There had been a shift in the perception of the African continent between the beginning of the millennium and the end of the first decade (Nallet, 2015, p. 23).
Whereas for a long time the continent had been perceived through bad news of war, famine, poverty, and AIDS, a wave of new literature jubilated the African emergence, which became known as the Africa Rising narrative (Jacobs, 2012). In this context, analysts, inspired by earlier works on Latin America and Asia, started mentioning the African middle class that would emerge with the economic development. The main thrust of the analyses was presented by economists and consultancies and thus referred only to economic definitions of middle class (Deloitte, 2012; McKinsey Global Institute, 2010; Ncube et al., 2011). It is only slowly and reluctantly that scholars on Africa have claimed ownership over the debate (Akinkugbe & Wohlmuth, 2016).
Simultaneously, with economic crises linked to falling oil prices and companies such as Barclays and Nestlé withdrawing from African countries, the continent’s emergence is put into question. Recent studies such as the by the Pew Research Center (Kochhar, 2015) or The Global Wealth Databook (Shorrocks et al., 2015) assume that the size of the African middle class is smaller than thought and that the continent may not catch up so fast to developed countries as hoped. These completely diverging analyses are due to the very different definitions applied (see also Table 1 on p. 265). Here we argue that this back and forth is fueled by these definitional problems and contradicting views of what it means to be middle class in Africa. On the one hand, low statistical thresholds such as those of the AfDB, label everyone as middle class who is not poor and on the other glossy images of big cars and shopping malls portray a lifestyle that these income groups cannot have. As a result, the Global/Developing/African middle class becomes an overused concept, which has been stretched too far to maintain its analytic value. Though, it would be false to throw the baby out with the bath water and put the all postulated transformations into question. Enaudeau observes that “a growing number of Africans are indeed lifting themselves out of poverty but, contrary to the African economic revolution narrative, this is not happening overnight.” (Enaudeau, 2013). Thus, we suggest instead of looking at clear-cut categories, we should rather consider the effects of a slow transformation of social structures in Africa, that take into account processes of intergenerational uplifting. To better shed light on this contested notion, we first look at the historical origins of the “class” and more precisely
“middle class” concept and its transformations throughout history. In the second part, we trace the discourse that led to talking about the rise of the African middle class and how it is recently called into question. Finally, we question its applicability on the Ugandan context and suggest talking about economic emergence and vulnerability
14 Middle Income Groups in Uganda and Their Forms (and Absences) of Political and Social Mobilization
University of Bayreuth African Studies Online (7)
instead, as it seems to better reflect the living conditions of most of the Ugandan middle class (in the AfDB sense) today.
2.1 A Review of the Class Concept(s)
Class is a particularly relevant concept in sociology, yet it remains highly contested as well. While there seems to be a general agreement that societies are stratified, there is little consensus on the lines according to which this stratification takes place. The concept is used in a wide range of contexts, as popular discourse, in a descriptive, or explanatory way. Thus, a changing context also requires changing concepts of class (E.
O. Wright, 2008a, p. 2). And if there is no general agreement on what exactly constitutes a class, it becomes even more challenging to define the middle class. This chapter aims to give a short overview of the different theoretical origins of class concepts and their evolution, first of class in general and second, the specific concept of the middle class. The objective is to situate the current debate on the African middle class better, to see its continuities and ruptures with the past in the academic fields of sociology and economy.
2.1.1 Marx, Weber, Bourdieu – Which Classes Are We Talking About?
The idea to divide a society according to income lines can be traced far back in history.
Maurice Halbwachs argues that already the ancient Romans have divided their people into five different categories, according to their wealth (Halbwachs, 2008, p. 24). Albeit a resurrection of class distinction through income strata, such a definition is not sufficient if the concept is approached from a sociological angle. Only in recent years and with the availability of more statistical data such numerical definitions have shifted back in to focus. It is, therefore, useful to distinguish between qualitative class analysis, that takes into account other aspects as well and quantitative class analysis, which operates by numbers.
