Social structure of society and middle class: textbook 9786010446007

Citation preview

AL-FARABI KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

G. S. Abdiraiymova D. K. Burkhanova

SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY AND MIDDLE CLASS Textbook

Аlmaty «Qazaq university» 2015

UDC 316.343 (075) LBC 60.56 я 7 A 12 Recommended for publication by the Science Committee of Faculty of Philosophy Political science and Publishing Council of al-Farabi Kazakh National University Reviewers: Doctor of Sociological science N.U. Shedenova Candidate of Sociological science A.T. Abzhalieva Candidate of Sociological science G.T. Alimbekova

A 12

Abdiraiymova G.S. Social structure of society and middle class: textbook / G.S. Abdiraiymova, D.K. Burkhanova. – Almaty: Qazaq university, 2015. – 44 p. ISBN 978-601-04-4600-7 In this textbook entitled «Social structure of society and middle class», authors analyze different approaches to the definition of social structure and stratification of the society. Institutional changes that have affected all strata of society brought to life new social groups and new types of socio-economic activity. This study discusses theoretical approaches that determine the nature of social inequality, formation of the social structure and stratification of the society. This work also analyzes the problem and perspectives for development of the society’s middle strata. The empirical data for the authors’ research is based on the sociological study conducted at the Center of Sociological Researches and Social Engineering (2013). This textbook is aimed at Master and doctoral students,instructors, as well as everyone interested in the problems of modern society.

UDC 316.343 (075) LBC 60.56 я 7

ISBN 978-601-04-4600-7

© Abdiraiymova G.S., Burkhanova D.K., 2015 © Аl-Farabi KazNU, 2015

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................4 1. INTERPRETATION OF CONCEPTS «MIDDLE STRATA» AND «MIDDLE CLASS».........................5 Middle layers in the view of the ancient philosophers....................................................................................... 5 Formation of the stratification theory of Karl Marx........................................................................................... 6 Weber: Classic stage in development of the social inequality............................................................................ 7 Spencer and Gumplowicz on the functionality of the middle class.................................................................... 8 2. «MIDDLE CLASS» IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES OF 19th CENTURY........................................................................................................................................ 10 «Middle class»: identity and way of life...........................................................................................................10 Modern class theories....................................................................................................................................... 15 3. MIDDLE CLASS IN CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN AND KAZAKHSTANI SOCIOLOGY...............19 Russian middle layer: economic, social and cultural differentiation................................................................19 Middle class” in Kazakhstan: problems of formation...................................................................................... 24 4. MIDDLE CLASS IN KAZAKHSTAN: FEATURES AND THE SELECTION CRITERIA (RESULTS OF SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH)........................................................................................29 Income and material status: limitations and evaluation.................................................................................... 29 Experts on the role and importance of the middle class in contemporary Kazakh society..............................33 Lifestyle and values of ​​ the middle class........................................................................................................... 34 Economic strategies: purchase, renovation and vacation trips......................................................................... 35 Having a car as an indicator of high social status or wealth?...........................................................................36 Interest in the political life of the country........................................................................................................ 36 On civic position...............................................................................................................................................37 Life values........................................................................................................................................................37 The value of higher education..........................................................................................................................38 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 40

INTRODUCTION

I

n this textbook entitled “Social structure of society and middle class,” authors analyze different approaches to the definition of social structure and stratification of the society. Institutional changes that have affected all strata of society brought to life new social groups and new types of socio-economic activity. This study discusses theoretical approaches that determine the nature of social inequality, formation of the social structure and stratification of the society. This work also analyzes the problem and perspectives for development of the society’s middle strata in modern Kazakhstan society. The fact that the formation of the middle class, that is the largest social group and carry out number of important functions, can be considered as a significant evidence of the effectiveness of reforms, evidence of strength of entire economic, social and political institutions system. A research interest to the middle class in sociology is actualized for several reasons. First, the government relies on the prevalence in society of the middle class, which is regarded as the basis of political and social stability. Further development of the middle class in Kazakhstan is one of the main priorities of social and economic policy. Currently, in social theory has developed a contradictory situation between the objective necessity of increasing the share of the middle class as a guarantee of stability in society, and the lack of methodological approaches to the definition of the middle class in the structure of society.

Second, to understand the future of the country in the international community there must be a clear vector of economic and political processes in connection with this urgent question about the features of consciousness and behavior of the large groups, which directly affect the functioning of the economic system of the country. Third, as for now there is no generally accepted scientific definition of “middle class” and criteria for the determination of middle class members. Fourth, the middle class is not only a significant part of modern society, but also very complex, contradictory and heterogeneous structural formation. Components of which differ by source of formation, social status, and many other characteristics. Thus, the priority of the middle class, the necessity to study its characteristics of its consciousness and behavior, variety of available approaches, the lack of clear criteria to identify middle class, the need for a new understanding of the role and development trends of the middle class, its structure in the current political and economic conditions determine the research interest in this topic. The empirical data for the authors’ research is based on the sociological study conducted at the Center of Sociological Researches and Social Engineering (2013). This textbook is aimed at Master and doctoral students, instructors, as well as everyone interested in the problems of modern society.

4

1

INTERPRETATION OF CONCEPTS «MIDDLE STRATA» AND «MIDDLE CLASS»

In the sociological literature, the term “middle class” is used quite often. The term “middle class” has a long history, but its meaning has changed depending on changes in the socio-economic life of the society. Most sociologists emphasize the newness of this class, calling it a “new middle class” and positioning it as a new social phenomenon. What is the difference from other classes and why does it seem so fundamental?

I

deas of the middle class, as a middle layer between the upper and lower social layers, originated in the early stages of development of human civilization. In the process of development of the society interpretation of the concept and approaches to the definition of the middle class underwent through significant changes. Despite the lack of a clear understanding of the characteristics and criteria for selection of the middle class, belonging to it was largely determined by the successful activity of a free citizen in a variety of areas of public life.

between people, such as nobility, power and wealth. Aristotle (384-355 BC) in his famous work «Politics» (335-322 BC) noted the existence of three social elements in all states: independent (rich), extremely poor and those standing Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in the middle. This class, according to Aristotle, is the solid foundation of the society and its organization, as this group was distin guished by rationality and moderation. And so, the dominating share of the middle class in the society over the share of the rich and the poor has been an important factor in stabilizing the life of the state. Discussing stability of the state, he pointed out that there

Middle layers in the view of the ancient philosophers. Thinkers of the Renaissance and the Early Modern era about nature of middle class Ancient philosophers defined the class as a hierarchy of three main layers (upper, middle and lower), which is based on certain differences

5

6

Social structure of society and middle class

where there is no middle class and the poor make the vast majority, there are troubles and the state is doomed to destruction. Better society is formed from the middle class and the state where this class is more numerous and stronger than the other two classes combined, is better manageable since the social equilibrium is ensured (Aristotle, 1911). Despite the fact that initially in the Ancient era middle class was seen as a residual category, even then its social significance and political reforms aimed at its development were analyzed. Thinkers of the Renaissance and the Early Modern era (N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J. Bentham, J.J. Rousseau, A. Thierry and others) have contributed in developing ideas about the nature of the middle class, initiated by the ancient Greek thinkers. Augustin Thierry (1795-1856) in his work «History of the Origin and Progress of the Third Estate» (1853) describes «genetic» roots and origins of the European middle class, since the Third Estate is often seen as its predecessor, carrying the basis of its worldview and mentality. This estate, according to A.Thierry, is the collective name for various classes (social groups) which emerged because of the urban regeneration and strengthening the economic activity of the population. Third Estate «rises between the nobility and serfs and destroys forever the duality of early feudalism» (Thierry, 1978). According to Thierry, the third estate is characterized by a considerable differentiation: «industrial classes» (the predecessors of the petite bourgeoisie) and a class of judicial and financial officials. Worldview of these two groups are radically different, but, restraining each other, «they were united by new and more exalted noble ideas». The term «middle class» originated in the 19th century and was referring to the intermediate layer, representatives of which could not be classified in the extreme social classes. By method of exclusion, this class includedpopulation living in the cities of Europe that was neither part of the nobility nor the peasantry (small businessmen, artisans, merchants, shopkeepers, etc.). According to the same principle, the term «middle class» was used in England during the Industrial Revolution to describe those who do not fall into the category of titled or untitled nobility or village workers and peasants (Archer, Blau, 1993).

Formation of the stratification theory of Karl Marx Important approaches for the development of research of the class structure as well as for conceptualization of the middle class were developed by Karl Marx and Max Weber. These two approaches form the Karl Marx (1818-1883) basis of most of the later concepts of stratification. Philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818-1883) is one of the most significant thinkers in fluencing the development of class structure research. Before Marx no scholars performed such a deep analysis of the society’s class structure. In Marx’s concept,central position is given to the production, as the production development is the basis of the development of the society in general. He identifies two main polarized classes that are defined by their relation to the means of production. The «bourgeoisie», e.g. the owners of the means of production, exploit workers and «proletariat», who receive part of the new value produced with their labor in the form of wages. Marx emphasized the antagonistic relationship between the two main classes of exploiters and exploited, the struggle of which is a source of the social development and the driving force of history. Explaining the social structure of capitalist societies, Marx used the one-dimensional vertical stratification, which is based on the economic characteristic: the ownership of the means of production. Karl Marx argued that classes always existed where there was exploitation and private property. Within Marx’s class analysis, position of individuals in relation to economic resources is reflected in the relationship of exploitation that takes into account not only inequality in the distribution of resources between individuals, but also their actions towards these resources. At the same time, there is a close relationship between these classes, which generates an antagonistic relationship between them: welfare ofthe exploiters depends on the efforts of the exploited. Thus, Marx analyzed the class through its relation to the ownership of capitals and means of production,

1. Interpretation of concepts «middle strata» and «middle class»

although not giving much of an importance to the size of income and common interests of people. In addition to the two main classes, in «The Communist Manifesto» (1848) Marx noted that there are also intermediate groups and classes: the petite bourgeoisie, merchants, artisans and intellectuals, i.e. those who equally depend on their property and on their labor. Despite the fact that he has considered and treated them as potential allies of either capitalist or working classes, in his opinion, the intermediate classes hinder the struggle of the two main classes since they have no antagonism required for the class struggle and do not possess «neither initiative, nor dynamism» (Marx, Engels,1848). Weber: Classic stage in development of the social inequality German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) offers a different approach to the analysis of social structure.Weber developed a multidimensional stratification, thus extending the system of criteria for determining membership in the class. Weber believes that in addition to the relation to the ownership of capital and means of production, it is important to also take into account such factors as power and prestige. He considers property, power, and prestige as three separate factors largely independent but interacting with each other and determining position of an individual in the society. These factors, their quantity and quality determine different existing possibilities, such as «life chances» of an individual in market relations. This concept is fundamental to the Weberian analysis of social structure. Thus, analyzing social structure of the society, Weber claims that there are three bases for social differentiation, in contrast to the one-dimensional stratification of Marx, where the determining factor is economics. Max Weber (1864-1920) The difference between positions in the economic sphere (income, property, financial situation) generates classes. According to Weber, the classes arose only when capitalism that existed in Antiquity, the

Middle Ages, Early Modern era has reached its golden age. As the main criteria of class formation Weber considered ownership of the means of production and the market. The entire population is divided into classes, first of all in accordance with economic differences in the market capacity, including the labor market. Weber singled capital, education, qualification as defining characteristics of belonging to the class. Classes are formed depending on the capital ownership, and also depending on how much in demand on the labor market are theskills possessed by people. Class is people that are in the same class situation, i.e. have a common position in the economic sphere, including similar profession, similar income and comparable same financial position. According to the doctrine of Max Weber, class division ofthe society is based on economic interests of different social subjects. In Weber’s view, interests of an average person included into class, one’s aspiration to get access to the market, income and benefits are sources of the class struggle. Thus, Weber suggested that individual economic interests are basis of the contradictions in the society. They are manifested, in the first place, in an effort to generate income providing decent living conditions, maintaining and improving their social status which can meet existing demand. Implementation of this aspiration happens inthe conditions of a rigid competition brought by limited resources. Weber considered a prestige as an indicator of social reputation, «a special kind of resource». Different status groups in the society are endowed with different social prestige expressing attractiveness of certain positions. Status is an amount of socially shared attributed prestige. Differences in status, as Weber says, lead to the differences in lifestyle, economic strategies, behavioral patterns, and habits. Status group in this regard is capable of conducting a deliberate course of conduct, since through standards of conduct embodied in the general subculture it can control and even to direct the behavior of their members. Third basis for the social division in Weberian discourse is the power difference that in turn generates appearance of political parties. The party always involves appropriate socialization, identity and shared common ideology, as it is aimed at collective achievements. Should be said that Weber had not built a clear class structure of a class society, but as a whole, according to Weber’s terminology, the owners make a positively privileged class and those who do not have property or any qualifications make

7

8

Social structure of society and middle class

negatively privileged class. Between these two polar classes there are heterogeneous middle classes. According to Max Weber, the middle class is a social basis and support of democracy in the Western society. Political stability, the spread of values, compromise and consensus are the priority for the middle class. Weber identified two categories: 1. «Lower middle class» (farmers, artisans, small traders); 2. «Professionals» (specialists, government officials, intellectuals, administrators). Weber had not presented a thorough description of the middle class, but he highlighted its key features, such as ownership of a property and/or professional capital. The middle class, according to Weber, in the future should increase quantitatively and qualitatively through the bureaucracy, significant for the functioning of a market society (Weber, 1990; 1994). *** – In his analysis of inequality Weber suggests to consider not one but several types of stratification factors determining an individual’s position in the social hierarchy; on the basis of multidimensional stratification associated not only with the economic characteristics, but also cultural and social characteristics of an individual. This methodological approach remains one of the main approaches to the structural analysis of the society. – Marx’s theory of social structure is focused on determination of opposing groups, different by the presence or lack of certain features (in particular, the presence or lack of control over the means of production). At the same time, Weber’s theory, being gradational, does not focus on alternative features but determines the division of society on a particular amount and quality of a variety of features available in each of the groups. The point here is not about opposing groups, not about conflict of interest, but about existing inequality in the society and differentiation of lifestyles and life chances in different social groups. – Social inequality is considered in this case as a natural state, caused by the logic of development of the society. It must be noted that stratification approach by itself involves consideration of layers in the society that do not contradict but complement each other.

