Ranciere - Early French Socialism - Ways to Construct Social Identity, Ranciere
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Labour History Review, Vol.58, No.3, Winter 1993
difficult for women than for men. Women were less led through education to ques-
tion existing doctrines. Childbirth still carried high risks; moral, legal and economic
restrictions upon their decision-making delivered them more to the circumstances
of living. A more fatalistic mentality and attachment to the consolations of tradi-
tional religion, which valued sacrifice and subordination, should not occasion surprise
in such circumstances. Breaking with religion also symbolised breaking with the
family and was sometimes associated with a real breach. Anti-clericalism and
sceptical religion became therefore, in the middle of the nineteenth century, a
starting point for women's emancipation.
We see this in the autobiographies of Louise Otto, Louise Aston and von Meysenburg.
The term 'feminist' did not appear until the 1890s, but there was a 'feminist'
agenda in interconfessional women's clubs of the 1840s, founded in close associa-
tion with the congregations. About 35 clubs emerged between 1845 and 1851. Many
members were sisters, relatives, or had been early friends; and contacts were
established between clubs, sometimes over a great distance, as in the close ties
between Hamburg and Schweinfurt in Bavaria, Most women's clubs were in Prot-
estant cities. The biggest clubs had around 300 members, but 50 to 150 members
was typical. The majority were established before the 1848-49 revolution, from
1846 onwards. The clubs had a double agenda: first, to improve society through
supporting the religious dissent movement and establishing charitable activity; second,
to promote the emancipation of women through their practical social activity. This
is clearly expressed in, for example, the statute of the Nordhausen club. The
prevailing idea of the role of woman in society was that of 'equality in difference':
she should have the same natural human rights as men, but she had a different, if
complementary sphere, where she exercised special duties and encountered special
difficulties.
Clubs existed previously within the Protestant and Catholic confessions but these
were only open to women of the higher middle class. The inter-confessional clubs
founded by religious dissidents were open to liberal Protestant, Catholic and Jewish
women of all classes. While members included the petit-bourgeoisie, and the edu-
cated middle class dominated, the latter were not typical of their stratum: those
in the Hamburg club, for example, were drawn from Jewish or newly established
merchant families, rather than from the old bourgeois elite. Very often they were
wives, daughters or sisters of leading revolutionaries.
The question of the clubs became an issue at the Leipzig council of the German
Catholic and Free Congregations in 1850: did they 'strengthen the unnatural dualism
between men and women'? Some argued for the clubs' abolition: 'women and men
should not live in morbid separation, but in healthy unity'. Yet those who argued for
a separate forum, since women were still far from independent use of their rights
and would better cultivate consciousness of their freedom and independence if away
from men, finally prevailed. The interconfessional women's clubs can be seen as the
main element of the early German women's movement. The later movement of the
1860s and 1870s was more detached from religious dissent, but 'radical feminists'
such as Hedwig Dohm, Helene Stocker and Lily Braun continued in the old tradition.
University of Tubingen
Early French Socialism: ways to construct social identity
The question is not how French workers of the period 1830 to 1850 succeeded in
constructing their collective identity; it is rather, whether the ways of 'early'
French socialism require us to redefine 'social' and reconsider 'identity'?
What is the relation between 'identity' and the 'social question'? The problem
arises in relation to curious features of the uprising of the Lyon's silk weavers,
or
canuts,
of November 1831, with which the birth and consciousness of the French
workers' movement is generally associated. The
canuts'
slogan, 'live working or
SYLVIA PALETSCHEK
Conference Reports
die fighting', has been glorified as symbolising the proud worker, becoming fully
conscious of the opposition between classes. Yet in their newspaper,
L'Echo de la
Fabrique,
we find a contest for a name to replace
canuts.
What became glorious,
was in fact an offensive nickname. The newspaper debate lasted several montbs.
One group of silkworkers adopted tbe term
ferrandiniers,
taken from tbe name of
a fabric; but tbis aroused tbe indignation of a correspondent wbo objected tbat it
'leaves in tbe mind no trace that would make one tbink . . . (of) tbe activity of
silkweaving'. Tbis correspondent required a transparent name, conceived in.tbe
pbilosophical tradition of the eighteentb century, expressing tbe idea of a precise
activity. He suggested
sericarien.
