Orders of Experience: The Differences of Working Class Cultural Forms

Author(s): Paul Willis and Philip Corrigan

Source: Social Text, No. 7 (Spring - Summer, 1983), pp. 85-103
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466456 .
Accessed: 30/05/2011 22:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org
 Orders of Experience:the Differences
of WorkingClass CulturalForms
PAUL WILLISAND PHILIPCORRIGAN

INTRODUCTION
Let us begin by "makingstrange"a "source" whichhas beenclaimedalmosttotallyby
the argumentsaboutculturewhich we areexaminingandcriticizinghere. Louis Althusser,
writingin the theoreticaljournalof the PCF,La Pensee, in 1961, drewattentionto how "an
extraordinary divisionof laborled to Marxdiscoveringthe realityof Francewhile Engelsdid
the samefor England.Once againwe mustuse the wordretreat(not 'supersession'),thatis,
the retreatfrommythto reality, when we aredealingwith the actual experiencewhich tore
off the veils of illusion behindwhich Marxand Engels had been living as a resultof their
beginnings . . it shouldbe understoodthatthese discoveriesare inseparablefrom Marx's
total personalexperience, which was itself inseparablefrom the Germanhistorywhich he
directly lived" (For Marx, Chapter2, emphases Althusser). This may be thought an
awkwardlapse in early Althusser. But he writes in 1975 about how "Marx continually
insistedon the fact thatit was the capitalistorganizationof productionwhichforciblv taught
the workingclass the lesson of class struggle. . . above all in imposingon them a terrible
discipline of labor and daily life, all of which the workers SUFFER ONLYTO TURN IT BACKIN
COMMON ACTIONS AGAINST THEIR MASTERS." "Is it easy to be a Marxistin philosophy?"(his
emphases,our capitals).
We wish to examine certainqualitiesand resourcesof workingclass culturalforms to
puncture,deflate- indeedto turnback- the persistentmythof workingclass passivity,
subordination,incorporation,and ignorance.
It seems to us that the fundamentalpassivity of the workingclass is proclaimedin a
numberof recenttheoreticaldevelopments.We are particularlyconcernedhere with those
thatcenteraround"discourseanalysis"Iof variouskinds. The fundamentalinsightof these

PAULWILLISis ResearchFellow at the Centrefor Contemporary CulturalStudies, Universityof Birmingham,

~England;authorof Learningto LabourandProfaneCulture,he is currentlyworkingon shop floorculture.PHILIP
CORRIGAN is Lecturer,Instituteof Education,Universityof London,England,andauthorof StateFormationand
Moral Regulationand Cultureand Control;currentlyhe is workingon culturalproduction.
'We realize thatthis is a very diverse area. The most coherentanddevelopedpositionwe are addressingcould
be termedas "Semiotics Mark11"- that area arisingfrom the extension and critiqueof Barthes(Elementsof
Semiologyand Mythologies)in relationto psychoanalytictheoriesof the subjectas developed in, for instance,
Language and Materialism(R. Coward & J. Ellis, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978) issues of the recently
publishedIdeologyand Consciousnessandvariouseditionsof Screen, especially, 15(2), 1974; 16(2) 1975; 17(3)
1976, plus such workas thatby Colin MacCabe:"The discursiveandthe ideologicalin film," Screen 19(4) 1978
and "On Discourse," Economyand Society 9(3) 1979. Muchof this workhas grownout of some of Althusser's
originaldiscussionof ideology (See Paul Hirst, "Althusserand the Theoryof Ideology", Economyand Society
5(A) 1976, reprintedin his OnIdeology, [RKP, 1979])andvia a critiqueof his "Last Instance"determinationhas
posited the "necessary non-correspondence"of ideological forms to the economic (see Marx's Capital and

85
86 Willis and Corrigan

is thatparticular"discourses"producemeaningpurelyinternally."Discourses"referonly
to themselvesandnot to an externalreferent.Theyproducemeaningthroughthe differences
of theirconstitutivesymbolsandthe rulesof combinationof symbolswithoutreferenceto an
outsideobject. No discourseis superiorto any other, nor can any one discourseguarantee
"truth"or "reality" (except its own) to any greaterextentthanany other"discourse." In
particularthe "subject" and its "position" are securedwithinthe "discourse"and not by
referenceto an outside, transcendant,Cartesian"I." "Subjectivity"in general,then, is a
functionof the structureof discourseratherthana reflectionof some outside, autonomous
and humanistically"guaranteed"experience. Where this "experience" is that of the
proletariatfor instance, and where this "experience" is taken to embody aspects of the
historicalmissionof the workingclass, then, the "expressive"powerof discoursesbasedof
this "experience" degeneratesinto a simple "historicist" or "culturalist"view of the
"essence" of the proletariatemanatingthroughsuccessive, transparent levels of thetotality.
DiscourseTheory tells us that we must have a non-classreductivenotion of the relative
autonomyof "discourses"which do not simplyexpressthe interestsof classes, but which,
apparently,structurethe form of its "experience" to begin with.
Thereis muchthatis valuablehere- particularlyin termsof a clearrecognitionof the
specificity of the modes and texturesin which social life is struggled:the givenness and
obstinancywith which class relationsare lived. Certainlywe mustacceptthatthe relation
between the classes could never be the abstractone of pure essences relatingthrough

CapitalismToday,andrecenteditionsof the newjournalM/F). We also includeunderourgeneralterm"discourse

theory"those elementsof Foucault'sandLaclau'sworkwhichcharacterize"subjectposition" as a functiononly
of the closed internalforms and relationshipsof discursivestructures.
Ourfundamentaljustificationfor defininga relativelyunifiedparadigm- "discoursetheory"- froma varied
field is thatall the positionswork througha passive discursivepositioningof "the subject"within "discourses"
whichareapparentlyself-definingandhave no relationto social andmaterialformsbeyondthemselves.The main
weightof our argumentis thrownagainstthe implicationsof this for "dominated"and particularlyworkingclass
"subjectpositions" -actually rarelyidentifiedor analyzedin "DiscourseTheory," Thereis, therefore,a degree
of asymmetryin our argumentsince we arecounteringan attackon the "meanings"and "knowledge"of working
class culturewhich has actuallyarrivedonly by implication.The generalformof the tendencyis, however, quite
clearandit may well be thatit is on the terrainof workingclass "experience"thatthe claims "DiscourseTheory"
are best exposed.
Of course the "positioning" of subjects in "discourses" posits the passivity of the dominantas well as the
dominated- which is in some ways equally a problem.But, especially for the Screenpositions, as the Speaking
"I" is associated with real psychic "I" so both seem to be associated with the "I" in ideology. And since
bourgeois ideology is dominantin society, the dominant"I" of the discourse is also establishedin bourgeois
ideologicaldominance- and so the interestsof the bourgeoisiethe apparentlytotallysecuredeven if at the price
of a passive formationof subjectivity.Actually, though it would be denied, for all the talk of the autonomyof
"discourses," this is ironicallyto fall into the crudestformof a "reflection" theoryof ideology mechanistically
reproducingthe categories of "the base"' i.e., an automaticcorrespondencebetween social relations and
signifying systems. At any rate, since workingclass subjectsare apparentlyboth passive and wholly dominated
ideologicallyin their"positioning" in "discourses" of whateverkind, andsince it is of the utmostimportanceto
properlyrecognizethe scope for workingclass autonomyand actionit is morepressingto challengethe notionof
passivitywith respectto workingclass "subjects." Some of the formalpointswe shall be developinghold too, of
course, for a more active and creativeconstitutionof bourgeoissubjects. Most fundamentallyboth groups, and
their formationshould anyway be thoughtof as in an active relationshipwith each other.
Forthe developingcritiqueof various"discoursetheory" positions, see StuartHall, "Some Problemswith the
Ideology/SubjectCouplet," Ideologyand Consciousness(3); D. Hobsonet. al. (eds.), Language,Media, Culture
and Society (Hutchinson 1980). P. Willeman, "SubjectivityUnder Seige," Screen 19(1), Spring 1978.
Ordersof Experience 87

