Hierarchy of Struggles: Social Struggles vs. Societal Struggles
The Societal Question: A Harmless Issue for the Dominant Classes (1st part)
Hierarchy of Struggles: Social Struggles vs. Societal Struggles
The Societal Question: A Harmless Issue for the Dominant Classes
(This is the first part of a longer article that will be in two parts, the next part will be available next week. This article was translated from French to English using ChatGPT, I would like to apologize in advance if you find any translation errors or problems with the style. Clicking on this link you can find the original article in French. Hiérarchisation des luttes. Luttes sociales versus luttes sociétales).
(photo. Guillaume Carré. Paris 2017)
In this article, I do not necessarily intend to provide definitive answers but rather to offer elements of reflection, highlighting certain aspects of this issue that deserve further exploration.
I will allow myself a personal and subjective reflection to clarify my approach... While on some topics I may have a fairly strong opinion—while always striving to maintain intellectual openness—the question of the hierarchy of struggles leaves me rather doubtful.
More than defending a thesis, I aim here to think alongside those who are asking themselves the same questions. This text is therefore intended more as a step in this discussion than as a definitive statement. This issue seems to me to be one of the most pressing of our time, and the answer(s) will not take the form of a revelation but will gradually emerge as an increasingly precise balance.
This question of the hierarchy of struggles is currently causing deep divisions within the left. At times, one might see it as a purely abstract issue without any concrete political application. However, upon closer examination, it is often central—for example, in how we view the civil war in Syria, the Yellow Vest movement, or the policies of President Emmanuel Macron.
The left is sharply divided over this issue. This division itself is quite difficult to grasp. Positioning oneself in the center, holding a "balanced" opinion, should not be an end in itself. On many issues, it is necessary to embrace a certain form of radicalism (which does not imply violence, dogmatism, or a refusal to engage in debate). On the issue of feminism, for instance, radicalism consists of recognizing total and absolute equality between men and women, and any position falling short of that seems highly questionable to me. However, on certain other points—especially when it comes to the strategy of struggles—perhaps the correct stance lies in finding a certain equilibrium in the center.
To exaggerate deliberately, we might imagine the two extremes of the spectrum: on one side, the urban "bobo" (bourgeois-bohemian), a Macron voter from the first round, sensitive to environmental issues and gender equality but viewing social movements as the irrational expression of a hateful and envious populace manipulated by various populist forces. On the other side, still exaggerating, we might picture the old Stalinist activist from the French Communist Party (PCF), deeply moved by the struggles of Indian peasants in Latin America but considering homosexuality a bourgeois perversion. While these two extremes do exist, reality is more like a long and complex continuum between them.
On one side, the societal question; on the other, the social question. It seems evident that both require struggles for emancipation—they are complementary yet still distinct. But does a hierarchy, moral or otherwise, exist between these two issues?
Is One Form of Domination or Oppression Predominant Over the Others?
1- Is one of these oppressions predominant? From a moral standpoint? And from the structure of society?
First of all, it seems intuitive that both struggles—the fight against social domination and the fight against societal discrimination—stem from the same moral movement of rejecting injustice. If our political approach is based on the idea of rejecting injustice and embracing emancipation, then we should, in the same movement, reject both social and societal oppression.
A - The Difficulty of Morally Hierarchizing Different Forms of Oppression
It is the same moral and intellectual process that leads us to reject the treatment of a person as an object, to oppose their exploitation, as it is to reject the mistreatment of a person for something they are not responsible for.
If it is necessary to fight against both forms of oppression, and if it is deeply contradictory to combat one form of oppression while accepting another, does this mean that both forms of oppression are equivalent and should not be ranked?
It is difficult to hierarchize different forms of oppression because these oppressions involve an intimate, individual, and inexpressible experience. Conducting such a ranking would mean comparing vastly different experiences. While we may broadly conceive such a hierarchy, the more we refine the approach, the less meaningful it becomes.
We may not be able to rank different types of oppression precisely, but that does not mean they are all equal.
B - The Structurally Dominant Nature of Class Oppression
Several elements suggest that social domination—class domination—should be considered predominant.
First of all, social issues seem to structure our societies more profoundly. This aspect has an "over-determining" impact on the nature of a society, as well as on the lives and destinies of each individual. This is not to claim that social oppression is inherently more immoral than another form of societal oppression, but rather that social oppression structures a society more deeply, and its impact is more profound.
It is also important to remember that social and societal oppression are often closely linked, feeding into one another, making it difficult to determine which one stems from the other.