– Both Marx’s and Weber’s approaches largely determined further development of study of the social structure. Until now, these two approaches are not only theoretically justified, but also allow solving specific practical problems. When it comes to identifying contradictions in society, conflicts that may determine the future development of society, class approach of Marx is justified. – Ideas developed by Marx and Weber, are still widely used in modern sociology, though most often in a modified form. Both approaches have their opponents and followers, and a vast array of literature is devoted to the analysis of social structure in the context of a particular tradition. Spencer and Gumplowicz on the functionality of the middle class English scholar Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) believed that each structural element of the society performs its function. According to Spencer, the upper class is a governing class which defines the strategy of development of the Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) society; the lower class supports society, providing it with food resources. After having determined the dominant and subordinate classes, Spencer highlights a third class, which lies between the two other classes and facilitates their cooperation. This class takes care of delivery of products, purchases and sales (Kravchenko, 2000). If to compare the society to a living organism, the middle class plays a role similar to the vascular system supplying each organ with food reserves. Thus, it binds the two extreme classes, ensuring the normal functioning of society. Also, according to Spencer, the transition from the «mechanical» solidarity of the society to the «organic» solidarity (in EmileDurkheim’s terminology) is determined by functioning of the middle class. Spencer is one of the first scholars in the world sociology who described functional significance and importance of this social group. At the same time, the important fact is that the middle class has its own class interest, different from interests of other classes and its relations with

1. Interpretation of concepts «middle strata» and «middle class»

other classes of society are inevitably antagonistic in Spencerian construction. Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) in his work also addresses the problem of formation of the middle class in capitalist society. The subject of sociology by Gumplowicz is the study of social groups and relationships between them. The state is nothing but an organization of rule of a minority over the majority, and initially social Ludwig Gumplowicz groups constructing (1838-1909) along ethnic principles, over time acquire the features of congenial classes. Monotonous political aspirations of all classes to the rule, according to Gumplowicz, contributes to the emergence among «absolute ruling and absolutely unfree» of middle class (Radaev, Shkaratan, 1996). Similar to Spencer, Gumplowicz believed that the precondition for emergence of the middle class is development of the market economy. He described the process of formation of the middle class as quite peaceful and considered merchants as its first representatives. The «force» of newly emerging estates (middle class) is the ownership of material goods (Berdyaev, 1955). Consequently, the middle class get their part of the «social force» in the state and by implementing this power they take part in the state domination. Over time, with increase of the «strength», the middle class can become a decisive factor in the social life of the state. *** In general, Spenser and Gumplowicz give a slightly different interpretation of the middle class. In their theory, the middle class plays an important

role since it controls the «feeding trough» of the social organism. This situation, according to both sociologists, leads to the appearance of sense of common interest, and consequently, to an opposition with other classes. Guidelines to the study material: 1. Explain that formation of the social stratification in different societies is a complex process of socioeconomic transformation. Provide theoretical approaches to the study of social structure and social stratification that you know. 2. Prove that the most applicable tool to the study of the middle class is the structural-functional analysis, which allows considering a group through a system of functions carried out by an individual. 3. Review existing scholarly ideas of the middle class. Develop criteria and parameters for the middle class, explain their content. 4. Please note that the theme of social inequality is rooted in very different stages of development of sociological thought: from antiquity to modern times. Check the works of the classics of sociological thought, whose work has been devoted to the relationship of an individual and a society, to the analysis of social inequality and to the study of social structure. 5. Analyze ideas of E. Durkheim, in relation to the study of the middle class; ideas of M.Weber, who identified factors that underlie the division of society into classes; ideas of R. Dahrendorf that has set a base of class inequality. Recommended literature: 1. Grusky D.B., Manwai C.K. Gloom, Doom and Inequality // Social Stratification: Classes, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. – 3rd Ed. – Colorado: Westview Press, 2008. – P.2-28. 2. Coleman R. P. and Rainwater L. Social Standing in America: New Dimensions of Class. – New York: Basic Books, 1978. – 353 р. 3. Sorensen A. Toward a sounder basis for class analysis // The American Journal of Sociology – 2000. – Vol. 105, № 6. – P.1523-1558. 4. Thompson W., Hickey J. Society in Focus. – Boston, MA: Pearson, 2005. – 688 р. 5. Cole G. The Conception of the Middle Classes // British Journal of Sociology. – 1950. – Vol. 1, № 4. – P. 275-290. 6. Giddens A. Sociology. – M., 2005. – 704 p.

9

2

«MIDDLE CLASS» IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES OF 19th CENTURY

Industrialization in Europe in 19thcentury

In general, in the social-class structure of the advanced industrial countries in the 19th century the concept of the three classes was clearly traced. This idea is widely used in theories of American and European sociologists. Thus, presence of the middle class makes the struggle less severe, since the third class is interested in that one of the two opponents was not finally destroyed, so it switches sides to restore balance. During this period of time, the bourgeoisie was considered as middle class, unlike the land aristocracy (upper class) and workers (lower class). In this case, the middle class represented a homogeneous social group. Later, by the middle class researchers began to consider a certain social formation characterized by its heterogeneity. Question of the middle class has developed into a complex problem, which already had a different content. «Middle class»: identity and way of life

tification and worldview of non-manual workers. The emerging American middle class includeddifferent professional groups: artisans, petite bourgeoisie or «white-collars» (Blumin, 1989). A detailed review of the literature on the middle class in the United States in the 19th century and the reasons that generated its appearance is given in the paper of Archer and Blau. The authors argue that specific occupational groups – artisans, petty bourgeois, or white-collar workers – did not

I

n the United States, emergence of the middle class in the modern sense begins from the first half of the 19th century. Blumin analyzed Philadelphia and New York of the 19thcentury and argued that the middle class in terms of its structure and culture emerged in the 1830s. As the key elements of its emergence, he considers unity of the socio-economic status, patterns of settlement, work culture, self-iden-

10

2. «Middle class» in the social structure of industrial countries of 19th century

constitute separate entities, but were part of the changing middle class (Archer, Blau, 1993).

production does not play any role for it, as it arises on a completely different ground than the old one.

New York City, ca. 1830s

Among main factors that contributed to formation of the middle class, its type of work and lifestyle, the authors include: – changes in the employment structure, – stability of geographical settlement, – settlement concentration of the middle class, – stability of its position in the labor market, – good opportunities for entering the middle class during the period of industrialization, – entrepreneurship development through the ownership of a small business. High level of mobility in and between cities contributed to the fact that the image of middle-

In the 20th century the separation of these proprietary rights between different individuals takes place. Former proletariat has virtually disappeared from the historical arena – both as a fairly homogeneous oppressed layer, with its own self-consciousness, and also as a class of people engaged in advanced manufacturing. This is - one of the reasons that the property factor is determined as a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for an identification of class boundaries. The growing number of managers that formally do not own the means of production and administrators involved in the production process of private-corporate

By the mid-19th century in the world sociology first experiences of the systematic approach to study of problems of social- class structure appeared where middle classes are seen as a necessary component that contributes to the normal functioning of all systems of society. And already in late 19th -early 20th centuries Western economies has undergone significant changes, which led to profound changes in the social structure. As a consequence, the middle class was positioned as a powerful social and political force to take into consideration.

class life formed quickly and stood out clearly, in spite of the segregated settlement of ethnic and religious groups. Mobility has helped to spread cultural norms and create a common cultural framework for the middle class. Stability of geographical settlement, types of middle class settlements and geographic concentration of its members eventually led to the formation of its class identity. Higher stability of the middle class position in the labor market led to a stability of the middle class in general as a social subject.

business, significant growth in the number of different level officials and increasing of number of representatives of liberal professions. All this has led to the fact that in 1900 by the evaluation of Gurvich, middle class in the structure of American society was more than 30%. Similar estimates of the proportion of the middle class in Germany adhered Karl Kautsky. German economist and historian Kautsky (18541938) wrote that joint-stock companies by increasing the number of well-paid employees, thereby promote the formation of middle class – the new middle class. Private property of the means of

11

12

Social structure of society and middle class

According to Kautsky it is necessary to allocate two points that distinguish the new middle class from the old one. A positive feature of the new middle class is that, thanks to the ability to think abstractly it is easier for its representatives to rise above class limits and «stand up for the interests of the whole society». Negative moment in the functioning of the new middle class is its lack of fighting spirit and its fluctuations in decisive moments. The class struggle, noted Kautsky, is generally hated by middle class, as social reforms are considered as the main path of class struggle elimination (Kautsky, 1906). Outlook of the majority members of the new middle class is closer to the bourgeoisie, so that there is «an antagonism between a large intelligentsia and a proletariat». The strongest antagonism between the middle class and the proletariat, according to Kautsky, based primarily on its education privileges. Realizing that increasing a number of educated people will lead to a devaluation of the privileged position of the middle class, the later in every way prevent this by avoiding certain categories of the population in their ranks, by increasing a cost of education (Kautsky, 1905). French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs (1877-1945) in his work «Characteristics of middle classes» (Les caractéristiques des classes moyennes), describing the middle classes in France in 1939 emphasized their heterogeneity. He defined three main groups – craftsmen, officers, employees (Halbwachs, 1972). In addition to these groups, to the middle class, in his opinion, belonged health care workers, represenMaurice Halbwachs tatives of the lite(1877-1945) rary world, small entrepreneurs and etc. These groups had a nonphysical nature of the work that distinguished them from the working class. In addition, its representatives had the opportunity to earn income from their own business (the «old» middle class) or by considerably higher level of education than that of the majority of the population («new» middle class). Due to its relatively high cost vocational education was in short supply and provided an opportunity to occupy high status positions that can generate relatively higher incomes and so can compensate investments made in ​​ education.

Their inherent activity which involved a practical knowledge of a number of rules and their implementation united these groups. By this fact, he explained, that «the middle classes are subordinated to greater economic movements and do not have initiative role in the evolution, although show significant capacity for resistance and survival» (Tikhonova, Gorunova, 2008). American sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962), was one of the first to draw his attention to the rapidly growing new group of professionals in the technical and administrative staff, many of whom worked in large corporations (Mills, 1966). Transition in 1930-1940s to a mass assembly-line production, mass consumption of goods and services, including health and education,a sharp increase in the number of colleges and universities, the increase of technical and engineering personnel in material Charles Wright Mills production – all this (1916-1962) only accelerated the formation of large groups of the population with the dominant revenue in the form of wages and with functions related to non-physical work. He also singled out managers – a group within the middle class, which, in his opinion, is becoming increasingly significant and important in the social structure. The concentration of capital in the hands of corporations has led, according to Charles Mills, to the reduction of economic and political influence of the old middle class (small entrepreneurs, traders, artisans, that was often referred to as the petty bourgeoisie), limited it in local scope. The most complete version of the class theory of Mills is presented in his famous work «The Power Elite» (1959), according to which social positions occupied by people throughout their lives, determine their chances of acquisition and retention highly appreciated life benefits. Their mentality is largely determined by the values ​​that they possess as a result of this, and by the role they play in the major social institutions. The question of awareness of belonging to the social class, whether they act or not act in accordance with what they believe are the interests of this class, in real life is largely solved by their position in

2. «Middle class» in the social structure of industrial countries of 19th century

the major social institutions, and also by selected values ​​that they hold and spiritual mode of these people, which is formed under the influence of these factors (Mills, 1959). Mills believed that the new middle class, which consisted of the so-called «white collar», is crucial for the capitalist society. Representatives of this class are characterized by: high concern by a place of residence, a high level of healthcare, aspiration to receive good-quality education and to invest in children’s education, increased interest in the media, especially in the promotion of the stability of the social structure, based on the values the new middle class. Mills noted that the transformation of the middle class was largely determined by the transition in the consideration of stratification from property to the new axis – occupation type, profession. The nature of the old middle class was

of neo-weberian methodology as tradition, organically combining the functionalist doctrine of the integrative role of the middle classes, and the Marxist conflict approach and Weberian multidimensional theory of stratification. In this regard, two concepts competitively developed in the West: one (liberal) – a dramatic expansion and the gradual dominance of the middle class in a society of developed industrialism, and the other (proposed by Western Marxists) – an increase in number and signification ​​of the working class due to the emergence within it of a significant intellectual component – large groups of non-manual workers, the formation of highly educated layers, which are also exploited by the bourgeoisie. In liberal circles in the middle of the 20th century a gradualist approach to the assessment

Wall Street in New York City, ca. late 19th century

more fully defined by entrepreneurial ownership, while the new middle class is worth to consider in terms of economics and sociology of professions (Mills, 1995). The life chances of the new middle class, according to Mills, were mainly defined by the possibility of selling their services in the labor market, rather than the benefit of buying and selling property. This is, as noted by the author, the main difference between the old and the new middle class (Mills, 1951). Thus, Mills implemented one of the most fundamental studies of American middleclasses, in which certain issues were resolved in terms

of class relations in the societies of the late industrial capitalism prevailed. The United States were sample, whose experience was in focus of liberal sociologists. Thanks to the reforms of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States, gradually the number of those who for decades were described as having nothing to lose but their chains. America has become a country where the overwhelming majority of residents had their own house, conditions to ensure their health, for education of children and etc., so it was not a classical capitalism described by Marx and Engels. Firstly it was described in terms of