transparentlyexpressed interestsand intentions. Ideologies and culturesdo not directly

representthe interestsof classes. Injunctionswhich hold, too, for the bourgeoisieand its
"experience."
However,all formsof discourseanalysis- andmuchothertheoreticistworkof the last
ten years- tendentiallyoverlook that any symbolic system is subject, if not to "experi-
ence" with all its essential interests,certainlyto a position in a social relationship.These
systemsare always in specific locations,contexts, and structuresthroughandby which the
relationshipsbetween social classes and othersocial groupsareembodied. "Experience"
should be used not to indicatean essential interesttimelessly unembodiedbut to, even if
crudely, name, make an appropriationof, some of the ways in which a relationshipis
constitutedthrough"discourses," symbolsandmaterialformsfromthe pointof view of the
humanparticipants.Neitherterm- "discourse"or "relationship"- is actuallythinkable
alone. If it is idealisticto posit Agency as the disembodiedexperienceof the workingclass,
so it is idealistic to posit a discourse abstractedfrom the historic and continuingsocial
relationshipswhich make it a social productandpartof social life - makeit observableat
all. Even the impenitenthumanismwhich sees in "expressions"the perfectintentionsof
classes is preferableto thinkingeithertermalone. We mustsee how relations,andparticu-
larlyclass relations,are, yes lived (andyou can see the discoursefever red markmargining
the text- this "the immediatehumanistrelapse")butwitha formalattentionto how this is
formedandaccomplishedin the recalcitranceof symbolicformsandtheirinternalrelation-
shipsandtheirrelationshipto ideologicalstructuration. Andthis "living" involves "under-
standings," forms of "subjectivity," and what certainlyparticipantsregardas "experi-
ence." "Experience"is a majortouchstonefor how social relationships -often actually
submergingthem- are appropriated,and very importantlyis also the basis for choice and
actionwhich(whilepartlyillusory)actuallyproducesspecificmaterialoutcomeswhichhelp
to reproducethe class society in muchmorecomplexways withgreaterplaysof possibilities
than any ex post facto idealist theoreticalaccountcan contain.
But "discourse"and "social relations"shouldnot be thoughttogetherin some uneasy
theoreticalpaddock,or addedone to the other.We aredisputingthatintellectualenterprise
can adequatelylaborin its own discursivevineyardto be "completed"one day merelyby
joining up adjacentproperties.The connectionbetween these termsshould be thoughtin
dialecticaltermsof articulatedcombinationsin the dynamicof self-producedmateriallife in
a capitalistmode. Producingthe "concrete" in thoughtmeanssuch a combination.Lenin,
afterall, arguedthat"being all reality,experienceis not in needof Justification:it exists and
to explainit meanssimplyto formulatethe relationsit involves" (PhilosophicalNotebooks).
We shallbe as idealistas the discoursefeveritesif we merelyadd "beneath"the "discursive
chain" a separatelevel of social relationsand their "positions" or "interests." We must
show how discoursesare used and help to form the contexts, sites, and even contentsof
actualsocial relations.The "experience"of a social relationmustcertainlybe presentedin
the concrete"impure"formsof its existenceas well as in whatit bearsof "class meaning."
If thetermsareto be separatedfor clarityin thoughttheyshouldbe recombinedin theformof
relationship/discourse/relationship/ discourse/relationshipetc., ratherthan as an all time
dualism SOCIAL RELATION/DISCOURSE. Most important, the arcane complexity of "dis-
course" should never be thought alone. Though this risks an idealism from the other
directionit is necessaryto stress what is usually the massive blind spot in the retinaof
discursiveapproaches:the natureof the generalclass relationfor the proletariat- what
should actuallyalways form the "this-sidedness"of how analysis proceeds.
88 Willis and Corrigan

The proleteriatis not only subjectto the contradictionbetweenCapitaland Laborbut is

the site of contradictions.They are simultaneouslythe most subordinatedand dominated
groupswithin a mode of productionand social formation,as well as being the only solid
agents for possible transformation.2 This is to recognize that althoughsocial classes are
constitutedthroughsocial individualswho areconcretelyanddiverselysexed, raced,located
and gradedthroughsocio-moralclassifications,they remainclasses whose limits of vari-
ation3and certainly crucial internalparametersare formed by and within the existing
dominantmodeof production- capitalism.Certainof theideologicalformsof capitalismin
relationto the structurallogic of the system- fetishismof thecommodity,the "fairwage,"
the wage form, freedomand equalityunderthe law, representativedemocracy- deeply
structure,for instance, the possibilities for working class culture and consciousness.
Throughand within this, however, it must be recognizedthat the workingclass contains
resourcesthroughwhich the presentset of social arrangementscould be radicallytrans-
formedpreciselybecause they suffer most collectively and systematicallyfrom- are the
object of - those social arrangements.As we hope to show, we mean this as much
scientificallyas humanistically.This subordinationmakesthe workingclass most open to
the determinationof capitalistforms, and most likely to penetrate,resist, and overthrow
them. Both sides of these possibilities must be kept in play4in our specific analysis of
concrete"discourses"of culturalforms. Ratherthanattendingto theformaldimensionsand
relationsof particulararticulationsof symbols in a "text," we mustaddresshow, withina
social relation,bothdominantideologicalformsandresourcesagainstthemarecarried,in a
permanentstruggle or conflict waged within even one symbol or throughwhole sets of
culturalexpressions.
Because of the natureof the overallcapitalistsocial relationfor the proletariat,thereis
always, so to speak, a "knowledge" which is "to be discovered" and which it is most
inclinedtowards- even whereit maynot be codedin any visiblepublicdiscourse,or where
because of anti-mentalismand institutionalalienation, such codings as do exist may be
rejected. This general point does not contradictwhat should be the special area of the
contributionof discourseanalysis,butwhichis currentlymobilizedby it as a denunciationof
humanismor historicism, that these possibilities are always inflected throughparticular
expressionsandsymbols, thattheycannotbe prescribedin advanceandthatin any concrete
existence they are powerfullydeterminedby the internalnatureof thatconcretion.Alone,
they may carryno class meaning. There is no inevitability.No guarantee.

2Marx,for example, speaksof humanbeings "in every respect,economically, morally,and intellectuallystill

stampedwith the birthmarksof the old society," thatis, with capitalismduringsocialist construction.K. Marx
"Critiqueof the GothaProgramme;(Peking:ForeignLanguagePress, 1972)p. 15. These themesarediscussedin
two books by Philip Corrigan,Harvie Ramsay, Derek Sayer:Socialist Constructionand MarxistTheory(New
York:MonthlyReview Press, 1978) For Mao (New Jersey;HumanitiesPress, 1979), which examinesthe whole
area of culturalrelationsin terms of socialist construction.
3Thisdraws upon the work of RaymondWilliams, e.g. Marxismand Literature(Oxford University Press,
1977) PartII. It is, in fact, a generalemphasis of the English culturalmaterialists(see RadicalHistoryReview
issues 18 and 19) including not only E.P. Thompsonbut equally ChristopherHill.
4This orientates our argumentagainst "Capital Logic" schools as well as against "Discourse Theory."
Capitalismwas proclaimedand sustainedon territory(includingculturalcategoriesand practices)which predate
it. Argumentswhich posit a "logic" of Capitalas totallydeterminingignorethis, and- a pointMarxmadeoften
- the deep illogicality of capitalismas lived experiencedby millions upon millions of people.
Ordersof Experience 89

