We Have Never Been Middle Class: How Social Mobility Misleads Us

by Hadas Weiss

Tidings of a shrinking middle class in one part of the world and its expansion in another absorb our attention, but seldom do we question the category itself. We Have Never Been Middle Class proposes that the middle class is an ideology. Tracing this ideology up to the age of financialisation, it exposes the fallacy in the belief that we can all ascend or descend as a result of our aspirational and precautionary investments in property and education. Ethnographic accounts from Germany, Israel, the United States and elsewhere illustrate how this belief orients us, in our private lives as much as in our politics, toward accumulation-enhancing yet self-undermining goals. This meshing of anthropology and critical theory elucidates capitalism by way of its archetypal actors.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Class, Anthropology, Economics, Society, Theory

176 pages, Hardcover

Published October 1, 2019

Reviews

[Andrew]

Fundamental to Weiss's argument for the middle class's "non-existence" (or rather its existence only as an ideology) is the assertion that, like the working class, the middle class never receives a full return for the value which its labor creates. It receives a larger proportion, and that share of its created value is returned in a wider variety of material and immaterial benefits, but there is not a difference of kind between the two classes as far as exploitation is concerned.

What does distinguish the middle class from the working class is the particular mechanisms by which a middle class person is induced to believe that they do--or possibly can--actually receive the full return for their labor, or even conceivably reach the point where, as a rentier, they could cease working themselves and allow their money to "work" for them. By investing in property or by accumulating human capital, a middle class person feels that they are still controlling the portion of the value they are creating which they nevertheless cannot redeem or cash in on in the present. Instead, they believe that the currently inaccessible value that they are creating is simply being directed into a form that will be accessible in the future--such as a pension or a credential or home equity. Yet often these "investments" are less stable than they appear, and even if one can observe them growing consistently in value, the fear of volatility--and a drastic decline in value--makes it extremely risky to cash in early.

As one might see from this rather abstract paraphrase of Weiss's argument, she sees one of the main tensions in middle class life as the drive to keep working not necessarily because one cannot afford to stop, but because the intermediate and long-term risks of doing so are exceedingly difficult to assess and are therefore frightening. For the working class, ceasing to work means very rapid if not immediate deterioration of one's financial position; that is not the case for the middle class generally. But it is exceedingly difficult for the middle class to calculate when or even if one has saved enough to retire or to take a sabbatical or otherwise remove oneself (temporarily or permanently) from the labor market. And that lack of certainty--rather than outright starvation--is the goad which keeps the middle class going to work, or keeps adolescents studying hard and taking on debt to gain the necessary middle class credentials.

[Peter Geyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was growing up, I thought my family was upper working-class because my father worked as a travelling salesman and sales clerk and my mother was a clerk, so neither were factory workers, which was my idea of what working class might be, together with people working with their hands. I lived in an outer suburb that was essentially working-class and included many migrants to Australia.

Middle-class people were doctors and lawyers, people like that, although I didn't know any of the latter and just two or three of the former. Teachers might have been included but for the fact I was taught in Catholic Schools predominantly populated by members of religious orders. When I studied to be a teacher, in my early 30s, one of the lecturers playfully suggested that teaching was (still) a trade, rather than a profession, and I gathered from observation it was also a way out of the working class. These days, of course, everyone's a "professional" of some kind, although behaving professionally seems to be a declining attribute.

Hadas Weiss, a self-described "anthropologist and academic nomad", starts off entertainingly by critiquing the notion of "we" so prevalent in discourses of every kind these days, particularly with the attribution of emotions and beliefs to national or local groups whenever some event (tragedy and celebration alike) has occurred.

This crosses over fluently to notions of "middle class" which she shows are rubbery in the extreme. This isn't a difficult task – I remember President Obama burbling on about the middle class a few years ago, and wondered who he was referring to, perhaps everyone, as from observation and experience, the United States doesn't really use class language as a means of self-definition. Even here, in Australia, the use of class terms in recent years has been derided by many in power as statements of envy and disruption.

Her book title, which sets out her agenda, is a reminder of the cheeky and provocative Bruno Latour's We Have Never Been Modern, still an essential text for understanding society, as well as certain elements of psychology. It demonstrates the rubberiness of the term and its inconsistencies and the consequences for people either placed under this label, or accepting it.

Interestingly, she sees the label of middle class as an ideology, and so therefore with implications as to how people live and behave.

Weiss also sees this so-called class label as a kind of financial entrapment, an acceptance of being expected to be a consumer and investor in almost everything. So you invest in your children, or education; your home is an investment rather than a place to live, and you have to invest in the future, particularly in stocks and the market in general. At the same time you have to be thrifty, and there is an implication of blame or shame if you fail to meet these standards. She is particularly interesting on the notion of investing in your employment, therefore your employer and what they want and how that plays out in financial terms.

Her references are broad-ranging; mostly northern hemisphere, and her research and experiences focus more on Germany and Israel than anywhere else. I found these very interesting, as I know little of Israeli society in particular, and there were ready comparisons I could make to here in Australia, in language and intent.

