IMMANENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING: A CRITICAL COMMENT ON THE LABOUR PROCESS AND

CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS
Author(s): Julian Tanner, Scott Davies and Bill O'grady
Source: Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 3 (August 1992), pp. 439-453
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42855069 .
Accessed: 02/11/2014 09:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIOLOGY
439-453

IMMANENCE
COMMENT

Vol. 26

No. 3

CHANGES
EVERYTHING:
ON THE LABOUR
PROCESS
CONSCIOUSNESS

August 1992

A CRITICAL
AND CLASS

Julian Tanner, Scott Davies and Bill O'Grady

AbstractThis paperdiscussesa numberofproblems
withlabourprocessaccounts
of workersubjectivity.
as ambiguities
aboutthemeaningof
They are manifested
workerbehaviour,
and havetheiroriginsin conflicting
of
ideologicalrequirements
Marxismand assumptions
of immanence.
We arguethatit is thesetheoretical
rather
thancumulating
whichhavedrivendebateson
precepts,
empirical
knowledge,
thelabourprocessand interpretations
ofbehaviour
in theworkplace.
We showhow
similaractivities
areconstrued
as eitherreproducing
relations
or
essentially
capitalist
needsof thelabourprocesspardigm.
them,accordingto thetheoretical
resisting
thisinterpretive
oflabourprocesstheorists
Compounding
problemis theinsistence
thatthepointof production
is thekeysourceofworker
in capitalist
consciousness
Weconcludethatlabourprocessis incapableoftheoretical
becauseof
society.
growth
itsnon-cumulative
circulation
ofexplanations
and fixation
on theworkplace.
In its
tothestudyofconsciousness.
placeweadvocatemoreinductive
empirical
approaches
: labour process,immanence,
consciousness,
Keywords
workplace,reproduction,
resistance.
Introduction:
Post-Braverman
LabourProcessTheoryand Subjectivity
Since Braverman'streatiseon the topic in 1974, labour process theoryhas
exerteda huge influenceon the sociologyof work.It has generatednumerous
researchprojects,books and conferences(for instance,the annual UMISTAston labourprocessconferencein theUnited Kingdom). More substantively,
it has become the main Marxistcontributionto the studyof workin capitalist
society. As such, it emphasizes the exploitativenature of the employment
relationshipin an economic systempredicated on the need to accumulate
capital. In Braverman'sformulationthis is accomplishedprimarilythrough
directcontroland de-skilling.
All this is well known, as is the recognitionthat it is at this point that
argumentsabout the labour process reallybegin. We do not intendto rehash
this debate, otherthan to note thatthe subsequent criticismdirectedagainst
Bravermantends to be of two main sorts.Firstly,criticalquestionshave been
raisedabout definitions
of skill,the scope and meaningof de-skillingand have
generallybeen made by 'mainstream'industrialsociologists(e.g. Form 1987,
Myles 1988,Penn 1990).
A second setof criticismshas emanatedfromresearchersmoreunequivocally

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

440

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

supportiveof Braverman'soverall project. They argue that gender has been

neglected(an issue reviewedin Davies 1990), thatBravermanover-simplified
the problemof controlin the workplace(Littlerand Salaman 1982), and that
re-insertingsubjectivityis the 'greatesttask facing labour process theory'
(Thompson 1990: 114).
It is thissecondgroup- thewithin-paradigm
critics- who have largelybeen
responsibleforand directedthe debate on the labour process (e.g. Thompson
1983). Our contentionis thattheboundariesof thisdebate have been fashioned
by assumptionsof Marxismwhichhave consequences forhow labour process
writersconceptualisethe linkage between work and consciousness. We are
criticalof boththeassumptionsand theireffects.
Our startingpoint is Braverman'streatment- or, more accurately,non- of resistancein the workplace.This is usuallytreatedas strictlyan
treatment
empiricalproblem.His preoccupationwithde-skillingand refusalto deal with
the subjectiveaspectsof class relationships(Braverman1974:20) causes him to
ignorethevitalrole of workerresistanceto the capitalistlabour process.
However,we believe thatthese empiricalobservationsare also informedby
ideologicalconsiderations.Braverman'sdisregardof resistanceresults,forhis
supporters,in an unpalatableviewoftheworkingclass as passiveand powerless
to contestthe prerogativesof capitalism.It is our contentionthatmuch of the
post-Braverman
analysisof thelabourprocessstandsas a correctiveto not only
the empiricalaccuracyof Braverman'sdepictionof the contemporary
working
class, but also thegloomypoliticalprognosisthatit givesrise to.
The Conflicting
TheoreticalRequirements
ofLabourProcessTheory
Marxism is, among otherthings,a clarioncall to a revolutionthat requires
the active participationof a politicisedworkingclass. Braverman'ssuccess at
depictinga progressivelyde-skilledand decidedlynon-revolutionary
working
class has posed ideological problems for those workingwithin the Marxist
paradigm.The nature of this dilemma has been well expressed by Michael
Apple writingabout the labourprocessand the educationalsystem:
A visionofthesuccessful
ofworkunwittingly
degradation
accepts,on a conceptual
onewhich,
ona political
and
level,a management
level,canleadtocynicism
ideology,
aboutthepossibilities
ofanysuccessful
actioninboththesocial-economic
pessimism
arenaandtheschool.Or itcancauseus towantforsomecataclysmic
eventthatwill
altereverything.
Eitheronecanleadto inactivity
suddenly
(Apple1982:16).
How does one simultaneously
demonstratethatthe imperativesof capitalism
forthe designof workand at the
requiremanagementto assume responsibility
same timeshowthat,againstall odds, theworkingclass has not lost itsappetite
for combatingthese measures?Answeringthis question has become a key
challengefacinglabourprocesswriters.In a veryfundamentalsense,thecourse

