Class and Precarity: An Unhappy Coupling in China’s Working Class Formation
Chris Smith and
Ngai Pun
Additional contact information
Chris Smith: Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Ngai Pun: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Work, Employment & Society, 2018, vol. 32, issue 3, 599-615
Abstract:
In refuting Guy Standing’s precariat as a class, we highlight that employment situation, worker identity and legal rights are mistakenly taken as theoretical components of class formation. Returning to theories of class we use Dahrendorf’s reading of Marx where three components of classes, the objective, the subjective and political struggle, are used to define the current formation of the working class in China. Class is not defined by status, identity or legal rights, but location in the sphere of production embedded within conflictual capital–labour relations. By engaging with the heated debates on the rise of a new working class in China, we argue that the blending of employment situation and rights in the West with the idea of precarity of migrant workers in China is misleading. Deconstructing the relationship between class and precarity, what we see as an unhappy coupling, is central to the article.
Keywords: China; industrial conflict; precariat; precarity; working class (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017018762276 (text/html)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:woemps:v:32:y:2018:i:3:p:599-615
DOI: 10.1177/0950017018762276
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Work, Employment & Society from British Sociological Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().