The Political Economy of Lifestyle: Consumption, India’s New Middle Class and State-Led Development

2009 ◽  
pp. 219-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leela Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
The Political ◽  
New Middle Class

scholarly journals POPULAR MAGAZINES, NEW LIBERAL DISCOURSE AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, 1890s–1914

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-142
Author(s):  
Matthew Schneirov
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Mass Culture ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Capitalist Society ◽  
The Political ◽  
New Middle Class ◽  
Corporate Capitalism ◽  
Popular Magazines ◽  
Mass Circulation

The study of the mass circulation “popular magazine” during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era was revived during the 1990s as part of the emerging fields of gender studies, consumer studies, and the study of the new middle class. Richard Ohmann's seminal work viewed these magazines through the lens of the political economy and class relations of an emerging corporate capitalist society and explored the relationship between mass culture and the political economy of capitalism. This paper reexamines the connection between a national mass culture, the new middle class, and an emerging corporate capitalist society through the lens of post-structuralist discourse theory. Corporate capitalism is conceptualized as in part a discourse, the new liberalism, which incorporated or rearticulated populist and socialist discourses and in doing so temporarily won the consent of the capitalist class, middle classes, and segments of the working class. Through the pages of popular magazines readers were offered pieces of a new discourse that embraced corporations rather than the “free market,” women's entry into public life, and new constructions of the self. During the muckraking era, elements of socialism and populism were integrated into mainstream American culture. Overall, the essay argues that a discourse perspective on popular magazines can open up new perspectives on corporate capitalism and the new liberalism. While corporate capitalism marked the decline of the producer–republican tradition, it also marked the emergence of an American social democratic tradition, a mixture of capitalist and socialist social formations.

Class Politics, American-Style

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 659-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Waddell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rich ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

scholarly journals Class Politics, American-Style

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 654-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Pontusson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rich ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson'sWinner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Classis both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue ofThe American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers ofPerspectives on Politicswill know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels'sUnequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.”Winner-Take-All Politicsthus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Class Politics, American-Style

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-651
Author(s):  
Jodi Dean
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rich ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

The Effects of Ruralism, Bureaucratic Structure, and Economic Role on Right-Wing Extremism

1974 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney Schneck ◽  
Douglas Russell ◽  
Ken Scott
Keyword(s):  
Middle Class ◽  
Social Structure ◽  
The Political ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
General Hypothesis ◽  
Economic Role ◽  
New Middle Class ◽  
The Social ◽  
Capitalistic System ◽  
Right Wing Extremism

In discussion of the social structure of modern capitalist societies the distinction between the “old” and “new” middle class is common. The old middle class is epitomized by the small businessman and the new middle class by the bureaucratic manager and employee. It has been postulated that the political sentiments and attitudes are different among these two subsets of the middle class. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the old middle class in a mature industrial and capitalistic system is especially vulnerable to right-wing extremism. It is the purpose of this paper to report research testing the above general hypothesis by using three factors of explanation.

scholarly journals AGROECOLOGY AND SOCIAL CLASSES, AN APPROACH BASED ON THE WORKS BY GYÖRGY LUKÁCS AND MICHEL CLOUSCARD

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
BENEDITO SILVA NETO
Keyword(s):  
Middle Class ◽  
Social Classes ◽  
The Political ◽  
New Middle Class ◽  
Gyorgy Lukacs

Abstract The article proposes an approach based on György Lukács’s and Michel Clouscard´s works for analyzing class interests within the agroecological field, especially those involving the peasantry and intellectual workers, such as researchers, lecturers and technicians, intellectuals being designated as part of the ‘new middle class’. The divergences between the interests of these existing classes in the agroecological field are evidenced to be fundamental for understanding its true relations with Agribusiness. The hegemony of the political-ideological positions of the new middle class has generated a tendency of Agroecology to integrate into Agribusiness, to the detriment of the class interests of the peasantry. A change in the position of the new middle class would require the reversal of its trajectory, summarized in the article, of more than a century of growing political-ideological subordination to the capitalists’ interests.

scholarly journals Lodewijk De Raet: primordiale nationalist of een organische intellectueel van de nieuwe middenklasse?

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-141
Author(s):  
Dries Goedertier
Keyword(s):  
Middle Class ◽  
Intellectual Development ◽  
The Political ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Critical Dialogue ◽  
Social Question ◽  
New Middle Class ◽  
Ethnic Consciousness ◽  
The Social ◽  
Organic Intellectual

Vanaf de jaren 1880 was de Vlaamse beweging het toneel van een belangrijke politieke en ideologische vernieuwing. Het zogenaamde cultuurflamingantisme verruimde de politieke eisen van de Vlaamse beweging tot de sociale kwestie en het vraagstuk van de economische ontwikkeling. Het sluitstuk van deze analyse was de these dat de secundaire positie van het Nederlands en de sociale en economische achterstelling van Vlaanderen onlosmakelijk verbonden waren. Spilfiguur achter deze economische heroriëntatie van de Vlaamse beweging was de ingenieur, socioloog en econoom Lodewijk De Raet. In deze bijdrage wil ik de politieke vernieuwing die het cultuurflamingantisme vertegenwoordigde in de verf zetten aan de hand van een kritische dialoog met het belangrijke werk van Olivier Boehme. Waar hij De Raet in de eerste plaats ziet als een primordiale nationalist, beschouw ik hem als een intellectueel die het nationalisme omarmde in een context van kapitalistische versnelling. De Raet schreef in een periode van belangrijke sociaaleconomische transformaties die verklaren waarom hij zoveel belang is gaan hechten aan de ‘economie’. In zijn denken toonde hij zich bewust van mondialisering, de concentratie van kapitaal en de ontwikkeling van een nieuwe middenklasse. Ik argumenteer dat De Raet optrad als een organische intellectueel die aan een embryonale ‘Vlaamse leidende stand’ van kapitalisten en ingenieurs duidelijke richtlijnen meegaf. Zij moest het Vlaamse ‘stambewustzijn’ vergroten door zich in te zetten voor de economische, culturele en intellectuele ontwikkeling van Vlaamse middenstanders, boeren en arbeiders. Alleen een ‘Vlaamse Hogeschool’ in Gent zou volgens De Raet bij “machte zijn om de verschillende standen der maatschappij weer samen te brengen”.________Lodewijk de Raet: Primordial Nationalist or an Organic Intellctual of the New Middle Class?From the 1880s onwards, the Flemish Movement was the scene of an important political and ideological renewal. The so-called “cultural flamingantisme” broadened the political demands of the Flemish Movement toward the social question and the issue of economic development. The capstone of the this analysis was the thesis that the secondary position of Dutch and the social and economic backwardness of Flanders were intextricably linked. A key figure behind this economic reorientation of the Flemish Movement was the engineer, sociologist and economist Lodewijk de Raet. In this article, I want to highlight the political renewal represented by cultural flamingantisme by means of a critical dialogue with the important work of Olivier Boehme. Where he sees De Raet as a primordial nationalist first and foremost, I portray him as an intellectual who embraced nationalism in a context of capitalist acceleration. De Raet wrote during a period of important socioeconomic transformations, which explains why he placed so much importance on “economics”. In his thinking, he showed himself to be conscious of globalization, the concentration of capital and the development of a new middle class. I argue that De Raet acted as an organic intellectual who provided clear guidelines to the embryonic “Flemish leading estate” of capitalists and engineers. They had to expand the Flemish “ethnic consciousness” by devoting themselves to the economic, cultural and intellectual development of the Flemish middle class, farmers and laborers. According to De Raet, only a “Flemish University” in Ghent would be able “to bring the different classes of society back together again.”

scholarly journals SOCIOECONOMIC MOBILITY, EXPECTATIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS INEQUALITY IN BRAZIL

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 647-676
Author(s):  
André Salata ◽  
Celi Scalon
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Sample Survey ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Cycle ◽  
Socioeconomic Mobility ◽  
Brazilian Society ◽  
New Middle Class ◽  
Perceptions And Attitudes

Abstract After the end of the political and economic cycle that gave rise to the phenomenon that became known as the Brazilian new middle class, in this article we argue that this reading was not limited to verifying the increase in income and consume power of thousands of families, but also framed it within a broader narrative that has hindered the sociological investigation of the phenomenon. Thus, our first objective is to develop, with the support of empirical data from the National Household Sample Survey (PNAD-IBGE), an alternative interpretation of the changes observed in Brazilian society in recent years. Our second objective is to reflect, with the help of data from the Survey on the Middle Class (CESOP-UNICAMP-2008), and also from qualitative research previously prepared by the authors, on the possible impacts of these changes on the expectations of individuals and, thus, on their perceptions and attitudes towards the enormous inequalities still present in the country.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document