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

441

thatthe labourprocessdebate has takenreflectsthefactthatMarxismhas twin

objectivesthatare not easilyreconciled:on the one hand, the need to critique
capitalism, and on the other, to remain optimistic about its eventual
transformation.
have disturbedwhatis by necessitya
Indeed, Braverman'saccomplishments
delicatebalance. In the course of invertingthe post industrialist'sclaimsof an
increasinglyskilledlabourforce,Bravermanneglectedthatpartof theequation
thatemphasisesthe conflictualcharacterof the capitalist-worker
relationship.
To restorethe equilibrium,increasinglysophisticatedanalysis of the labour
processhas developedwithworkersubjectivityat the forefront.
The emphasis upon resistanceand the concern to distinguishpotential
consciousness from actual consciousness has the effectof moderatingthe
- whichby positingan
politicalpessimismof Braverman'soriginalformulation
uncontestedprocessof de-skillingand degradation,offersno clue as to how the
littlepromisethatit could be
capitalistordermightbe overcome,and therefore
and
its potentialare therefore
Theories
of
resistance
(Hargreaves 1981:109).
do
show
how
the
because
capitalistworkenterprise
they
ideologicallyimportant
element
ofhopefulnessto the
the
vital
and
hence
restores
be
transformed
might
Marxistanalysis.

Core
The Immanentist
Reactingagainstthe bleaknessof the politicalvision read into Braverman's
studentsof the labour process couch the issue of worker
originalformulation,
in
terms
of what has been coined as assumptionsof 'immanence'
subjectivity
Van
den Berg 1988). Immanence refersto a teleological
(Antonio 1981,
that is common to various strandsof Marxism.
of
consciousness
conception
as
is
Capitalism portrayed inherentlyfragileand fraughtwith contradictions
that will eventuallynecessitatesocial change. In terms of the directionof
change,workersare assumedto be inimicallyopposed to capitalismand drawn
towardssocialism in the course of class struggle.This is not to suggestthat
socialismis inevitableor 'just around the corner'.Quite the contrary,in fact,
since much marxisttheoryis directedtowardsaccountingforwhy revolution
has not occurred.
In thisregard,immanentismentailsnot the rejectionof the originalassumption of a revolutionaryworkingclass, but the search for factorsthat have
retardedits development.For instance,the growingpopularityof Gramsci's
concept of hegemonyamong western Marxists has meant that ideological
mechanismshave been increasinglyassigned this suppressorrole. Still more
recently,hegemonytheoryhas become 'industrialised'(Vallas 1991); and, in the
hands of labour process marxists,the key to understandingcompliance and
consentin the workplace.

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

442

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

Our argumentis thatthe labour processwritersembraceimmanentism,

and
followthe preceptthatgiventhe absence of variousbarriersto consciousness,
workerswould never rationallyaccept capitalism,nor abandon the socialist
cause. And as we demonstratebelow, these immanentassumptionsthatguide
much of the post-Bravermanliteraturenecessarilycreate strikinginconsistenciesin the interpretation
of workerbehaviour.

The Trajectory
: The Dynamicsand Inconsistancies
ofLabourProcessTheory
of
Immanentism
These preceptsclearlyinformthelabourmarket'segmentationists'
(Edwards
1979,Gordonetal 1982) who analyzeworkersin lightof expectationsthatthey
shouldrespondoppositionallyto capitalismand spontaneouslydevelop notions
of socialist alternatives.Hence, their theoriesare directed by the analytical
strategyof searchingforthe 'blocks' or impedimentsto the radical consciousness that withoutthem would surelydevelop fromexperienceof the labour
process.In contrastto Braverman,thesegmentationists
arguethatthedevelopmentof capitalismentailednot thehomogenisationof theworkingclass, but its
internaldivision. They then unequivocallystate that this segmentationhas
constituteda barrierto a unifiedanti-capitalistmovementby dividing the
working class into fractionswith distinct interestsand political pursuits
(Edwards 1979:203, Gordon et al. 1982:8). The segmentationiststhus implicitlyassume that by dividingthe workingclass with dual economies and
segmentedlabourmarkets,capitalistsdefusea class-widesolidaritythatwould
otherwiseemerge,and thatthisdefusingprocesstherefore
constitutesthemain
historicaldynamicof thecapitalistlabourprocess.1
Burawoysimilarlyseeks to explain whyworkersdo not act accordingto an
and identifies
imputedsetofinterests,
aspectsofthelabourprocessthatimpede
radicaloppositionand spontaneousconceptionsof socialistalternatives(1979:
30). These 'blocking' mechanismsconstitutefor him the 'essence' of the
capitalistlabourprocess- the 'obscuringand securingof surplusvalue' (1979:
he identifiesfactorssuch as
30). Incorporatingideas fromthe segmentationists,
the 'industrialwelfarestate',and internallabourmarketsthatserveto fragment
and individuate workers. However, in addition, he asserts that workers'
subjectivityhas itselfbecome a necessaryideological mechanismof capitalist
control (1979:7). Shop-floorbehaviours such as game-playingthat relieve
boredom and tension are perceived to 'suck' workersinto accepting their
presentworkconditionsas naturaland inevitable,blockingthe developmentof
and defusingopposition(1985:76). Together,these
perceptionsof alternatives,
factorsare claimed to have inhibitedthe collectiveconsciousnessthat would
emergewiththe interdependenceand homogenisationof labour (1985:33). By
assertingthatpartof the essence of the labour processis its abilityto 'obscure