But anotber said: tbe suffix
-ien
did not suit tbe
names of tbe professions:
soieriefeure
would be better. New objection: tbe suffix
-feure
only suits tbe hammer workers. Debate continued witb more tban 30 otber
suggestions, tbougb none were selected despite strong demands to answer tbe needs
of a 'progressive and universal movement',
Tbe issue bere was not as suggested by William Sewell, It was a matter of finding
a 'true' name, one's own; not compromise between tbe corporate idiom of tbe
trades and tbe universalist rbetorics of Revolution, Yet if'identity' was first of all
a matter of name, it posed a dilemma, Tbe workers wisbed to reject a name
imposed on tbem, placing tbem in tbeir inferior place. Tbey dreamt of a 'proper'
name denoting 'tbeir' class, conceived merely as people practising an activity
defined by a 'class' of properties. 'Class' could tben still take tbat restrictive
meaning. Tbe reference tbougb is to a specific idea of language not mere 'corporate
idiom': it mirrors an ideal world of equal people, wbere difference of social posi-
tion, designated by names, would only be a difference of complementary activities.
As no language of tbat kind existed, or society framed by it, tbere could be no
'winning' word in tbe journal's contest.
L'Echo de la Fabrique
contains appeals for 'tbe emancipation of tbe proletarians'.
Can we assume, tben, tbat failing in tbe Utopian searcb to find tbe name of tbeir
specific identity, tbey became conscious of social division and tbe necessities of
class war? We appear to bave a good class-conscious beginning to one article:
'society is divided into two classes, tbe proletarians and tbe men of property'. Yet,
it continues:
Tbis is wbat is being beard all tbe time nowadays. We said so too in order to
use tbe usual terms. But it was not at all our own tbougbt. Our laws reprove
sucb an error and since all citizens are equal in front of tbe law, tbe ricb and
tbe poor do not make up two different classes in tbe same people.
So it appears tbat a social identity is not tbe self-knowledge of some part of
society; and 'proletarian' is not a name of self-discovery of identity and interests,
but denotes a people between several names and identities. Tbe quotation opposes
two symbolic models of society: one classifying tbose born for working ratber tban
tbinking, praying or governing; and anotber promising equality to all. Wbat is 'dis-
covered' is not an economical or sociological concept but a symbolic political
structuration. Tbe 'proletarian' is bere put into a class by otbers; refuses it; fails
to find a satisfactory alternative term; creates a new identity and assumes tbe
name. He is between identities and ideas of class, of and not part of society.
Blanqui answered, 'proletarian', wben tbe prosecutor asked for bis profession. 'It
is not a profession', tbe prosecutor said. 'It is tbe profession of tbe majority . . .
wbo are deprived of political rigbts', said Blanqui. Tbere is no economical or
sociological definition of wbat a proletarian is precisely because it is a 'profession
tbat is not a profession'.
In old Latin,
proletarii
meant 'prolific people': tbose wbo make cbildren, wbo
merely live and produce witbout a proper name, and bave no place witbin tbe
symbolic order of tbe city. Just before tbe revolutionary days of July 1830,
Pierre-Simon Ballancbe, a tbeorist wbo was to be deeply influential for some
working-class tbinkers, publisbed bis
Essais de palingenesie sociale.
Here be exam-
ined tbe well-known secession of tbe Roman plebeians on tbe Aventin and denied tbe
Labour History Review, Vol.58, No.3, Winter 1993
idea was mere revolt: tbe patricians embodied tbe eastern principle of immobility
and secrecy, and kept as tbeir own property tbe prerogative of naming; tbe ple-
beians, bowever, embodied tbe principle of communication of tbe word to everybody,
Plebians discovered, and would bave tbe patricians recognise, tbat power of speak-
ing and naming, the 'sign of intelligence', bitberto unknown to tbemselves. In
Ballacbane's analysis tbe scene on tbe Aventin is a demonstration of equal capacity
ratber tban a revolt against tbe masters. It ended privilege by tbe material dem-
onstration of its illegitimacy, or, as tbe Frencb say, its
non-lieu.