13

14

Social structure of society and middle class

gradual concepts by American sociologists, using self-esteem of people or systems of empirical indicators to identify the socio-economic gradual differentiation. Not functional positions in society were considered, but positions determined by the socio-economic criteria and self-esteem (income, number of rooms in the house, etc.). It was found that the majority of the population in this society gradually described and analyzed by sociologists identify themselves as middle class. Apparently, the first who held a large-scale empirical study of the middle class in the United States was William L. Warner. It was a series of studies of the social structure and functions of the community in the north-east of United States, consisting of books such as (Warner, Lunt, 1941; 1942), and others. Following the Weberian tradition regarding status groups, he attempted to develop a standard index of status characteristics, starting from such indicators

middle and lower levels, skilled employees, small businessmen, traders, farmers and other nonmanual workers («white-collar») with secondary education. Dominant values ​​of this class are as follows: negotiability, respect, honor, reinforces labor, thrift and honesty in a relationship. (Warner et al., 1960; Tilkidzhiev, 2002). Gradualist line, beginning from Warner became the mainstream of American sociology until the present day, passing through all the mass publications, manuals, etc. In this regard, work so fan important sociologist of the 1960-1970s, Reissman, deserves attention as they are dedicated to the analysis of changes in the self-assessments of employees over 10 years – from 1958 to 1968 on the basis of data of Research Center at the University of Michigan. In accordance with these calculations in 1958, 46% of employees identified themselves as members of the working class, whereas in 1968 this figure

Warner and Lunt presented complete description of the middle class. They attempted to give a total description of its main features: 1) significant amount of income and assets; 2) relative personal autonomy, initiative and high economic activity; 3) inherited cultural capital connected with obtaining a good education; 4) appreciation of the family as a value.

as education, place of residence, income and origin. All these factors, according to Warner, were used by Americans in the evaluation of their social status, of the choice of friends for themselves and for their children. Warner relies heavily on the «subjective» criteria of stratification (i.e., how members of a community evaluated social position of each other), than «objective» differences, such as income. Its main merit is in the division of American society into classes, consisting of individuals with the same prestigious rank. Warner introduced the idea of ​​the existence of six-class structure instead of the usual two-or three-class. He defined classes as a group; in the existence of which believe members of society and which are placed, respectively, at higher or lower levels (Warner, 1999). The first relatively clear distinction between the higher and the lower middle classes belongs to Warner and Lunt. To the first one they related professionals, managers, high-rank with high-income, careeroriented, taking an active part in public life, having the ability to educate children in elite colleges and universities and living in prestigious urban areas. To the second one – government officials of

decreased to 34%. Moreover, among non-manual workers, including all categories of «white collar», the proportion of those who classify themselves as working class has fallen from 27% to 21%. Among manual workers, seemingly were clearly classical representatives of the working class, in 1958 63% considered themselves to be members of it, and 47% 10 years later. Reissman, relying on this type of data, stated that the United States has become a country with prevailing middle class. He paid special attention to the inclusion of the lower classes (manual workers) in the culture of the American middle class (Reissman, 1973). British sociologist David Lockwood (19292014) in 1958 published a groundbreaking book on the problem of the «white collar», namely clerks. He believes that «class situation» of clerks and manual workers during the twentieth century has steadily moved closer, which was reflection of removal processes of both groups of ownership and control of production means. To the convergence of these social groups has greatly contributed their position in the labor market in which they were qualified as hired employees. According to D. Lockwood, «class situation» is the sum of the «market situation» (the economic position of the individual,

2. «Middle class» in the social structure of industrial countries of 19th century

that constitutes a source of its income and provides chances for individual mobility), «labor situation» (a set of social relations in the social division labor), and «status situation» (position of the individual in the hierarchy of prestige). Analyzing the social position of clerks in all three dimensions, Lockwood concludes that the processes of equalization «are the result of improving situation of workers, rather than slipping of non-manual workers to the proletariat» (Lockwood, 1958). Lockwood makes unfavorable conclusions about the future of social status of employees, predicting routine character of extremely rationalized work. Another British sociologist Anthony Giddens (b.1938) defines classes as a «large-scale group of people having similar material resources, which in turn determines the lifestyle they lead» (Giddens, 1992). The concept of the «middle class» includes representatives of a number of professions and occupations. According to Giddens, middle class in the UK can be divided into the following categories. First is the old middle class, which includes small entrepreneurs: small business owners, owners of private shops and small farms. This category is characterized by the inconstancy of its size; «it is the result of the fact that there is a constant process of elimination of failed entrepreneurs, which is balanced by the influx of new people who want to try their hand at their own business» (Giddens, 2001). The second category is the «new middle» class which consists of highly paid employees engaged in intellectual work. The upper layer of the «new middle» class includes managers and specialists working in large business who are highly skilled professionals. The lowest layer is a heterogeneous group that includes office staff, salesmen, teachers, nurses. Social and political positions of most of the lower middle class are close to «blue collar». In the first half of the XX century in the scientific community theories of one-dimensional stratification were common, whereas in the second half stratification theories, based on the allocation of multiple criteria become increasingly popular. Works of P.Sorokin also served as stimulus for wide spreading of multicriterial stratification. American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (18891968) defines social class «as a set of individuals of similar profession, material status, volume of rights, therefore, having the same professional, material and social-legal interests» (Arutunyan, 1971).

According to this classification, the majority of the population falls into four major classes: – class of working peasants (occupation: physicall and cultivation, material status is average or relatively poor, limited rights); – class of wage workers (occupation: wage labor of a physical nature, material statusis from average to poor, their rights are limited by labor contracts); – landowning class (occupation: landlords that lives on land rent and perform intellectual – managerial functions, material status isrelatively wealthy compared to workers and peasants, privileged rights); – capitalist class (occupation: representatives of the industrial, commercial and financial capital, material statusis rich, privilegedrights, but different from landowners). Thus, the author proposes a pluralistic, multifactor approach to social classes. Modern class theories American sociologist Eric Olin Wright (b.1947) in his theory introduces the concept of «contradictory class positions» in the system of class relations. Within the social division of labor three cluster and contradictory positions can be detected, which are replaced by, respectively: 1) managers and supervisors (betEric Olin Wright (b. 1947) ween bourgeoisie and proletariat), 2) the semi-autonomous employees (between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie), 3) small employers (between petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie). According to Wright, modern societies are characterized by the coexistence of overlapping samples of exploitation relations. A typical example in this regard is the new middle class. On the one hand, as the holder of qualification resource it is being exploited by a capitalist, on the other hand, as an owner of organizational resources, it exploits the proletariat (Wright, 1979). This approach allows distinguishing whole dispositions of the class positions of capitalist society, which do not face a polarized pattern, but give more or less

15

16

Social structure of society and middle class

realistic picture of the social middle of society. For the Anglo-Saxon school of class analysis position of E.O. Wright is widely recognized and regarded as an important stage in the development of class theory, returning to Marxism, which nowadayshas lost some degree of its influence (Wright, 1978). The class diagram of the neo-Weberian British sociologist John Goldthorpe (b.1935) consists of seven levels that are hierarchically constructed on the basis of qualifying occupations. These seven classes are combined into three broad classes. Goldthorpe was mainly interested in how and in what forms changes occur in the John Goldthorpe (b. 1935) intergenerational mobility of different social classes. Goldthorpe believes that despite the existence of trend of increasing access to the service and the intermediate classes for members of the working class in the post-war period, strengthening processes of social closure within the first two classes are naturally led to a specific slowdown of social mobility. Labor – practical implementation of educational and qualification training, is seen by members of the middle class as the primary «central life interest», as the foundation for upward mobility in modern society. Also, labor is valuable itself, while wage and prestige are considered as its accompanying consequences. A service class has all the features of a single social community based on the trend of self-reproduction that becomes apparent, but at the same time Goldthorpe emphasizes high heterogeneity of this class, which is based «primarily on the differences in lifestyles of its members» (Goldthorpe, McKnight, 2006). Thereby, Wright and Goldthorpe’s middle class is a heterogeneous social formation. In the Wright’s scheme middle class is characterized by contradictory class positions and controversial status in terms of relations of exploitation. Goldthorpe’s middle class represents a set of homogeneous groups occupying different positions on the labor market and working in different forms of employment contracts. It can be said that in these concepts middle class differs from the dominant class in specifics of economic situation (lack of ownership of the means of production - Wright) or specifics of its positions on the labor market

(features of employment contract related to the type of work, level of education and the presence of unique skills – Goldthorpe). Representatives of middle class differ from working class in its privileged position in the relations of exploitation (related to the presence of specific knowledge and skills, or the presence of control possibility, that allowsselling not only their labor power – Wright) or the nature of work (non-physical – Goldthorpe). French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930 -2002) applies the theory of social capital and differentiates such forms of capital as economic, cultural, social and symbolic ( Z d r a v o m y s l o v, 2001). According to him, positions of individuals depend on how much and what combination of capital they possess. The main mechanism forming the new middle class is Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) a system of freely hired labor market, where they sell their qualification and education. These factors, in terms of Bourdieu theory, are considered to be the foundation of the cultural capital of the new middle class. He notes that the middle class has most of cultural capital by focusing on the organization of working and free time, appropriate educational strategies, social practices and lifestyles. The accumulated cultural capital middle class convert in economic resources. Since attributes of capital are the economic power and dividends, insofar that the dividends on the cultural capital is the criterion by which extraction of social positions of the new middle class is possible (Bourdieu, 1979). In the monograph of Savage, Barlow, Dickens and Fielding the history of the middle class and its current position in the UK is examined (Savage et al., 1992). In previous works of these authors the main idea was that the middle class in the social structure of English society remains significant and is becoming more fragmented, while still remaining a single class. The authors examine the social classes as social communities. Organizational, cultural and economic assets that areessentialfor the middle class. Internal fragmentation of the middle class is associated with different types of assets, which have their representatives. In general, possession of one or

2. «Middle class» in the social structure of industrial countries of 19th century

other assets determines the position of the social classes in the relationship of exploitation. The authors argue that the formation of subgroups of managers as part of the middle class in the UK could be related, primarily, to organizational assets. Professionals having cultural assets, quite successfully formed as a class, securing cultural assets possession formal acknowledgment (certificates, etc.) as well as features of its «habitus», medium of communication, allowing partially transmit the acquired assets to children.State played its role in the formation of professionals as a class by creating labor market and institutions that secure possession of certain cultural assets. Economic assets have always been associated with a subgroup of small property owners and entrepreneurs. One of the most important trends is the decline of importance of organizational assets, which determines changes for the worse of managers’ position as of the subgroup of the middle class. On the other hand, importance of cultural assets is growing, which strengthens the position of professionals. Moreover, role of economic assets for the middle class also changes. While they were less important for groups within the middle class, now assets are directly related to the processes of formation of middle class.

various transformations of social contracts. Social contracts in different countries took different forms; one thing was common – the emphasis on the creation and maintenance of new institutionalized patterns of social cohesion (Zunz et al., 2002). Social contracts stimulated social development, and the middle class began to grow due to the erosion of the boundaries between «blue» and «white collar», reducing of the primary agricultural sector, increasing the number of jobs for «white collar», expanding markets, improving access to education, to opportunities vertical intergenerational mobility. Postwar social contracts were fairly universal. After only one postwar generation people with different cultural and national traditions, different levels of life, status, power resources began to feel as a part of a large middle class in societies that can confidently be called middle-class society.

Middle class family

White-collar and blue-collar workers in the mid-1950s

Detailed review of the current status of the middle classes in different countries and their contemporary positions are presented in the monograph edited by Zunz, Schoppa and Hiwatari. The authors examine the history of the formation of middle class, analyze social conflicts within the middle class and predict the future of the middle class under the influence of globalization. Scientists note that the size of the middle class in post-war Europe has increased significantly due to

France stands out by the degree of differences that have long existed within the middle class due to strong regional differences and great advantages that gives the status of civil servants. The middle class in France, according to Charles, does not possess a single group identity, but is a broader and complex middle class, which, however, cannot be considered as homogeneous – civil servants and officials take a privileged position within it. Gerteis and Savage analyze the impact of social class on the political choices of the population (Gerteis& Savage, 1998). They do not focus on problems of the middle class, but considering the importance of class, featuresof the middle class are also considered. Skeggs at the center of a class analysis puts the perspective of culture (Skeggs, 2004). Considering the cultural resource as an asset and property, important in symbolic and economic exchanges, analyzes the division of English society on the

17

18

Social structure of society and middle class

middle class and the working class in the context of the culture and values, mechanisms contributing the division to classes, and opportunities to overcome class differences. Wong analyzes the middle class in Hong Kong in an attempt to determine whether it is a single social group or is it divided into separate groups of managers and professionals (Wong, 2004). He conducted a qualitative study on career strategies and strategies of intergenerational mobility in the groups of managers and teachers. Wong concludes that, despite some differences in strategies used, managers and teachers are equally able to maintain their advantages in the labor market when building a career. Their career strategies as a whole can be considered successful – after occupying a stable position in the group of professionals (teachers) or managers, representatives of both groups in the majority of cases stay in the same segment in the course of their career, rarely engage in entrepreneurship or worsen their position in the labor market. In addition, both of these groups, using same strategies of intergenerational mobility, use economic, cultural and social resources for the education of their children which is an important value for them. Hence Wong concludes that in Hong Kong is forming a single middle class. H. Wan gives the results of the analysis of the social structure of China (Wan H. 2006). According to the Academy of Social Sciences of China middle class in 2005 included 12% of the population. It was composed mainly of mass group of intellectuals (engineers, technicians, scientists, lawyers, teachers, and journalists), employees (including the state apparatus) and small proprietors. China is gradually increasing both the old and the new middle class – owners of human capital, knowing foreign languages, computer skills, etc. Despite low estimates of the size of the middle class in China, according to sociological research, it turns out that half of the population identifies itself precisely with the middle class,this fact is related to peculiarities of worldview and a desire to see themselves in the «reasonable middle», «golden medium». However, objectively,a strong middle class in China is not yet formed. *** For today, the problems of the middle class in Western literature are often considered not just by itself, but in the context of other subjects. Many studies have been devoted to gender and ethnic peculiarities of middle class or its certain professional subgroups, the electoral behavior of the middle class, etc. These studies a priori define the criteria by which the middle class is

allocated, based on theoretical schemes previously developed by other authors. Modern culture of western middle class was formed during more than two centuries. Also, the existence of the middle class is impossible without state support. As international experience shows, «middle-class society» arose with the direct involvement of the government. Socially oriented economy with the direct involvement of public institutions is the foundation of a healthy middle class. Steps being taken in the national politics were of extremely inconsistent character. However, the important is the fact that the full-fledged middle class of modern western democracies performs its life activity within the framework of civil society, which guarantees not only the well-known civil and political, but also social and economic rights, i.e. the right to economic well-being and social security. Guidelines to the study material: 1. Do you agree with the statement that the division of society into classes is an inevitable process that largely determines its progressive development? Describe three opposing views on the nature of the classes. 2. The middle class has various descriptions in the context of a particular sociological theory. On the example of Kazakhstan, describe the middle class through the prism of the functional approach. 3. One of the most important issues for understanding the influence of the middle class to the policy serves its economic interest. While the middle class can not be attributed to the class of property owners, nevertheless its representatives have savings that ascribe them to the class of property owners through individual investment. Determine how professional class identity may conflict with its class identity as the owner. 4. Most warranted and dominating approach in Europe is that in the course of recent discussions with the greatest transparency and consistency was expressed by J. Goldthorpe. Present basic ideas of this approach. Describe the following class positions: employees, employers and self-employed. Recommended literature: 1. Abercrombie N., Urry J. Capital, Labour and the Middle Classes. – London, 1983. 2. Braverman H. Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. – New York-London, 1974. 3. Burovoy M. A Classic of Its Time // Contemporary Sociology. 1996. Vol. 25. N 3. 4. Burris V. The Discovery of the New Middle Class // Theory and Society. 1986. Vol. 15. N 3. 5. Corey L. The Middle Class // Class, Status and Power. Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective. – London, 1967. 6. Erikson R., Goldthorpe J. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. – New York, 1993 7. Archer M., Blau J. Class Formation in Nineteenth-Century America: The Case of the Middle Class // Annual Review of Sociology. – 1993. – Vol. 19. – P.17-41 8. Blumin S.M. The emergence of the middle class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900. – New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. – 434p. 9. Mills C.W. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. – New York, 1951. – 416 p.