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

443

surplusvalue', Burawoytacitlyassumes thatthe naked appearance of surplus

value in the eyes of workerswould surelycreateradicalconflict(see 1985:71).
Yet, this generalshifttowardsimmanentconceptionsof workersubjectivity
has not initiallyensuredan optimisticprognosisof burgeoningclass conflict.
While the incorporationof workersubjectivityinto labour process analysis
reflectsan increasinglyoptimisticapproachin a verygeneralsense - by partly
alteringthe depiction of omnipotentmanagersand untrammelledcapitalist
power - there are no guaranteesthat re-introducingsubjectivitywill substantivelycreate a hopeful picture. Indeed, the ironic upshot of Burawoy's
and the segmentationists'revisionsof labour process theoryis that workers
are portrayedas increasingly
incorporatedthroughoutthe twentiethcentury.
Changes in the labour process over this period are interpretedin termsof
successivephases of expandingcapitalistcontroland deliberateimpedimentsto
workingclass radicalism.For Burawoy,the move to the 'hegemonicfactory
regimes'of monopolycapitalism,and forEdwards, the transitionfromsimple
to technical to bureaucraticcontrol,betokens dimishing proletarianbelligerence; and similarly,the displacementof 'fundamental'conflictby more
peripheralissues stabilises class relationshipsin capitalistsociety (Edwards
1979:48, Thompson 1983:164, Burawoy 1979:196-202). Thus the immediate
post-Bravermanattemptsto infusesubjectivityinto the analysisof the labour
of
processhave resultedin accountswhichemphasiseitsrolein thereproduction
relations.
capitalist
have metmuch of the same
Not surprisingly,
Burawoyand segmentationists
kindof criticismthatBravermanoriginallyencountered.Their line of analysis
has been identifiedas havingthefundamental'problem'of depictinga long run
trendtowardsdeepeningmanagerialcontrol,over-emphasisingincorporation,
underplayingworkerrevolutionarypotential,and thus tacitlyleading to the
assumptionthatthe futurewill bringno change (Peck 1982, Friedman 1987:
289-290, Thompson 1990:116,Gartman1986).
More substantively, John Storey (1985:194) has argued that such
deterministicand are guided by
approaches are too structurally
reproduction
functionalist
premiseofthe
assumptions.Accordingto Storey,thefunctionalist
coherent
systemsof controlto
reproductionapproach thatcapitalmustdevise
- leads to the
value
ensure the structurallynecessaryextractionof surplus
where
and
Salaman
1982),
capital's requirementsare
'panacea fallacy'(Littler
workers'
own strugglesare seen as
that
even
such
depictedas alwaysbeingmet,
functionalto the interestsof capital. Storeythen argued fora revisedlabour
contingentand
process theorythatdepicts controlas 'more interdeterminate,
unstable'(Storey 1985:207).
It need hardly be stated that such instabilityis theoreticallygiven by
assumptionsof immanence.Accordingly,this reactionagainst the 'leftfunctionalist'leaningsof the initialrevisionshas found a resolutionin a renewed
emphasison 'resistance'.This movemententailsa more optimisticaccountof
to workers'actions
ofradicalsignificance
thelabourprocessvia a re-attachment

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

444

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

at the point of production (e.g. Thompson 1983:237). Indeed, from this

perspective,Burawoy'suse ofa 'reproductivelogic' and functionalist
reasoning
has been criticisedforignoringworkers'
discontent
thatfuelsinchoateradicaldesiresforequality,community
and
seething
notclearlyarticulated,
and deflected
latent,
participatory
democracy.
Ordinarily
by
therulingclass,thisradicalism
of
nevertheless
carriesa rudimentary
socialistcritique
theAmerican
(Peck1982:86).
politicaleconomy
Consequently,the depiction of class relationschanges drasticallyfroma
portraitof deepening working class incorporationto a perceived growing
potentialfor radicalism(Friedman, in Thompson 1983:59). Indeed, workers
are described not as passive but as 'resistant','angry and resentful',and
an 'intoleranceforcapitalism',yielding'reluctantcom'combative';reflecting
pliance' tingedwith'bitternessand irony'.The pointof productionis seen less
as a site of all-envelopinghegemony,but as a 'frontierof control','industrial
battlezone', 'incessantbattleground',characterizedby 'explosionsof industrial
conflict'(all takenfromHeron and Storey1986).
These depictionsentaila vastlydifferent
analysis.Workers'behavioursuch
as game playing,break-taking,
and even quittingare now seen as indicating
'resistance' (Wells 1986:334-5, Heron and Storey 1986:18). Thus, modern
industrialrelations are regarded not as functional,but always potentially
to capital.
threatening
The overalltrajectoryof the labour process debate fromBravermanto left
fixnctionalism
to resistancepresentsa trendtowardsincreasingoptimism.2This
is theresultofthere-instatement
ofsubjectivity.
Nevertheless,thesetheoretical
turnaboutshave createdsharp inconsistenciesin accounts of workersubjectivity.Though it is consensualamong Edwards, Gordon, Burawoy,Friedman,
Storey,Thompson, and Heron and Storeythatworker'ssubjectivityhas been
crucial in the evolutionof the labour process, and though both 'left functionalist'and 'resistance'versionshave promotedseeminglymundaneshopfloor
behaviours such as game-playingto great theoreticalimportance,they are
thesebehavioursin termsoftheirrelation
sharplydividedoverhow to interpret
to capital.The ironicimplicationof immanentconceptionsof consciousnessis
thatby normatively
assertingthatworkersshouldbe radical,two veryopposite
analysescan proceedeither:(a) thatworkeractioncan be consideredfunctional
to capitalunlessit leads to revolution;actionis therefore
analysedin termsof its
in comparisonto an idealizedrevolutionary
consciousness;or (b)
shortcomings
almostany workeraction can be considered'resistance',and thus represents
nascentradicalism.
This paradoxmanifestsitselfas a conflicting
set of dichotomousconceptions
of consciousness.On the one hand the left functionalistview dichotomises
'hegemony'withan unrealised'radical consciousness'.For example,Burawoy
argues that behaviour be labelled 'adaptation' and not 'resistance' unless it
directlychallengescapitalistrelationsof productionand the appropriationof

