Ralf Dahrendorf: Ownership and Control or the Decomposition of Capital (1) Adanya fenomena joint-stock company di Eropa Barat dan Amerika pada paruh kedua abad 19. By separating ownership and control, the joint-stock company give rise to a new group of manager who are utterly different from their capitalist predecessors. For Marx, by separating ownership and control, the joint- stock company reduce the distance between manager and worker; at the same time removing the owners altogether from the sphere of production; thereby isolating their function as exploiters of others.
Ralf Dahrendorf: Ownership and Control or the Decomposition of capital (2) Renner: ‘the capitalists without function’ yield to the ‘functionaries without capital’. The separation of ownership and control involve changes in: The structure of social positions The recruitment of personal to these positions The process of transition from capitalist enterprises to joint-stock companies can be described as a process of role differentiation. The roles of owner and manager, originally combined in the position of the capitalist, have been separated and distributed over two positios, those of stockholders and executive.
Ralf Dahrendorf: Ownership and Control or the Decomposition of capital (3) Effect of separation and control: Manifest effect : two physical entities occupies the positions formerly occupied by one. Latent effect: Capitalist without function. o Marx: capitalist is alienated from production o Capitalist does not have a defined place in the formal hierarchy of authority in the enterprise. Functionaries without capital. o Functionaries have place in the formal hierarchy of authority o Functionaries do not have property in the enterprise which he runs.
Ralf Dahrendorf: Skill and Stratification or the Decomposition of Labor (1) Today’s working class, far from being a homogeneous groups of equally unskill and impoverished people, is in fact a stratum differentiated by numerous subtle and not-so- subtle distinctions. There emerged a new category of workers which today is usually described as semiskilled workers.
Ralf Dahrendorf : Skill and Stratification or the Decomposition of Labor (2) The semiskilled workers differ from the unskilled workers in terms of : Technical qualifications required form them for their work (not much) Capacity to accept responbility Ability to adapt to difficult conditions Ability to perform a job intelligently. These extrafunctional skills are required not by formal training (although many semiskilled workers receive this also), but by experience on the job; yet these ‘skills of responsibility’ constitute a clear line of demarcation between those who have them and the unskilled who lack both training and experience.
Ralf Dahrendorf: Skill and Stratification or the Decomposition of Labor (3) There are three skill groups: a growing stratum of highly skilled workmen who increasingly merge with both engineer and white- collar employees a relatively stable stratum of semiskilled workers with a high degree of diffuse as well as specific industrial experience a decreasing stratum of totally unskilled laborers who are characteristically either newcomers to industry or semi-unemployables.
Ralf Dahrendorf: Skill and Stratification or the Decomposition of Labor (4) These three groups differ not only in their level of skill, but also in other attributes and determinants of social status. The hierarchy of skill corresponds to the hierarchy of responsibility and delegated authority within the working class.
Ralf Dahrendorf : The New Middle Class There are two theories: Croner, Bendix and others: the ‘new middle class’ constitutes in fact an extension of the old, capitalist or bourgeouis, rulling class, and is in the sense part of the rulling class. Geiger, Mills and others: the ‘new middle class’ is, if not exactly an extension of the proletariat, at any rate closer to the working class than to the rulling class. Geiger: from the point of view of class structure in Marx’s senses the salaried employee is undoubtedly closer to the worker than to any other figure of modern society.
Erik Olin Wright: Class Analysis (1) Wright menggunakan pemikiran kelas Marxis karena dengan menggunakan “kelas” dapat menjelaskan dan mempreiksikan kepentingan material manusia, pengalaman hidup, kondisi kehidupan, penghasilan, kemampuan organisaional, keinginan untuk terlibat dalam tindakan kolektif, orientasi politik, dan sebagainya. The most elaborated and systematic theoretical framework for class analysis is found in the Marxist tradition.
Erik Olin Wright: Class Analysis (2) Class analysis becomes the core of a wide- ranging agenda of research on the causes and consequences of class relations. The task of class analysis is not simply to understand class structure and its effects, but to understand the interconnections among all these elements and their consequecee for the other aspects of social life.