None of this is to minimizethe powerof dominantformsof discourses- commercial-

izationandcommodificationof culture,factoryandschool discipline,communicationforms
of all kinds- norto omit the solidly materialmeansof domination.Ratherit is to arguethat
materialityitself establishes the potentialfor resistanceand that the very totalizationof
particularhegemonicculturalformsproduce,contradictionsas in modemmeansof commu-
nicationwhich are precisely "media": they signify what is alreadyknownabout (in some
measure)andthe closer they move to address"wherepeopleareat" the closerthey move to
the formsof class experiencewhich "speak" in life butremainsilentin the culturalworldof
The Obvious.5It is exactly in this areawherethe specificityof discourseanalysiscould draw
out the particularforms and natureof what is suppressedand in tension - ratherthan
yielding everythingto a formalismwhich repeatsthe bourgeoiscommandof "the public"
and the "separate."
We want to indicate generally how class relationsform a repertoireof submerged,
fractured,fissured,contradictory,and semi-visibleresourcesfromwhich social individuals
especially throughtheir collective life can simultaneouslyhold off the dominantsocial
imageryandestablish,howeverpartially,ways throughto a differentformof socialization.
We want to argue for a notion of culturalforms as those structuredrelationshipsand
symbolicsystemsthroughwhich- dialecticallytogetherunderthe impulsesof the produc-
tion of materiallife - social experiencesare formed,felt, framed,sensed, expressed,and
transmitted.Theirparticularconfigurationsare producedthroughworkdone on forms and
normsandoften on the raw materialsof dominationwithinthe scope of a particularrelation
which includes the possibility of resistanceas well as the constraintsof The Obvious,
natural,mythicworldof hegemony- andthe combinationof these in inversions,combina-
tions, and limited (for the moment)transformations.
We are interested, therefore, in forms of resistance and culturalopposition in the
workingclass not as an epiphenomenal,imagined,"sociological," or subjectivistnotion,
butas a whole modalityof the capitalistsystem- even in the severestmomentsof working
class defeat. We aredealingwith one of the most basic categoriesof the Marxisttheoretical
systemandmustaddressthe seriousnessof formsof discourseanalysisnotoutof rejectionor
competitionbut in orderto comprehendthe materialityand substanceof the ways in which
resistance is not only "expressed" but also formed. Of course the substance of this
resistanceis nevera simplereflectionof a simplepureexpressivepurpose- or the struggle
wouldhave long since been resolvedandtherewould be no need for a specific contribution
from intellectualworkers.But if "experience" is not sacredlycoded, always somewhere
else in a perfectlyformeddiscourse,how is it formedin relationto the formalismof existing
"discourse" and the materialityof ideology? These are not academicquestionsbut feed
directlyinto the specificity of how a submergedand broken- andoften finally reproduc-
tive6- culturalpolitics could be democraticallyturnedinto a real politics.
The restof the articleis organizedintotwo sections.The firstoperatesbroadly(andsome
mightsay dangerously)on the terrainof "discourses"to suggest ways in which a concrete
contextualizationof theirpossibilitiesin realsituationsandrelationshipscan save themfrom

5Seeour "CulturalFormsand Class Mediations," in Media, Cultureand Society, 1980, and referencesthere.
6See Paul Willis, "The Class Significanceof School Counter-culture,"in TheProcess of Schooling (London:
Routledge, 1976), andLearningto Labour:How WorkingClass KidsGet WorkingClass Jobs. (LexingtonBooks,
1977).
90 Willis and Corrigan

a one-wayformalisticcodingprovidingonly passive, "subjectpositions"for workingclass

agents. We will be suggestingthata notionof culturalformsallows a muchmoreadequate
andhistoricalconceptualizationof the possibilitieshere, andthatalthoughabstractedformal
notions of "discourse" may help analyticallyin detailingthe partsin thought,the more
combinatorynotionof culturalforms is necessaryfora realpoliticalor social analysiswhich
has anyengagementwith an overallMarxianproject.The secondsectionmoveson fromour
categoryof culturalforms to a considerationof some importantforms of workingclass
knowledgeand perspectivewhich are embeddedwithinthem.
FROM "DISCOURSE" TO CULTURALFORM

The view of workingclass culturewe areworkingtowardsis of the connectedformation

of culturalformswithinwhich its relationalpositionwithinthe social structureis explored.
Culturalforms are comprisedof specific, complex, definiterelationsof symbolicsystems
embeddedin social relationshipsandactivity.Such symbolicsystemscouldbe describedas
"discourses"butthey mustalwaysbe thoughtin variablecombinationin variableconcrete
situationswith respect to particularrelationships.Particular"discourses" consideredin
isolationmay be "structuredin dominance"withincapitalism.But throughspecific inter-
sections, forms of reversal and combination,they can generatean account, generatea
content,generateformsof knowledge,whichcannotbe assimilatedbackintothe dominated
contentsof any particular"discourse" in its own right. At a minimumthis constitutesan
investigationof the real social possibilitiesfacing particularclass agents, and a limited,
thoughdefinite,revelationof aspectsof thatrealityin a way whichmightnotbe open in quite
those forms to straightforward bourgeoisknowledge.Workingclass culturalforms do not
possess knowledgewhich is located in any one particularhead or heads. It is implicit in
formsof life and concretepracticescombiningand "profanely"using many "discourses"
no matterif- jumpedout and abstractedfrom context- each particular"discourse" is
"structuredin dominance."Whatwe mustaddto the perspectiveof the internallogic of the
"discourse" is some notion of how class struggle, throughagents who are not purely
"spoken," can push its way into the logic of those discoursesand reposition,creatively
explore,new contextsfor them- especiallyin relationto eachother.Inorderto unpackthe
natureof culturalforms,then, we thinkit necessaryto remainprovisionallyon thegroundof
"discourse," but only to show how "the parts" may be put together "in thought" to
producea fully constitutedculturalmaterialismof culturalforms.
The firstpointwe would makeconcernswhatseems to be an undialectical,unitary,and
one-way use of "discourse" in power relationships.7Even abstractingand isolatingand
separatelydefininga single "discourse"(whichwe areopposedto) shouldnot obscurethe
possibilityof such a thing being used "backwards"or "tangentially."We are suggesting
thatthe internalform of a particulardiscoursecan be used in a reversedirection.In some
ways it can be used to controlthe master.In Foucaultthereseems to be an assumptionthat
particulardiscourseshave unchangeableobjects. Prisonersin Discipline and Punish, or
patientsin TheBirth of the Clinic, seem for all time to be destinedto remainas objectsof
theirrespective"discourses." Thereis not hereeven a hintof a theoryof resistance,only a

7Forexample, Michel Foucault,Disciplineand Punish(Allen Lane, 1978), butsee thecriticismsof Ben Fine in
Capital and Class (9) 1979.
Ordersof Experience 91

theoryof power. But it is possible for those objects, for momentsand in a way thatis more
thana simplerefusal,to as it were reversethe polarityof the discourse.A patientcan get a
doctor to behave in a "certain" way. A prisonerhas ways of maintainingdignity and
determiningaspectsof the warder'sbehavior.If the clinic is partlyaboutturningpeopleinto
patients, it is also about turningdoctors into people - people to oppose or deflect the
"power" of otherpeople. Thereare behaviorsimplicitin the structureof the "discourse"
which aren't always uni-channelledfrom the powerfulto the dominated.Workingclass
women go into the surgerydeterminedto come out with "their" prescriptionand they
succeed- theirstatusof "patient-hood"maybe used in sexual, symbolic,andrealways to
at least partiallylift patriarchaloppressionof the home- and often, of course, "feminine
complaints"can be used to resist, somewhat,the oppressionsof work. Workingclass men
andwomengo into the surgerydeterminedto come out with "their" note to stayaway from
work- often when they've been suspendedor laid off withoutpay fromwork. Being "on
the box" - definedofficially by the doctorbut in ways whichare manipulatedall the time
- is a majorif defensive way of holding some space out from the "dull compulsion"of
daily wage labor.This is not to agreethatthe whole natureof a "discourse"can be changed
- from one of the subordinationto the hegemonyof the dominatedobject- but it is to
makea formalpointaboutthe possibilityof the reversalof some of the powersandof some
of the relationshipsof partsin a "discourse"- allowingsome realmovementin the "other
direction":giving some power to the dominatedobject.
Anotherexample is where the sexual and patriarchalstructureswhose generalinternal
forms act to supress women can, in some class and institutionalsituations, be used by
womenas a formof opposition.Sexualstructuresneednot in all contextsoperateto objectify
and oppresswomen. It's clear, for instance,thatworkingclass girls can use a very visible
form of female sexuality - "brazen" propositionor physical display - as a form of
resistanceto mentalauthorityin school:to embarrassteachersof bothsexes by only slightly
re-arrangingand exaggeratinga given "discourse." It is the "objectness" of the object
come alive to confrontthe degradationand hypocrisyof what made it: "Here this is what
you've made, do you like it?" andsimultaneouslythecelebrationof the lack in the powerful
of apparentlyvalued qualities in the "discourse": "Could you pull a bloke anyway you
driedupold prune/couldyou manageit at all you dryold stick." This is a formof "agency"
breakingfromthe bondsof the "discourse"whichhelpedto makeit - specificallyenabled
by position in a relationshipand precise context where sexuality(in its own properlogic
oppressive)is used to challengeotherkindsof controland "objectpositions":in thiscase in
the "discourse" of school authority.
In the case, also, of what might be called the "factory discourse" (with all of the
"positionalities" implied by this) groups of women can exaggerate"expected" female
responsesor sometimes take over obvious male forms - aggressive sexuality, explicit
language,coarseexclusive humour- to embarrassandhold off male powerin generalbut
also specifically that embodiedin the authorityof the foremanor supervisor.
These examples are, in a sense, trivial. Certainlywe are "bendingthe stick" of the
argumentin a microcontext. But if it is possibleto show in realinteractions,in realconcrete
situations,that "agency" can rescuehoweversmall a space for expressionof meaningand
the formationof an identitywhich is not automaticallywrittenintothe internalnatureof any
particular"text" or "discourse," then no matterhow small the examples, if they are
summedandaddedwe can see botha generalpossibilityanda specific invalidation.The size
92 Willis and Corrigan