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

445

and as
surplus- anythingless is not directedtowards'true transformation',
such is in collusion with capital (1985:76). On the other hand, resistance
theoristsinterpretmost worker behaviour in those terms, explaining the
residual non-radicalismas a consequence of economic and political coercion
(Heron and Storey1986:18) Assumptionof immanencethus can lead to either
of workers'behaviourto capitalism,or
exaggeratedclaims of the functionality
and threat
to exaggerateddeclarationswithrespectto theirpoliticalsignificance
to capitalism.
This inconsistencywithin labour process theoryhas roots in competing
change. The
conceptionsindigenousto Marxismof what constitutesimmanent
left functionalistdepiction of an increasinglyincorporatedworkingclass is
predicatedon a view thatthe rise of internallabour markets,institutionalised
bargaining,and industrialwelfarestate do not constitute'real change', but
rathersuccessive capitalistadaptationsthat consolidatecontrol,and as such
serveto fetterproletarianconsciousness(Burawoy 1985:28). Accordingto Van
den Berg (1988:478), such a left functionalistview is based on an implicit
presuppositionthat anythingshortof the completedestructionof capitalism
and its replacementwith socialism is tantamountto the maintenanceof the
capitalist system,and hence solely in the long run interestsof capitalists.
Anythingshortof total revolutioncounts only as re-formedand re-ordered
capitalistcontrol.Thus forBurawoy,claimingto examinethe labour process
fromthe 'viewpointof transformation'
(1985:76) and posing the question of
lies
the
true
onlywitha far-projectedcrisisthat
(1979:7),
change
reproduction
of
an
consciousness',
revealingto workerstheirtrue
'explosion
may produce
interests,and causing capitalist relations to appear not so inevitable and
unchangeable(Burawoy 1979:157).
However, this logic of reproductionhas since been eschewed by marxist
resistancetheorists(in studiesofthestateand educationalsystemas well) forits
and has been replacedwiththe more dynamicand pluralstaticdeterminism,
istic approach (Van den Berg 1988:483, Hargreaves 1983). For example,
discussinghis endorsementof resistanceapproachesover the leftfunctionalist
tendenciesof Burawoy,Thompson states:
resultsin objectionfroma Left essentialist
thisdirectionfrequently
Advocating
reforms
within
of progressive
or possibility
positionwhichdeniesthedesirability
and 'islandsin a
. . . problemssuchas co-optionof struggle,
production
capitalist
makes
reforms
totransformational
sea*areofcourseveryreal,buta hostility
capitalist
senseonlyifrevolutionary
changeis aroundthecorner.As thisis farfromthecase,
the effectcan only be a politicsof abstentionfromglobal issues (Thompson
1990:120).
This representsan implicitmodel of change that replaces the left functionalist'all or nothing'perspectivewitha view of piecemeal change through
cumulativeworkingclass victories(thatcan perhapsbuild up to a revolutionary
climax).Hence, in the resistanceapproach,workerscan be judged to be defiant

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

446

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

and at least partiallyfreeof capitalisthegemonywithoutnecessarilyovertly

challengingcapitalistrelationsof production.Thus, the same historicalevents
in thehandsof theresistancetheoristsare seen as truevictoriesfortheworking
class,concessionsmade by capitaliststo theadvantageofworkers.As such,they
constitutereal changein capitalism,and thusare not seen as fettering
potential
consciousness, but, if anything,strengtheningit (e.g. Heron and Storey
1986:22,32).
So, althoughthe assumptionof immanenceis commonto all labour process
accountsof consciousness,it takes opposing formsdependingon which conception of immanent change is used. This flexible response means that
in radicallydifferent
essentiallysimilarbehaviourcan be interpreted
ways.The
ability to do this is construed to be dialecticalthinking,a quality which,
accordingto two of his critics,is conspicuous by its absence in Burawoy's
analysis:
[Overand overagain,Burawoytakessome featureof the workplacewhichhas
beenidentified
as evidence
ofworker's
andarguesthat
generally
progressive
potential
it actuallyservesto reproduce
thesystem.
He does notseemto understand
thata
cando boththingsat thesametime,thatsomething
can be itselfandits
phenomena
opposite(ClawsonandFantasia1983:676).
On the other hand, it can be equally well be argued that it is this same
dialectical thinkingthat is responsible for contradictoryaccounts of the
meaningand significanceof conflictin the workplacefoundin labour process
theory.