It was tbe moment
of 'the birtb of tbe social man , . . tbe man endowed witb solidarity, sympatby and
responsibility'. Now tbe proletarians of
L'Echo de la Fabrique
cut exactly tbe same
figure. In demonstrating tbat tbey were not creatures of 'needs' and 'sbouts', tbey
establisbed tbe
non-lieu
of social division. As tbe journal
L'Artisan
put it in Sep-
tember 1830:
Tbree days bave sufficed to cbange our function in the economy of society. . .
we too are men and not macbines. Our industry, which you bave exploited for
so long, belongs to us as our own, and tbe enligbtenment of instruction, tbe
blood tbat we bave spilled for liberty bas given us tbe means and tbe rigbt to
free ourselves forever from tbe servitude in wbicb you bold us.
'Politics' was involved in tbe very bondage of tbe 'social' question: tbere is no
point in opposing tbe social reality of exploited labour to a deceitful dignity of tbe
citizen,
Tbe questions of tbe workers' ownersbip of work, wbetber tbey were reasonable
beings and equal citizens, arose witb respect to tbe origin of tbe Lyon's uprising,
Tbe demand for a new price list involved tbe wbole social question, not 'merely'
tbat of tbe tariff. It was a demand for a space in wbicb workers could be recognised
as equal citizens witb otbers, discussing and debating tbe price, publicly promul-
gating tbe list. In tbe process of tbe action, labour was objectified; and equality
made manifest.
Tbe notion of tbe 'space' or sphere was symbolic and real. It was materialised
in tbe case of tbe Lyon's silk-weavers by tbe 'cage' in tbe sbop of tbe masters.
Here tbey brougbt tbeir completed work and obtained tbe new, Tbey faced tbe clerks
tbrougb a grille wben in tbe cage, separated as if tbey belonged to anotber species,
Tbey were obliged to wait for a long time, squeezed against one anotber like cattle,
Tbe clerks cbattered and laugbed at tbem; obliged tbem to suffer remarks on tbeir
work, Tbis was not an ideological bumiliation added to a condition of exploitation:
tbe experience of tbe cage and tbe low wages were two sides of tbe same coin, Tbe
point tbat tbe debasement of tbe workers rested upon tbe invisibility of a labour
confined to an underworld of mute noises, was raised again in tbe
Call to the
workers
of 1848: wages were low because tbey were determined in private and
in domestic conditions of dependency,
Tbe tailors of Paris, during tbeir strike of 1833, bad asked for 'relations of
independency and equality witb tbe masters'. It was not a matter of corporate pride
or of skill. We bave suggested elsewbere tbat arguments about professional skill and
militant consciousness rest upon illogical argument. Certainly tbe tailors were too
low in tbe scale of tbe workers' traditional bierarcby, and too conscious tbat tbeir
work could be done by anybody, to indulge in a pride-of-craft militancy. Tbeir pride
was ratber tbat of the republican man, wbo denies tbe partition of societies into
castes. Tbere was no naiveity: tbe tailors knew tbat tbe equals were not equals,
but saw little point in merely denouncing tbe contradiction between tbe proclaimed
equality of all Frencbmen and tbe manifest unequal relations in work , Yet tbere was
point in using tbe 'verbal' reality of equality to create a new visibility of labour
as a public activity; and sbow tbe workers as speaking and tbinking beings wbo knew
tbemselves as sucb,
Grignon, tbe 1833 strike leader, objected strongly to tbe masters' representa-
tion of tbe tailors' movement as a revolt: tbe term was traditionally used to
designate slave riots and its use sbowed tbe workers were considered as belonging
Conference Reports
11_
to tbe masters' private ownersbip. He declared:
Tbose gentlemen treat us scornfully, Tbey make a claim for public prosecution
against us. Tbey dare to put on us tbe cbarge of
revolt.