3

MIDDLE CLASS IN CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN AND KAZAKHSTANI SOCIOLOGY

History of study of the middle class in modern Russian and Kazakh sociology indicates significant diversity of approaches and positions to its determination in the social structure. In particular, criteria for defining the middle class are different and the lack of particular special theory, which combined with the previous domestic and international experience, would fully reflect the development of the median cut of the social-class structure. The reasons for this are self-contradictions, the heterogeneity of this social group. However, for the majority of Russian researchers of social stratification, «Weberian model» of social stratification of society in modern conditions is considered to be the most preferable. In the late 1980s, interest for the middle class was associated with the fact that it had to become the main lever of transformation of the economy and of the transition to market relations. For determination of the middle class were mainly used such characteristics as material status, car ownership, etc. A second splash of publications and interest for the problem of the middle class was in the late 1990s. Since then a number of articles and monographs, using diverse, both objective and subjective criteria for allocation of the middle class appeared. Russian middle layer: economic, social and cultural differentiation

tions are analyzed. Special attention is paid to intelligentsia: its role in the reforms, relations with the government, problems of this social stratum are considered. – In 1993 is marked the first peak of publications devoted to the middle class, driven by the need of detailed study of new groups emerging in the Russian society, and understanding of transformations of groups that have already existed at that time. – In 1997-1998 increased the proportion of papers devoted to issues of stratification and the new social structure of Russian society.

C

hronology of the modern period of Russian studies of the middle class presents in the study E.G. Balobanova. She was conducted a content analysis of scientific sociological journals for the period from 1989 to 2005 and the following stages of research problems of the middle class Russian sociologists were determined: (Balobanova,2008). – In 1990s appear first studies of entrepreneurs as a social group, also their social characteristics, features, specific of motiva-

19

20

Social structure of society and middle class

– In 1999-2000 the second peak of interest in the problems of the middle class is marked. The most important issue isthe problem of the middle class perspectives after the default. In the next few years, the scientific and methodological interest for the middle class is gradually reduced, and studies are devoted to the quantitative assessment of the middle class and its composition. – In 2004-2005 questions on the situation of the intelligentsia and the role of Russian business return, regional studies of the middle classand qualitative studies of separate socio-professional groups that compose middle class are also conducted. – In 2006-2009 middle class becomes the object of several studies aimed at understanding its lifestyle, economic behavior and consumption. Russian sociologist R.H.Simonyan draws attention to the importance of not only economic criterion in its analysis, but also of social and political criteria, the role of the middle class in building civil society (Simonyan, 2008). In his opinion, in Russia in the beginning of the 1990s began to develop sufficiently large middle class, with help of preconditions and formation of civil society – the strengthening of the social strata of the intelligentsia, the administrative personnel, and artists. Currently, the high degree of polarization of society, as well as established social model of society are not conducive to the emergence of a large middle class with a strong civic consciousness, interested in long-term development of the country. In addition, primitive economy, according R.H. Simonyan, that lies in the emphasis on the use of the energy resources of the country, rather than the development of hightech and innovative production, further reduces the possibility of the formation of the middle class. A.G. Zdravomyslov, comprehending the role and place of the middle class in Russian society, presents a following working definition of it «part of the society that is interested primarily in the stable development of the economy of the country and its political system». People included in this part of society do not wish to recurrence of extreme variants of development of the country and society, regardless of underlying ideological slogans. It unites those people who are between poor and rich layers, and its specific feature is that its significant part is characterized by the high mobility in the professional and social terms.

This is due to the urgent needs of many people in profession change, retraining, finding new jobs, or in combination of positions and professions in order to maintain the existing standard of living. According to Zdravomyslov, the basis for the middle class in the Russian conditions can become large base layer. But at the moment it does not have high enough qualifying potential, and is characterized by the prevalence of dissatisfaction with life and its social positions which are close to poor layers. Thus, the middle class is a very complex structured community that includes groups with different economic interests and political orientations» (Zdravomyslov, 2001). Russian scientist G.G. Diligensky defines middle class as a mass of «not particularly wealthy and not poor» individuals and groups deeply differentiated in economic, social, cultural and psychological relations (Diligensky, 2002). The study of Diligensky was based on in-depth interviews with various representatives of the urban middle class. His results showed contradictory attitudes of the middle class, but this inconsistency was observed not only for its various representatives, but could be detected in the consciousness and behavior of the same representatives of the middle-class. One of the most comprehensive reviews, of criteria used by researchers for determination of the middle class, is presented in the article of E.M.Avraamova (Avraamova, 2002). The author analyzes in 1998 (according to the method of concentration of traits, which uses a system of equivalent attributes identifying the middle class: material security, professional and qualification potential, adaptability, ability to master innovation, the type of political participation, lifestyle, self-identification).

3. Middle class in contemporary russian and kazakhstani sociology

Traits of the middle class in varying degrees were present in almost 80% of households, but the maximum possible concentration of identification signs were characteristic for only 12.5% of households. These data allowed Avraamova to conclude that in Russian mass middle class, in the sense in which it exists in the West, has not yet emerged in the beginning of the 2000s. Later Avraamova tried to correlate concepts of the middle strata and middle class; she determines middle class using multivariate stratification and using as criteria material well-being, presence of higher education, and self-identification with the middle layer. According to the selected criteria, to the middle class belonged 9.2% of the population, 20% had two of these three criteria. The middle layer is more adapted to the market environment, and by adaptive capacities and socio – demographic characteristics is capable of playing the role of the middle class. Middle class differs with more labor activity, but insufficient,

to calculations of Avraamova, can be attributed only 3% of Russians. Consequently, Avraamova shows that in recent years the middle class has expanded and strengthened its position in society and in economic relations, but it is less formed in the research-oriented and innovative industries, this fact determines its specificity in Russia. For O.I. Shkaratan traditional for Russian society approach when middle class is considered based on indicators of income and education is unsatisfactory. The emphasis is usually on income and income associated property characteristics, also parameters of the lifestyle. In this case, middle class mainly consists of small entrepreneurs and employees of service industries related to the infrastructure of raw material processing. Instead, Shkaratan presents the use of the functional approach for understanding problems of the middle class, based on the elucidation of its function in society. He offers a view of the new middle class with a fundamentally different socio-professional structure, which should include professionals and managers whose work is related to the information economy, including high-tech industries, the information technology industry. This middle class is busy with productive activity that provides highly efficient functioning of modern national economies. It performs creative and productive functions in society. Shkaratan emphasizes existing in Russian society status mismatches. According to the complex of criteria only 2.1% can be identified as holders of characteristics of the middle class among economically active population in Russia (Shkaratan, 2006).

Shkaratan offers a set of criteria to define the middle class: 1. Income: evaluation of financial position (have trouble only with the purchase of durable goods - televisions, fridges), real estate (own house, part of a house or a large apartment, a studio apartment plus a cottage or garage), movable property (six consumer durables). 2. Education: level of education is not below secondary special with knowledge of foreign language or computer skills. 3. Professional status: not less than workers in professional positions requiring at least secondary special education. 4. Quality of life: economic component (use of paid medical and/or educational services for family members, vacations on resorts), sociocultural component (having its own library of at least 100 items, not less than 11 cultural and recreational activities a year). 5. Self-identification: self-evaluation of their own social status is not lower than 5 on a 10-point scale, the basis for this self-evaluation – profession of spouse or close friend that requires at least secondary special education.

although larger than in the other groups, tax rates, investment, political participation, consumption of goods, services, cultural goods. However, in practice, Russian middle layer does not perform the functions usually attributed to the middle class. If proportion of middle class is judged in terms of the functions that it must perform, then, according

Belyaeva offers a comprehensive approach to the analysis of the middle class in Russian society, including objective processes of social stratification in society, and subjective identification. Comprehensive criteria include indicators of selfidentification, the level of material well-being and level of education. The author believes that

21

22

Social structure of society and middle class

each country has its own threshold level for each criterion used for determination of the middle class, and the task of the researcher is to determine what values ​​are relevant for a given country at a given time (Belyaeva, 2001). As a result, three models of social groups, which may be included in the transition-type middle class, were identified: the «average mass» (about 11%), «russian middle class» (6%), «ideal middle class» (3%). These groups form an heterogeneous whole that is united only by self-identification of the respondents with middle class. «Average mass» consisted of those identified themselves as a middle layer, and is the average in terms of lifestyle and thought that lives like everyone else. The second group was highlighted by several criteria: the criterion of self-identification: its representatives occupy a middle position in the society; material position; furthermore, members of this group had at least secondary special education. The third group was characterized by the fact that its members considered themselves as a middle class, they have enough money almost for everything except purchasing an apartment, car or dacha, and the level of education was at least secondary special. A generalized analysis of these three models of the middle strata leads to the conclusion that in a transitional society is premature to talk about the middle class, as an established large social

community, consciously identifying itself as a middle class and its characteristics close to the middle class of Western countries. Only the «ideal middle class» is relatively close to the middle class in developed countries. At the same time the middle class differs from other segments of the population in many ways – the educational level, the presence of power resources, specifics of employment, values ​​and strategies in the economic and political behavior, etc. It’s important that Belyaeva also notes the heterogeneity of the Russian middle class, noting that it is internally heterogeneous social stratum. Therefore, despite the increase of the middle class which for the period of 1998 – 2006 doubled its size, according to Belyaeva, it is still too early to talk about its formation as a mass class of Russian society (Belyaeva,1999). Russian sociologist and economist Radaev doubts the existence of the middle class as a real social entity (Radaev,1998). In his opinion, the existence of a unified middle class is a myth. However Radaev draws attention to the image of the middle class in the public mind and wonders what is the purpose of «middle class»,what functions does execute the notion of the middle class itself and the identification of individuals with it. According to Radaev, middle class plays an important role in transitional period, when there is a loss of identity of traditionally existing representatives of social groups, marginalization of citizens. Thus, reckoning themselves as middle class allows them to find their own place in society, people equals themselves to the majority of those who live not better, not worse than others. Reasons for such a self-evaluation rooted in the experience of everyday life (Radaev, 1998). And thus, Radaev concludes that the middle class has important social functions in the Russian society sets the standard model of life, provides the basis for developing a sense of solidarity, etc. However, there are numerous middle classes marked by various criteria, which differ significantly from each other on the specifics of consciousness and behavior. Khakhulina distinguishes the middle class on the basis of self-identification criterion (subjective criterion), naming the resulting group subjective middle class (Khakhulina,1999). Subsequent analysis leads author to conclude that the subjective middle class at this stage cannot be regarded as a full-fledged middle class, and even more so – as an analogue of the middle classes of Western societies. The potential of the middle class is in the upper strata of the subjective middle class,