of the torpedodoesn't matterin the puncturingof the idealist cladding of discourse as

determination.
Whatthe previousexamplesshow as well as reverse, tangential,or exaggerateduse of
"discourse," is the active combinationof "discourses" in a structuredrelationshipto put
meaningsand oppositions with respect to the relationshipwhich aren't containedin the
"discourses" themselves. In our previousexamples sexuality was used with respect to
school authorityand factoryauthorityto expose and resist it. Of course the most massive
example of this combinationof "discourse" in relationto authorityis also relatedto the
largerrelationshipsof capitaland patriarchy- the use of masculinityas an oppositional
force. In the school and in the factory the whole discourseof masculinity,of masculine
presence, is often used as a form of opposition to, if you like, class "discourses" of
oppression.The exerciseof class powerthroughlanguageandculturalforms"structuredin
dominance"(best exposed with referenceto Marxistcategories)is resistednot in straight
termsof class consciousness(thatone might wish were there)but in what seems to be a
discourse which is more controllableby the male workingclass: masculinesexism and
machism (best addressedto patriarchalcategories). It gives the possibility again of an
"agency" partlyformedin given "discourse," but also using them to have some control
(althoughnot a pure expressive clean control by any means) over the expression of a
distinctivepositionin a relationof dominanceandto give some concreteformsof actionon
that. Workingclass boys at school, for instance,often resistthe mentaldominationof the
school in concrete masculine forms of direct confrontationwith teachersand the whole
institution:a confrontationand a celebrationof masculinitywithin which, in their own
terms, workingclass boys do have more controland success - for all its anti-socialness.
This formof resistanceoppressesanothersectionof the workingclass- workingclass girls
- as well as it denies the functionof mentalknowledgefor boys. It equatesthe school -
whatis opposed- with mentalcapacityand in the process,therefore,associatesmasculin-
ity with theexpressionof manualidentity.8Forall the resistancethis is an excellentinformal
and culturalpreparationfor inductioninto manuallabour.But all the same we can see the
possibilities in the re-articulationand the conjunctionof "discourses." "Discourses"
which, for themselves and consideredin the abstractand apartfrom each other, appear
totally subordinating,when jigged togetherin the real profaneworld, can bringaboutthe
possibilityof expression, resistance,and "penetration"which lie in no "discourse" ab-
stractedout of the complexityof social relations.In these examplesabove, and certainly
without the help of organized forms, the resistancemay well have been unexpressed,
because unexpressable,without the materialityof patriarchyas "a discourse" and the
identity it makes possible not simply within a "discourse" but in the tension between
"discourses"in a relationshipof power. Untila properandsharedsocialistcultureprovides
other popular "discourses" for this expression and activity we should be wary about
condemningthe impure (oppressive and reproductiveas they may be) forms in which
sections of the workingclass exist and make a criticalspace for itself - especially if this
makes us blind to creative opposition and the social furnacingof the meaningof "dis-
courses.'
Generallywe are pointingto the idealistdangerfollowing fromthe "discovery" of the

"Thisis one of the main themes of Paul Willis' Learningto Labour, op. cit.
Ordersof Experience 93

splitbetweenthe "signifier" andthe "signified" andthe notionof "meaning"arisingfrom

differencesbetween "signifiers."9No matterhow each is held to be formedmattersless
thanthe apparentbelief in DiscourseTheorythatthey can be separatedover time, and held
abstractly,as it were, like two tramlines neverto meet in the distance.No matterwhatthe
natureof the "space" between them a really materialnotion of social relationshipsmust
insiston the variable,changing,tenserelationshipbetweenthesethings- proceedingin the
mannerof what might be called "realitytesting." "Reality" is only enacted, visible (and
then at all) throughthe articulationof signs and meanings. Signs in "discourses" have
specific effects, outcomes and materialconsequenceseven if they have an inner, arcane
logic.
In the famousexampleof the trafficlights we can accept, for instance,thatreddoes not
intrinsicallymean "stop" or "danger" and that green does not mean "safety" or "pro-
ceed." It wouldin fact be a sociobiologismwhichsaw an essentialmeaningarisingfromthe
"redness" of blood or the "greenness"of tranquilpastures.It is in the differencebetween
redandgreenthatmeaningis generated.But whilstrecognizingthis formalrelationshipit is
also clear that this meaningthroughdifferenceis also socially learnedand located. Small
childrenmightnot, but adultsknow when to stop or whento proceed- or they don't have
the chance to choose againno matterwhattheirknowledgeof the interality of signs. In a
certainsense the internallogic is not relevantonce the social meaninghas been learned-
andsign systemsarenot abstractlyseparatedbuta continuouspartof how realityis "lived"
and "tested." If the sequenceof lightsor the left handrule(whichseems likely in England)
werechanged,the social meaningof the new formalsign relationshipwouldsoon be learned
through"accidents" or "prosecutions"andtryingto avoid these- historicalexperiences
if you like.
Of coursethis may fall into what is portrayedas a banalhumanism- from wheredoes
the subjectarise who views the consequenceof theiractions?But whetherthe "subject" is
formedin languageor fromprimarypsychicpiocesses or not, this does not condemnhim or
herto the doomof endlesslyrepeatingthe logic of the "discourse"or of the "mirrorphase"
into their cold graves. Whateverthe social forming, whatever the modes and limits,
"Agency" once formed, must imply some capacityfor autonomy.Not centered,essential,
or necessarily self-knowing, this does encompass an ability to registeroutcomes, make
furtheradjustments,re-articulate,struggle,andrefuse- in a wordto avoidgettingkilled at
trafficlights, or morepertinent,to avoid the totalexploitationof capital.Actors, especially
in groupswith theircollectivepowerof redefinition,do not need to knowthe innernatureof
linguisticequationsto go aboutre-oideringtheir culturalfields. The internalworkingsof
"discourses" - which we will never fully know - matterless than the social struggle
(fromboth classes) to use, "work," andcontrolthem. Of coursethe outwardrealityof the
internalrelationof signs, materials,practices,and activitiesin a "discourse" can "strike
back," yield unexpectedopportunitiesor advantages- all emphasisingthe unknown
relationof signifiedto signifier. But none of this suggeststheirpresence,purely, in a quite
unsocial world.
Furthermore one of the importantways of raisingthe chargeof "banalhumanism"from
our shoulderscomes from that reworkingof "discourses" throughcombination,context,

9R. Cowardand J. Ellis, Language and Materialism(Routledge, 1978).

