The name Marx has become almost synonymous with class struggle and ideology. According to him and his followers, it was only a matter of time before one class, the down-trodden and alienated Working Class, in an act of total desperation with absolutely nothing to lose would rise up in revolt against the other class, the alienating masters of the Ruling Class, in an overthrow of capitalism and thereby create a communist utopia. It never happened. But while it certainly did not happen in the way Marx predicted it would, one would, however, not be altogether inaccurate in suggesting that the alienated did gradually and partially revolt against the unbridled Capitalism which to Marx was so disgusting.
The fascinating question which Alvin Gouldner asks about such an account of social forces and class struggle is this: to which of the classes did Marx and his followers belong? They certainly did not seem to be producing anything for themselves in a non-alienated manner. They did not, however, seem to be producing anything for anybody else in an alienated manner either. What Gouldner takes from this is that Marx and his followers did not actually belong to either of the two classes, but rather belonged to another class altogether.
This third class is composed of humanist intellectuals and technical intelligentsia. It is the cultural bourgeoisie, the New Class. And being just like any other class, the New Class is also primarily interested in its own interests and accordingly finds itself in a struggle with the other classes for power. Thus, Gouldner sees Marx’s revolt as one in which the New Class attempted, but ultimately failed to exploit the Working Class in order to undermine the Old, Ruling Class and it’s claims to power and authority. Nevertheless, while Marx’s exploitation of the Working Class failed, it would seem that the New Class’ revolution against the Old Class has been largely successful from our post-Enlightenment perspective.
Lawrence Cahoone identifies three central, yet ultimately problematic characteristics of this New Class. First, the New Class denies the incommensurability of language, in that all statements and assertions can and should be considered entirely independent of who, when, where or how somebody puts them forward in debate. There is a universal meaning to propositions to which any and everybody within any and all contexts has potential access. Second, all such claims must be justified in terms of particular evidence and/or universal reason alone. These too are also freely accessible to any and all people irrespective of their particular culture, tradition, authority, etc., the latter being possible sources of justification which are actively rejected and discouraged by the New Class. Finally, since evidence and reason are unable to justify any unique and universal set of values, value-relativism and value-skepticism inevitably follow and are even encouraged to a certain extent. Accordingly, toleration and liberalism must be built into morals as well as political legislation in order to adequately deal with such relativism and skepticism . These characteristics have both positive as well as negative consequences.
The positive consequences should be relatively transparent. No single person is automatically and inevitably qualified or disqualified due to their time, place or lineage of birth to engage in public discourse. No person’s ideas are automatically removed from the realms of relevance or criticism, be the person from the working class or the ruling class. This egalitarianism and well as its accompanying tolerance greatly encourage both equality and freedom, virtues which are almost universally preferred to their opposites. The practical value of adopting such views can also be seen in the remarkable progress which has characterized the Enlightened West, for if anything characterizes the Enlightenment, it is the rise up of the New Class. Indeed, the very idea of entirely returning to pre-modern ways of life is basically unthinkable to essentially any modern individual.
Nevertheless, the values of the New Class are not entirely flawless or universally accepted. There are features of the New Class which are either self-limiting or even self-undermining. Consider the ways in which the features of New Class serve it’s own interests by only allowing one’s reasoning to “count” to the extent that they adopt the standards set by the New Class. In other words, one’s opinions are only valid inasmuch as they conform to the New Class, exactly as it is within any class, thereby disqualifying any attempts are undermining the class. Cahoone mentions a number of other problems or limitations:
- “Rationalization entails the refusal to treat ultimate questions, question comparing contexts, rationally…
- “The autonomy of individuals and the autonomy of collectives are both mutually necessary and antithetical…
- “Anti-authoritarian society has to be authoritatively managed…
- “The critical devaluation of everything leaves us with a post-critical acceptance of the given…
- “It must, and it cannot, tolerate the intolerant…
- “[It] is partial to impartiality, hence partially condemns all partiality…
- “The height of human culture is to have no culture.”
Cahoone draws a poignant conclusion from these points:
“Members of the New Class thus tend to be emancipatory dogmatists, elitist egalitarians, self-styled princes and princesses of the anti-authoritarian society. In a conflict with their opponents they sincerely offer themselves as neutral judges to adjudicate the matter… If you become their intractable opponent … they must regard your opposition not merely as a conflict of interests – since they believe they have no interests – but as your oppositions to truth, justice, and reason per se. You must then be “irrational” or “uneducated” or “politically incorrect,” which is to say, immoral.” (Cultural Revolutions; 103-105)
These are serious problems indeed, problems which the left all too easily fall into in their dealings with the right. The main problem with the New Class is that it altogether fails to see itself as a class. Nevertheless, just because it is just as much a class as any other does not entail that every class is as good as any other in terms of pragmatic value or plausibility. The problem lies in identifying a set of standards by which one class can judge or compare itself to another in a non-circular manner.
