concept
pieces.” The changes I made are mostly “cosmetic”—generally changes in wording and sentence
structure along with deletions of anything I found extraneous. Source references have also been
added where possible.
Looking back, nine years on, although these commentaries and topics they covered were
certainly worth writing, I can better appreciate their meaning and significance now as the
aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis drags on, ever-widening socioeconomic inequality
comes to the fore as a major issue of our time (although strictly speaking, it was always an
issue—lately, the problem has become significant enough so as to warrant mainstream media and
political attention), and as I work at my present day job as a member of the legal staff for an
immigration law office. Most of the clients that my office takes on tend to work in the “service”
industries.
Furthermore, the electoral victory of Donald Trump by way of right-wing populist and
neo-fascist politics provides more reasons for reflection on the still-important issues of class,
culture, and power. Of course, for leftists, “left-liberals,” social democrats, and assorted
“progressives,” none of this is anything new. But for the corporate “New” Democrats in the
United States as well as Tony Blair’s “New” Labour in the United Kingdom, it is very new
indeed.
As for these commentaries, or concept pieces, I will try to build on the concepts and
topics discussed in them for future writing on political, social, and economic matters. Expanded
versions of these commentaries may also follow.
Stephen Cheng
November 5, 2017
First concept piece (Monday, September 15, 2008)

2. 2
When I first read the articles “Antonio Gramsci” and Stuart Hall’s “The Problem of
Ideology,” one of the thoughts that came to mind was that both Gramsci (based on the excerpts
from his Prison Notebooks) and Hall attempted to go beyond an analytical and critical
framework that has political economy as its sole focus. Gramsci, in a challenge that he posed to
his fellow “Marxists”, criticized the “vulgar materialist” and “economistic” tendencies that
treated culture as secondary in importance to political economy and, in a separate challenge to
those adhering to the “liberal idealist tradition,” criticized the assumption that culture is
something that is essentially pristine and above all everyday human concerns and activities.
Instead, Gramsci sought a linking relationship between culture and politics.
What struck me about the article on Gramsci was that he touched on the possibility of a
commonality of interests and viewpoints between “leaders” and “led” via “popular beliefs” (p.
199) through dimensions such as language, “common sense,” and folklore (p. 200). In short,
cultural ties. As for “The Problem of Ideology,” Stuart Hall brought up an interesting term: post-
Marxism. According to Hall, “post-Marxism” is a school of thought that uses “Marxist concepts
while constantly demonstrating their inadequacy” (p. 25). As concepts enter into practice, their
shortcomings come to light.
Hall goes on to discuss ideology with the dual aim of exposing the problems in “classical
Marxist formulations” on ideology and salvaging the still-useful aspects of those formulations (p.
25). Most striking to me was Hall’s discussion of the market as a surface appearance, a one-sided
explanation of capitalism, and a fetishized socioeconomic structure (p. 36-37). Based on my
reactions, I have two questions:
1) How useful is speaking of class antagonism and struggle when the opposing (or
presumably opposing) classes have similar or parallel ways of thinking about society?
2) How many criticisms of capitalism extend beyond criticism of the market?
Regarding the first question, I think one should keep in mind that socioeconomic classes
arise within a specific context and under certain conditions. Before discussing class division and
struggle, there should first be attempts to understand the social environment in which these
classes came to and continue to exist and how the perspectives of the members of those classes
reflect that environment. As for the second question, it shows that criticisms of a fetishized
socioeconomic relationship and structure such as the market can fall short if they remain
grounded in the framework of mainstream political economy (e.g., merely criticizing markets as
inefficient.).
Second concept piece (Monday, September 22, 2008)
I did not know about the gulf between political economy and cultural studies until I read
the essays by Nicholas Garnham and Lawrence Grossberg. I was only aware that within “the
left,” those concerned with political economy tend to undergo criticism for excessively, and
myopically, focusing on economic matters. I am sympathetic to Garnham’s wish for a renewed
connection between cultural studies and political economy (p. 62). Grossberg also acknowledges
the gap between the two fields (in p. 78, “Thus while I do agree...”) but is otherwise hostile to