Erik Olin Wright: Class Analysis (3) Elements of class analysis are: Class stucture plays a pivotal role in class analysis Class formation: the formation of classes into collectively organized actors Class struggle: the practice of actors of their class interests Class consciousness: the understanding of actors of their class interests The interests of workers and capitalists are deeply antagonistic, one of the core ideas of Marxist class analysis.
Erik Olin Wright: The Concept of Exploitation (1) Class exploitation is defined by three principle criteria: 1) The inverse interdependent welfare principle: the material welfare of exploiters causally depends on the material deprivations of the exploited. The welfare of the exploiter is at the expense of the exploited. The condition establishes the antagonism of material interests.
Erik Olin Wright: The Concept of Exploitation (2) 2) The exclusion principle: the causal relation that generates principle 1) involves the asymmetrical exclusion of the exploited from access to and control over certain important productive resources. The expression of “asymmetrical” is meant to exclude “fair competition” among equals from the domain of possible exploitations.
Erik Olin Wright: The Concept of Exploitation (3) 3) The appropriation principle: the causal mechanism which translates 2) exclusion into 1) differential welfare involves the appropriation of the fruit of labor of the exploited by those who control the relevant productive resources. Condition establishes the specific mechanism by which the interdependent, antagonistic material interests are generated. The welfare of the exploiter depends upon the effort of the exploited, not merely the deprivations of the exploited.
Erik Olin Wright: The Concept of Exploitation (4) If only the first two of these conditions are met we have what we can be called “nonexploitative economic oppresion”, but not “exploitation”. In “nonexploitative economic oppresion” there is no transfer of the fruits of labor from the oppressed to the oppressor; the welfare of the oppressor depends simply on the exclusion of the oppressed from access to certain resources, but not on their laboring effort.
Erik Olin Wright: Class and Exploitation (1) Within the Marxist tradition of class analysis, class divisions are defined primarily in terms of the linkage between property relations and exploitation. In capitalist society, the central form of exploitation is based on property rights in the means of production.
Erik Olin Wright: Class and Exploitation (2) These property rights generate three basis classes: Capitalists (exploiters), who own the means of production and hire workers Workers (exploited), who do not own the means of production and sell their “labor power” to capitalists Petty bourgeois (neither exploiters nor exploted), who own and use the means of production without hiring others. Conflict between capitalists and workers is not simply over the level of wages, but over the amount of work effort performed for those wages.
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (1) Wright divides the class of employees along two dimensions: 1. Their relationship to authority within production 2. Their possession of skills or expertise.
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (2) 1. Authority Two rationales for treating authority as a dimension of class relations among employees: The role of domination within capitalist property relations. Capitalists own the means of production, hire workers, and also dominate workers within production. Managers and supervisors can be considered simulataneously in the capitalist class and the working class. They occupy contradictory locations within class relations.
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (3) The relationship between the earnings and the appropriation of surplus. The strategic position of managers within organization of production enables them to make significant claim on a portion of the social surplus – the part of the socially produced product left over after all inputs have been paid for – in the form of relatively high earnings. By virtue of this appropriation of surplus by managers they should generally be seen as exploiters.
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (4) Managers occupies a privileged position with respect to the process of exploitation which enables them to appropriate part of the social surplus in the form of higher income. Managers not only occupy contradictory locations within class relations by vitue of domination, they occupy a privileged appropriation location within exploitation relations. These differentiate them from the working class.
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (5) 2. Skills and Expertise Managers or employees who posses high level of skill/expertise are potentially in a privileged appropriation location within exploitation relations
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (6) Two primary mechanism through which this can happen : o Skill and espertise are frequently scarcce in labor markets because they are in short supply and systematic obstacles (credentials, rare talents, etc) o Employees with high level of expertise are able to appropriate surplus because of their strategic location within the organization of producion (as controller of knowledge), and because of their strategic location in the organization of labor markets (as controllers of a scarce form of labor power).