3. Middle class in contemporary russian and kazakhstani sociology

but its implementation requires the execution of a number of specific conditions. Comprehensive analysis of the middle class, its behavioral practices, savings behavior, consumption of goods and services, style preferences, etc., was most fully revealed on the nation-wide array of sociological data of 2000 as a result of research presented in the monograph edited by Maleva (Maleva, 2003). The study was conducted using a variety of scales of multivariate stratification based on nationwide array of sociological data. The main criteria for the selection of the middle class were material wellbeing, socio-professional status and self-identification. In the basis of this approach laid classification of households. According to the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that the empirically selected middle classes consistently differ of the lower classes on almost all the major socio-economic parameters. These differences also concern astructural position (socio-demographic, resource), and self-identification, and many types of activities. Generalized middle class noticeably differs from the rest of the population. Having increased human, economic and social capital, the middle class have a wide range of possibilities; have other leisure practices and savings strategies. They form the other, different from the lower classes life styles associated with specific ways of using resources, including cash and own time. It is interesting that according to the study of Maleva, «generalized middle class» is characterized by extreme heterogeneity. Less than half of this class has a fairly high material and social potential, in order to unambiguously be considered as a middle class. The question of formation of the middle class in Russia is considered in studies conducted in 2003-2006 under the direction of Tikhonova and Gorshkov. Tikhonova notes that in Russian society «the stratification criteria and its system foundation

changes».The study of the middle class should be based on a certain understanding of transformation processes in the society in which there are new methods of forming social groups and layers. According to Tikhonova middle class of modern Russia is associated with both the traditional structure, based on state ownership and emerging and becoming more dynamic new structural relations based on private property and private interests (Tikhonova, 1999). Analysis of the data of a number of researches conducted by ICSR and IS RAS in 2003 and subsequent years suggests that a mass middle class in Russia exists, though in Russian conditions its life is very different from the middle-class life in the United States or Western Europe by many quantitative characteristics. Main criteria for the empirical study of the middle class in Russia are used: non-physical labor – to assess the social and professional status; the presence of at least secondary special education – to estimate the amount of human capital; criterion of average monthly per capita income not below the median values ​​are for this type of settlement, or the number of available consumer durables not below their median value for the population as a whole – to assess the economic status; integral criterion of self-evaluation of position in society – to assess the identification of their status. Within this approach, the middle class according to the data of 2004 could be attributed about 20% of Russian population. There is big «periphery» of the middle class (about 30%), for entry into the middle class was not enough, in most cases, an adequate level of income or self-identification. Determined middle class has specific characteristics that distinguish it from other segments of the population. It demonstrates the priority of spending on education, health maintenance, has a more modern lifestyle, using innovative forms of consumption and active leisure activities. In addition, the middle class accumulates the human capital gained in generations, and also demonstrates a high level of skills demanded by the labor market. However the middle class has virtually no reserves for rapid expansion. Golenkova and Igithanyan discuss the middle position of «middle layers», referring to the middle classesas «those, who in their social positions, regardless of what type of a social group one represents, occupies a middle position in the social chain of command». For determination of the middle class researchers used the average values ​​of such indicators as the quality of the

23

24

Social structure of society and middle class

family budget, overall satisfaction with material situation and self-identification with the middle layer. The middle class, which occupies «average» status positions, is the largest social group and performs a number of functions: in particular the «stabilizer» of society and a source of skilled labor. Russian sociologist T.I. Zaslavskaya (1927-2013) for the first time in the analysis of the social structure of Russian society in introduced the concept of «middle part», which does not include the political and economic elite, as well as «social bottom». The author distinguishes two layers, which can be identified with the middle class, upper middle and middle layer. These layers are distinguished by economic criteria, in relation to property and income, by type of employment. «Managerial capacity» and «sociocultural potential» are also considered: education, qualification, image and quality of life. To the upper middle class Zaslavskaya classifies medium and large entrepreneurs, to the middle – small entrepreneurs, managers, production managers and administrative of non-productive sphere, the highest intellectuals, workers’ elite and military personnel. Below the middle layer there is a «base layer», which includes the mass intelligentsia, trade and service workers, industrial workers, and peasants. Above the middle layer there is political andeconomic elite (Zaslavskaya, 1996). Zaslavskaya complements the stratification approach with the analysis of the quality of the middle layer as a specific social community - its level of cohesion, its consciousness and behavior. In this regard, she notes its heterogeneity and instability of the related groups. The totality of these groups forms the embryo of full-fledged «middle layer». The middle layer of Russian society, has a fairly high value-activity potential, it appreciates the autonomy and independence, it is better adapted to the new conditions of the market economy. Also, it is actively involved in the reforms and successfully adapting to its results. Its role in the transformation process consists primarily in mastering, using and disseminating of new practices – social, economic, cultural. However, all of these processes occur at the individual level, the middle layer is not yet capable of self-organization for collective action or to protect their own interests (Zaslavskaya, 1998). The attention of researchers in recent years attracted particular aspects of the position, consciousness and behavior of the Russian middle class – for example, its financial behavior (Gri-

goryev,2009), consumer behavior (Gladarev, 2007), features of worldview (Tikhonova, 2000), political preferences, etc. Increased interest in this subject among Kazakhstani scientists is caused by necessity to summing up results of reforms and evaluation of results of economic policy in post-Soviet period. In this sense, even not large, but strong and homogeneous middle class with a traditional set of attributes serves as a confirmation of the correctness of reformatory course selected in 90s’. However, there is a need for further progress on the path of reform, which requires a search of broad social groups and strata, which could serve as a support and drive for further transformations (Azhenov, 1999). Thus, now the important role of the middle class is certain, on the one hand, as a support for the maintenance of social order and the main source of reproduction of skilled labor, of formation of national identity, to ensure continuity of generations and values, on the other hand – as a potential carrier of modernization of the country. «Middle class» in Kazakhstan: problems of formation Kazakhstani sociologist Sabit Zhusupov (1947-2007) believed that the middle class may include medium-sized business and small part of small business representatives, senior officials, employees of large international companies and public corporations, employees of foreign and local companies, especially of banking sector and of export sectors of the economy. At the same time, he stressed that it is too early to talk about the real middle class in Kazakhstan. In the real middle class, in his opinion, may be included the majority of the population with

3. Middle class in contemporary russian and kazakhstani sociology

higher education, healthcare and education sphere employees. Also important is the fact that the middle class is unthinkable without the most part of educated people and intelligentsia. Since the stability and reliability of the social status and material well-being is important sociological feature of the middle class. Social foundation may not be strong if it is not confident in itself and fluctuates(Zhusupov, 2007). D. Burminsky in his article «The class structure of the Kazakhstan society» (2008), giving a detailed analysis of the social structure of society, argues that «embryo» of Kazakh middle class emerged during the Soviet era, and its main problem today is that the middle class in Kazakhstan can not identify itself, that is, to acquireits own «class feeling». Burminsky classifies Kazakhstani society into 7 classes. The ruling class (the class of officials), it is divided into 2 parts: internal, socalled nomenclature, and external – «clerk». The basic tone and the basic policy in this class isset by nomenclature, but everyone begins from clerk level. Difference between these two parts is that one got into the nomenclature gets a guarantee of permanent residence in the class of officials. Clerk, unless he findsa way to enter into the internal circle,can be easily replaced. Oligarchs – class of large national and multinational businesses, is a second strongest in fluencing the society. Intelligentsia, according to Burminsky, is demoralized by the thought that Kazakhstan can live without it. Such climate, in turn, lead to the emigration of intellectuals. This class does not have both material and spiritual potential to influence society. Peasantry. Author divides this class into four layers. At the head of «working peasantry» there are people who own large plots of land and farm equipment and using hired labor. As the second layer can be considered successful farmers with land, who also use hired labor. The third layer – middle peasants, they work on their own land with their own hands. And fourth layer – is the rural poor, working either on farmers and landowners, or moving to the cities. The working class, which at one time was considered as a ruling class. After independence, this class was both morally and physically declassed. The army and «organs» – representatives of this class are not involved in life of society. Their impact is low, but it is considered as a threat to the power of class of officials. The middle class, which, author thinks, began to form in the USSR during the period of «perestroika» and the cooperative movement. During this period were acquired starting capital by «shuttle trader»

trips to Poland, Turkey and other countries. After acquiring independence and economic liberalization middle class was formed at the level of small property ownership - small businesses in the service and in the industrial sector. Now this class is still developing, it does not yet have its own worldview, preferring to «go with the flow.» According to Burminskyit takes a long time to form a «class consciousness». In the middle class

of Kazakhstan there is no solidity, it was created by recruiting in various groups of society. This class will develop its own opinions on events taking place in the country, as well as a desire to influence and to achieve its class interests only after becoming solid. Burminsky alsoallocated stages of self-identification of the middle class in Kazakhstan. In particular, he highlights the «psychological period» when one begins to personify itself with the middle class; with this stage class becomes solid. Next stage»step of emergence of class consciousness», when the middle class definesits goals and interests, thereby generating clear requirements for the ruling system. Then comes the «stage of political organization» of the middle class, first to protect against the bureaucracy, and then for the realization of its own class interests. Also during this period, a political force that will declare itas the party of the middle class can appear. The final stage in this process the author calls «the confrontation of the middle class», having a political organization with a class of officials, and as a result de – facto emergence of civil society (Burminsky, 2008). Analyst of informational agency UPI, a Central Asia expert George K. Daly in his report notes that the Kazakh middle class began to emerge very quickly because of the reforms carried out by the state. The main criterion used to define the middle class – is not the nature of work, profession or property, but the level of income.

25

26

Social structure of society and middle class

Defining the middle class by such criterion, he argues that the middle class composes 25% of the total population. This group is divided into two subgroups – the lower middle class – with a personal annual income of $ 6,000-9,000 (representing approximately 70% of the class) and the upper middle class with a personal annual income of $ 9,000-15,000, that is about 30%. The middle class is mostly concentrated in large cities, major cities and the cities involved in the oil industry (Daly, 2008). According to Daly, because of successful reforms and incomes from the sale of oil and raw materials, Kazakhstan ensured economic stability, which led to the rapid formation of the middle class. However, there is a risk that the dependence on the oil sector and the high level of corruption will present serious challenges to the further development of the middle class. But, despite all the problems, the Kazakh middle class has reached a level where it is extremely interested in political stability and has no desire to break the current order of things. According to political scientist Satpayev Kazakh middle class ranges from 10 to 15% and is concentrated mainly in big cities. Also, he allocates «proto-middle class» which ranges from 20 to 25%. In addition to the criteria used in the methodology of the World Bank: income ranges from $ 3500 to 8000 per person per month, including salary levels, the presence of higher education, professional qualifications, real estate ownership, the analyst notes that one’s subjective perception of its position also plays an important role, if one relates itself to the middle class or not. According to the analyst, one of the most important characteristics of the middle class is that it consists of people who are economically independent from the state. In Kazakhstan,the society has developed a misconception that civil servants whose salaries are increased and houses are built by government, can become the core of Kazakhstan’s middle class. But they are all financially dependent on the state and therefore cannot be an «airbag» in the event of a crisis. All of this suggests that the middle class is not yet a basis of political stability in Kazakhstan and of its economic development (Satpaev, 2008). Kudasheva suggests using an approach that includes in the middle class people on a combination of several criteria: − material status, − socio-professional status, − self-identification in society.

The middle class has such characteristics as stable high income; the presence of «margin of safety» (savings, etc.); prestigious profession; a certain style of life, that interest business; certain value orientations; confidence in the future and optimistic mindset; economic activity and enterprise. It is the middle class which determines the political orientation of government policy and is interested in democratic reforms. Although the crisis had an impact on the middle class and contributed to the movement of its parts in the lower segment. In the countries of transit period middle class is still amorphous, and is in the process of formation. According to various estimates, its share in the population ranges from 15% to 25-30%, and thus consumes 50% to 80% of goods and services in the country. However, in both developed and developing countries, the middle class is not homogeneous social group. It is stratified in itself and represents a heterogeneous formation. Emphasizing this fact, some sociologists suggest calling this group not a «middle class» but «middle classes» (Kudasheva,2010). Kazakhstan researcher Smirnov in the article «Middle class» in Kazakhstan: problems of formation»emphasizes that the formation of the middle class is one of the key and at the same time one of the most difficult tasks of market reforms in the post-Soviet space. As a middle class author defines social group that has a set of characteristics such as a certain level of income, real estate ownership, ownership of a business, higher education and professional qualifications, moderate political conservatism (Smirnov, 2005). ResearcherPankratova notes that in modern developed countries, the middle class – is the basis of the material and social stability and

3. Middle class in contemporary russian and kazakhstani sociology

the criteria for classification is the level of income; however she suggests thinking about the formation of the middle class in Kazakhstan society and the criteria for its identification, of new models of its consciousness and behavior (Pankratova, 2003). Famous Kazakhstani sociologist M.S.Azhenov (1932-2011) argued that sociologists and economists consider the middle class in terms of standard of living –material status, education and cultural development. According to the scientist, to date, there is a middle class in Kazakhstan, but there is no precise definition of its scope. However, Azhenov noted that scientists believe that the middle class in Kazakhstan ranges between 20 to 25% of the total population. Due to the lack of clear and unified criteria for allocation of middle class, there are difficulties in its quantification. This inconsistency is reflected in estimates of Kazakh experts who argue that this class in our country ranges from 18 to 60% of its population. Researcher Yestaev, revealing the role and importance of a middle class in the world community, stresses that «middle class becomes the dominant force of economic progress and social relations and the force that is capable tolegitimately appeal authorities» (Yestaev, 2005). The author notes that Kazakhstan through the investment boom has acquired a stable layer of literate and wealthy, mobile and politically fulfilled employees. Managerial capabilities and skills of managers, authoritative solutions of involved experts, investment levers of influential private shareholders and free entrepreneurs forms an impressive resource potential of the country. Potential reserves of the middle class increases by reducing poor layers and improving living standards of highly qualified specialists in the field of engineering, industry and consumer complex, workers of science, education, health and culture. In June 2004, the news agency «Politon» conducted an expert survey on the topic «Is there a formed middle class in Kazakhstan?». Leading experts, sociologists, political scientists, journalists, representatives of non-governmental organizations and prominent political figures were interviewed. The survey showed a wide range and ambiguous ideas about who can be included in middle class in Kazakhstan. Views expressed ranged from positioning top echelon officials and representatives of big business as «middle class» to

«budget intelligentsia». Experts describe the current situation in Kazakhstan as stratification on a «very rich» and «very poor» and the beginning of formation between these two layers of «germs» of the middle class. Stable income was considered as a main criterion for inclusion in the middle class by majority of Kazakhstani experts. To the elite people with high and very high incomes were attributed,to the lower strata of society were attributed people with incomes below the subsistence minimum. Historically, formation of the middle class between these layers is associated with the onset of the specific living standards and a certain mentality. According to experts, characteristic attitudes of this mentality are: a sense of responsibility for their lives, a deep sense of individualism, understanding of the value of professionalism and education as guaranties of their own prosperity, and as a result, a desire to create a tradition, to convey their ideals to children. The middle class is focused on stability and is stabilizing itself within any society. This is a «nation of citizens, self-governing majority», that understands participation in the political life of society as an important mechanism of influence on political decisions in the country. Therefore, in the formation of the middle class, experts distinguish two basic components – economic and mental, or cultural. The first implies an appropriate level of income and quality of consumption, and the second – the presence of certain values and ​​ orientations. *** To date, the views of domestic experts and scholars on the proportion of the middle class in Kazakhstan society and the criteria for its definition differ. Experts agree only that in a stable development of the economy of Kazakhstan middle class emerged very quickly, and it can clearly be seen in the existing studies on the subject. But, the question is not about the full-fledged middle class, but only about corebasis. It includes economically active groups: entrepreneurs (small and medium business), topmanagers, managers, professionals, and highly qualified experts. The concept of «core» of the class presupposes existence of certain positions in social space, characterized by relative constancy and stability which nevertheless stands as a structuring whole in relation to other isolated groups, identifying them with this position.

27

28

Social structure of society and middle class Analysis of the main methodological approaches of Western, Russian and Kazakh researchers to the concept and essence of the middle class shows that in contemporary social science there is no clear and widely accepted definition of the middle class.

The diversity of criteria for the identification of the middle class entails inconsistencies in estimates of its share in the modern society. If try to summarize the existing approaches and definitions, then the majority of scientists call the middle class socio-economic group of people with relatively high income levels, high quality vocational education, employment of highly skilled labor, interested in maintaining freedom, order and stability. However, equally important criteria for determining the middle class are the subjective self-identification of the individuals with the middle class, as well as the possession and distribution of relevant social values. Thus, middle class – a socially differentiated layers with higher, incomplete higher or specialized secondary education and employed, in accordance with it, the manifestation of a strong identifying indicator, and having different cultural capital. Guidelines to the studymaterial: 1. Using generalized works of Russian researchers T. Zaslavskaya, G. Diligensky, V. Radaev highlight the main qualitative characteristics of the middle class. 2. R. Simonyan presented the following definition of the middle class: «The middle class in its simple and classic content is not just the owners of the property of a certain size, but carriers of basic values ​​of civil

society – the personal dignity and independence, based on self-esteem, self-reliance in evaluation, public political activity, immunity to social manipulation and many other components that composes in totality its class consciousness, which makes the middle class the foundation of civil society». Analyze the category, highlighting therein the social and economic characteristics. 3. Evaluate the process of new class formation in Kazakhstan. Highlight its features. Explain the emergence of new social groups. Recommended literature: 1. Burawoy M., Wright E.O. Sociological marxism // Sociological researches. – 2011. – N 9. – N 10. 2. Golenkova Z.T., Igitkhanyan E.D. Middle layer sin modern Russia (analyzingtheproblem) // Sociological researches. – 1998. – № 7. – P. 44-53. 3. Azhenov M.S., Sadyrova M.S. Sociology of social structure. – Almaty, 2007. – 158p. 4. Simonyan R.H. Reformsof 90 sand moderns social structure of Russian society // Sociological researches. – 2012. – N 1. 5. Middle class in modern Russia // ed. M.K. Gorshkova and N.E. Tikhonova. – М.: ISRAS, 2008. – 320 p. 6. Corrigan P. The Sociology of Consumption. – London: SAGE Publications, 1998. – 197 р. 7. Savage M., Devine F., Scott J., Crompton R. Rethinking class: cultures, Identities and Lifestyle. – Pal grave: Macmillan, 2004. – 248 р. 8. Diligenskiy G.G. People of middle class. – M.: Institue of Foundation «Public opinion», 2002. – 135 p. 9. ZaslavskayaT.I. To the question of middle class of Russian society // World of Russia. – 1998. – № 4. – P. 18-25.

4

MIDDLE CLASS IN KAZAKHSTAN: FEATURES AND THE SELECTION CRITERIA (RESULTS OF SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH)

The combination of a set of objective and subjective criteria will provide the most complete image of the current state of the middle class in Kazakhstan. Objective criterion is based on a set of attributes that do not depend on the opinions of the individual. In addition to such characteristics as characteristics of the socio-professional status and material well-being, level of education is also included. Subjective criterion is based on the «self-identification» – an opinion of society members regarding their affiliation to any social class. This approach covers at least the most basic characteristics of the middle class and acts not only as a purely descriptive approach, but also takes into account such important criteria as one’s self-identification. Income and material status: limitations and evaluation

that allows individuals to experience the stability and to plan the future. Also, to assign an individual to the middle class indicators of average monthly income per family member in the last 6 months had to make 5.3 living wages for Almaty, i.e. more than 100 thousand KZT per month per family member. Experts stressed that the important thing is not the size of income, butmore important is consistency, which guarantees the preservation of property and social status. First it is necessary to include in middle class representatives of mental work requiring specialized higher education. An illustrative fact is thatsuch profession as a

A

s part of the study1 following criteria for classifying individuals in the middle class were selected: 1. The level of well-being, forming from the presence of permanent income, indices of average monthly per capita income and other indirect signs (number of present consumer durables, the amount of savings). Well-being level in any economic conditions determined by current income combined with the whole complex of material assets. It is a permanent stable income

Sociological research was conducted in Almaty in 2013. Samplesize – 1000 respondents. Sampling is a multistage quota, reflecting a representative totality of the demographic structure of the city. Along with the quantitative survey, 20 expert interviews were conducted. 1

29

30

Social structure of society and middle class

manager is taking one of the leader positions. This concept includes a number of administrative and other functions, and is indicator of formation of the middle class in the Western tradition. Also presences of indirect signs of material status are taken into consideration – presence of savings, self-assessment of the family, the availability of consumer durables. One important feature of the middle class is that the members of this class have the opportunity to earn some money, and they, unlike the poor, plan how to use the accumulated funds. However, it is also necessary to note that the middle class has limitations, and they cannot, unlike the rich afford expensive luxuries. If an individual has at least one of these criteria one is included in the middle class in terms of wellbeing level. In this respect, the use of a broad set of material status indicators reduces the likelihood of errors. 2. Characteristics of the socio-professional status (criterion of non-physical labor). In this approach as a criterion for getting into the middle class is used a non-physical labor. Socioprofessional status in a class society serves a marker of certain structural positions. This allows separating the structural position of the middle class from the workers positions. Fluctuations of professional status are permissible, but the basic income should be a result of professional activity. Secondary sources of income of the middle class may vary. It is reasonable thatby the socio-professional status in the middle class are also included selfemployed people and entrepreneurs. This part composes traditionally allocated old middle class, which has owned the means of production, but do not use hired labor on a large scale. 3. Level of education (the presence of at least basic higher education). To take a specific socio-professional position, the middle class should be characterized by the presence of human capital that can generate income. For the measurement of level of education a criterion with a threshold value «presence of basic higher education» is used. This allows allocating those with relatively advanced skills, hence – having the appropriate specific capital. Thus, the level of education is a marker of a certain professional level and allows identifying those groups that may theoretically occupy structural positions, allowing to receive income on their human capital. Two higher education and higher levels clearly indicate the individual’s belonging to the middle class.

4. The level of self-identification (self-evaluationof its position in society not lower than «middle» in the proposed structure). Finally, the last criterion used in the allocation of the middle class – self-identification. It should be noted that the class awareness of itself as a class, is not a vital condition for its existence. This approach uses self-evaluationof position in society, not below the «middle class». This allows weeding out of the analysis of those who feel as social outsiders, therefore – obviously will not fit on the specifics of the middle class consciousness and determined behavior. In general, summing up approaches presented in this study, it can be noted that they rely on the broader definition of middle class. In this case, to the middle class are included those whose needs appear above basic human needs such as food and clothing, and thus has necessary resources and the intention to raise living standard thanks to the skillful use of their knowledge and skills. Thus, the middle class differs from other social groups by the concentration of considerable volume of material wealth, of professional experience, social status, style of consumption, which allows speaking of it as a leading part of the society. This proportion in the total population is large enough. However, it should be considered that, like any social group, highlighted middle class is not homogeneous. Firstly, there can be allocated a first core layer (so-called core) that combines the typical representatives of the group, which is most clearly express its characteristics and which is relatively stable but numerically small compared to other social formations. Then, the second core layer that is a structural reserve for the first core layer; the lower middle layer in which the attributes characteristic for the middle class, gradually weakens. Also the top layer of the middle class, lower class and layer of «status mismatches» are allocated. The upper layer of the middle class (1.2%) – this layer includes respondents having a stable regular income, and the average per capita income of more than 100 000 KZT (5,3 subsistence minimum). Representatives of this layer also have at least a basic higher education, with the non-physical labor, indicating that they belong to a given structure as – the highest social class. Of these, 83.3% of respondents rated their financial position in the hierarchy as a stable, they do not have any financial difficulties, if desired, can afford to buy an apartment or house.

4. Middle class in kazakhstan: features and the selection criteria (results of sociological research)

The first core layer (5.2%) – this layer includes respondents who also have all four criteria defining the middle class, namely the existence of a stable permanent income, presence of higher education (minimum basic higher), non-physical nature of work, with self-identification in the proposed scale «higher middle» or «middle». The second core layer (transitional layer 40.6%). This layer is composed of people closest to the first core layer. Representatives of this layer have an average monthly per capita income of 55 to 100 thousand KZT, and indirect indicators of wellbeing close to the middle class. These are people who form the reserve of first core layer of

remains in the designated range. This subgroup includes respondents who have two of the four possible criteria. Criteria excluded are level of education and characteristics of the socioprofessional status; or lack of regular income and level of education; or lack of regular income and necessary characteristics of the socio-professional status. 4. In fourth subgroup consists of respondents who have only one criterion of four possible, with the level of income in the range of 55 to 100 thousand KZT per family member. Respondents identify themselves with the middle class or upper-middle, or have permanent stable income.

Figure 1. Structure of Kazakhstani middle class

the middle class, and have great potential in the future to become a full-fledged part of the middle class. However, it is necessary to consider the fact that this layer is heterogeneous itself. And it is formed of five sub-groups, in which the attributes and criteria of the middle class is gradually attenuated. 1. The first subgroup includes respondents who have permanent income, per capita income in the amount of from 55 to 100 thousand KZT per one family member in the past six months, with higher education, self-identification in the proposed structure not lower than «middle» and with nonphysical type of work. 2. The second subgroup consists of respondents who have three out of the four possible criteria. Characteristics of socio-professional status, or level of self-identification, or level of education are excluded. 3. In the third subgroup characteristic features of the first core layer of the middle class even more attenuate, although the level of income

5. Fifth subgroup of the second core layer includes respondents who do not possess any of the possible criteria. In this subgroup attributes typical for the middle class are practically not manifested, and this group aspires to the lower middle layer. Lower middle layer (34.4%) includes respondents having a per capita income of 35 to 55 thousand KZT, also have other indirect signs of well-being. This layer is also heterogeneous and numerous, hence it is also divided into several subgroups as attributes typical for the middle class are attenuated. As shown by results of the study, self-evaluation of financial position shows that, overall, 24.5% of respondents could buy basic appliances, but have difficulties when purchasing of more expensive items such as a car, little more than 30.7% say that only such purchase as an apartment or vacation home are not affordable for them. In the top layer of the middle class 83.3% of respondents say that they have no financial

31

32

Social structure of society and middle class

difficulties. In the first core layer opinions were distributed rather evenly. Second core layer contains all of the options of self-evaluation of material wellbeing, but the majority of respondents note that experience difficulties when buying more expensive items (car – 23.9%, an apartment or a house 40.6%), while 16.8% say that they don’t have any financial difficulties. In the lower middle layer the number of respondents (14.4%) noting that even buying large items is for them difficult increases. At the same time, 27.5% of representatives of this layer believe their funds are sufficient for purchasing large household appliances, while purchasing a car is difficult for them. 22.1% of respondents of the lower middle layer also note that funds are sufficient for everything but expensive purchases as an apartment or a country house. In the lower class greatly increases the proportion of respondents that rate their financial situation as a predicament, when buying clothes is a serious problem – 7.8%. 31.2% of representatives of this layer indicate that funds are sufficient for everything but expensive purchases as an apartment or a country house. The «status mismatches» layer has a high per capita income – more than 100 thousand KZT, assessing their financial position majority of the layer representatives (61.5%) indicates that their funds are sufficient for all, and only purchasing an apartment or a house is difficult for them. Those whose funds are enough for all but the purchase of a car and those whose funds are only enough for food and clothes both make 15.4%. House ownershipis a clear indication of the level of wellbeing, because in addition to a sense of stability and security, house ownership gives the opportunity to redirect funds to other needs. As shown in Table 3, the study found that, in general, about half of the respondents (42.5%) live in their own apartment or house, 21.6% live with their parents, 24.9% of respondents rent apartments. The vast majority of representatives of the upper layer (66.6%) and the first core layer (76%) live in own separate apartment (house). In the second core layer majority also live in own apartment (house) – 53.8%, but at the same time significantly increases the proportion of respondents living with parents or rental housing (20.8%). In the lower middle layer, the majority of respondents rent a house – 32.9%, in own apartment live 30%. In the lower class, 35.1% of respondents live in their own apartment or house,

and 27.3% lived in rented housing. In the socalled «status mismatches» layer majority live in their own apartment or house – 38.5%, at the same time an equal number (30.8%)of respondents indicated that they live with their parents or in rental housing. The research showed that, overall, the TV (82.1%) and personal computers (70.3%) cease to be «status» things, whereas, car ownership is still a sign of material well-being (50.3%), taking into account the manufacturer and year of release. Ownership over a second apartment in the city or country house is also one of the clearest indicators of belonging to the higher strata of the middle class – 10.3% of total number of respondents, and 23.1% in the layer of status mismatches. The presence of this type of real estate can be a result of the investment of own savings, and also gives an opportunity to get extra income as rent. The presence of the accumulated money income is also one of the bright indirect indicators of material well-being, since the presence of organized and unorganized savings allows for representatives of the middle class planning further large purchases and investments. The conducted research shows that 29.1% of respondents have savings, but do not call its size. At the same time, 16.7% of respondents could not save anything for the last twelve months.