3. 3
Garnham’s point of view throughout his reply. However, Grossberg notes that “present-day
cultural studies is touching on economic topics again in important and interesting ways” while
still insisting on a few degrees of separation, at least, between cultural studies and political
economy.
The reading on a growing and rising socioeconomic professional class was very relevant
to the assigned readings in my other courses. It was also interesting because of its discussion of
the effects of this class on a society governed by value in the forms of the commodity and
money. The process of capital, which includes the labor and valorization processes and thus the
coexistence of the spheres of production and exchange, is assumed to be divided into two
classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Concurrent with this process is a separate but related
process of social rationalization.
One effect has been the establishment of a hierarchy based on formal credentials
alongside another built on money (p. 3-4). Another effect is the insertion of a third class into a
socioeconomic system that is already assumed to have a division between two classes: working
class and capitalist class (p. 5). Furthermore, the authors write with concern about the enclosure
of the intellectual commons because of professionalization and credentialing (p. 15-18). The
underlying cause and justification for this class’s ascendancy seem to be a structure (e.g., an
educational system) and an ideology (the “just reward” for the “best and the brightest,” as
mentioned in p. 4) that many would classify as “meritocracy.” An analysis of this class would
bring together cultural studies and political economy since the former is concerned with ideology
and the forms of domination (which can include professional domination) and the latter with
socioeconomic functions. But what common framework is there that can bring together cultural
studies and political economy so as to understand this class?
To answer this question I think there is a need to look at the reasons for being for cultural
studies and political economy. Grossberg writes that cultural studies is concerned with how
people live in relation to existing power structures in order to effectively challenge such
structures (p. 75-76). Garnham observes that the early political economists emphasized the
importance of “the mode of subsistence” in the formation of a society and its collaborative social
forms (e.g., institutional forms, cultural practices), dealt with questions of fairness (“normative
question of justice”) such as the distribution of surplus product, and formulated labor theories of
value so as to explain the aforementioned distribution (p. 63-64). The convergence of both fields
may lie in the critique of political economy. Starting points can include an explanation of value
as a product of socially necessary labor time, an explanation of the value-form, and analyses of
the commodity and money as forms of value which alternate in the exchange process.
Third concept piece (Monday, September 29, 2008)
(A brief commentary on Paul Willis’s Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working
Class Jobs)
Paul Willis’s Learning to Labor reminded me of an article I found as I was completing
my final project for a sociological research methods course during the spring 2008 semester. The
authors of this article covered a similar topic by studying the students of two municipal

4. 4
vocational education programs in Canada and Germany. The article included interview excerpts
from the students and I recalled the greater emphasis they placed on manual work over mental
work. Furthermore, these students had a sense of superiority over those pursuing more academic
education. The same could be said for the students Willis write about in Birmingham, England,
except that they are not enrolled in vocational programs and thus have no formal introduction to
the world of “blue collar” work. Instead, the counter-school culture serves as an informal
introduction for these Birmingham youths. Whether through vocational programs or the counter-
school culture, there is the construction, indeed cultivation, of some kind of working class. But in
the latter case, those involved in the counter-school culture willingly cooperate with their own
eventual entry into the working class.
As the term implies, the counter-school culture is one of rebellion against school. That
the boys Paul Willis interviewed were certainly “rebels” is of no doubt, but interestingly enough
their opposition is limited only to school. Both “ear’oles” and “the lads” will enter the labor
market where they will complete the C-M-C circuit. The difference is that one group will work
in the mental sense and the other by manual means. Both of these groups are socialized to engage
in the capital-labor relationship through different channels (formal education for one, the
counter-school culture for the other) and means (mental labor vs. manual labor). Perhaps not
surprisingly, “the lads” are not openly critical of capitalism but rather accepting of it in some
ways. A few of “the lads” were in fact aware of some of the processes and relationships that exist
within capitalism. There are two examples in pages 39 and 100. On page 39, Joey, one of “the
lads,” speaks of the crucial role money has in people’s lives, saying “… money is the spice of
life, money is life. Without money, you’d fucking die.” He was speaking in the context of
purchasing groceries but the point is just as applicable to the purchase of any other commodified
necessity (or luxury). Given the likelihood of “the lads” joining the manual labor force. Joey and
his fellow “lads” may find that they must sell their labor power (thus commodifying their labor
power) in order to have the money to purchase commodities such as groceries. Similarly, on
page 100, Joey and Spike recognize that all occupations are fundamentally the same, entailing
the exercise of labor power in return for monetary compensation. After reading their
observations, I realized that they were explaining “abstract labor” in the most basic, bluntest
terms. This leads me to two questions: How useful is “class struggle” as a concept for
understanding the situation of “the lads”? How can the counter-school culture, for all its
rebelliousness, still fit within the operative framework of capitalism?
To be sure, “the lads” are needed for jobs considered “working class,” “proletarian,”
“blue collar,” and/or “manual.” However, they have no subjective anti-capitalist feelings.
Instead, their disdain is aimed at “ear’oles” who seem bound for “white collar” professions. A
couple of them, though, are aware of the centrality of money in people’s material lives and the
existence of abstract labor. I cannot help but think that there an underlying issue here: the value
form. Money is the most developed form of value and it serves as a universal equivalent for
exchange under capitalism. Without money, there is no abstract labor given that the fundamental,
qualitative similarity of these jobs is the fact that they are all salaried and/or waged. In this
respect, the economic futures of “the lads” are essentially the same as those of the “ear’oles”
headed for jobs in fields such as law, medicine, education, etc. Undoubtedly, some exceptions
exist in business but there is still the qualitative distinction of “blue collar” and “white collar”
between “the lads” and “ear’oles.”