94 Willis and Corrigan

reversal, and relationshipfor a notionof culturalformwhich we are arguinghere. For the

possibilitiesfor a workingclass expression,or generationof contentnot assimilableback
into any particular"discourse"arisingfromcombinationand context,does not dependon
single humansubjectsfor all the action. Individualmotivations,for instance,maynot relate
to this content. They may well be in tension with what is generatedthroughcollective
culturalpractice.But whatcollectiveactivityandpraxis,hesitationsandstuttersdo produce
is agitationof the field, experiment,combination,andexploration- using whatevertools
or "discourses" are at hand. And what helps to producethe effectivity of the uses or
combinationsof "discourses"we have discussedlies importantlyin the natureof dominat-
ing "discourses" and specifically in their contradictionsand partialities- weaknesses
picked up, not by an essentialall-seeinghumanity,but in the particularresourcesof other
"discourses" themselvesin theirown properfields perhapsdominating,but in relationto
the given "discourse" revelatoryand exploratory- especially for the ways in which
symbolicsystems areused and structuredin relationshipsof powerandsocial contradiction
to contradictorilyobscurethatrelation.Contradictionmay be handledor displacedin any
particular"discourse,"10but this is because they find their own unproblematic"route
through"and do not exhaustthe total potentialmeaningsof the social relationship.Those
other "potential"meaningsare not idealisticallyhypostasizedfree-floatingmeanings,but
those, precisely,whichareorganizedandmadeunproblematic by thepartialsweepof other
"discourses" which in their turn, for their consistency, omit other kinds of "potential
meaning."
It is when "discourses"are broughttogether,or contextualizedin realsituationswhich
alwayshaveotherbasesof meaning,thattheirpartialityandcontradictoriness is exposed-
the
through very resources of those "discourses" and the complexjuxtaposedpatternsof
what each does not say or rendersnon-contradictory throughomission.
This contextualizationof "discourses"andthe generationof meaningthroughthe over-
laying of the suppressedcontradictions,partialities,and omissions of particular"dis-
courses" is likely to proceedthroughnon-verbal(to meanlanguageas directexpressionof
its content) and collective forms precisely because it lies between "discourses" in the
invisiblelogic of whattheydo notsay butspeakto. Therelationof "discourses"particularly
rejigged(even slightly) by the dominatedbears a whole criticalrelationto the structured
situationwhich each of them speakpartiallyto, butthis speech is profaneandhiddenfrom
bourgeoishistory.If it couldbe "spoken," this meaningwouldbetrayitself in contradiction
and oppression.It is what cannotbe spoken which structureswhat can be spoken in the
automizationand fragmentation- apparentconsistency- of particulardominating"dis-
courses."'
"Ideology" is not only the "content" of these "discourses"but the particular"pre-
ferred" relationof their silences to each other as well. It is workingclass culture,or its
culturalpraxis,whichmakesthis silence speak- butnot in words,or not in wordswiththe
verbal"discourse"of its meaningat theircenter.The various"discourse"positionswhich
to a greateror lesser extent base themselves on languagethus write out workingclass
meaning,destroythe real agency of its subjects,and banishsense and knowledgefrom all
but bourgeois "discourses" - we have the largest social tautology masqueradingas
science: and its cost is the eradicationof the workingclass from history.

IOSeeErnestoLaclau, Politics and Ideology in MarxistTheory(NLR, 1978).

Ordersof Experience 95

FROM "CULTURALFORMS" TO SOCIALISTPOLITICS?

We would want to arguevery stronglythat much recentwork in social historycan be

used to interpretthe presentin the mannerwe have suggested.We thinkhere, for example,
of Genovese's work in showinghow in apparentcompletesubordination,slaves sustained
formsof cultureand dignity, or the work of Gutman(for the U.S.A.) and the school and
historiesassociatedwith E.P. Thompson(for England)in how culturalfeaturesof resistance
to earlyandmaturingcapitalistformsof productionshows us a workingclass whichis never
completelycontainedor incorporated.Recentworkon workpracticesin the U.S.A. and in
Europepoints to the importanceof culturalforms of resistancein the workplace,such as
sabotage(interpretedwidely) as ways of resisting what we suppose we have to call the
"discourses" of mass production."
Relatedlyit is also possible to see formaldiscoursesof controlas sites of contestation.
E.P. Thompsonshows this to be true for the whole "political theatre"of the eighteenth
century(as he earliershowedhow the samereligion,Methodism,is madesense of different-
ly for millownersand millhands).It is also possible to see "legal discourse" in this light:
"Law can thus be renderedin its neglectedaspectas a complexculturalformembodyinga
significancefor structure,contextandhistory." 2The samecontestation,turningback, and
refusalsarise in the present.
There is a political and revelatorydimensionin what we are trying to identify. The
exaggeratedsexualityof workingclass girlsdemonstratesthat"the powerful"do not accept
the implicationsof the gender model they have upheld for reasons of institutionaland
pedagogiccontrol.The genderresistancesof boys and girls, andthe identity,satisfaction,
and dimensions they bring, expose the contradictionthat educationdemandsthe same
sacrifice- conformityandthe freezingof otherpossibilitiesandcapacities- fromall that
it can only legitimatelyexpect fromthe few - the successful. Also it shows thatwhen the
"successful" aredeterminednot by effortor abilitybutby class, the "bargain"even for the
workingclass "elect" is a fraud.3The "masculine"strugglesandidentityof the shopfloor
expose that the "fair bargain" of the "fair wage" and industrialorganizationfor the
"commongood" areindeedbasedon realoppressionandexploitation- a degradationonly
pickedupculturallyby "masculinepride"andself-worthproducedon othergrounds.It also
exposes the mentalformof authority,and the mental/manualdivisionas the cornerstoneof
the division of labour. Female sexual resistance at work shows all this and also the
"respectable"forms industrialauthoritytakes, its suppressionof other relationshipsand
basesof its position. It shows, eliptically,anddarkly,thatproductionneedsreproduction -
the whole sphereof domestic life, domesticproductionand sexuality, with its ideological

'The workof Huw Beynon is highly relevanthere:Workingfor Fords (PenguinBooks, N.d.); and with Theo
Nichols, Living with Capitalism. (Routledge, 1977) as is Jason Ditton, Part-TimeCrime (Macmillan. 1978);
"Moral HorrorVersus Folk Horror:OutputRestriction,Class and the Social Organisationof Exploitation,"
Sociological Review24 (1976); "Baking-Time," Sociological Review27 (1979); and the referencesin all three
texts. Recent work on sabotage includes Geoff Brown, Sabotage (NottinghamSpokesmanbooks, 1977) for
Englandand P. Dubois, Sabotage in Industry(PenguinBooks, 1979) (Frenchedition, 1976) for France.
'2C.Sumner,ReadingIdeologies (Londonand New York, AcademicPress, 1979), p. 285. Thompson'swork
referredto is The Makingof the English WorkingClass (Penguin, 1968); "PatricianSociety, PlebianCulture,"
Journal of Social History, 7(4) 1974, and "Eighteenth-CenturyEnglish Society' Social History 3(2) 1978.
13WillisLearningto Labourand Profane Culture.
96 Willis and Corrigan

life and sometimesprivatespice andjoy - but suppressesthis recognitionandnecessityin

