Classes of Labour in India: A Review Essay

IF 1.3 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Global Labour Journal Pub Date : 2021-05-31 DOI:10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4670
J. Breman
{"title":"Classes of Labour in India: A Review Essay","authors":"J. Breman","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the very beginning of my writing on the regime of informality I have rejected the notion of a dichotomy between formal and informal labour relations. The fracturing solidifies a differentiated absorption in the labour process – own-account workers versus waged labourers, regular against casual employment, replacement of sedentary engagement in paid work by footloose mobility – and all of this culminating in divergent patterns of livelihood and lifestyles. It is along these lines that I have split up “informality” class-wise, following up on the contention that rather than juxtaposing the working class as an amalgamated lot, there are indeed diverse classes of labour with distinct identities. The way in which differentiation has come about cannot only be comprehended in terms of social class-based alignments but also finds expression in an axis of steep inequality. It is a ranked order taking the shape of a class–caste nexus and makes clear how corresponding trajectories of accumulation and dispossession operate in tandem. The backdrop to this essay is the process of informalisation pushed by the stakeholders of globalised capitalism from the early 1970s onwards. The shift away from the regime of formality which used to be enjoyed by a minor segment of India’s mega-workforce has in many instances ended their privileged employment, legal protection and social security, tearing up the domains in which labour moves around.","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Labour Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

From the very beginning of my writing on the regime of informality I have rejected the notion of a dichotomy between formal and informal labour relations. The fracturing solidifies a differentiated absorption in the labour process – own-account workers versus waged labourers, regular against casual employment, replacement of sedentary engagement in paid work by footloose mobility – and all of this culminating in divergent patterns of livelihood and lifestyles. It is along these lines that I have split up “informality” class-wise, following up on the contention that rather than juxtaposing the working class as an amalgamated lot, there are indeed diverse classes of labour with distinct identities. The way in which differentiation has come about cannot only be comprehended in terms of social class-based alignments but also finds expression in an axis of steep inequality. It is a ranked order taking the shape of a class–caste nexus and makes clear how corresponding trajectories of accumulation and dispossession operate in tandem. The backdrop to this essay is the process of informalisation pushed by the stakeholders of globalised capitalism from the early 1970s onwards. The shift away from the regime of formality which used to be enjoyed by a minor segment of India’s mega-workforce has in many instances ended their privileged employment, legal protection and social security, tearing up the domains in which labour moves around.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度的劳动阶级:一篇评论文章
从我写关于非正式制度的文章一开始,我就拒绝正式和非正式劳动关系之间的二分法。这种分裂巩固了劳动过程中的差异化吸收——自营职业者与有偿职业者,固定职业与临时职业者,以自由流动取代久坐不动的有偿工作——所有这些最终导致了不同的生计和生活方式。正是基于这些思路,我对“非正式”阶级进行了划分,并对以下论点进行了跟进:与其将工人阶级并列为一个合并的群体,不如说确实存在具有不同身份的不同劳动阶级。分化的产生方式不仅可以从基于社会阶级的结盟来理解,而且可以在急剧不平等的轴心中找到表达。这是一个阶级-种姓关系的排序顺序,清楚地表明了积累和剥夺的相应轨迹是如何协同运作的。本文的背景是20世纪70年代初以来全球化资本主义利益相关者推动的信息化进程。在许多情况下,印度庞大劳动力中的一小部分人放弃了过去享有的正式制度,结束了他们的特权就业、法律保护和社会保障,撕裂了劳动力流动的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Labour Journal
Global Labour Journal INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
26
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Review of Supriya RoyChowdhury (2021) City of Shadows: Slums and Informal Work in Bangalore Racial Capitalism and Global Labour Studies – a Missed Encounter ? Precarious Associational Power Editorial: Going Against the Grain: Our Commitment to Truly Global Labour Studies Pandemic Necrolabour and Essential Workers in the UK and France
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1