Does tbis mean tbat
we are tbeir niggers? Revolt, indeed! Wben we ask for tbe increase in our price
list, wben we associate ourselves to abolisb tbe exploitation tbat we are
suffering, to relieve the bardsbips of our condition! Actually tbere is sometbing
of an effrontery in tbe very word, Tbis is enougb to legitimate our decision.
For tbe tailors, 'all Frencbmen are equal before tbe law', were not 'mere words',
wittingly written to deceive tbe common people. We sbould see, ratber tban an
opposition of words and facts, a confrontation of systems, feudalist and republican;
eacb political and industrial; witb its own facts and words; and ways of making
facts witb words. So tbe words provide a trace, tenuous perhaps, of tbe revolution
and modes of visibility initiated for tbe common people, ratber tban a 'mystifica-
tion', Tbe actions of tbe tailors, constructed as a demonstration, start to make
visible tbe new order of relations wbicb must be built if tbe 'mere' words of
equality are to take on a reality. Tbe masters did not allow tbe public discussion
tbat tbe tailors demanded, but tbe tbe latter constructed tbe scene of tbeir own
visibility and endowed tbeniselves witb tbe 'sign of intelligence', Tbe new subject
wbicb comes forward is not tbe identity of a worker tbat would find its good image
in its 'proper' name: it is mucb more a capacity of speaking and doing, initiating
a new style of social relations.
Tbe new style is given tbe name 'association'. Tbe term, borrowed from tbe
political field, can designate a mutual aid society, a society of resistance, or a
producers' co-operative. It links tbe idea of a free aggregation of individuals to tbe
organic corporation of a trade and relates to a certain idea of tbe society. Once
again, it is impossible to separate tbe 'social' from tbe 'political'. It is not simply
a coincidence tbat tbe leaders of tbe Parisian strikes of 1833 were members of tbe
Societe des droits de I'homme.
For Grignon, tbe political denial of tbe workers'
bumanity pertained to tbe same logic as tbe 'economical' disregard of tbeir own-
ersbip and tbe social contempt of tbeir citizensbip. Witbin tbe association tbe workers
initiated for tbeir own sake a new system of relations consistent witb tbe idea of
equality. Tbe association is generally described as a union of men wbo give eacb
otber instruction, most particularly about tbeir rigbts and duties, as well as mutual
support. Tbe tailors' worksbop, created as a result of tbe strike, was seen by tbe
republican press as 'tbe first example of tbe emancipation of labour by its own
works' and assumed tbat 'tbe creative instinct of several corporations of workers
bas found a means tbat goes straigbter to tbe goal: tbis is substituting positive
action for mere resistance and putting capital into tbe bands of tbe workers'.
In tbis perspective, 'tbe first emancipation of tbe workers' is not to be viewed
as tbe first experience of 'workers' power', but as additional proof of tbeir
association capacity: tbey bad invented a new means of mutual support, displayed
a sense of self-organisation, and experimented by combining tbe property of labour
witb tbat of capital,
'Tbeir time is over. We will go abead', said tbe typograpber Bannet as be com-
mented upon tbe confiation of two worlds and two ages tbat be saw in tbe conflict.
Wbat is tbe nature of tbe 'we'? Tbe 'social identity' constructed by tbe workers
is, above all, tbeir identity
as social beings.
Wbat tbis means is: equal people giving
eacb otber instruction, or
enlightenment,
and support; people enligbtened about tbeir
activity and dignity as producers and reasonable beings — as stated by Josepb
Jacotot, tbe great tbeoretician of 'intellectual emancipation', an emancipated man
is one 'aware of wbat be is and does in tbe social order'; and finally, people using
tbe ways of discussion and demonstration in tbeir relations witb otber people.