its separatedand respectablepursuitonly of the use of unsexed labor. This authorityis
concernedenough in all its neutralityand "its job to done" to strikeoff and submergethe
notionof "laborpower" fromlabor,andis properlyconfoundedby the problemsof striking
bothoff fromtheirrole in humanreproductionandwhatmighthave been a whole rounded
life.
Anotherimportantformof the combinationor rearticulation of "discourses"which has
a misrecognizedpolitical significancefor highlightingcontradictionsand lacunae is the
"joke." Certainlythis is centralin what we may call shop floor culture.This is normally
takenas a very trivialthing, as if in some way havinga joke is a way of living opposition
whichis purelypassive, makingthe bestof a verybadjob andat leasthavinga laughaboutit
- the joke as a psychic survivalkit. But if it is seen as the possibilityof re-articulating
"discourses," of finding intersectionsin "discourses," of resistingcertainkindsof disci-
pline, then it has moreimportance.Therearea numberof formsof "discourse,"or patterns
of controlover others, which can be unlockedor reinterpreted by the joke. Manyformsof
resistanceto oppressionareoftenformedandmadeto finallybite, clinch, stick, havea mark,
make an effect, by the joke form.
It is also in thejoke form, often, whenthereis the boldestchallengeto, andrecombina-
tion of, "discourses"to producenot only perhapsironicexposureof contradictionsbutalso
the mobilizationof discourses, together, to actively create the "placing" of others:the
powerful.This is an inversion,materialin some of its outcomesas well as symbolicthough
not finally challenging, which allows the more creativeexplorationof conditionsof exis-
tence and which is at the heartlandof workingclass experience.The "joke," the "non-
serious," protects the seriousness of what is at play. Shop floor culture, for instance,
generatesits own distinctiveforms which manageto create a certainpower (thoughin a
subordinatesituation)over the dispositionof workersown real concretebodies:at another
symbolic level a degree of exclusion and objectificationof powerfulothers. It is the area
precisely of irony and the joke where the controls downwardsfrom supervisorscan be
partiallybluntedby joking. It's the area, too, where specificallythe controlvery often of
your workmatesover yourself is blunted or redirectedby irony or the joke. That very
insubstantialnotion so far in ethnography,the "culturalapprenticeship"of the young
worker,is also importanthere. The treatmentof the young workeroften revolves around
jokes and ironies and the dispositionof his/herbody. Kids are sent for "sky hooks," for
"rugberhammers."The shop floor with its "piss-takes," "wind-ups," andjokes inserts
the youngworkerintosomethingof an artificialreality:denyingthe strictlogic of a capitalist
productivedispositionof real bodies in the laborprocess;denyinga directcontrolof the
individualbody. This supportspracticallythe possibilityof alternatives:andthattheabstract
logics of controlneed not always be followed. the culturalapprenticeshipis an important
groundfor the practical,oftenunpleasantlearningof the rangeof the waysof beingrelatedto
work,of handlingexternaldirection,of understanding the invisiblebargainsover how work
is sharedout andfinally limitedthroughinformalcontrol.It is one of the concretemodesof
opposingthe "politicaltechnology"of the factorywith its rulebook, interdictedareas,and
the paceof the machine.Of course, andthis is crucial,all this is experiencedculturally,as a
living out, not as a political opposition to the logics of capital. There is a "relative
independence"here on the particulargroundof the recombinationof "discourses"(under
the influence, but not wholly so of agency) which we may call workingclass culture.The
Ordersof Experience 97

objectivesof the agentsconcernnot "class struggle," but "fun," "diversion," "havinga

go at the young 'un!" It is neverthelessa subversionof the logic of capital.
We can also add to the list of ways in which given "discourses"can be activatedin a
counterhegemonicand quasi politicalmanner,the whole areaof the mobilizationof tradi-
tional "discourses," or connectedsets of norms, symbols, and practices,in new contexts.
Thinkof the whole areaof primitiverebellion. Poachingand smugglingin the eighteenth
centurylook like purelytraditionalformsof behaviorin subordinated groups,reachingback
for purelytraditionalrights in the struggleover the use value of animals,for instance,or
wood and turf. In fact, those groups, it might be suggested, were strugglingover very
modern things in traditionalforms; exploring the possibilities of emerging capitalism
throughresidualcultures.The poachersfor instancein Thompson'sbookWhigsandHunters
were not simply peasantsand serfs, or those recentlydisplacedfrom that, attemptingto
retainfeudal rightsbut were in fact killing pheasantsand deer for sale, for the market,to
enterinto very often much wider formsof reallyquite new commercialforms. The people
who were involvedwere actuallysmallemergingcapitalistfarmers,towndwellers,artisans
of variouskinds, not the people who you would expect to be associatedwith a pure and
simple traditionalistreturnto the old order. In fact it was the gentry, the dominantgroup
underfeudalism, who throughtheir laws, and the Black Acts were actuallythemselves
reassertingfundamentalfeudalisticnotions:they wantedthe pheasantsfor theirown table
andtherebyto refusethe widercommercialexchangesand relationships.Farfrom "primi-
tive" culturaldiscourses always having the same meaning, they can vary accordingto
context.A traditional"discourse"whichapparentlysuggestsa reversionto thepastmay, in
fact, best be understoodas an inheritedresourcewhichcan be used undernecessityto work
on, formandexpress,a new relationalpositionin the socialorderagainstothers'oppression:
to explorein this case the new formsof a social system.This is to turnthe uses, customs,and
habituationsof the feudalorderinto a vehicle for exploringthe commercialpossibilitiesof
the new order.In fact the Black Acts were not progressive(in the sense of representingthe
interestsof the new order)but were a throwbackto the older order. So called "Primitive
Rebellion" held in its "old codes" the newer and more radicalcontent.
A particular"discourse," then, is not alwaysboundto havethe samemeaningirrespec-
tive of the concretesocial relationsin which it is embedded.Takethe modernphenomenon
of "work refusal"amongstsome West Indiansin Englishcity centers.This is apparentlya
returnto traditionalistand primitiveforms of rebellion borrowedfrom the West Indian
cultureof "wagelessness." But the structuresandcontextsaredifferent.West Indiansface
the final oppressionof the workingclass in the developedcontext:unemployment.It can be
arguedthat,currently,in the inner-city"developed"context"primitive"culturalformsare
beingusedas a formof resistanceto andexplorationof that.A tightsituationis beingturned
into some kindof (still subordinated)active and unbowedculturalexplorationof the actual
possibilities in their fullest extent. Although the form of the culture is very similar to
wagelessnessin the underdevelopedcontext,in thedevelopedcontextit canbe seen as a very
modemformof refusalof wage laborandexpressionof theculturalpotentialsandreverbera-
tions of that.
It is in this accumulationof whatwe have called reversals,combinations,contexts,and
recontextualizations thatwe wantto developa notionof culturalformsas the buildingbrick
of workingclass or oppositionalcultures.Theirprofanefixing of a numberof "discourses"
in a structuredrelationof power does give a theoreticaland practicalpossibilityfor seeing
98 Willis and Corrigan

formsof workingclass knowledgeandculturalpower. Abstract,de-contextualizedanalysis

seriallypostponesin singular"discourses" this possibilityof an alternativeworkingclass
"appellation,"or the struggleto claim a position of anythingbut the acted on "object."
Culturalforms, however, show us the groundsfor an alternative"appellation,"the sub-
stanceof what "appealsagainst"in anyparticular"discourse," andthe ways thatparticu-
lar "discourses"takenin combinationhelp in othersituationsto constitutethe possibilities
of "appealing against" even though - for themselves - they may be "structuredin
dominance."
Discourse Analysis of separatedforms will never show the alternativeworkingclass
attemptto organize,to resist,to show the otherside of "hegemony"-for suchanalysishas
banishedthe workingclass subject:the dominantclass and its obvious ideology is the only
referencepointfor a "discourse"consideredin isolation.The workingclass andits specific,
concrete, culturalforms of knowledgeare never coded, clearly, in one "discourse," but
between and through "discourses" in what the structure"between them" "says" or
"shows." The separationof "discourses"in analysisduplicatesthis separationof domains
in bourgeoisideology. The realityof workingclass life is all the time atomizedand broken
intodifferentsets of experiencesby bourgeoistheoristswho don'trecognizethe wholenesses
of the experiencesof being workingclass. But if all these micropossibilitiesare, as it were,
addedup togetherand put in the form of "a life," if a combinationis made of all of the
mismatches,fragmentations,reversals, and tangentialuses of mostly subordinated"dis-
courses," then it is possible throughthe summationof these cumulativeresonances(which
ethnography,for instance,still has an importantpowerto actuallybringaboutandshow) to
see a working class not thoroughlyepistemologicallystructuredfrom within, coercively
structuredfrom without, but with its own formof knowledge, its own formof experience.
This is perhapsmainly on the groundof dominated"discourses" sure, but not in a way
which is containedby, or reducibleback to these "discourses." Havingonce opened up
their territoriesof meaning to struggle, the same meaning can never be recouped. The
dominantclass might "choose" the terrain,but not always the outcome.
We mightseem to be arguingfor a notionof intentionandpurposein the workingclass:
that because we've hoped to show some scope for alternativemeaningthroughdifferent
combinationsof "discourses"we are, in a sense, sayingthat"workingclass knowledge"is
totallyprincipledor has a pureexpressivepurpose,or is the basis for socialist transforma-
tion. Is whatwe are saying open basicallyto chargesof "historicism'"?4Are we assuming
an agencyis in any way purposiveor intentioned?Basicallywe say "NO," butleave openthe
possibilityof a more complex answerin relationto collectivityand cultural"mediation."
The processesandpracticeswe've discussedcannotbringaboutanykindof pureexpression
andare not a direct,one-to-onerelationto economiclocationor to the politicalpossibilities
of changingeconomic structure.The relevant"discourses" themselves, thoughthey are
workedover by concreteforms of class struggleand help to form workingclass cultural
forms, are likely to be mostly dominatedby the most powerfulclass and also to show a
degreeof theirown autonomy.The practicalform of "discourses," theirstubborn"acci-
dentality" if you like, never allow a pure class expressivity- still less that from a
subordinateposition. The particularpossibilitiesfor knowledgewe're tryingto rescue are