The social question seems more pressing because it affects the material conditions of each individual’s life, their ability to achieve self-fulfillment and personal growth. More profoundly and intimately, it hierarchizes individuals, assigning them a value in the eyes of others and often in their own eyes. Beyond material concerns, this hierarchy distributes authority and honors, determining the power one individual has over another, as well as feelings of superiority or inferiority.
Social structure is the fundamental structure of every society—its backbone. Following this logic, social oppression is deeper, more totalizing, and also harder to overcome (this does not refer to an individual's ability to move up or down in social hierarchy, but rather to the impact of social status on their existence).
A higher social status partially allows one to escape their condition. An aristocratic woman, though oppressed in a patriarchal system, may still enjoy comfortable material conditions, allowing her greater freedom and self-realization. A homosexual from an upper-class background may more easily escape the various forms of discrimination affecting LGBTQ individuals and live their private life as they see fit.
This same logic applies to groups facing racism. In the United States, an African American who has achieved social success and wealth may not escape all stereotypes about his community, but he will avoid many of the humiliations faced by African Americans in general. A wealthy Lebanese businessman is less likely to be reduced to his Arab identity than a working-class Algerian immigrant. Social status does not erase other forms of discrimination or domination, but it plays a crucial role in mitigating or exacerbating their effects.
This leads me to believe that social domination is predominant over other forms of domination. As mentioned earlier, these social and societal dominations interact closely, being deeply intertwined, with one often influencing or stemming from the other. In the case of African Americans, it is their disadvantaged social situation that enables the discrimination they face, and it is this discrimination that, through complex mechanisms, keeps them at the lower rungs of the social ladder.
Class has an objective structural reality beyond itself, whereas belonging to a category is merely the result of a subjective intellectual construction that determines, based on subjective criteria, how we should differentiate people.
Injustice is the irreducible nature of a class society. Gender, race, or any other distinguishing element will serve as criteria (among others) to assign individuals to a category. A class-based society is one in which individuals are divided into categories, and discrimination is one of the criteria used to assign individuals to a given category.
An argument raised by Pascal Marichalar in his discussion of Gérard Noiriel’s book is particularly interesting. Noiriel develops the idea of identity assignment—essentially, a person is grouped into an "oppressed" category even if they do not personally identify with it.
Marichalar points out that Noiriel himself admits that some people belong to the proletariat class without being aware of it or identifying with it. In doing so, Noiriel practices the very identity assignment he criticizes.
By highlighting this aspect ironically, Marichalar (perhaps unintentionally) pinpoints something essential: identity is an intellectual and cultural construct (one of the criteria used to assign individuals to a category), whereas social class is a sociological reality, independent of our awareness of it.
There is a fundamental difference between class belonging and belonging to a community.
Class belonging is based on relationships that may be invisible or unconsciously experienced (a serf may not be aware of being a victim of class domination and injustice) but are nonetheless objective. Whether one owns the means of production, whether one gives orders or follows them, whether one makes decisions or executes them—these are all tangible markers of class relationships, along with a broad spectrum of less tangible power dynamics.
In contrast, belonging to a community is entirely the result of a subjective social convention. Paradoxically, however, this does not mean it lacks concrete consequences—quite the opposite, as it can have profoundly negative impacts on those concerned.
An individual assigned to a category may either embrace their belonging to that category or contest its relevance while opposing the oppression that results from it. A racialized person—an African American—could adopt two different resistance strategies. They might identify as African American, claim this identity, and seek to cultivate and rehabilitate this community while asserting their right to equality. Conversely, another individual in the same situation might oppose American racism by asserting their status as an American citizen, rejecting the division of the American people into racial categories. They might also see themselves primarily as a proletarian and refuse to recognize this racial categorization.
This does not mean denying the reality of racism in the United States or ignoring the fact that many reduce them to their skin color, which negatively affects their lives. But it does mean refusing to legitimize that categorization, wishing instead to fight on a different battlefield.
If I am labeled as French, it will have consequences when crossing borders or receiving social benefits. However, the concept of "French" is purely an intellectual construct, and it is this construct that generates consequences. It is because many believe that the "concept of French" has meaning that being considered French carries consequences.
Both approaches can be seen as strategic choices, both on the side of the oppressed. It may be necessary at first to affirm one’s identity in order to stand up to the dominant group. But in doing so, one also legitimizes the categorization imposed by that dominant group.
True radicalism does not consist in reversing the criteria of discrimination but in transcending them.
On the other hand, failing to recognize the class-based nature of our society would mean denying its injustice.