I started earlier on a discussion about the definition of the middle class in China. That triggered off a number of interesting comments, so please go back to my original post to read them.
There is an interesting division on this issue. Some, including Helen Wang, see the middle class as a simple economic category between the rich and the poor. In that way, you can always define your middle class together, depending on where your financial thresholds are.
I belong to the other camp, seeing the middle class merely emerge as a political classification that became influential when in Europe they became engaged in the political decision making process by getting the right to vote.
Now, that comes along - varying in time and place - with a certain degree of spending power, initially literally since only tax-paying citizens had originally the right to vote.
I believe that when you define a new class - and calling the the "middle class" might cause more confusion than clarity - that element of empowerment is rather important. Empowerment that goes further than the right to buy your preferred mobile phone against the price you want it for.
Since the voting power is not there as a way to make a difference - or even measure this new class - what would be another way to define them?
Update: Very useful comments again, both here and at my previous entry. Still waiting for some comments of other prolific "middle class" commentors. :-)
2 comments:
What is the purpose of a definition of "middle class" ? If it is about helping communication during discussion, we should look at what people are using the term for now, and pick a most commonly used definition that is consistent (that is, the qualifications for inclusion and exclusion don't contradict each other, like "must make +-20% of median income, and lives in a palacial mansion". Put that in writing, and say, for the purpose of this discussion, this is what is the defintion to use.
If it is a definition to be used administratively by a government, NGO, or a company, e.g. if you are "middle class", you pay this much for this or receive this much for this, that is a totally different situation. The definition depends on the what the policy objectives are. And different polilcy objectives will create different definitions, but no unified definition is required. Actually, in these situation, using of the term "middle class" is very misleading and confusing and should be avoided at atll costs.
I agree with your argument about empowerment. Being a docile consumer-citizen, labeled "middle class" or not, does not heed the importance of this element.
In response to your question: A measuring indicator for this new class may be based on the extent to which its members are aware of (the importance of) their political rights and are "engaged in the political decision making process". This doesn't need to be limited to "the right to vote".
As Sophia and I argue in our post, we contend that a notion of class that goes beyond descriptive accounts of emerging economic players is crucial for anyone who wants to scrutinize existing (shifting?) demarcations between the powerful and the powerless. Once we take into consideration China’s all-pervasive collusion between economic and political powers, the powerful ‘elites’ can no longer be regarded as merely economic elites. In other words, defining ‘class belonging’ in purely monetary terms fails to grasp the importance of political power, particularly in contemporary China where (according to David Goodman’s and others’ research) a capitalist class and class of cadre (what is often somewhat misleadingly called “China’s New Middle Class”) are intricately intertwined and are working hard to redirect China’s wealth into their own pockets.
We are promoting a political component exactly because we believe that it is time to break from (and concomitantly revisit) the past and (again) regard social identity in political terms. Arguably, this would facilitate our understanding of some of the current quandaries China is facing.
For one, we believe that (political) civic responsibility and solidarity are necessary components for guaranteeing the crucial balance between economic growth, environmental degradation, social stability, and political control. Therefore we do not subscribe to the notion that in our consumerist society, the concept of social class is no longer relevant in terms of shaping identity. In fact we believe that the closed system of a rich and powerful upper class can only be permeated through political activism, by groups with shared identities and organized around specific, innovative projects that are united through shared (mostly political) meanings.
The emancipatory significance of such transformative powers of innovation seems obvious. One of the most negative long-term effects of the CR is that it vilified the existence of such innovative group behaviors through imposing notions of class struggle.
Arguably, open discourse could help us understand how and in what ways such innovative powers are currently and concomitantly desired (for their economic capacity) and feared (for their political implications), by China’s contemporary party-state.
We have not (yet) come across an alternative (to engagement through open discussion) that would eventually yield the possibility of reconciling China’s historical baggage (of class struggle) with its desire to create an innovative, equitable, truly harmonious society.
Post a Comment