here are RichardJohnson'scontributionto the volume WorkingClass Culture, cited n. 17 above.

J4Relevant
Ordersof Experience 99

thoroughlystructuredin dominance and as it were thoroughlystructuredin a kind of

accidentalness.The workingclass cannot,becauseof its historicposition,call forthits own,
andnecessary,determinedformof cultureandconsciousness.But, we argue,culturalforms
can expose aspectsof social structureoften eccentricallyor out of theirown directcentered
purposeor, in a certainway, unconsciously.So thatthe whole of ProfaneCulture(Willis),
for instance, is not saying that the hippies and especially the bike boys in any principled,
conscious, or intentionedway were attemptingas theirmainprojectto expose the natureof
the capitalistsociety or theirown positionin it. It was throughthe interestin the motorbike
thatthe aspects of technologyand its relationshipto social power in modem society were
exposed. Even after that revelationit was still only a culturalrevelation.'5This must be
understoodas importantlydeterminingthe longevity, life, and success of the culture,yes,
because it "marked" things in a way that made bettersense than other availablecultural
options, but only markedit in the sense of the success of the culture- not in termsof the
culturebecomingMarxistor becomingspecificallyinherentlyworkingclass. InLearningto
Labour(Willis) thereis no way in whichthe male schoolcounterculture for all its opposition
and revelation was actually directly exposing any fundamentalprinciples of capitalist
organization,abstractlabor, or the division betweenmentaland manuallabor.The school
counterculturewas successful and lived because, given that position in the structure,the
culturemademost "sense," the most fun, the best pay-offsfor theirsituation.In this sense
the deep "logic" of the culturewas ex post facto. If it worked,if it provideda way forward,
a sense of expressionfelt intuitivelyto be morerelevant,then its futurewas for the moment
guaranteed.The ultimate basis of this was in our view, the relation of the culture to
fundamentalcapitalistcategories.Butthis was at no level of consciousintentionor purpose.
We cannot ascribe simple socialist intentionsto working class kids involved in school
countercultures.The form of revelationand the formof the connectionbetweenthatwhole
experienceand "the base" (whetherit is determiningor not) comes aboutpartlythrough
accidentin the sense thatthe cultureis morelikely to be long lived if it gives a reallyliveable
futureto the kids, if it reallydoes createsome space, createsome rearticulations whichallow
an identity, create a more feasible and valid view of work relationsin the futurethan the
official and providedversions. The motorof culturalforms need not be intentionedrevela-
tion of the social structureat all, but the conditionof theirsuccess is likely to be thatthey
"understand"at theirown culturaland collective level aspectsof formsof late capitalism.
This is the contradictionbehindworkingclass culturalformswhichwe mustbothattemptto
understandand shift.
This is not to throw out the window the possibility of socialist transformation.By
understanding the scope of Agency, the meaningof the principlednessof culturalforms,the
limits of non-accidentality,and the possibilities in the combined articulationof "dis-
courses," we might have a bettergrip on formsof workingclass knowledgeand how they
mightdevelopfromthe culturalto the political.Thoughit is notourfocus in this article,one
of the overridingtasks is to explore the relationshipof culturalforms to existing working
class organizations- principallytradeunions- andto examinethe possibleconditionsfor
the real connection of culturalforms with mass political parties. We can only say in a
preliminaryway that if this should not be thoughtin termsof some "outside" knowledge

'5See the lastchapterof ProfaneCulturefor a furtherdiscussionof this.

100 Willis and Corrigan

broughtto the workingclass nor can it be thoughtof in termsof a collapse into a pure
expressionismor a puretrustin formsof workingclass culture.The successof culturalforms
does not arisefrom individual,conscious, or theoreticalexposureof the social structure:it
works in some ways in an unconscious collective, culturalway where revelation and
penetrationcome from the actualpractical social relationshipsinvolved, the practiceof
dynamicidentityover, in, and throughcomplex structuredlocations.
So we areagreeingthatso-called "culturalists"attributetoo much, untheoreticallyand
naively, to culturalformsas directlyexpressive.It is clearthatundercapitalismmost of the
terrainupon which those culturalforms arise is indeed "structuredin dominance."This
polaritycannotbe simplyreversedby an act of will. In orderfinallyto underlinethatandto
placeour"brand"of humanism,we wish to returnto one of thecentraltheoreticalthemesof
Learningto Labour.This is the ironythatthoserealculturalformswiththe extentof agency
in themthatwe've triedto bringout so far, of course,finallyact preciselyto bringaboutthe
fundamentalconditionsfor the reproductionand continuanceof capitalism.It seems to us
that because outcomes of those relatively independentprocesses are still broadly close
enoughto what seem to be the currentneeds of capitalthatfunctionalistsof all kinds and
particularlyfunctionalistMarxistscan so easily collapsewhatarewholly differentlevels of
analysis.
The analysisof productiverequirements,the logic of the capitalrelationitself, and the
culturaland social forms in which those conditions are supplied, specifically in how
concrete,gendered,acculturedlaboris supplied,arequitedifferent.Too often, Marxistsstill
assumethatbecausethey can see the needs of capital,the logic of abstractlabor,thenthat
explainsor sufficientlyexplainsthe ways in which actualconcretelabor(actuallyalways
struggledover, the productof manyformsof relationshipsprofanelyin a conjunctionquite
separatefrom the abstractlogic of capitalism)is applied to production.It is the partial
success, and in the Britishexperience,of the specificallyculturalratherthanpoliticalforms
of workingclass culture- the contestedform in which its oppressionhas been lived
which has supplied some of the conditionsfor the continuanceof capitalism.The very
success of thatparticularlyBritishformof workingclass culturecan ironicallybringabout
its own containment.But we still shouldn'tlose sight of the fact thatthis isn't throughthe
"super" determinismof capitalism.It is partlythroughits own power (over a very long
historicalsweep) to preciselypenetratethe power of capital.16
E.P. Thompsonhas drawnto our attentionthe theoreticalworkdone by earlysocialists
aroundsuch understandings of workingclass strengthas O'Brien'sspiritof combination(a
spirit recognizedand feared by the early bourgeoissocial theoristsand state servants).17
Culturalformsof workingclass resistancecan be tracedin everycapitalistformationthrough
to the presentday. We must avoid seeing the strugglesexposedby historiansas "correct"
and"epic" (even if preMarxist)butsee the samepractical(and,yes, theoretical)discoveries
todayas "archaic"and "backward,"even as unthoughtPavlovianreactions.The textureof