The PointofProductionand theReproduction

of Orthodoxy
Furtherproblemswithlabourprocessaccountsof workersubjectivityderive
froman over-relianceupon the pointof productionas an explanatoryvariable.
The paradigm'srootsin Volume 1 of Capital ensuresthe productionsystema
crucialroleas a determinant
of consciousnesswhich,followingMarx, is seen as
emergingspontaneouslyout of collective strugglein the workplace. This
formulation,
however,createsan old and familarproblem:how does shopfloor
class consciousness?Labour process
struggleget convertedinto revolutionary
theoristsprovide few answersto this question. For instance,we are told by
Sheila Cohen (1987) thatstrugglesoverwages draw attentionto the extraction
of surplusvalue and are therefore
ofpotentialrevolutionary
but no
significance,
indicationis givenas to how thistransformation
is to occur.
Lenin's solution- the vanguardparty- is not invoked,probablybecause its
elitismand authoritarianism
makesit no longeracceptable. Certainly,concentratingupon resistanceand struggleon the shopfloorrestoresa more vital
and spontaneous role to the workingclass in an opposition to capitalism

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

447

and rekindleshopes for a socialist alternativethat originateswith workers

themselves.
Lenin, of course, is not the only theoristaware of the limitationsof
workplaceapproachesto consciousness:pre-labourprocessindustrialsociology
had reacheda similarconclusion.The responsesof workers- principallymale
manual workers- to industrialcapitalismhas been an enduring theme of
Anglo-Americanindustrialsociology. In the two decades prior to the emergence of labour processtheory,a largenumberof researchersinvestigatedthe
propositionthatexperiencesat workand in the local communityprovidedthe
raw materialsout of which broader understandingsof class-based inequality
would develop (Bott 1957, Caplow 1964,Murphyand Morris 1961).
However, numerouscase studies, particularlyin the Britishcontext,have
consistentlyfailed to documenta strongconnectionbetween objective work
experiences and working-classsocial imagery (Bulmer 1975). Little has
changedsince then,formorerecent(non-British)researchtellsmuch the same
story.For example,in his studyof Americanmanual workers,Hallee (1988:4)
found evidence of 'multipleidentityholding'. While work did provide them
witha 'workingman' identity(whichgovernedtheirindustrialbehaviour),this
co-existed with a non-workidentity,based on life-stylesand consumptive
patterns(whichinfluencedtheirviewson domesticpoliticalmatters),as well as
a broader identityas an 'American' (which shaped their views on foreign
affairs).
As described by Hallee, multiple identityholding results in a complex
patternof work,class and politicalperceptions,and helps explain why skilled
workersin particularare able to see themselvesas botha workerand a member
of the middle class (on this issue, also see Penn 1990 and Tanner 1987). The
relativeindependenceof each of theseidentitiesalso meansthatexperienceson
the job do not have the generalisingeffectthat is oftenattributedto them,a
pointwhichalso emergesfromotherrecentAmericanand Canadian research.
Both Eicher (1989) and Langford (1990) found that while job and labour
processvariablesdo influenceotherwork-placespecificbeliefs,theyonlyhave
a slightimpactupon workers'broadereconomicideologies.More importantly,
Langford's Canadian data suggeststhat labour process variables rank below
othersocial experiencesas determinants
of workingclass beliefs.
Most researchindicatesthatwork-centred
factorsexertless influenceupon
workerconsciousnessand action than othersocial experiences.These include
social origins, prior contact with socialist values, and exposure to radical
meaning systems via trade unions and political parties (Hamilton 1967,
Kimeldorf1985, Low-Beer 1978, Scase 1977, Lash 1984, Gallie 1978, 1983).
These findingschallengethe convictionof labour process writersthat if and
when it emerges (or 'explodes') radical consciousness will be borne out of
experiencesin the workplace.This is a postulatethatcan onlybe sustainedby
ignoringa large body of researchof which the studies of Hallee, Eicher and
Langfordare onlythe mostrecentexamples.

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

448

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

As with other 'new directions'in sociology (deviance and education, for

example),advocatesof labour processtheoryhave been keen to emphasisethe
distinctivenessof theirparadigm.However, despite their effortsto distance
themselvesfrommainstreamindustrialsociologyand its concerns,theyhave,
ironically,done much to re-introducethe focus of one of its oldest traditions,
plantsociology,intothe studyof work.
Common groundis sharedinsofaras both the old ('plant sociology')and the
new (labour process theory)seek explanationsof industrialbehaviourwithin
the confinesof the workplace,and accordingly,emphasise the importanceof
such factorsas informalworkgroups,effortbargaining,and internallabour
markets.Conversely,neitherapproach pays verymuch attentionto external
influencesof workplacebehaviour.
withthe historyof industrialsociologywill be
Nobody withany familiarity
with
the
thrust
of
this
surprised
argument.The failingsof plant sociologyand
relatedattemptsto explain workerconsciousnessin termsof local work and
communityfactorsare well known and paved the way for researchthat,by
focusingupon broaderculturaland historicalinfluences,did advance the study
of class consciousness.
Labour process theory,by contrast,remains stalled in the startingblock
because of its fixationwith the 'point of production'.Nonetheless,thereare
signsthatat least some labourprocesstheoristshave begun to realisethatthey
are asking more of the workplaceand the experiencesit produces than it is
able to deliver. Paul Thompson, for one, appears to be losing faithin the
emancipatory
capacityof immediateshopfloorrelationships.In movingto what
he now regardsas the 'core theory'of the labour process,he claims 'thatthere
is no necessarytheoreticalor empiricallinksbetweenconflictand exploitation
at workand thosewidersocial transformations'
(1990:241).
By dimishingthe explanatoryscope of the 'point of production',Thompson
is fundamentally
revisinglabourprocesstheory'scoreaxiomabout itscentrality
forthe studyof work.But this caveat comes witha cost: its effectis to render
the (shifting)paradigm virtuallyindistinguishablefrom more mainstream
formulationsof the problematicrelationshipbetweenworkers,jobs and conof thelabour
sciousness;whichbringsus back to theissue of thedistinctiveness
processparadigm.
Our argumentis thatthe real noveltyof labour process theorylies less with
its substantiveconcernsthanwiththe politicalinterpretations
thatit makes of
them. Labour process theoryoperates with normativeassumptions about
industrialbehaviour,the most importantof which is that, in Goldthorpe's
telling phrase, there is a 'natural affinity'between the working class and
revolutionarysocialism (Goldthorpe 1988). It is this axiom which sets in
motion the recurringcycle of theorieswhich purport to account for how
incipientradicalismis eithersuppressed(reproduction)or re-discovered(resistance) and which problematisesworkerconsciousnessand action that is not
directedtowardsrevolutionary
goals.