5. 5
That distinction brings forth questions as to popular conceptions of different kinds of
work. What kinds of work are seen as “impractical”? As for those deemed “practical”? How does
this dichotomy fit with other dichotomies? Mental labor versus manual labor? White collar
versus blue collar? How do these questions relate to these “lads,” their situation, and their
assumption that academic subjects are unimportant (p. 95)?
As for the counter-school culture’s relationship with capitalism, the former is a process
for the creation of wage-labor roles for the latter. Lawrence Grossberg wrote that cultural studies
deals with the complicity and participation in power that allow power structures to operate (p.
75-76 in Colloquy). In the case of the counter-school culture, the opposition of “the lads” to
school may be a form of complicity with norms that supposedly favor manual labor over mental
labor and with a socioeconomic system’s ongoing need for manual laborers. Likewise, the
ambitions of the “ear’oles” for upward socioeconomic mobility may be in accord with that same
system’s need for professionals who can supervise its operation in return for redistributed surplus
value. An article by Martin Nicolaus titled “Proletariat and Middle Class in Marx: Hegelian
Choreography and the Capitalist Dialectic” may be of interest.
References: Nicolaus, Martin. “Proletariat and Middle Class in Marx: Hegelian Choreography
and the Capitalist Dialectic.” Studies on the Left (Vol. 7, 1967), pages 22-49.
Willis, Paul. Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1977.
Fourth concept piece (Monday, November 3, 2008)
(A brief commentary on Greta Foff Paules’s Dishing It Out: Power & Resistance among
Waitresses in a New Jersey Restaurant.)
Is there a kind of social solidarity among waitresses in the restaurant in which Greta Foff
Paules had performed fieldwork? Does “working class” apply as a descriptive category to them?
Are there public and hidden transcripts at work in the restaurant?
To answer the first question, I want to return to a past commentary on Michele Lamont’s
The Dignity of Working Men. I also wondered if Emile Durkheim’s ideas may be relevant here:
namely, mechanical and organic forms of solidarity. For Paules’s study, I think organic solidarity
is relevant given that a division of labor has developed within the restaurant and there has been
individuation as a result. From a general overview of the restaurant, an observer can see a
division of labor that includes management, dishwashing, cooking, serving, etc. As one can
guess, these tasks are broken down into even smaller divisions such as the chef versus the line
cook and the busboy versus the server. From a ground-level perspective, this same observer can
also find that waitresses do have certain levels of autonomy and agency in a workplace that has
undergone a degree of rationalization via the aforementioned division of labor and company
regulations as regards restaurant service. The autonomy and agency are expressed in the
waitresses’ quasi-entrepreneurial efforts to collect tips (which can be much greater than the total
sum of basic hourly wages for a job shift), their relative independence from and defiance of
management, and their treatment of one another’s work spaces and supplies as if they are private