'6Seethe second partof Learningto Labour,for an examinationof this issue in relationto the male working
class and schooling.
'7Cf.PhilipCorrigan,StateFormationand MoralRegulation(DurhamPhDthesis, availablethroughUniversi-
ty Microfilms);Capitalism,State Formation,and Marxisttheory(Quartet,1980);State Formationand Moral
Regulation: the ElementaryForms of English Political Life (Macmillan, 1981), where elaborationsof this
argumentwill be found.
Ordersof Experience 101

workingclass culturalformsneeds as carefuldecodingas thatgiven to the higheraesthetics

and moreobviousdisciplinesof the bourgeoisie.The creativityof the workingclass and its
culturebringsaboutsmall and partial,in one sense illusory, in anothersense real material,
recombinationsand reversalswhich hide or partlylimit the natureof the majoroppression
thatthey have experienced.The final ironyof the culturalreproductionof the conditionsof
capital(whichis a very differentformulationfromsayingthe directneedsof capitalwhich it
determinesthroughthe orthodoxcategories), the final irony of contestedreproduction,is
preciselythatthe form of thatexperienceof final dominationhas been lived througha rich
culture.Some of the richnessand very strengthsof the Englishworkingclass are precisely
the ways in which it has lived its own subordination:the cultureitself was never directly
intendedor didn't precede in any way from an expressivepurpose.
That is not to condemn it. Those culturalforms of experimentation,rearticulation,
pressingupagainst,andexposureof capitalismdo offeranextraordinarily richand, it is true,
humanformof responseto thatandto the realpossibilities.This is, in its own way, superior
to a purelyabstractpenetrationof capitalistcategorieswhichwe arenow well suppliedwith
by Marxists.We mustbe very carefulandrespectfulin ourassessmentsof actual struggles,
actualpractice,the experiencesof living throughand bendingto a purposeactualprofane
sets of relationshipsand recalcitrant"discourses"whichconstitutelate capitalism.We are
arguingthroughall this the possibilityof otherthanbourgeoisformsof knowledge;for-
howeverqualified- a notionof workingclass knowledgeandfor its politicalpotentialand
significance.
CONCLUSION

All qualificationsand cautiousnesshaving been presentedwe choose to end with an

emphasisassuminggreaterimportanceat the end of a decadeof "rabididealism," "rotten
with criticism," to take up RaymondWilliam's characterizationof the 1970s. Yes, the
culturalforms of resistanceare profaneand reproducein their very holding off of total
subordinationthe conditionsfor capitalaccumulationandformsof racismand sexism- as
which use patriarchyandracismto
in the case of male shop floor and school counterculture
valorize their own ethnic male qualities. But, yes, equally, thoseforms of resistanceare
formsof resistance,andthey have been and arebeingproducedas muchby the systemthat
producescommodities,profits, and "real" subordination.
Let us briefly indicate three instances of the wider generalityof our arguments.A
numberof writersin Englandhave been pointingto the generalfeaturesof cultureresistance
to imperialism,whetherthatonslaughtoccursfromone "country"againstanother,or from
one dominantclass againsta doublysubordinatedfractionof "their" workingclass (wom-
en, West Indians).Both are formsof foreign dominationwhich will be resistedin Cabral's
phraseby culturalresistancetakingon "new forms (political, economic, armed)."'8
RubenG. Oliven's analysisof class andculturein Braziliancities shows the rationality
of the forms of resistanceemployedby the urbanpoor which containstracesof dominant
culturalforms but which sees them turningthe latterso they can "cope with the capitalist

8A Sivanandan,"Imperialismand DisorganicDevelopmentin the Silicon Age,' Race and Class 21(Autumn

1979), p. 124. The work of Colin Prescod is also relevanthere.
102 Willis and Corrigan

relationsof productionandat the same timemaintaintheiridentity.''9 Butone of the finest

relevantanalyses is thatby GeraldSider in "The Ties That Bind," wherehe places stress
upon"the way cultureis generated. .. The coreof culturelies in how peopleconceptualize
their relations to each other. . ..202 His concluding sections present a complementary
argumentto our own (which like ours also drawsuponthe workof E.P. Thompson).What
we wish to introduce,however, is his conceptionsof Hegemonyand Counter-hegemonic
culturalforms.
Hegemony,I suggest,is notopposedbyprotesting elitevaluesintheabstract--simplyas values
- butby opposingtheconjunction of thesevalueswithappropriation.
Theoppositionto elite
culturalhegemonydoesnotoccurby creatingalternate valuesoutof thinair,but,
oroppositional
rather,advancesvaluesthatarerootedin thetiespeoplehaveto oneanotherin dailylife andin
production. (p. 25)
Counter-hegemonic culturalformsoftenuseanarsenalof symbolswhichareborrowed from
the existinghegemony(andinverted,mocked,etc) in orderto expressexperiences andclaims
differentfromtheelite's;theuseof thesesymbolsimplieslimitsandconstraints to thethorough-
nessof theopposition.Theseconstraints can,however,be partlybreached;first,by thefactthat
counter-hegemonic strategiescanexposethecontradictionswithintheexistinghegemony,and
second,by creatingan experienceof opposition.(p. 26)
We are thus arguingthat althoughthere is no sense whatsoeverin seeing the cultural
forms of resistanceas being already-availableforms of socialist politics, no socialist con-
structionis possiblethatignoresthepersistentrecurringvibrancyof suchresistance.Further,
in a highly changeableset of relations(aroundnew technology,for example, let alone the
widercrises of energyand legitimacy)such formsof resistancecan be channeledfor right-
wing, proto-fascistchauvinistoppositions, for nostalgic defense of a country, group, or
locality. A Marxistdismissalof culturalformsplays intothe handsof boththe individualiz-
ing practicesof bourgeoishegemony and these fascist (racist, sexist, patriotic)organiza-
tions.
Startingpoints, which is how we characterizethese culturalforms, are not finishing
points. Precisely, in fact, because they are not finished, final, completed,fixed, they
representpossible startingpoints for the socialist project.In the courseof the latter'slong
constructionthey will be transformed.But just as the seemingly total and impermeable
"discourses" of capitalisthegemony are the raw materialsthroughwhich workingclass
culturecomes to know its difference, so too are the culturalforms of resistancewon and
sustainedby the workingclass, the rawmaterialsfor the knowledgeandpracticesof socialist
construction.Takingcultureseriouslymeanstakingit not as we wouldlike it to be - neat,
parcelled,correct,ready(fast food socialism)- but as we find it, andthatfindingrequires
more than a single glance. It requiresa profanityand a willingnessto be surprisedby the
orders of experience. "Theory is good," said Freud's teacherCharcot, "but it doesn't

'9R.G. Oliven, "CultureRules O.K.," InternationalJournalof Urbanand RegionalResearch3(1) 1979, p.

45, ouremphasis.Thisjournalis highly pertinentto ourdiscussion;see the workof A. Portes,"Rationalityin the
Slum," ComparativeStudies in Society and History, 14, 1972.
2('G.M.Sider, "The Ties thatBind," Social History5( 1) 1980, p. 21. This journalis a highly relevantsource
for the historicalbackgroundto our arguments.See also HistoryWorkshopJournalandRadicalHistoryReview.
Ordersof Experience 103

preventthingsfromexisting,"21"Discourses" arebad, we are saying, butthey do not stop

culturalforms of resistancefrom existing.

2'Freudquotesthisin severalplaces,e.g. in theIntroductory

LecturesonPsvchoanalysis(Penguin,1976),p.
waysto Brecht'sfamouspeomInPraiseofDoubt,fromwhichthefollowingstanzais
178.Itrelatesinsignificant
relevant:

Therearethethoughtless whoneverdoubt.
Theirdigestionis splendid,theirjudgement
infallible.Theydon'tbelievein thefacts,they
believeonlyin themselves.Whenit comesto thepoint
Thefactsmustgo by theboard.Theirpatiencewith
themselvesis boundless.To arguments
Theylistenwiththeearof a policyspy.
Poems,PartThree(Methuen,1976),p. 335. RolandBarthes'excellentWriting DegreeZero(CapeEditions,
published1953)is alsoa usefulpre-critique
1967,originally analysis;his
of thepurityandeffectivityof discourse
stressthereupontheneedfordiscontinuous pluralityandprofanecreativityis one we share.