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

449

The Immanentist
Core: Theoreticalor Empirical?
Some labour process authors are indeed aware of charges that they use
theoreticalassumptionsto impute the attractionof workersto socialism. Yet
theyclaimthattherelationshipis an empiricalone justifiedwithinthehistoryof
the capitalistlabour process itself.As Sheila Cohen (1987:47) puts it, worker
resistance at the point of production is crucial 'not for some abstractly
theoretical"essentialist" reason but because it accounts for real existing
workers'struggles'.Her assessmentis based on case studymaterial.
Michael Burawoy draws the same conclusion fromhistorical-comparative
methods.He adoptstheorthodoxmarxistpositionthattheextractionofsurplus
value is the basis of the labour process,and is responsibleforthe conflictual
relationshipbetween capital and labour. Collective control by workers is
the immanent, albeit elusive, threat to capitalist appropriation: '[t]he
standpointof the directproducerembodies an alternativeto expropriationof
one class by another- namely,the principleaccordingto whichthe producers
(consideredsingularlyor collectively)controltheirproduct'(Burawoy 1985:9).
The incipientalternativeto capitalismis, therefore,
workerself-management,
any obstacles to which, by definition,representthe containmentof class
struggle.
Where and when have workersmet this standardin the past? Supplyingan
answerto thisquestioninvolvesan historicalsearchforexamplesof strugglefor
workerself-management,
a standardwhich Burawoy admits has 'only been
realised for fleetingmomentsunder veryunusual circumstances'(p. 18-19).
The most recent of these, as cited by Burawoy, occurred in 1917 when
some Russian workersdemanded and attained self-managementbefore the
Bolsheviksconcentratedpowerin theirown hands.
Nonetheless,these 'fleetingmoments'and 'unusual circumstances'become
the historicalcomparisonand the empiricalreferencepoint which supposedly
demonstratethe potentialthatexistswithinthe workingclass forrevolutionary
change. Ratherthan choosingmorebasic and widespreadincrementalreforms
thathave characterisedworkingclass struggleover the past 150 years,atypical
eventsand circumstancesbecome theempiricalyardstickby whichpresentand
futureworkingclass action is to be judged. The proposal that revolutionary
consciousnessmay emergein the futurebecause it has been documentedin the
past is thereforegiven empirical verification.Furthermore,the ability to
reconstruct
a radicalpast whichis projectedintothefuturebecomes a sourceof
optimism drawing directlyfrom the emancipatoryrole of the immanence
of a radicalpast validatesthe
critique(Antonio1981). Finally,theidentification
concernwithexplanationsforwhyputativeradicalismwithinthe workingclass
has been successfullycontained(but not completelysuppressed)over the past
150 or so years.
We are not convincedby thisuse ofevidence,whichshould be recognisedfor
whatit is: a set oftheoreticalpresuppositionsdressedas an empiricalargument.

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

450

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

Conclusions
The cycle of reproductionand resistancetheoriesproduced by the labour
process paradigm have failed to advance the study of class consciousness
because of a prioriassumptionsthatshape the questionsasked and theanswers
in regardto cumulativetheorybuilding,this
sought.Althoughnon-progressive
cycledoes permitthe retentionof optimisticbeliefsabout emancipatorysocial
change because challengesto paradigmaticassumptionsare avoided. But by
privilegingthe point of productionas the catalystof consciousness labour
plantsociologyin moreradicallanguage
processwritershave largelyre-written
of immanence,and have reliedexclusivelyon immanentismto bridgethe gap
betweeneventson the shopfloorand the projectedtransformation
of society
fromcapitalismto socialism.
If labourprocesstheoryhas runaground,thenwhatotherapproachesto the
studyof workand consciousnessare available? Inquiries which do not probconsciousnessamong workersor
lematisethe non-emergenceof revolutionary
concentratetheirexplanationsforthisupon whathappens,or does not happen,
at work,standa considerablybetterchanceof expandingour knowledgeabout
working-classresponses to capitalism. We prescribe the well known conceptualisationsof workerconsciousnessdiscussed by Mann and Parkin.Both
writersdecline to view workers'industrialbehaviourand politicalbeliefsas a
class consciousseriesof weigh stationsen routeto a full-blownrevolutionary
ness, or as a one-dimensionalcontinuumbetween factoryconsciousnessand
class consciousness.
Theoretical growthis made possible when conflictat work becomes more
readilyunderstandableas theoutcomeofrationalattemptsby workersto secure
for themselvesthe best deal under capitalism (Crouch 1982). Rather than
harbingersof some undeveloped higherpotentialthat is part of a grander
schemeof contradictionin capitalistsociety,strugglesforincreasedwages and
greaterjob control are importantin their own right. Viewing workersas
rationalactorsalso resolvesthe enigmaof a workingclass thatconstantlybalks
at revolution.Theories of containmentand hegemonyare declared redundant
since thereis no paradox in need of resolution.
Perhaps the best recentadvice offeredfor re-orderingthe researchagenda
on class consciousness has been supplied by Marshall (1983). He points
out that insufficient
attentionhas been given to contextualisingclass consciousness in termsof individualbiography,historicalcontextand dynamic
interplaybetweenstructure,action and consciousness.While we findlittleto
disagree with in these recommendations,they do assume that the study of
workers'consciousnesshas reached a dead-end foressentiallymethodological
reasons.
We disagree.If progressin the studyofworkers'subjectivityhas been stalled
it is not because of an unawarenessof these practicalissues on the part of
researchersbut fromthe constraintsimposed by a prioriassumptions.The