a) Qualitative Class Analysis
Depending on the strand, the emphasis on other aspects, such as asset ownership, occupation, control over means of production, comes into focus of the sociological observation. In the 19th century, Karl Marx used class as a tool for analyzing social relations and explaining social change (E. O. Wright, 2008b, p. 5). The Marxist conceptualization takes as a starting point an antagonism between a superordinate and subordinate class. This opposition is at the core of social change and revolution (Stolzman & Gamberg, 1973, p. 107). The position within one of the two classes depends for Marx on the control over the means of productions, which lead to different power relations that in return yield into different capacities to accumulate means of production. With this Marx does not refer to the inequality as a mere inequality of income between capitalists and working class, but as a relation of exploitation, since
“the surplus product of society is controlled by a group which effectively excludes the actual producers of that surplus.” (Stolzman & Gamberg, 1973, p. 112) Thus, even if a capitalist pays an adequate wage to his laborer, by allocating the surplus, he would
Africa Rising – Africa Falling The Changing Discourse on the Emergence of an African Middle Class 15
enrich himself and thus impoverish the other. The exploitation lies within the unequal bargaining power between the worker and the capitalist; and by agreeing to the wage contract determined by the capitalist, the laboring class gives up control over the process of production and the product, as well as a claim on the added value of the product, which remains with the bourgeoisie (Stolzman & Gamberg, 1973, p. 116). Yet, the dominant class, and this is distinctive for exploitation, also depends on the exploited class. Because there is a continuous need for interaction between the two classes, but on highly unequal terms, the class antagonism is turned into an “explosive form of social relation” (E. O. Wright, 2008b, p. 25). Herein lies the propensity for conflict and class struggle so inherent in the Marxian theory. Since the dependence equally gives bargaining power to the exploited class, they can alter their conditions by acting collectively. This, however, presumes that they take conscience of their shared (class) interests: to develop a class consciousness (E. O. Wright, 2008b, pp. 22–
25). Such a consciousness is often used to describe the difference between a class in itself and for itself whereby the former is defined through objective circumstances and the latter through a subjective understanding of its members to belong to this class – hence as having a class consciousness (Heinrich, 2004, p. 37). The shift from a class in itself to one with a shared consciousness is not an inevitability, but depends on historical circumstances, hence the objective class is always numerically more significant than the subjective one (Heinrich, 2004, p. 37; Vester, 2008, p. 736). Albeit often attributed to him, Marx himself never made a distinction between a class in and for itself, it was among subsequent Marxist scholars that the difference became an essential element of analysis (Andrew, 1983, p. 577; Vester, 2008, p. 736).
Critics of the Marxian class analysis have – among others – pointed out that the dichotomy of two classes was too simplistic and failed to depict the empirical reality.
Indeed, Heinrich points out that in Das Kapital, Marx did not even bother to define class (Heinrich, 2004, p. 36). However, neo-Marxists argue that this was not the point of the Marxian class conception, which should not be understood as a descriptive category of social reality, but an analytical one of social change (So, 1991, p. 39). This should not be equaled with stratification analyses, in which social behavior is attempted to be explained by “mapping out” certain attributes. Dahrendorf describes this as the difference between strata and classes:
“Wherever classes are defined by factors which permit the construction of a hierarchical continuum, they are wrongly defined; i.e. the term has been applied wrongly. Status, ranking by others, self-ranking, style of life, similar economic conditions, and income level are all factors which define social strata but not social classes. However, one may interpret, extend, or improve Marx, classes in his sense are clearly not layers in a hierarchical system of strata differentiated by gradual distinctions. […] Class [emphasis in original] is always a category for purposes of the analysis of the dynamics of social conflict and its structural roots, and as such it has to be separated strictly from stratum [emphasis in original] as a category
16 Middle Income Groups in Uganda and Their Forms (and Absences) of Political and Social Mobilization
University of Bayreuth African Studies Online (7)
for purposes of describing hierarchical systems at a given point in time.”
(Dahrendorf, 1959, p. 76)
Marx did not intend to describe an empirical stratification. Such approaches fail to explain how the social structure determines unequal life chances (Stolzman &
Gamberg, 1973, p. 108). That distinction makes Marxian class analysis quite distinctive from subsequent class analyses4, which focus more on explaining social behavior rather than social change.
