Bruce E Wright

The fundamental question of practical political theory is the nature of the actors that determine what happens and what can happen in public life. Both analyses of political phenomena and the development of strategic theory that can transform existing political practice require an assessment of the fundamental actors that can count as political. This raises the question of the nature of the subjects of political activity. In recent political discussion this has included criticism of the modern liberal conception of the abstract individual and controversy over the viability of the concept of class and its possible replacement with some notion of the " new social movements " or " identity politics. " Especially informed by various postmodernist perspectives, a line of argument has developed that class cannot make sense as an appropriate analytical category or as a useful concept for organizing political action. Here we show that an examination of the relationship between the concepts of " subject, " " actor " and " agent " can show the continued viability of class as a central focus of political analysis and political action. We think that these terms can be used to attempt to understand the activities of both discrete human individuals and collective entities. It is rarely noted that the problematic of these three concepts works fundamentally different depending on whether the focus is on individuals or collectivities. This, among other things, has led to an overly hasty abandonment of the concept of class and its replacement by the " new social movements " as units of analysis and as organizations for political mobilization. Modern liberal political theory has generally operated within the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanism, maintaining the view that discrete individuals are the subjects of political theory and practice. The logic of this concept rests upon the assumption that all human beings are composed of a common essence that is neutral, 1 PAGE 2