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

45 1

advice offeredby Marshall for breakingout of this impasse is likelyto be

ignoredso long as ideologicalpresuppositionscontinueto prevail.
For the future,we propose a more equitable balance between theoryand
to thenatureand scope of conflictin industry
research,and a greatersensitivity
and its bearing upon the broader social order. Thus, we advocate a more
inductive method to the study of workersand their consciousness than is
evidentin the labour process debate. As this is an approachthatalreadyfinds
expressionin sociology(in Gallie's research,forexample) and labour history
(Katznelson 1986), it mightserve to unite ratherthan divide scholarswith a
commoninterestin the studyof work.

Acknowledgements
The authorswouldliketo thankLornaMarsden,AxelvandenBergandtheeditorfor
comments
on previousdrafts
ofthispaper.
Notes
1.

2.

The conviction
to thecapitalistlabourprocess
thatthereare commonpatterns
also encouragesunfounded
of barriers
abouttheuniversality
to
generalisations
conscioussocialism.
Thus whileEdwardsexplainstheabsenceofan oppositional
ness amongAmericanworkersby reference
to management
sponsoredlabour
marketsegments,
he overlooks
thefactthatleftwingpoliticalmovements
have
divisions
suchas Franceand Italywherethoseinternal
developedin countries
withintheworking
classarealsopresent
(Penn1982:98-99).
thathas some interesting
However,thisprocessis one of a generaltendency
exceptions.For instance,one can see some latentoptimism'even with
Braverman.
His prognosis
forthecapitalist
labourprocesspointsto theclassical
- homogenisation
of wage
forworking-class
radicalism
Marxistpre-conditions
On the
ofworkandgenerallifeconditions.
labour,andimmiseration
(degradation)
the
triedto remedy
otherhand,Knightsand Wilmott
(1989)havemorerecently
on Foucault.The resultin ouropinion,is nota
subjectivity
problembydrawing
buta moreentrenched
to thenuancesofresistance,
pictureof
greater
sensitivity
an ideologically
class.
subjugated
working

References
Antonio, R. 1981.'Immanent
Critiqueas theCoreofCriticalTheory:itsOriginsand
.
in Hegel,Marxand Contempory
JournalofSociology
Developement
Thought'British
32,3:330-345.
Theories
Apple,M. 1980.'The OtherSideoftheHiddenCurriculum:
Correspondence
andtheLabourProcess.'Interchange
. 11,3:5-27.
London:Tavistock.
Bott, E. 1957.FamilyandSocialNetwork.
New York:MonthlyReviewPress.
Braverman,H. LabourandMonopoly
Capitalism.
ofResearch
intoClassImagery'inM. Bulmer(ed.)
Bulmer,M. 1975.'SomeProblems
ClassImagesofSociety.London:Routledge
andKeganPaul.
Working
ofChicagoPress.
Consent.
Burawoy,M. 1979.Manufacturing
Chicago:University
M. 1985.ThePoliticsofProduction.
London:Verso.
BURAWOY,
NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Caplow, T. 1964.TheSociology
ofWork.

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

452

JULIANTANNER,SCOTT DAVIESANDBILL O'GRADY

The DialecticsofConflict
Clawson, D. andFantasia, R. 1983.'BeyondBureaucracy:
andSociety12:671-680.
andConsenton theShopfloor.'
Theory
Cohen, S. 1987.'A LabourProcesstoNowhere.'NewLeftReview165:34-50.
C. 1982.TradeUnions:TheLogicofCollective
Action.Glasgow:Fontana.
CROUCH,
GenderintoBurawoys Theoryof the Labour Process.
Davies, . 1990. Inserting
andSociety
Work,
4, 3:391-406.
Employment
Workersworlds:A StudyoftheCentralLifeInterests
of
Dubin, R. 1956. Industrial
Workers.'
SocialProblems
3:131-142.
Industrial
R. 1979. Contested
Terrain:The Transformation
in the
EDWARDS,
of the Workplace
Twentieth
London:Heinemann.
Century.
andClassConsciousness
inAmerica.
NewYork:Greenwood
Eicher, D. 1989.Occupation
Press.
ofSkills.'AnnualReviewofSociology
13:29-47.
FORM,W. 1987.'On theDegradation
A. 1977.Industry
andLabour.London:Macmillan.
FRIEDMAN,
Class. Cambridge:Cambridge
Gallie, D. 1978. In Searchof the New Working
Press.
University
GALLIE,D. 1984. Social Inequalityand Class Radicalismin Britainand France.
Press.
University
Cambridge
Automobile
Gartman, D. 1986.AutoSlavery:The LabourProcessin theAmerican
Press.
1897-1950.Rutgers
Industry
University
and the Working
Class in ModernBritain'in
Goldthorpe, J. 1988. 'Intellectuals
David Rose(ed.) SocialStratification
andEconomic
Change.London:Hutchinson.
d. et al. 1968. The Affluent
Worker:Industrial
Goldthorpe, J.H., LOCKWOOD,
Attitudes
andBehaviour.
Press.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Work
Gordon, D., Edwards, R. and Reich, M. 1982.Segmented
, DividedWorkers.
Press.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Man. Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Halle, D. 1988.America's
Working
andtheFrenchWorker
intheFourthRepublic.
Hamilton, R. 1967.Affluence
Princeton,
NewJersey:
Princeton
Press.
University
Theories:Problemsof
Hargreaves, A. 1982. 'Resistanceand RelativeAutonomy
Distortionand Incoherencein RecentAnalysesof Education'.BritishJournalof
3, 2:107-126.
Sociology
ofEducation
Heron, C. and Storey, R. 1986.'On theJobin Canada.'in C. Heronand R. Storey
Press.
(eds.)On theJob.Montreal:McGill-Queens
University
I. and Zolberg, A. (eds.) 1986.Working
ClassFormation:
NineteenthKATZNELSON,
century
patternsin Western
Europeand the UnitedStates.New Jersey;Princeton
Press.
University
Recruitment
and Worker
Kimeldorf, H. 1985.'Working-class
Culture,Occupational
Politics.'SocialForces64,2:359-376.
at Work:From
Knights, D. and Wilmott, H. 1989. 'Power and Subjectivity
to Subjugation
in SocialRelationships'.
23,4:535-557.
Degradation
Sociology
Langford, T. 1990. 'Social Experiencesand Variationsin Canadian Workers'
EconomicBeliefs'.Paperpresented
annualmeeting
oftheCanadian
at thetwenty-fifth
Association.
SociologyandAnthropology
inFranceandAmerica.
London:
ClassandRadicalism
Lash, S. 1884.MilitantWorkers:
Heinemann.
in Italy.
LOW-BEER,J. 1978. Protestand Participation:The New Working-class
Press.
Cambridge
University
Review1974-1988'in
Littler, C. 1990.'The LabourProcessDebate:A Theoretical
D. KnightsandC. Wilmott
(eds.)LabourProcessTheory.
Lr.1982. oravermania
andBeyond:Kecent1neoneso tne
LITTLER,C. andbALAMAN,
LabourProcess'Sociology.
16,2.