One thing that really struck me was the idea of a home as an investment. My parents certainly didn't think in this way, and I doubt their peers did either. However, the property pages and general news are full of the notion of investment rather than a place to live. Weiss doesn't mention this, but there's a distinction between putting a price on anything and what its value is.

A strong theme in the book is also political action, or rather its diminution, which the author attributes to the financialisation of society, which is how I read it, amongst other factors. Perhaps this is the price of "fitting in"

This slim text is well argued and well-written. It's not a breezy work and you do have to concentrate at particular times, although that might be partly more to do with my difficulty with words like "finance" and "investment"

Middle-class as an ideology bears thinking about, as with many other labels. This book will make you think, which is no bad thing.

[Brandy Cross · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is very high-level, considerably more so than I truly appreciate in a book. I also feel that it could easily have been edited down to reduce redundancies and literal repetition of the same phrases multiple times in a chapter. That aside, it's already less of a book and more of a long essay. Perhaps the decision not to edit out 20% of its content was made so that it could retain its current dubious status as a book.

- I dislike the approach of the book. "Here is some basic information, if you want more, do more research, read the notes". Normally I bother to read a book so that someone has collated that information rather than giving me a bunch of references to look up which I could mostly just Google independently.
- The high-level approach here means that in nearly every opportunity the author might have to back up statements with facts or figures, the author chooses not to. Except in 2 cases. Not my style, as I said, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
- Does the book answer the question in the title? Not necessarily. It makes several points tangential to but which are not direct answers. Rather, it's about "how does this work" not, "how did this happen".

I strongly agree with the general premise, although it applies a lot more in the United States than in Europe – despite the author having taken many pains to pull examples from other countries – but I don't think the book has contributed anything at all to my ideas of this or social mobility and ideas of middle class in general. Overall, probably well worth a read if you don't know anything about this at all, this could be a great introductory primer, other than that, I'm not sure I'd recommend.


Edition: the paper on this is really sad for what I’m used to from Verso

[Alistar Flofsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great Verso debut for Weiss. A sharp direct message with an amazing and well calibrated aggressive flow. I am eager to read something new from her. A must-read for all the youngsters as this text could add more consistency and flavor to the 'OK, Boomer' trend.

[Malia Odekirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.25 / I will be ruminating on the concepts illuminated in this book for a while. It’s disturbing to read the unraveling of ideologies so deeply engrained that I could simultaneously conceptualize how incongruent they are through the evidence I was reading while still wondering if my personal investments in private property will be enough to make me secure in the future. What a conundrum. Ultimately, I agree with the base argument that middle class is an ideology rather than a concrete economic/social standing. Weiss’ theorization that this ideology then leads to (what I consider in conversation with mute compulsion from Søren Mau) furthering of capitalism’s backbone feels pretty undeniable. While we watch markets and property become more precarious, we simultaneously believe that our investments in them will make us more secure. Instead, we feed into the system encouraging and enforcing the precarity. How’s that for a catch-22?

The theoretical frameworks in this book blew me away. Weiss brought a LOT of valuable knowledge into conversation and determined insightful information from them. I did find this to be very jargon heavy and thus rather taxing to get through but well worth the reward. My only major complaints are 1) in moments where Weiss stated he would use his own ethnography to enrich the data, I found this to be sorely lacking. While I’m sure the ethnography was not lacking, the detailing of this work felt sequestered and insufficient. I wanted more of his own, original research in conversation with the ideas he brought from other scholars. 2) The conclusion could have hit so much harder but instead he brought some very odd (practically irrelevant) and unnecessarily confusing philosophical sources in, ostensibly to hammer home his point. Instead, they felt pretentious and misdirected. Just a bit of a small letdown after the whopping innards of the book as a whole.

[Hans · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Middleclass ‘ is a nonsensical politically manipulated class distinction.
Promisses, pacification, inclusion are suggested. But very often disappointment, non-performance or even abuse result from acting on behalf of the ‘middleclass’.

[Lazaros Karavasilis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Η μεσαία τάξη υπάρχει, αρκεί να το πιστέψουμε.
Φοβερή ανθρωπολογική μελέτη πάνω στην μεσαία τάξη ως ιδεολογία.

[BoQiao Gao · Rating 1 out of 5]

A horrible anthropology book. Full of prejudices and weak argument. The author seemed incapable to distinguish the nature of society operating from making of middle class in capitalist world. For example, in an agricultural society, the value or price of property is steady or not? Of course not. In a traditional village, were the people afraid of their poor relatives to ask for help, mostly borrowing money? Of course it is! But she describe it perfunctorily as a specific phenomenon of a middle-class capitalist society?

The most stupid thing in books of academic leftists is that they claimed they do the field work, they observe it as participants or they write, or even howl for the weak and poor, but actually what they write and argue is just for meeting the requirements of mainstream of academic (especially social science) reproduction line. When you find the inequality and bad part of a society, wow, just connect them to capitalism or neo-liberalism (which is seemingly it can be done casually and easily), bang, the arguement stands! It is the laziest and the most useless cliche that not only change the world, but also (re)fabricate intellectual-like rubbish.

The other stupid thing is, when sociologists or anthropologists criticize economics (or economic imperialism), they do not really understand them. They just find a man of straw in TV shows or newspaper column or even word of mouth, and they told you it is said by economists or economics. It's like we study political science by campaign talk or learn paramedics or medicine by commercials. Few leftist-qualitative sociologist or anthrologist really cares about the context and the substantial matter of economics. Suggest them not to publish such books in hard copy, such rubbish is against environmental protection.

[Ikhlas Tawazun · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am torn. While I do appreciate the arguments against the not-so-class-like middle class and several disparate but very interesting references (e.g. Georg Lucas' essay), I feel that the book is rather undertheorized and not very well written.

The main point of the book is how the middle class is actually more like the working class because the middle class never receives a full return for the value that its labor creates, yet it acts unlike it. This is primarily due to the "investment ideology," both material and immaterial (e.g. education), that promises the ability to transcend working and reach the level where (primarily) your capital works for you (as shown by the 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' book). This ultimately led to individualization with intense competition and no class solidarity at all.

While these takeaways are insightful, for me, the message that came across is something of an exposé. It's saying, "you guys should not invest, you'll never make it. Let's organize and topple capitalism," which is too simplistic. The very fact that investment has become inseparable from middle-class identity, particularly because of the ever-increasing accessibility of investment, means that it is perhaps not as simple as a class struggle analysis. To be middle class is to invest. Insisting them to ditch investment is just beyond the realm of possibility for now.

However, I like how the book highlights the plight of the middle class, particularly the emotional ones: their insecurity relating to their investments. How we are only fantasizing about the free will to invest, but in every investment, they are basically following pre-defined structures. But it drags on and now sounding too fatalistic.

Basically, the book is insightful in a not-so-helpful kind of way. It is also dragging the argument on too long. This can be just 50 pages.

[Vxxin X · Rating 1 out of 5]

Extremely disappointing. In today’s academic climate, these cross-cultural sociology/anthropology “critical” works are absurdly easy to produce—zero cost, zero pressure. As long as the author strikes the right critical posture, the rest just spills out. It’s nothing like the era when White Collar and similar studies were written with real methodological rigor.

Books like this are themselves deeply middle-class academic products: pieces of critique written by middle-class scholars for other middle-class scholars, critiquing… the middle class. What remains is just posture—and a thick layer of middle-class sensibility. This kind of middle-class academia is actually the peak expression of the middle-class bubble.

[Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating, if technical, work that uses social anthropology to explore the economics, rhetoric and effects of "middle class-ness". The idea that financialization confers middle class status and thus makes us eternally insecure (as our assets have no fixed value since they are market determined and constantly in flux), leading to social atomization and constant investment on the margins is an eloquent argument, inelegantly stated in the over-academic prose.

I find little to disagree with here and will recommend it as a more technical follow up to the works of David Graeber. I sincerely hope Ms. Weiss expands upon these ideas in a less formal text for a more general audience.

[Walter Schutjens · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great piece of anthropological analysis with a targeted question, and an informative and widely researched answer. Could at times be more clearly written, but the approach to ideas and use of both sociological and philosophical analysis was on point.

My favorite part was where Weiss apologized as an anthropologist for universalising her conclusion regarding the ideological ills of the middle class because of the global nature of capitalism. Very sad. The death of a social science :// Marxism got there first

[Courtney Tabor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Weiss makes important points about the middle class ideology, but these are bogged down by their repetitiveness and the overly philosophical writing. Few of the arguments are truly novel. The real contributions in my view come in the theorizing about “investments,” but even this is certainly an elaboration on an existing theme. Overall, good points and an instant classic for Verso publishing, but not my thing I guess.

[Violet · Rating 4 out of 5]

"[The bourgeoisie] are afforded privileged opportunities to pursue their interests, and the satisfaction of tracking their advantages back to having done so successfully. Consciousness of their foundations would therefore be tantamount to suicide for the bourgeoisie, in that they cohere as a class around self-interest."

[Jezz Brown · Rating 2 out of 5]

The idea that middle class-need is an ideology is compelling. The description of property and investment, the need for constant reproduction and betterment, etc etc, is compelling. The idea that this holds the ‘middle class’ in a unique relationship of exploitation is compelling.

Does this mean the middle class doesn’t exist? No.

I cba to share detailed thoughts right now - perhaps later

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots to think about in this dense little book. Does a great job of articulating what the problem with the category of middle class is and why it is so persistent. If you think you're middle class, you should read this.

[Dika Novi T · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Middleclass ‘ "is a nonsensical politically manipulated class distinction.
Promisses, pacification, inclusion are suggested. But very often disappointment, non-performance or even abuse result from acting on behalf of the ‘middleclass’.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mathematicians are idiots, there is no normal distribution. Marx, as the prophet of the Proletarian, was right: there are only rich to one extreme and needy at the other extreme.

[Abhimanyu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked this up primarily because I have a Twitter crush on the author, but it turned out to be genuinely thought provoking.