Advertisement

Caught in the Middle? Welfare State Legitimisation and Problematisation in German and Swedish Middle-class Discourse

  • Marlon BarbehönEmail author
  • Marilena Geugjes
Article

Abstract

When it comes to evaluating social and political developments, the category of the middle class takes a central position in public debates. The same holds true for welfare state research which assigns a vital role to the middle class, especially when redistributive measures have to be stabilised and legitimised. However, in these debates, it is largely overlooked that the middle class is an ambiguous concept which can bear a variety of meanings and argumentative functions. Against this background, this paper does not want to investigate what the middle class is, but rather how it gains meaning in discursive practices in different societies. Empirically, we compare German and Swedish media debates in regard to how meaning is attributed to the middle-class category as well as regarding the latter’s role in the legitimisation and problematisation of the welfare state. The analysis reveals that while in the German discourse the middle class’ well-being is considered to be the major aim of the welfare state and for the benefit of the whole society, the Swedish discourse is split into two threads: one which criticises the middle class for furthering social gaps and a second one which accuses the universal welfare state for constraining the autonomy of middle-class members. We argue that these differences between (and within) both discourses are due to different interpretive schemes which are anchored in the respective sociocultural context. The analysis thus demonstrates the additional value of an interpretive perspective which helps understanding the specific ways in which the welfare state becomes the object of political debate in different societies.

Keywords

Middle class Welfare state Germany Sweden Mass media Discourse analysis 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) (grant number HA 4438).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (revised edition). London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Åsard, E., & Bennet, W. L. (1997). Democracy and the marketplace of ideas: communication and government in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. B., & Brandolini, A. (2013). On the identification of the middle class. In J. C. Gornick & M. Jäntti (Eds.), Income inequality. Economic disparities and the middle class in affluent countries (pp. 77–100). Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity: class bases of the European welfare state, 1875–1975. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbehön, M., & Haus, M. (2015). Middle class and welfare state—discursive relations. Critical Policy Studies, 9(4), 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbehön, M., & Haus, M. (2018). How central is the middle? Middle class discourses and social policy design in Germany. In L. Barrault-Stella & P.-É. Weill (Eds.), Creating target publics for welfare policies. A comparative and multilevel approach. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer International (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  7. Bastow, S., & Martin, J. (2003). Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berggren, H., & Trägårdh, L. (2006). Ist der Schwede ein Mensch? Was wir von unseren nordischen Nachbarn lernen können und wo wir uns in ihnen täuschen. München: btb Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Blyth, M. (1997). Moving the political middle: redefining the boundaries of state action. The Political Quarterly, 68(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, R. (2004). The path-dependency of an idea: why Scandinavian welfare states remain distinct. Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 204–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dallinger, U. (2013). The endangered middle class? A comparative analysis of the role played by income redistribution. Journal of European Social Policy, 23(1), 83–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928712456573.
  12. van Dijk, T. A. (2000). New(s) racism: a discourse analytical approach. In S. Cottle (Ed.), Ethnic minorities and the media (pp. 33–49). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992). The constant flux: a study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eurobarometer. (2016). Media use in the European Union. Standard Eurobarometer 86, Autumn 2016. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Fukuyama, F. (2012). The future of history: can liberal democracy survive the decline of the middle class? Foreign Affairs, 91(1), 53–61.Google Scholar
  18. Goodin, R. E., & Le Grand, J. (1987). Not only the poor: the middle classes and the welfare state. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  19. Gopal, K. (2004). Janteloven, the antipathy to difference. Looking at Danish ideas of equality as sameness. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 24(3), 64–82.Google Scholar
  20. Groh-Samberg, O., Mau, S., & Schimank, U. (2014). Investieren in den Status: Der voraussetzungsvolle Lebensführungsmodus der Mittelschichten. Leviathan, 42(2), 219–248.  https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-0425-2014-2-219.
  21. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haus, M. (2015). Mittelschicht und Wohlfahrtsstaat – Drei Deutungsmuster und ihre Relevanz für die Zukunft eines wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Grundkonsenses. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 61(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hilpert, D. (2012). Wohlfahrtsstaat der Mittelschichten? Sozialpolitik und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1949–1975). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kautto, M. (2010). The nordic countries. In F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (pp. 586–600). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Keller, R. (2011). The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Human Studies, 34(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuisma, M. (2017). Oscillating meanings of the Nordic model: ideas and the welfare state in Finland and Sweden. Critical Policy Studies, 11(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics (Second ed.). London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  29. Larsen, C. A. (2013). The rise and fall of social cohesion. The construction and deconstruction of social trust in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lessenich, S. (2009). „Neue Mitte“: Das Ende der Planwirtschaft. In R. Castel & K. Dörre (Eds.), Prekarität, Abstieg, Ausgrenzung. Die soziale Frage am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts (pp. 259–268). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  31. Lockwood, D. (1995). Marking out the middle class(es). In T. Butler & M. Savage (Eds.), Social change and the middle classes (pp. 1–12). London, Bristol: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  32. Luhmann, N. (1984). The self-description of society: crisis fashion and sociological theory. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 15(1–2), 59–72.Google Scholar
  33. Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Cambridge, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mau, S., & Sachweh, P. (2014). The middle-class in the German welfare state: beneficial involvement at stake? Social Policy & Administration, 48(5), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Münkler, H. (2010). Mitte und Maß: Der Kampf um die richtige Ordnung. Berlin: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  36. Nachtwey, O. (2016). Die Abstiegsgesellschaft: Über das Aufbegehren in der regressiven Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  37. Nonhoff, M. (2006). Politischer Diskurs und Hegemonie: Das Projekt „Soziale Marktwirtschaft“. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  38. OECD. (2016). The squeezed middle class in OECD and emerging countries—myth and reality. Paris.Google Scholar
  39. Ore, T. E. (2000). The social construction of difference and inequality: race, class, gender, and sexuality. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Pub.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, R. (1972). The myth of the middle class: notes on affluence and equality. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, S. (2013). The squeezed middle: the pressure on ordinary workers in America and Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker, D. S. (2014). The all-meaning middle and the alchemy of class. Estudios Interdiscipinarios de América Latina y el Caribe, 25(2), 9–29.Google Scholar
  43. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Culture and welfare state policies: reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy, 34(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T.-M. (1996). The meaning of difference: American constructions of race, sex and gender, social class, and sexual orientation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: the moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schelsky, H. (1953). Wandlungen der deutschen Familie in der Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
  47. Schetsche, M., & Schmied-Knittel, I. (2013). Deutungsmuster im Diskurs: Zur Möglichkeit der Integration der Deutungsmusteranalyse in die Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung, 1(1), 24–45.Google Scholar
  48. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (Eds.). (2005). Deserving and entitled: social constructions and public policy. SUNY series in public policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schram, S. F. (2012). The deep semiotic structure of deservingness: discourse and identity in welfare policy. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 236–268). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seethaler, J., & Melischek, G. (2009). Leitmedien als Indikatoren politischer Krisen und Umbrüche. Das Beispiel der Weimarer Republik. In D. Müller, A. Ligensa & P. Gendolla (Eds.), Leitmedien. Konzepte – Relevanz – Geschichte (pp. 151–170). Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  51. Wahrman, D. (1995). Imagining the middle class: the political representation of class in Britain, c. 1780–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Witoszek, N., & Trägårdh, L. (2002). Introduction. In N. Witoszek & L. Trägårdh (Eds.), Culture and crisis: the case of Germany and Sweden (pp. 1–11). New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations