Module 5.5 Urban Middle Class and Aspirations Role Name Affiliation Subject Coordinator Prof. Sujata Patel Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad Paper Coordinator Ashima Sood Assistant Professor, Woxsen School of Business, Hyderabad Surya Prakash Upadhyay Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Himachal Pradesh Content Writer Surya Prakash Upadhyay Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Himachal Pradesh Content Reviewer Apparao Thamminaina Assistant Professor, National Institute of Technology Rourkela Language Editor Apparao Thamminaina Assistant Professor, National Institute of Technology Rourkela Technical Conversion Module Structure 1. Introduction 2. Class and Middle Class 3. Indian Middle Class: Differences and Continuations 4. Conclusion 1 Description of the Module Item Description Subject Name Sociology Paper Name Sociology of Urban Transformation Module Name Urban Middle Class and Aspirations Module Id 5.5 Prerequisites Objectives To locate middle class in the writings of important social theorists and how their idea of class influenced our understanding of middle class. To delineate characteristic features of middle class; and, discuss differentiations within middle class. To discuss the idea of “aspiration” and how middle class aspiration influences politics, economy and culture in post- liberalisation era. Keywords class, middle class, urban aspirations I. Introduction We often hear people refer themselves common man, aam aadmi, madhyamvargiya, moddhobitto and so on. There are similar terms in other regional languages that resonate the same idea and social location. What do these terms indicate? All these varied, vernacular, popular and regional terms are synonymous with what we call middle class in social sciences. Middle class as a term and social category is so widespread that academicians, politicians, media houses, activists and people use in their everyday conversation without any special aid. It seems we have inherited this idea, believe in its pre-givenness, and accept these terms as self-explanatory. What is the location of this social category in the social structure? In common sensical notion, middle class means an “average” category whose members are “in between” i.e. neither rich nor poor; neither orthodox nor liberal; neither traditional nor modern. They are not owners of industries and factories but are better off than poor and those who live below the poverty line. Therefore, middle class is a social 2 category whose members do not have “enough” resources to live extravagant life but do not live hand-to-mouth as well. In a sense, it is a residual category or the left-outs who are excluded from both, rich and the poor. We simply assert that salaried people employed as managers, clerks, teachers, lawyers, doctors belong to the middle class. We hear a bureaucrat locates itself in middle class category. But we also come across people who own grocery shops, involve in petty business refer and locate themselves in middle class. In common-sensical definitions and classifications, people with varied socio-economic positions, preferences, lifestyles are considered to comprise a uniform and homogeneous category. However, lifestyles, possession of consumer durables, tastes, aspirations, and accessibilities to different amenities as well as income of these people varies a lot. Therefore, to make our job simpler, we classify and divide this differentiated and heterogenous group as: upper-middle class, middle-middle class, lower-middle class. Such common sense ideas cannot answer internal differences that exists within this social category. We can ask: What and who are middle class? Is the idea as well as category of middle class in India a myth? Are parameters used by non-specialists sufficient to explain middle class? Is household income a sufficient variable to understand middle class and its activism, preferences, lifestyles and so on? When we talk about middle class which middle class do we talk about? Why do people prefer to locate themselves in middle class? Who are included and excluded in the middle class? Is middle class an economic category or something larger than economic class? When middle class itself is a heterogeneous category, then what commonalities do the members share? This module, away from common sense ideas and categorisation of middle class, draws attention towards academic discussions about middle class. First, the module locates middle class in the theories of class. Economic determination, estimation and discussion often fails to forward adequate explanation of the role of middle class in capitalist economies. A cultural approach has been found adequate in understanding middle class that how cultural practices trigger self- presentation and self-cultivation among the middle class. Therefore, the module focuses on cultural practices and class reproduction and draws attention towards colonial, postcolonial and post-liberalisation formation of middle class in India. Since the early 1980s, scholars, almost abandoned class as an analytical tool, and took up several new themes such as cultural identity, nationalism, consumption, gendered practices in understanding the middle class in India and 3 elsewhere. In this short essay, it is impossible to bring all the themes together in the discussion. We elaborate on the idea of ‘capacity to aspire’ (Appadurai) and discuss how cultural practices help in class reproduction, self-cultivation and self-presentation among middle class. Lastly, we discuss how urban aspirations of middle class are embedded in larger structural changes in economy, polity and culture and how it influences governance, urban structuring and urban culture. II. Class and Middle Class One may not find a detailed discussion about middle class in classical social theories. It is from the middle of the twentieth century that we start getting some discussion about middle class and their role in capitalist societies. Importantly, middle class did not form core subject for classical theorists but certain ideas have definitely been found useful to understand middle class, their role in capitalist society, lifestyle preferences, aspirations, desires and tastes. In particular, Marxian and Weberian ideas of class have contributed a lot in understanding middle class. However, one has to be careful while transporting those ideas in order to discuss middle class. The idea of class might have resonated in the writings of Aristotle, Rousseau and others but it was Karl Marx who adds importance to this idea. Marx’s idea of class is a postulation of class struggle. Unlike Functionalists, class, for Marxists, is a disintegrative quality of social structure, a determinant of unequal property relations which divides people in categories of unequal rewards, accessibilities and social position. Marx does not define class. He uses ‘class’ in terms of possession of means of production and location of person in the system of production. For him, every society, except primitive communism and ‘future’ communism (that he asks working class to establish after overthrowing capitalist society), divides people in unequal positions of: master and slave; landlord and serf; bourgeoisie and proletariate. As Deshpande (2003) writes, “what we inherit from the Marxist corpus is an entirely historical rather than a theoretical discussion of class” (2003:126). Even if Marx rejects income and occupation as criteria, class for him is an economic category that triggers class consciousness and class solidarity. For him, 4 economic, social and political institutions overlap but it is the economy that forms the base and determines social position of people and their political consciousness. In Marx’s scheme, we find discussion about two polar groups who have conflicting interests. What we miss in his analytical framework is the absence ‘intermediate classes’ that are important category in capitalist societies. One may ask: what is the position of non-polar (i.e. intermediate) groups in social structure and what role do they perform in society? To some extent, economic basis of class constitution helps us in understanding domination of the ruling class but it does not illustrate, apart from economic and political domination, how cultural domination of the ruling class or how ruling class ideologies are regulated, conformed, and internalised by the ruled as well as other classes. The early Marxist theorists were averse of the middle class and saw them an impediment in revolutionary program of the great proletariat class. Deshpande (2003) notes, it is Antonio Gramsci who provides a careful and constructive analysis of the middle class and their role in modern capitalist societies. Gramsci’s idea of cultural hegemony is an important contribution towards understanding the role of middle class in capitalist societies. Moving beyond Marx’s historical materialism, Gramsci draws attention towards production of cultural values and how it serves the end of the bourgeoisie. The ruling class creates values, ideas, institutions that are projected as natural which ultimately serves social and economic positions of the ruling class. Gramsci argues that cultures, beliefs and values of dominant class is imposed on others, restrict space for alternative (here working class) cultures and thus the hegemony of dominant class is created, maintained and perpetuated in the society. Max Weber, like Marx, also considers ownership of property an important criteria in determination of