Culture and Privilege in Capitalist Asia - Jurusan Antropologi ...

INDIAN MIDDLE-CLASS IDENTITY 265
The wide range of socio-economic groups encom passed in the above definition
overlaps with those groups that are loosely labelled by some as the new rich. Such
economic criteria beg the question of whether the diverse groups included under
this middle-class label share the same opportunities and class interests.
For others, the middle class is more than an economic phenomenon and
represents an attitudinal change. According to one advertising executive in India,
‘The middle class is not just an economic phenomenon anymore. Driven by
liberalization, the single biggest factor, it is an attitude towards life and straddles
various economic groups’ (Chakravarti 1995:89). For this explanation, the
pertinent factor is rising aspirations for more possessions across different income
groups (Chakravarti 1995:90). The Director-General of NCAER, who is an
economist, concurs with the above view and prefers to label ‘middle-income
groups’ as ‘middle mass’ rather than ‘middle class’. He argues that since such
attitudinal change has permeated most income groups, the middle class consists of
almost 80 per cent of the population (Chakravarti 1995:93)! Growing material
aspirations amongst a cross-section of the population is not an entirely new
phenomenon and for some commentators has been evident in the rise of the
socalled ‘new middle class’ at least since the mid-1980s (Ninan 1990:326—7).
According to Ninan (1990:327) the ‘new middle class’ includes the rich farmers,
labour-elite, small businessmen-entrepreneurs, professionals, overseas workers in
the Gulf region, and the salariat from diverse occupational backgrounds. Needless
to say, the high-status global consumer goods that are popularly seen as the
distinguishing markers of the middle class cannot be afforded by all the groups
included above, and even less so by the majority of the population referred to as
the ‘middle mass’. The social elasticity of concepts such as ‘middle mass’ and ‘new
middle class’ raises questions about their value for purposes of social and cultural
analyses. In the definition of the ‘new middle class’ provided above, rich farmers
are lumped together with professionals, labour elite and overseas workers. The
differences in property ownership, incomes, life-chances, education and labour
hierarchy between the various groups are significant enough to undermine or
strain the possibility of shared interests and cultural identity.
Similarly, Marxist definitions of the middle class include varied socio-economic
groups, but they are singled out on the basis of their relationship to the means of
production. Thus one Indian sociologist, following a Marxist approach, refers to the
middle class as ‘a class between labour and capital which neither owns the means
of production…nor does it, by its own labour, produce the surplus’ (Shah 1987:
AN-155). From this vantage point, the middle class is a class comprising the petty
bourgeoisie and white-collar workers. This definition includes a variety of groups
between capital and labour which are engaged in occupations that involve some
‘formal education’, but are otherwise distinguished by significant differences in
income and cultural outlook as, for example, may be the case between highly
qualified doctors and low-grade office workers.
Economic definitions of the middle class based upon income levels and
‘rising aspirations’ are inclined towards statistical exercises as demonstrated by