Date: Sun, 2 Nov 97 23:04:59 UT
From: "Margaret Morganroth Gullette" <mgullette-AT-classic.msn.com>
Subject: RE: M-FEM: "Middle class"


MIT is having a meeting of the Black Women's Alliance to reflect on the Millon 
Woman March. 


(WS):" Once you mentioned Gramsci, that brings up the question of
"organic intellectuals" or more specifically: does writing books for the
middle class counts as being an organic intellectual of such a class
(provided it exists); furthermore, does the concept of "organic
intellectual" apply in the absence of a clearly identified class; e.g.
"organic intellectuals of women" (cf. feminism). Yet another question, does
the "writing books for x" that contribute to the development of x identity,
such as white professional female, democratic socialist, christian
fundamentalism, Black muslim etc., count as being an organic intellectual of 
x?"
Margaret Gullette responds.
	I'm not interested in claiming (or disclaiming) an identity as an "organic 
intellectual of x." In my book I am trying to propose an agenda on the left 
that includes age issues (like the loss of the American Dream of rising 
age-wage curves) and increase the "class" of the left-identified (if possible) 
by getting people who think of themselves (and their children potentially) as 
"middle class" to realize that postindustrial capitalism is proletarianizing 
them--i.e., that they are being "exploited" at midlife in a way that isn't 
well  described. 
	In speaking of my interpellation of readers, I assume that people have 
identities that can change.("More left-identified." "More active on the 
left.") And that they can be grateful to understand why their social 
identities are changing if they merely dimly sense already that they are.  
	The part of Gramsci that I referred to was about writing in such a way that 
you actually speak clearly and forcefully to the audience you wish to 
address--without of course losing the content.  I'm not boasting that I do, 
but I did try. I'm afraid I don't understand your question below. 

"That is, can
we make that distinction by looking at the relationship between the writer
and his/her audience rather than the content of the ideas expressed in
his/her writing.  That is: would you consider yourself an "organic
intellectual" and if so, of whom and why i.e. beacuse you write about
proletarianization (content) or because you as the author have a certain
type of relationship to your audience as a group?"


"As to your Nicaraguan experience, I observed a similar phenomenon in Eastern
Europe, and they even came up with the new term "embourgeoisment" (becoming bourgeois by acquiring wealth and respectablity).  Of course, this
is the popular rather than analytic use of the term, because in analytic
terms, what makes bourgeoisie is not wealth per se but their ownership of
the means of production.  That is, a Nicaraguan of Eastern European
government official who can acquire relative wealth or prestige symbols
(automobile) is not bourgeoisie because his property is income consuming
rather than income producing.  On the other hand, a guy who owns a garage
and employes people to work for him is bourgeois  even though hhis social
prestige and personal income fall below those of the offcials mentioned 
earlier."
My father was a working-class Communist in the 30s and a lifelong 
proselytizing leftist; he marched with my mother against the war in the 1960s. 
(I describe him a bit in Declining to Decline.) In his late forties he 
actually bought a garage and employed one person. He would have understood 
that he was "bougeois" analytically, but I think would have refused to call 
himself "middle class" on the grounds that he still wholly identified with the 
working class. 
	Maybe we need analytic terms for theoretic contexts, and deeper (more 
literary) descriptions for other contexts.  
regards
Margaret