What Is Class Really About?

I studied the pivotal article for this week’s readings, “The Professional Managerial Class” by Barbara and John Ehrenreich for Jeff William’s course on professionalization last semester. We obviously studied this article from the aspect of does this new professional managerial class really represent a group of professionals, but I think that question goes hand in hand with the question or questions of class. I do not think we can study this article or the accompanying responses to this article without studying both the professionalization and the class involved. The Ehrenreich’s define class in two parts in their article, and this definition to me is the key point of their article. The first is “at all times in its historical development, a class is characterized by a common relation to the economic foundation of society-the means of production and the socially organized patters of distribution and consumption.” They go on to state that “a class is characterized by a coherent social and cultural existence; members of a class share a common life, educational background, kinship networks, consumption patterns, work habits, beliefs” (11). These words-common, coherent, they show us that although the Ehrenreich’s are ultimately talking about what they believe is a new class, and one they fully discuss and analyze as the professional managerial class, they are first and foremost showing us what makes any class.

I found that the responses whether good or bad to the Ehrenreich’s article centers on their professional managerial class for the most part and whether or not they are right in their assumptions and establishment of a such a class, but these critiques do not always come back to what is a class. I do think the best example of this is Sandy Carter’s response “Class Conflict: The Human Dimension” because Carter does ultimately give class a human aspect. Carter gives us a personal look into the division between the working class and the professional managerial class which is what I find lacking in many of the other response articles. To me this class on class we are taking should not only show an overall view of classes, but should show the personal side as well. To me it is not enough to just say what a class is or critique the lack or too much attention of Marxism or Leninism to what the Ehrenreich’s are saying. What needs to be said is what Carter says with personal examples and testimonials. To me class is very much linked with history, which is what I think they Ehrenreich’s are saying with their definition of class, and I do not believe we can study history with facts and figure. I believe we need to study history with personal accounts that coincide with such facts and figures and I believe with class being so much caught up in history that it needs to be studied in much the same way.