Erik Olin Wright: “Middle Class” Among Employees (7) The possesion of skills and expertise defines a distinctive location within class relations because of a specific kind of power they confer on employees – power in labor markets to capture skill rent and power within production to capture loyalty rents. It may also be the case that expertise, skills and knowledge are associated with various kinds of “symbolic capital” and distinctive life-style (Bordieu) The important theoretical idea is that skills and expertise designate an asset emboided in the labor power of people which enhances their power in labor markets and labor processes.
Peter Blau (1) Sumbangan pemikiran Peter Blau tentang teori pertukaran adalah pada telaah skala kecil yang diterapkan pada kelompok berskala besar. Blau bertujuan memahami struktur sosial berdasarkan analisis proses sosial yang mempengaruhi hubungan antar individu dan kelompok. Pendapat ini didasarkan pada pemikiran bahwa kita tidak dapat menganalisis interaksi sosial secara terpisah dari struktur sosial yang melingkupinya.
Peter Blau (2) Blau memfokuskan perhatian pada proses pertukaran yang mengatur hubungan perilaku manusia dan mendasari hubungan antar individu dan kelompok. Terdapat empat langkah yang terjadi dari hubungan pertukaran antar individu sampai dengan struktur sosial, yaitu (1) pertukaran atau transaksi antar individu yang meningkat ke (2) diferensiasi status dan kekuasaan yang mengarah ke (3) legitimasi dan pengorganisasian yang menyebarkan bibit (4) oposisi dan perubahan.
Peter Blau (3) Telaah stratifikasi sosial dari pemikiran Blau dapat ditelusuri dari proses interaksi sosial dalam kelompok sosial. Seseorang tertarik untuk berhubungan dengan orang lain karena ia berharap memperoleh imbalan sosial dari hubungannya tersebut. Dalam konteks kelompok sosial, seorang individu masuk dalam kelompok sosial tertentu karena merasa bahwa interaksi yang dibangunnya tersebut memberikan imbalan lebih dibandingkan dengan jika ia membangun hubungan dengan kelompok lain.
Peter Blau (4) Individu yang memiliki kemampuan lebih besar dalam memberikan imbalan/hadiah akan tampil sebagai pemimpin dan terjadi diferensiasi dalam kelompok. Dalam proses pertukaran terjadi diferensiasi kekuasaan. Seseorang yang dapat memenuhi kebutuhan orang lain dan bersifat independen dari orang lain memperoleh kekuasaan terhadap orang lain. Lebih jauh, seseorang yang mana orang lain tergantung padanya memiliki kekuasaan untuk “memaksakan” keinginannya/kehendaknya. Blau berpendapat bahwa interaksi sosial dimulai dari kelompok sosial.
Peter Blau (5) Blau melihat bahwa terdapat mekanisme yang berfungsi sebagai penengah antara individu dan struktur sosial yaitu kesepakatan nilai dan norma. Menurutnya, kesepakatan nilai dan norma berguna sebagai media kehidupan sosial dan mata rantai yang menghubungkan transaksi sosial. Lebih jauh, transaksi sosial ini dapat melampaui batas-batas kontak sosial langsung.
Peter Blau (6) Blau membedakan dua jenis organisasi sosial yaitu: Organisasi sosial yang lahir dari proses pertukaran dan persaingan Kelompok yang dengan sengaja didirikan untuk memperoleh keuntungan secara maksimal. Dalam membahas organisasi sosial, Blau melihat bahwa dalam setiap jenis organisasi tersebut terdapat pimpinan dan oposisi. Perbedaan diantara keduanya adalah bahwa pada organisasi jenis pertama, pimpinan dan oposisi lahir dari proses interaksi. Sedangkan pada organisasi jenis kedua, pimpinan dan oposisi dibangun dalam struktur sosial.
Referensi Beteille, Andre (editor) Social Inequality. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Calhoun, Craig, et.al (editor) Contemporary Sociological Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Ritzer, George dan Douglas J. Goodman Teori Sosiologi Moderen. Edisi ke 6. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group. Wright, Erik Olin Class Counts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.