6. 6
property. These examples demonstrate the individuation among the waitresses and the organic
solidarity that arises due to the division of labor. Both exist due to a universal equivalent of
exchange known as money and the enforcement of the practices of private property (which can
be seen, in turn, as a form of objectified and socially validated labor).
Although waitressing may fall into descriptive categories such as “blue collar” and
“working class,” it is worth asking if waitresses have internalized the logic of capitalism as
expressed in Karl Marx’s circuit notation: M-C-M’. In the waitresses’ case, it may look more
like C-M…M’, given that they are selling their labor power as wage laborers yet count their
income in terms of tips.
The public transcript can be found in the symbolism of service, in which the waitress
must engage in social actions (e.g., transcribing and delivering orders) so as to receive a gift in
the form of a tip as compensation. Yet a hidden transcript develops given the waitresses’ jaded
views of the public in light of dealing with ill-mannered customers. This hidden transcript
reveals itself when the public transcript breaks down because of an alteration between customer
and server.
One wonders, though, if there are similar transcripts between the waitresses and the
manager.
References: Lamont, Michele. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of
Race, Class, and Immigration. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation and Cambridge, MA &
London, England: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Paules, Greta Foff. Dishing It Out: Power & Resistance among Waitresses in a New Jersey
Restaurant. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991.
Fifth concept piece (Monday, December 1, 2008)
(A brief commentary on Jeffrey C. Goldfarb’s The Politics of Small Things.)
How do small things add up into events and developments that have massive political
and/or social impact?
A possible answer lies in the hidden transcript that James C. Scott writes about in
Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. In Scott’s volume, small
occurrences, actions, etc. among the powerless can indicate forms of coping and resistance. Such
coping and resistance occur in contexts that entail some kind of interaction among people and
can be “total” in the sense that the actions of people, even subversive actions, are still within the
bounds of the existing social system. That system, itself a social context, can still influence any
of these actions. But the existence of agency does call into question images of totalized society
and politics as static rather than having underlying dynamics. Instead of an unchanging totality
that has permanently fixed roles for its actors, there is a totality that has some fluidity which may
coexist with a level of rigidity that the state enforces. This fluidity may allow for spaces in which
small things can develop into a coherent and organized resistance. This uneasy relationship
between fluidity and rigidity may explain the events of 1968 and 1989 in the “really-existing

7. 7
socialist” states such as those of the Eastern European bloc. Despite the repression and
authoritarian governments, there were still resistance movements which developed in some
unlikely spaces (or terrain, niches, etc.). For example, the trade union Solidarity justified its
existence in terms of religion and labor organizing.
References: Goldfarb, Jeffrey C. The Politics of Small Things. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press, 2006/2007.
Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1990.
Sixth concept piece (Monday, December 8, 2008)
What does “Marxism” mean?
That’s the question I have after having read Douglas Kellner’s “The End of Orthodox
Marxism.” Before reading this essay, I’ve thought about the usefulness of treating class as a
discrete social and economic group that can, or certainly, have revolutionary, anti-capitalist
tendencies. I’ve also wondered about the usefulness of “class struggle” as a concept in social
science and politics. Kellner writes about this topic in p. 37: “Thus, a form of Marxism seems to
have come to an end: the Marxism of the industrial working class, of proletarian revolution… As
new technologies expand and the industrial proletariat shrinks, new agents of social change must
be sought.” This paragraph is very relevant in light of the present (and soon to be ending?) era of
neoliberalism and the New Economy. Also worth contemplating is Kellner’s sentence in a
previous page (p. 35): “For Marxian theory is at bottom a theory of capitalism, rooted in the
political economy of the existing social system.” Here, the Grundrisse, the three volumes of
Capital, and the Theories of Surplus Value are relevant since they contain a critique of political
economy.
Another interesting topic which Kellner brings up is the series of intellectual crises and
the resulting reincarnations of “Marxism” (p. 34), as if ideas generally associated with Marx are
subject to tests via time that is perpetually moving and passing into history--a long-term, wide-
ranging scientific method that is in constant application. I’m reminded of Stuart Hall’s mention
of “post-Marxism” in an earlier seminar reading in which “post-Marxists” expose the
shortcomings and flaws of “Marxist” thinking through analytical usage.
Regarding Janet Zandy’s introduction, it again underscores the fact that a social and
economic class is anything but static and unchanging. It is not merely “social” and “economic,”
although these adjectives commonly signify the meaning of class for social scientists,
policymakers, and politicians. Experiences, language and memory count as well. I found the
citation of Raymond Williams’s Border Country to be important as well. How does
socioeconomic mobility lead to changes in identity and interpersonal relationships? Williams, an
early scholar in cultural studies, may have pondered this question as well.

8. 8