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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In our larger research project, the UK as a representative of the liberal welfare regime is included as a third case. In this paper, however, we will confine our analysis to the comparison of Germany and Sweden.
We are grateful to one of the reviewers who pointed that out to us.
Thanks to one of the anonymous reviewers for highlighting this important point.
However, the empirical analysis showed that the differences between the newspapers within one country are only of minor relevance. With regard to our research question, we can rather speak of a coherent sociocultural stock of knowledge which is largely shared by the different (mainstream) media voices within each society. Thus, if not stated otherwise, in our analysis, we will not differentiate between the newspapers within one country.
‘Mitte und Maß’ is a popular saying which translates as ‘the doctrine of the mean’ and thus identifies the middle ground as the moderate (cf. Münkler 2010).
In this article, we are not able to systematically reflect on the question whether and, if so, how the shift in political power and the different role of the middle class category in public discourses during the mid-2000s are interrelated.
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (revised edition). London, New York: Verso.
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.
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.
Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity: class bases of the European welfare state, 1875–1975. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barbehön, M., & Haus, M. (2015). Middle class and welfare state—discursive relations. Critical Policy Studies, 9(4), 473–484.
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).
Bastow, S., & Martin, J. (2003). Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
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.
Blyth, M. (1997). Moving the political middle: redefining the boundaries of state action. The Political Quarterly, 68(3), 231–240.
Cox, R. (2004). The path-dependency of an idea: why Scandinavian welfare states remain distinct. Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 204–219.
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.
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.
Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992). The constant flux: a study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Eurobarometer. (2016). Media use in the European Union. Standard Eurobarometer 86, Autumn 2016. Brussels: European Commission.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fukuyama, F. (2012). The future of history: can liberal democracy survive the decline of the middle class? Foreign Affairs, 91(1), 53–61.
Goodin, R. E., & Le Grand, J. (1987). Not only the poor: the middle classes and the welfare state. London: Allen and Unwin.
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.
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.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haus, M. (2015). Mittelschicht und Wohlfahrtsstaat – Drei Deutungsmuster und ihre Relevanz für die Zukunft eines wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Grundkonsenses. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 61(2), 147–170.
Hilpert, D. (2012). Wohlfahrtsstaat der Mittelschichten? Sozialpolitik und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1949–1975). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
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.
Keller, R. (2011). The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Human Studies, 34(1), 43–65.
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.
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.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics (Second ed.). London, New York: Verso.
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.
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.
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.
Luhmann, N. (1984). The self-description of society: crisis fashion and sociological theory. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 15(1–2), 59–72.
Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Cambridge, Oxford: Polity Press.
Mau, S., & Sachweh, P. (2014). The middle-class in the German welfare state: beneficial involvement at stake? Social Policy & Administration, 48(5), 537–555.
Münkler, H. (2010). Mitte und Maß: Der Kampf um die richtige Ordnung. Berlin: Rowohlt.
Nachtwey, O. (2016). Die Abstiegsgesellschaft: Über das Aufbegehren in der regressiven Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Nonhoff, M. (2006). Politischer Diskurs und Hegemonie: Das Projekt „Soziale Marktwirtschaft“. Bielefeld: Transcript.
OECD. (2016). The squeezed middle class in OECD and emerging countries—myth and reality. Paris.
Ore, T. E. (2000). The social construction of difference and inequality: race, class, gender, and sexuality. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Pub.
Parker, R. (1972). The myth of the middle class: notes on affluence and equality. New York: Liveright.
Parker, S. (2013). The squeezed middle: the pressure on ordinary workers in America and Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.
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.
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Culture and welfare state policies: reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy, 34(1), 3–20.
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.
Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: the moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schelsky, H. (1953). Wandlungen der deutschen Familie in der Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Enke.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wahrman, D. (1995). Imagining the middle class: the political representation of class in Britain, c. 1780–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Funding
This study was funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) (grant number HA 4438).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barbehön, M., Geugjes, M. Caught in the Middle? Welfare State Legitimisation and Problematisation in German and Swedish Middle-class Discourse. Int J Polit Cult Soc 32, 1–20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-018-9275-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-018-9275-0