In the upper middle layer 50% say that they are able to save up to 50 thousand KZT per month, 33.3% have savings, but they do not want to indicate its size, which demonstrates the presence

4. Middle class in kazakhstan: features and the selection criteria (results of sociological research)

of clearly expressed savings strategies focused on the future. In the first core layer 48% have savings of different sizes, while 12% of respondents could not save anything in the past 12 months. In the second core layer 48.8% of the respondents have savings, but either do not know their size (10.7%) or do not wish to indicate its size (38.1%), 10.2% have no savings at all. In general, in the second core layer there is a very high percentage of respondents with savings of different size – about 62%. This fact can be seen as an attempt of its representatives, implementing saving strategies of organized and unorganized forms, subsequently investing them, to move to the first core layer, and thus becoming members of «full-fledged and high-quality» middle class. Percentage of respondents, who do not have savings for the last twelve months, increases linearly to the lower class. Thus, the lower middle layer 17.4% of respondents, and 33.8% of respondents in the lower class – have no savings. This is one of the signs that the savings strategies, among other innovative practices, are gradually spreading across the layers of the middle class and lower class. 23.1% of representatives of the controversial layer of status mismatches noted that they recently did not manage to save money;the majority (38.5%) of respondents has savings, but did not specify its size, whereas 15.4% of respondents have the opportunity to save from 5,000 to 35,000 KZT per month. Experts on the role and importance of the middle class in contemporary Kazakh society For modern society «middle class» characterizes some ideal state of society, stable and prosperous. However, due to the lack of a clear pattern and that its essence is not determined; there is a diversity of approaches to the determination and research of this social phenomenon. The middle class plays a significant role in the consolidation of society, to ensure its stability and sustainability. *** The state and society needs middle class, it acts as a catalyst for economic development, having a sufficiently high purchasing power and creating a surplus product in the most advanced sectors of the economy. This enhances the competitive position in the international arena. This opinion is shared by experts.

Expert 6 (Professor of Philosophy): The middle class is the main resource and the «foundation» of economic development. The middle class is a precondition for sustainable and successful development of any modern state. And there are not alternatives provided. Expert 4 (Professor of Political Science): The primary role of the middle class in society is to be the basis for the stability and prosperity of the country. Modernization processes are important for modern Kazakhstan society; significant support for their implementation is the middle class. Expert 2 (sociologist-practitioner): The middle class stabilizes society, at the same time,it promotes development both through personal education and development, and also through the development of the nearest environment. *** At the same time the middle class, being essential for any society, as a basis for political stability, requires the maintenance of the social factors shaping this stability. Expert 1 (sociologist-practitioner): Example of Western countries, where the middle class was in a very difficult situation, state did not take adequately into account the interests of the middle class, and the situation began to worsen. We do not have this, but we need to extract lessons from this. If we want a stable society, it is necessary that the major part of society composed representatives of the middle class, but it is not the final factor. We need to constantly monitor the interests of the middle class. The middle class can transform from a factor of political stability to the factor of disturbance of society. *** Talking about the differences of Kazakh middle class from the Western countries, experts agree that today comparing Kazakhstan and countries of Western Europe and the United States does not make sense, as well as searching of differences between middle classes in these countriesas they are at different stages of their development, having their own specificity in mentality, consumer characteristics and economic realities. Expert 2 (sociologist-practitioner): We are in the very beginning. The middle class in Kazakhstan has not been formed completely... Expert 5 (civil servant): Firstly, on the basis of our economic realities it is still very long way for the middle class in Kazakhstan to the middle class of Western Europe, and the United States. In our

33

34

Social structure of society and middle class

view, based on the realities, in each state should be its own criteria of the identification of middle class. Second, if the middle class of developed countries was established, and a significant part of it compose small and medium business, workers of factories, the vast majority of doctors and teachers, the Kazakh middle class is in the process of formation, as doctors and teachers, workers of factories and etc., unfortunately, today cannot be classified as a middle class. Expert 1 (sociologist-practitioner): Firstly, it is very difficult to talk about the Western middle class; the middle class has its own national characteristics in each country. .... The mentality is different, the differences in the economic, consumer features, moral values. Differences between Western middle class and our middle class are shrinking but the main difference is the ratio of the individual, respect for the rights and dignity of the individual. Our society has progressed in this regard, and we are gradually moving towards this, we must not lose all good we have, our traditions and customs. In the West, one is aware of its duty, itsresponsibilities.... Our middle class cannot solve problems in a civilized way, through the courts, through the structures of civil society..... Thus, it can be concluded that the combination of a set of objective and subjective criteria will provide the most complete picture of the current state of the middle class in Kazakhstan. This approach takes into account the indicators characterizing socio-professional status and wellbeing level, education level, as well as the degree of «self-identification» – the views of the society members about their affiliation to any social class. This approach includes, at least, the main characteristics of the middle class and acts not only as a purely descriptive approach, but also allows takes into account such important criteria as self-identification. *** Kazakhstan’s middle class today is heterogeneous and consists of several layers (upper, first core layer, second core layer, lower middle layer). In turn, upper middle layer and first core layer have all the features of the middle class in its classical meaning. While the second core layer and lower middle layer are the most numerous and extremely heterogeneous in composition, thereby break down into several subgroups as middle class signs weaken. Also, when analyzing the data the controversial layer of «status mismatches» was allocated,this

includes people with high incomes, but inadequate education level and occupation. Kazakhstan’s middle class as a whole is characterized by a stable income, a stable financial situation, when money is enough for everything except purchasing a car, or such expensive purchase as an apartment or a country house, owning an apartment or a house, a car and organized or unorganized forms of savings. The presence of a second apartment in the city or the country house is a sign of belonging to the upper middle class. Instability of the socio-economic situation in the country is one of the factors of instability of income status. The desire to stabilize the situation is reflected in the different behavioral strategies. One of them – a saving strategy, which is a kind of innovative practice for the middle class, that gradually spread from its upper layers (investment in real estate) to the lower layers (bank savings). Lifestyle and values ​​of the middle class

Of particular interest to experts is a style of consumption of representatives of the middle class. Most experts agree that they have a certain style of consumption, different from others, including the consumption and use of qualitative products and goods, and leisure practices. At the same time, experts note that the style and consumption is not uniform, taking into account heterogeneity of the middle class. Expert 1 (sociologist-practitioner): «A certain style of consumption – is a modern style of consumption, that is, the middle class – people who can afford to use quality products, but not luxury items; who have modern housing that are trying to lead a modern way of life. It characterizes the Kazakh middle class. Expert 2 (sociologist-

4. Middle class in kazakhstan: features and the selection criteria (results of sociological research)

practitioner): «High quality food, attention to health, investing money in their children’s education, quality leisure and vacation» Expert 4 (Professor of Political Science): «The style of consumption varies as the middle class is heterogeneous in Kazakhstan.» *** Economic strategies: purchase, renovation and vacation trips

The biggest purchase, planned in the next twelve months, characterizes not only well-being, but also the style of consumption, as well as the direction of economic strategies in different layers of the middle class. According to the results of the study 21% and 19.5% of the total number of respondents indicated that in the next twelve months they will spend money on apartment renovations and vacation trips. The obtained data indicate that majority of representatives of the upper layer of the middle class will spend money on a tourist trip (66.6%) in the next year, in 16.7% of respondents plan to buy a car and the second apartment (or a country house). In the first core layer to a tourist trip (24%), buying of an apartment or a country house (20%) can be joined expenses for apartment renovation (28%). In the second core layer the percentage of respondents plan to spend money for the purchase of apartment (3.5%) greatly reduce. Similarly to the first core layer tourist trip (26.9%) remain popular, apartment renovation (21.3%). It should be noted the fact that plans to spend money on education appear only in the second core layer – 7.1%, as well as for medical services – 3.5%. Another important component that characterizes the lifestyle of Kazakh middle class is to conduct high-quality leisure and vacation.

According to the research results, 40.4% of respondents indicated that they spent their annual leave at home in the city and 11.9% of the respondents did not go on leave over the last year. More than 50% of respondents had no opportunity for quality vacation during the leave, 8.2% of respondents spent their annual leave at resortstargeting tourists from the CIS. Number of those respondents who have spent their leave at home, increases linearly from the first core layer to the lower middle layer that demonstrates the differences and gradual changes in the life style of different layers and also that innovative practices diffuse in the same direction from the upper layer and the first core layer to the lower.

In the upper middle layer 33.2% of respondents had a vacation in Southeast Asia, 16.7% of respondents spend their leave at asanatorium in one of Kazakhstan resorts; in Western Europe or at home in the city. Most often, the representatives of the first core layer as holiday destinations has chosen resorts in Turkey, Egypt, Bulgaria, etc. (24%), 20% of respondents spent their annual leave at home, 16% did not go on leave in the last year, 12% of respondents rested in sanatorium in one of the resorts of Kazakhstan. Most of the representatives of the second core layer of the middle class (47.8%) spent their leave at home in the city or did not go on leave for the last twelve months. 52.1% of lower middle layer spent their leave at home in the city, 8.4% did not go on leave, which again represents a majority. In the lower class, 55.8% of the respondents spent their holidays at home, 7.8% of respondents did not go on leave for the last year. Among the representatives of the layer of status mismatches 38.5% spent their leave at home in the city, 15.4% spent their leave at resorts of Turkey, Egypt, Bulgaria and other countries.

35

36

Social structure of society and middle class

Specifics of leisure activity patterns also largely characterizes selected lifestyle that, in turn, along with the level of education and material wellbeing is one of the main characteristics of the middle class. Results of the study show that in the upper middle layer the most popular leisure activity is sports (66.6%), going to the movies and going to the cafes and restaurants – 50%, the least popular are going to the theater, reading books, hiking (33.3%). In the first core layer going to cafes and restaurants (56%) is preferred with a considerable margin from all other ways of leisure. 32% of respondents watch movies and TV shows at home, which is one of the simplest types of leisure activity. Least popular leisure practices in a given layer of the middle class is reading – 16%. In the second core layer going to the cinema is the most popular leisure practice (43.6%), followed by watching movies and TV shows at home – 38.1%, which is again characterized as a simple andlow-cost (both material and intellectual) leisure activities. Approximately equal preference is given for hiking (36.5%), goingto the cafes and restaurants (35.5%) and sports (35%). As descent down the social ladder the likelihood of a complete lack of meaningful leisure increases. This confirms the fact that ways of simple home leisure activities (watching movies and TV shows) increases linearly from the upper layer to the lower class. If in the lower middle layer 44.9% of respondents prefer to watch movies and TV shows, in the lower class it is already 48.1% of the respondents. It also demonstrates the idea of diffusion of innovative practices in the middle class from the upper layer to the lower middle layer, and then to the lower class. In addition, in the lower middle layer 38.3% of respondents prefer reading books, doing sports – 35.9%, trips to nature – 31.7%, going to theater and ballet – 13.2%. In the lower class except watching TV (48.1%) reading books 40.3% is also popular, typically, simple types of leisure activity. Representatives of this layer limit themselves to traditional home-stay in their spare time, which does not require material and time expenses. Even if representatives of the lower class leave their homes, then again for traditional meeting with friends or going to the movies. Among the most unpopular leisure practices for a given layer were visiting museums and exhibitions – 6.5%. As an alternative of leisure activities indicates visiting a mosque – 2.5%.

It should be noted that the qualitative outsidehome leisure and possibility to afford it really add a very important and specific feature in the portrait of the modern Kazakh middle class. At the same time having a lot of free time and spend it with dignity is not always possible, even for representatives of the upper layers of the middle class. The amount of free time of representatives of middle class is reduced due to increased professional duties. This fact only increases value of free time and affects the desire of the middle class to make its leisure time as interesting as possible. They are willing to spend the available funds for full-fledged leisure(Davidova,2004). *** Having a car as an indicator of high social status or wealth? According to the French researcher Damon, in highly developed countries in the post-war period the car was a shining symbol of social status and formation of the middle class in general. But now it has turned from a luxury item to a costly necessity for people who have no access to public transportation. In contrast, in countries that are on the path of development, a car is a symbol of the emergence and expansion of the middle class. Since these countries represent a huge unexplored market, then having a car is a sign of high social status. Having a car is still a characteristic sign of the middle class, as the percentage of respondents who do not have a car, increases linearly from the upper middle layer to the lower middle layer. The most popular brands of cars in the upper layer and first core layer are BMW, Lexus and Toyota. It is worth noting that for representatives of status mismatches layer car is also a sign of material wealth, 53.8% of respondents have a car,preference is also given to Toyota and BMW. *** Interest in the political life of the country Interest in political life in Kazakhstan, as well as an active expression of their civil position in relation to the different situations occurring in the country, is one of the main signs that show the maturity of the middle class. It is characterized by its own ideology, which is based on the understanding of group interests and their role

4. Middle class in kazakhstan: features and the selection criteria (results of sociological research)

in society. On the one hand, it does not want a repetition of historical events, the lack of stability and confidence in the future and tranquility for their own well-being. Thus forms the need for moderate conservatism related to the conservation of traditions and strong government. Conservatism is intended to help preserve the current level and further growth of consumption. On the other hand, the middle class feels the need for presence of conditions for the implementation of its initiatives, life plans and ambitions. According to a study in the upper middle layer 66.7% of respondents are always interested in politics. The vast majority of the representatives of the first core layer are interested political life of the country only from time to time. In the second core layer majority (58.4%) occasionally shows interest in political life and the political situation in Kazakhstan, 26.9% of respondents are constantly interested in it. 53.3% of lower middle layer interests from time to time, while 25.1% are not interested at all. Percentage of respondents who not interested in the political life of the country at all increases linearly from the upper layer to the lower class from 0% to 27.3%. In the lowest class 40.2% of the respondents are occasionally interested in political life in Kazakhstan, in this class the largest percentage of respondents who are not interested in political events in the country at all, although the percentage of those who are constantly interested in political life, is big enough and has made 32,5%. In the layer of status mismatches 30.8% shows constant interest in the political events in the life of the country, 53.8% of respondents are interested in them from time to time. On civic position As data shows, an active civic position in the upper middle layeris expressed by 66.7% of respondents. For comparison, only 37.7% of respondents of lower class actively express their civic position, 22.1% of respondents do not express their position at all and 14.3% of respondents do not tend to express their civic position. In the layer of status mismatches opinions were divided almost evenly 53.8% of respondents in one way or another express their civic position, 46.2% of respondents practically does not express it. ***

Life values​​

The study did not reveal any significant differences in the life values ​​of the internal layers of the middle class. The main dominants remain - the value of one’s health and its loved ones, prosperity and family happiness. Next in the hierarchy of life values ​​in the upper middle layer priorities shift toward interesting and well-paid job, a career, a peaceful life, independence, satisfaction with the achieved. In the hierarchy of values ​​of the status mismatches layer a leading position is also occupied by individual values ​​–one’s health and health of its family (84.6%), family happiness and well-paid job (53.8%), in third place in this hierarchy are career, independence and a peaceful life – 46.2%. In this layer, unlike others, well-paid job occupies the same position in the hierarchy of values ​​ as the family happiness, which demonstrates the aspiration of its representatives to receive dividends on available capital. In general, system of values ​​of the middle class as a whole structure has not yet been formed, and is only at the initial stage of the process. And values system of middle and lower class almost do not differ from each other. On the other hand, there can be seen small in percentage, but a very important changes – the priority importance of values ​​of social support in the lower middle layer and lower class, starting with the second core layer recede, giving place to the moral and ethical and universal human values​​. Socio-professional values also ​​become important even in the lower layer of the middle class, and this fact distinguishes it from the lower class. National cultural values​​ also rise in the hierarchy of values ​​of the second core layer and above. And it can be concluded that this model of the spread of values ​​is the evidence of the ongoing process of formation of group

37

38

Social structure of society and middle class

consciousness and values. It should be noted also that these data demonstrate the mechanism of diffusion of new values, which comes from upper middle layer and the first core layer, gradually weakening. Apparently, the middle class acts as a «guide» of new values ​​that characterize another type of consciousness, to other layers of the population. *** The value of higher education The study found that higher education

and getting it is value for the majority of respondents, regardless of social layer; it is explained by the fact that presence of higher education is often regarded as a guarantee of stable employment, well-paid job and high income respectively. Higher education is very important, according to representatives of the upper middle layer. For the vast majority of the representatives of the first core layer (84%) higher education is also an important aspect of life. In the second core

layer 83.2% of respondents who believe that higher education is important toa certain extent. Percentage of those for whom higher education does not represent a life value and who believe that one can succeed without it increases linearly from the second core layer (5.6%) to the lower class (10.4%). Gradually weakens importance of higher education, from the upper layer to the lower class. So, if in the upper layer an opinion that it is important is prevalent,in the first core layer only 28% think it is extremely important. If in the second core layer the majority recognizes to some extent the importanceof higher education, opinions in the lower layer and the lower class are divided. Dramatically increases the number of respondents who believe that it is not very important (22.2%) and those who believe that one can manage without higher education (9.5%). In the lower class, 63.6% support the general trend and agree with the value and importance of higher education, while 24.7% believe that it is not important. For 38.5% of the representatives of the layer of status mismatches higher education is important, at the same time for the majority of respondents higher education is not important at all – 53.9%. *** «Who likes living in Kazakhstan?».For the question whether you are ready to leave Kazakhstan opinions ofthe lower class representatives are distributed almost evenly: 44.2% who are ready to leave Kazakhstan, and 48.1% of the respondents who did not consider such option for the future. The situation is similar in the layer of status

Figure 2. Change of permanent place of residence

4. Middle class in kazakhstan: features and the selection criteria (results of sociological research)

mismatches, while 53.8% did not consider the option of moving to another country as a permanent place of residence, 46.2% are ready to leave Kazakhstan. While in all layers of the middle class the vast majority of respondents note their unwillingness to leave Kazakhstan (Figure 2). *** As the results of the research show, the system of values ​​of the middle class as a complete structure has not yet been formed, and is only in the initial stage. It should be noted that the values​​ of the lower and middle class do not differ from each other, although the trends to change can be seen. Hence, such a model of values diffusionis an evidence of the ongoing process of formation of group consciousness and values. It should be noted also that these data demonstrate the mechanism of diffusion of new values, which comes from the upper middle layer and the first core layer, gradually weakening. And this explains the factof heterogeneous spread of values, attitudes, lifestyles in different layers of the middle class. The middle class is characterized by a different type of consciousness, at the same timeacts as a «guide» of new values ​​to other layers of the population, fulfilling thereby its function of «spokesman» of national cultural characteristics. In the consciousness of the middle class dominant values in the society are reflected, that appear more clearly in it, but do not distinguish it qualitatively from other layers of the population. Guidelines to the study material: 1. Level of education serves as a «marker» of professional level of the middle class. Determine the presence of which level of education indicate individual’s

belonging to the middle class. 2. Satisfaction with life isa complex index integrating the material parameters of the individual’s life, health status, satisfaction with the social environment, etc. Using additional literature, identify fluctuations of life satisfaction in Kazakh society in the years of reform, noting the lowest level to moderate and significant upturn. 3. Conduct a comparative analysis of how the political orientation of the middle class in Europe and the United States has changed, expressed in relation to the state as the guarantor of the security of society or to the state, ensuring freedom of the individual. 4. Analyze the scientific publications of researchers on the subject of «middle class» in the «Sotsiologicheskie issledovania – Sociological research» for the last five years. Present a chronologyof predominant works. Recommended literature: 1. Thompson E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. – New York: Pantheon Books, 1964. – 848 p. 2. BarberB. StructureofSocialStratificationand trends of social mobility // American sociology. – М.: Progress, 1972. – P. 235 – 247. 3. LewisR., MaudeA. The English Middle Classes. – New York: A.A.Knopf, Inc., 1950. – 320 p. 4. Warner W. L., Lunt P.S. The Social Life of a Modern Community. – New Haven, 1941. – 460 p. 5. Avraamova E.M. Middle class in Russia: quantitative and qualitative evaluations. – M.: TEIS, 2000. – 286 p. 6. Damon J. Les Classes moyennes. – Presses Universitaires de France, 2013. – 127 p. 7. Davidova N.M. Leisure preferences of population in post-reforms Russia // Changing Russia in the mirror of sociology / ed. M.K. Gorshkova and N.E. Tikhonova. М.: Science, 2004. – 280 p. 8. Bosc S. Sociologie des classes moyennes. – Paris: La Découverte, 2008. – 128p. 9. Savage M., Devine F., Scott J., Crompton R. Rethinking class: cultures, Identities and Lifestyle. – Pal grave: Macmillan, 2004. – 248 р.

39

REFERENCES

1. Aristotle. Policy. – М.: Ed. AST, 2002. – 393 p. 2. Thierry O. Тьерри О. Essay on the history of formation and progress of third estate. – М., 1899. —P.75. 3. Archer M., Blau J. Class Formation in Nineteenth-Century America: The Case of the Middle Class // Annual Review of Sociology. 1993. Vol. 19.  4. Marx K., Engels F. Manifesto of communist party. // Marx K., Engels F. – Т. 4. – P. 419-459.  5. Weber M. Protestant ethics and the spirit of Capitalism. M., 1990. 6. Weber M. Main concepts of stratification // SOTSIS. 1994. N 5.  7. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology for economists: manual. М.:UNITY-DANL. P. 127.  8. Blumin S.M. The emergence of the middle class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900.-New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.  9. Kautsky K. Bernstein and social-democratic program. Ant critics of K.Kautsky. – S.Pb.: Kolokol, 1906. – 255 p.  10. Kautsky K. Class interests. – Odessa: Burevestnik, 1905. – 28 p.  11. Tikhonova N.E., Gorunova S.V. Theoretical and methodological problems of analysis of middle class //Spero 29 – 42 38 sping-summer 2008.  12. Mills C.W. Les cols blancs. Essai sur les classes moyennes americaines (1951), François Maspero, Paris 1966, 1970 [extraits in Bosc,2007]  13. Mills C.W. Power elite. – М.: Inostr. lit-ra, 1959. – 543 с.  14. The Mills C.W. The New Middle Class, I // The New Middle Classes. Life-Styles, Status Claims and Political Orientations. Houndmills-London, 1995.   15. Mills C.W. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York, 1951.  16. Warner W.L., Lunt P.S. The Status System of a Modern Community. New Haven, 1942.   17. Warner W.L., Meeker M., Eells K. Social Class in America: A manual procedure for the measurement of Social Status. – N.Y.: Harper, 1960. –274 p. 18. Lockwood D. The Blackcoated Worker. A Study in Class Consciousness. – London, 1958. – 224 p. 19. Giddens A. Social stratification and class structure // SOTSIS. – 1992. — N 11. – P. 107-121.  20. Arutunyan U.V. Social structure of rural population of USSR. – М.: Mysl’, 1971. – 374 p.  21. Wright E.O. In Intellectuals and the Class Structure of Capitalist Society, in Between Labor and Capital/ Ed. by Walker P. – Hassocks: Harvester Press, 1979. —P. 191-212.  22. Wright E.O. Class, Crisis and the State. – L.: NLB, 1978. – 266 p.  23. Goldthorpe J.H. On the service class, its formation and future // Social Class and the Division of Labour / Eds.  Giddens, Mackenzie. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.  24. Zdravomyslov A.G. Russian middle class – problem of limits and quantity// SOTSIS, 2001. – №5. 25. Social Contracts Under Stress The Middle Classes of America, Europe, and Japan at the Turn of the Century / ed. Zunz O., Schoppa L., Hiwatari N. – New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.  26. Gerteis J., Savage M. The salience of class in Britain and America: a comparative analysis // The British Journal of Sociology. 1998. Vol. 49. № 2.  27. Skeggs B. Class, Self and Culture. – Routledge 2004.  28. Wong Y. A unified middle class or two middle classes? A comparison of career strategies and intergenerational mobility strategies between teachers and managers in contemporary Hong Kong // The British Journal of Sociology. 2004. Volume 55. № 2.  29. Wan H Transformation of social structure of society in modern China // Sotsiologicheskie issledovania. 2006. №7.  30. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Balobanova E.G. Middle class as an object of research of Russian sociologists. // Social sciences and modernity. – 2008 – №1.  31. Sminoyan R.H. Middle class in contemporary Russia: myth or reality? // Social sciences and modernity. 2008. №1.  32. Diligenskiy G.T. People of middle class. – М.: Institut Fonda «Obshestvennoe mnenie», 2002. 135p.  33. Abraamova E.M. Formation of middle class in Russia: definition, methodology, quantitative evaluation // Social sciences and modernity. 2002. №1.  34. Shkaratan O.I., Ilyin V.I. Social stratification of Russia and Eastern Europe. – М., 2006. 

40

References

35. Belyaeva L.A. Social stratification and middle clas in Russia: 10 years of possoviet development. М., 2001. P. 175.  36. Belyaeva L.A. In searching of middle class // Sotsiologicheskie issledovania. – 1999. – № 7. – P. 72-77. 37. Radaev V.V. Formation of myth of middle class in postcummunist Russia // Middle class in Russia. Problems and perspectives. – М., 1998.  38. Radaev V.V. Middle class in Russia or to the formation of new myth. // Knowledge – power. – 1998. – №7.  39. Khakhulina L.A. Subjective middle class: incomes, material status, value orientations // Economic and social changes: monitoring of public opinion. 1999. №2.  40. Maleva T.M. Middle classes in Russia: economic and social strategies // Gendalf, 2003. 506p.   41. Tikhonova N.E. Factors of social stratification in conditions of transit to market economy. – М., 1999. – P. 37.  42. Zaslavskaya T.L. Stratification of contemporary Russian society // Economic and social changes: monitoring of public opinion. 1996. №1. P. 12.  43. Zaslavskaya T.I. To the question of “middle class” of Russian society / T.I. Zaslavskaya, R.К. Gromova // Mir Rossii. – 1998. – № 4. – P. 18-25.  44. Grigoryev L.M., Salmina A.A., Kuzina O.E. Russian middle class: analysis of structure and financial behavior /. – М.: «Econom-Inform», 2009.  45. Gladarev B.S., Zinman Zh.M. Consumer styles of middle class of St.Petersburg // Economic sociology. 2007. Т. 8. № 3.  46. Tikhonova N.E. State of health of middle class in Russia // Mir Rossii. 2008. №4.  47. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Azhenov M.S. Social structure of postsoviet Kazakhstan // Sotsialnaya struktura naselenia v perehodniy period. А.: КаzGU, 1999. P. 6-13.   48. Iskanderov R. People of the “golden middle” 25.01.2007 (http://articles.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=86171)  49. Burminskiy D. Class structure of Kazakhstani society. 15.01.2008 (http://www.ww.kub.info/print.php?sid = 20371)  50. John C.K. Daly Kazakhstan’s emerging middle class Silk Road paper march 2008 Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program  51. Satpaev D. Myths and realities about middle class in Kazakhstan. Questions and answers. 01.07.2008 (http:// risk.kz/11034)  52. Smirnov S. “Middle class” in Kazakhstan: problem of formation. // Sayasat, №7. 2005. P. 29.   53. Yestaev Zh. Paradoxes of Kazakhstani middle class // Psychologia. Sotsiologia. Defectologia. 2005. – № 8,9. – P. 32-39.

41

For notes

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

For notes

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

Еducational issue

Abdiraiymova Gulmira Serikovna Burkhanova Dana Kamalovna

SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY AND MIDDLE CLASS Textbook Typesetting and cover design G. Kaliyeva Cover design used photos from sites www.law-slide-justice.com

IР № 8431

Signed for publishing 27.08.2015. Format 70x100 1/12. Offset paper. Digital printing. Volume 3.6 printer’s sheet. 130 copies. Order № 2274. Publishing house «Qazaq university» Al-Farabi Kazakh National University 71 Al-Farabi, 050040, Almaty Printed in the printing office of the «Qazaq university» publishing house