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IMMANENCECHANGESEVERYTHING

453

theWestern
Class.London:
andActionAmong
Mann, M. 1973.Consciousness
Working
Macmillan.
on theStudyofWorking
Class Consciousness.'
Marshall, G. 1983.'Some Remarks
PoliticsandSociety12,3:263-301.
and
Situs,SubjectiveIdentification
Murphy,R. and Morris, R. 1961.'Occupational
Review26:383-392.
American
PoliticalAffiliation'.
Sociological
Myles, J. 1988.'The ExpandingMiddle:SomeCanadianEvidenceon theDeskilling
andAnthropology
25:335-364.
Debate.'CanadianReviewofSociology
A Bourgeois
andClassTheory:
London:Tavistock.
F. 1979.Marxism
PARKIN,
Critique.
Peck, G. 1982. 'The Labour ProcessAccordingto Burawoy:Limitsof a NonRelations.'Insurgent
Socialist11,3:81-90.
dialectical
Workplace
Approachto Capitalist
Penn, R. 1982. '"The ContestedTerrain": a critiqueof R. C. Edwards'theoryof
andDecomposition
in the
and politics'in G. Day (ed.) Diversity
classfractions
working
LabourMarket.London:Grower.
SkilledWorkers
in Britainand America.
PENN,R. 1990.ClassPowerand Technology:
London:Polity.
London:Tavistock.
Salaman, G. 1986.Working.
London:CroomHelm.
inCapitalist
SCASE,R. 1989.SocialDemocracy
Society.
Control'.Sociology
19,7:193-211.
Storey, J. 1985.'The MeansofManagement
ot SocialClass:An bdmonton
and thePerception
Tanner, J. 1987. ManualWorkers
: Canadian
Case Study' in D. Livingstone(ed.) Working
Peopleand Hard Times
Toronto:GaramondPress.
Perspectives.
London:Macmillan.
Thompson,P. 1983.TheNatureofWork.
Thompson, P. 1990. 'Crawlingfromthe Wreckage:The Labour Processand the
Politicsof Production'in D. Knightsand H. Wilmott(eds.) LabourProcessTheory.
London:Macmillan.
Vallas, S. 1991. 'Workers,Firmsand the DominantIdeology:Hegemonyand
32:61-83.
intheMonopolyCore'.Sociological
Consciousness
Quarterly
New Jersey:Princeton
VANDen Berg, A. 1988. The Immanent
Utopia.Princeton,
Press.
University
on theFiringLine' in C. Heronand R. Storey(eds.)
Wells, D. 1986.'AutoWorkers
theLabourProcessin Canada. Montreal:McGill-Queen's
On theJob: Confronting
Press.
University
of
note: SCOTT DAVIES is a doctoralcandidatein the Department
Biographical
ofeducationand
includethesociology
ofToronto.His interests
Sociology,University
and
on class,culturalresistance
a dissertation
work,and he is currently
completing
educationin theprovinceofOntario.BILL O'GRADY is a doctoralcandidatein the
includethe
of Toronto.His researchinterests
of Sociology,University
Department
in Atlantic
a thesison youthunemployment
ofworkand is currently
writing
sociology
in 1970witha B.Sc.(Hons)in Sociologyfrom
Canada.JULIAN TANNER graduated
what was thencalled BarkingRegionalCollege of Technology.He subsequently
ofAlberta.
receivedan M.A. (1976)andPh.D. (1983)in SociologyfromtheUniversity
ofToronto.
ofSociologyat theUniversity
He is currently
an AssociateProfessor
ofToronto,Scarborough
Address:Department
of Sociology,
Campus,1265
University
OntarioMIC 1A4,Canada.
Trail,Scarborough,
Military

This content downloaded from 203.110.247.221 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:54:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions