In his rejoinder to my essay, ‘Egypt and the Myth of the New Middle Class’, Professor Halpern clings to a limited and dysfunctional concept. The concept of NMC was of limited use in 1963 when he wrote The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa; since then, it hasproved to be a misleading tool for explaining the politics of change in the Middle East, yet Halpern persists in reaffirming it. For seven years, Professor Halpern has been arguing the same tautologies. On the one hand he proposes a theory of a new middle class; on the other, he explains why the NMC still has not evolved. The NMC concept is so fundamental to his book that I, for one, have examined it closely—and have found its validity and usefulness limited. Halpern writes of the need for a new theory of the relationship between social classes and system-transforming change in the modern age, but he offers no good descriptive and analytical data to support his thesis. In fact, as we shall demonstrate later, his thesis is shaken by a confrontation with rigorous empirical and correlative analyses. A cursory review of recent literature shows us many recantations by authors who once applied Grand Theories to Comparative Politics. In the spirit of the era post-Committee for Comparative Politics-neo-scholasticism, I have consented to write a rejoinder. Let me state at the beginning that I will refrain from comments on Halpern's new vintage, ‘The Dialectics of Modernization in National and International Society’, although in his rejoinder Halpern insists that the NMC has been reaffirmed and reappraised in his ‘Dialectics’. This would require more than a rejoinder. In order to review or refute Halpern's new work, I would need to write a new article, and scarcity of time does not allow me this luxury.
Is There Strength in Numbers?