Similar to Marx, Max Weber analyzes how inequality is structured and derives from there divers fault lines (Breen, 2008, p. 31). For Weber, however, the advantages of the one does not necessarily come at the expense of the other. Hence, the possibility of conflict is not among his preoccupations. He introduces the concept of life chances, that is the likelihood of a person determining the extent to which they have a part of the economic or cultural good of a society (Weber, 2002, p. 632). In capitalism, it is mainly the market who will determine these life chances; it will put people into different positions, according to their means of production, but also according to their skills. He distinguishes his social classes between those who own property and those who do not, which are then further divided into subcategories depending on the type of property (for the property owners) and their skill levels (for those who do not own any property). Hence, a four-tiered class structure arises: the entrepreneurial and property class, the petty bourgeoisie, workers with credentials and workers who only have their labor to offer (Breen, 2008, p. 32). This added a new dimension, that has remained prevalent in Weberian class analysis: the focus on profession. In his work, the relevance of profession is much more pronounced than with Marx, and he equally includes “residual” categories, that cannot be neatly divided into bourgeoisie or proletariat. Neo-Weberians such as Goldthorpe have turned their attention primarily to the labor market and how a certain position in the labor market turns into a certain class (Erikson & Goldthorpe, 1992). Goldthorpe adds, however, to the ownership of production also the relationship between the employee and employer (wage work vs.
service relationship). In his most advanced version, Goldthorpe comes up with eleven different classes. The focus on profession has also been reflected among other scholars, such as Gustav Schmoller who supposes that the profession of a person determines his personality (Halbwachs, 2008, p. 64).
For Weber, however, classes are only one aspect of social stratification. Power relations within society are equally shaped by parties and Stände (roughly translated as status groups). So, while classes are structured through their relation to the means of production, Stände are defined through their consumption and their particular lifestyles (Weber, 2002, p. 639). He believes they are more prone to collective action than the classes, as they are more likely to develop a shared consciousness. While he does not exclude the possibility for a class conscience to develop, he makes it dependent on other conditions, such as geographical proximity, a common enemy, and
4 And eventually from our analysis of Ugandan middle income groups
Africa Rising – Africa Falling The Changing Discourse on the Emergence of an African Middle Class 17
the awareness of a similar class situation for a mass of people (Breen, 2008, p. 33).
Thus, Weber does not aim at explaining social conflict through his class analysis, as for him power and thus power struggles instead fall into the realm of parties and Stände.
His theory, therefore, provides no explanation, when and under which circumstances classes become essential in shaping political action (Sørensen, 2008, p. 120).
This distinction between Stand and class is put into question by critics of Weber.
Instead of seeing them as dichotomies, they should be considered as two different aspects of the same matter (Jaffrelot & van der Veer, 2008, p. 17). The most renown sociologist who has developed a theory of class by merging the two was Bourdieu.
Through his integration of the habitus, his analysis looks at economic aspects of class as well as at symbolic aspects (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 101 ff). Class affiliation is determined through the possession of economic (money, assets), social, cultural (education), and symbolic capital. Bourdieu also considers that not a common profession leads to a common class affiliation, but similar consumption patterns.
Consumption functions as a way to convey a certain taste, or lifestyle, and is used as a distinction (this is what he refers to as symbolic capital) from other classes (Bourdieu, 1986). However, his approach is different from others such as Veblen, as the consumption does not necessarily have to be conspicuous, to become a marker of distinction (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 6).
“Toute consommation, et plus généralement, toute pratique est conspicuous, visible, qu'elle ait été ou non accomplie afin d'être vue ; elle est distinctive, qu'elle ait ou non été inspirée par l'intention de se faire remarquer, de se singulariser (to make oneself conspicuous), de se distinguer ou d'agir avec distinction.” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 7)
The dominant class sets the measure for a “legitimate culture”, the working class serves as a negative reference point, and the petty bourgeoisie strives to distance itself from the working class by copying as much as possible the lifestyle of the dominant (Weininger, 2008, p. 95 ff). And even though Weininger uses these categories, Bourdieu himself opposed drawing boundaries between the classes, as it would run the risk to treat classes as preexisting, “self-subsistent entities” (Weininger, 2008, p.
85). For him, social collectivities are created through symbolic practices, such as certain forms of consumption, that delimit regions of social space, but these collectivities are dynamic.
“Sur la base de la connaissance de l'espace des positions, on peut découper des classes logiques ou théoriques composées de l'ensemble des agents occupant des positions semblables qui, placés dans des conditions semblables et soumis à des conditionnements semblables, ont toutes les chances d'avoir des dispositions et des intérêts semblables, donc de produire des pratiques, des comportements et aussi des opinions semblables. Ces classes ne sont pas des classes réelles, c'est-à-dire des groupes constitués d'individus unis par la conscience de leur identité commune et de leur appartenance à la même unité sociale ; il s'agit plutôt
18 Middle Income Groups in Uganda and Their Forms (and Absences) of Political and Social Mobilization
University of Bayreuth African Studies Online (7)
de classes probables dont les éléments constitutifs sont mobilisables (et non nécessairement mobilisés pratiquement) sur la base de leurs similitudes, c'est-à-dire de leur appartenance à une même classe de positions, à une même région de l'espace social.” (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 95) For them to become mobilized for collective action, discursive practices are needed, which itself contribute to the reshaping of the social space.
“Furthermore, it is only with a discursive identity that is known and recognized by the members of the class (or fraction) that they become capable of acting in concert for a specified purpose – that is of mobilizing.
Hence, ‘social classes,’ as they are typically envisioned in social theory – namely as groups entering into conflict for the sake of ‘class interests’ are profoundly discursive entities; and insofar as the preservation or transformation of the underlying distributions of economic and cultural capital in fact hinges on collective action, discourse contributes to the shaping and reshaping of social space itself.” (Weininger, 2008, p. 103)
To sum up, in this very brief and incomplete sketch of class analysis, we can broadly distinguish between two approaches to class analysis: as relational categories or as primarily descriptive ones. The first approach, following Marx, sees classes as conflict groups born out of the antagonistic interests of exploitation and through the analysis of their relations to each other it becomes possible to comprehend social conflict and social change. The second approach, following the lines of Weber and Bourdieu, describes particular class attributes, like income, occupation, education, etc. which result in specific lifestyles associated with certain classes (Sørensen, 2008, p. 120 f).
These analyses do not aim at explaining the production of social inequality, but rather depict as accurate as possible the stratification of a society at a given moment in time (Lentz, 2015, p. 18). Regarding the “middle class analysis”, the second approach had been the prevailing one, recently more often in a reductive form by focusing purely on quantitative indicators.
b) Quantitative Class Analysis
In recent years we have observed a shift from more qualitative accounts of class analysis to quantitative approaches. Ferreira et al. argue that today large amounts of available household data, aggregated by government bodies have given a preference to define class affiliation through income strata (Ferreira, 2013, p. 30 f). They do concede, however, that these thresholds are defined somewhat arbitrarily. Another approach with a focus on consumption can also be seen in more recent accounts of classness (Johnston & Abreu, 2016). Owning a particular set of assets becomes an indication of one’s class location. It is the consumption that defines class affiliation.
And it remains its sole indicator, detached from other sociological aspects, such as habitus, or economic and cultural capital. Critics of such an approach argue that there is a need for a more holistic, sociological (instead of economic) class analysis, which brings back in Weberian or Bourdieu’s characteristics (Melber, 2016a). Both methods,
Africa Rising – Africa Falling The Changing Discourse on the Emergence of an African Middle Class 19
using household data or asset indexes are common in defining classes (and mainly middle classes) in the Global South. They will be taken up and elaborated further in chapter 2.2. But before, we shall look at the significance of the middle class within the various theories of classes, which sometimes are solely theories of middle classes.
2.1.2 Positioning the Middle Class – the Muddle in the Middle
If it is already hard to find an agreement on what constitutes a class (E. O. Wright, 2008a, p. 2) it is even harder to do so for the term “middle class” (Raynaud, 2014, p.
16). There had been considerable variation in what was considered to be a middle class over time, geographical location, and context, and with which categories they share the social stratum. Moreover, the definition has equally been linked to the particular historical and local context of a country and varied according to political circumstances, as the category has often been used to legitimize a certain political discourse (Kocka, 2004; Lentz, 2015; Nallet, 2015). Hence, the explanatory value of
“the middle class” will very much depend on the definition used (Damon, 2013, p. 7).
“the middle class” will very much depend on the definition used (Damon, 2013, p. 7).