We can recognise bere Ballancbe's portrait of tbe plebeians on tbe Aventin. A
telling example in support of tbe point tbat tbe dignity of labour bas to do witb its
'socialisation', place in tbe general framing of society and its capacity of being
performed in a 'republican' way, ratber tban witb pride in one's own skill, is
Labour History Review, Vol.58, No.3, Winter 1993
provided by tbe solemnity of tbe statutes of tbe gilders' union:
Tbe subscribers, great and powerful, for baving acquired tbe knowledge of tbe
dignity of tbe man wbo works for bis living and for tbe living of tbey wbo do
not work, being conscious tbat tbe proletarian industrial is tbe most useful
man, bave unanimously put bim on tbe first degree of tbe social scale by baving
bim agree to tbe following conditions;
Article 1. Tbe society of tbe gilders union is progressive and imperisbable.
Tbus tbe interest of tbe wood gilders is to sustain witb all tbeir moral power,
as men or tbinking beings, tbe laws enacted in tbis constitution.
It is unclear wbere tbe gilders exactly locate tbe 'first degree' of tbe social
scale, but tbe dignity of tbe producer is equated witb bis capacity to agree witb tbe
laws and spirit of tbe 'constitution'; tbis is prior to any determination of wage
rates. It is not a question of 'culture' specific to a corporation, but a translation
of tbe republican idea of constitution to tbe field of tbe corporations. Tbe translation
is tbe same wbatever tbe specifics of tbe work, and one cannot oppose, as Sewell
does, tbe 'individualistic' beritage of tbe Revolution to tbe corporate idea of tbe
trade collectivity. Tbe republican idea is not an 'individualistic' one: it is tbe
constitution of a collectivity. Conveyance of tbe republican idea did not mean con-
ceiving tbe workers as mere individuals; it meant conceiving tbe trade as a little
republic. As tbe idea of tbe republic entailed tbe idea of society as a network of
complementary useful activities, tbere was no contradiction between tbe corpora-
tive and republican ideals, Tbe great public sbow of the corporations in tbe spring
of 1848 was not a return to tbe middle ages: it was tbe dream of a great republic,
consisting of a number of little republics of men directly identifying tbeir being-
workers witb tbeir being-citizens.
Tbe construction of social identity raised tbe question: wbicb workers do you
want to be, labouring beasts or labouring men? If
men,
you must cbange in your
individual and collective manners all tbat pertains to tbe 'old man': you bave to
cboose in your collective confiicts tbe way of rational demonstration of your rigbt.
You must study and raise your intelligence on tbe level of general problems, so
proving tbat you are conscious members of tbe new republic of work.
Tbere is tberefore an ambiguity in 'social identity'. Tbe problem is tbat of cboice
between two identities, A social movement is not affirmation of an identity, but tbe
movement in tbe interval between identities, Tbe 'social', generally speaking, is a
distribution of functions and names, of spaces and places, a knot between tbe order
of discourse and tbe order of bodies, A social movement is so called not because
it is a movement of tbe lower classes of tbe society about matters of work and
wages, but because it puts into question tbat symbolic constitution of tbe social
space.
If to give oneself tbe name of 'worker' or 'proletarian' is not to assume an
'identity' embedded in a culture of tbe group, but to set a difference, a contradic-
tion, or an interval, it would be better to speak of a process or logic of
'subjectivisation' in wbicb a new configuration of space and relations is sougbt and
made, Tbis working tbrougb tbe conditions of experience can never be tbe expres-
sion of a given collectivity.
It is no coincidence tbat tbe emergence of socialist tbougbt occurred wben tbere
were many 'beretic knowledges', Ballancbe's tbeory of palingenesy and Jacotot's
tbeory of intellectual emancipation provide deeply infiuential examples, but tbere
were also different linguistics, tbeories and practice of medicine, of education and
autodidactism, bistory and religions. Tbese were not tbe coloured context of a
'popular' culture but tbe materials and franie for tbe reorganisation of experience
Tbe identity of tbe militant worker in tbe period can be found in many cbaracters:
tbe worker-poet, subscriber to a journal or library, inventor of new macbines or
processes, raspaillist doctor or magnetist, adept of^ new religions; and often, be or
sbe appeared in several as well as one or otber of tbese parts. Workers found many
ways to break from tbeir 'own' body, place and function; or from tbe 'natural'
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]