The idea of writing a book on inequality and social differentiation in Africa dates back to the late nineties, when I wrote a short article on social structures in Africa for an encyclopaedia of political science (Neubert 1997). I had to admit that our conventional social science theories failed to capture the particularities of African societies. Too many empirical findings contradict the basic assumptions of sociological class analysis . Since that time, my scepticism has grown with regard to the transfer to Africa of theories developed for societies in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This scepticism in respect of classic sociological concepts has gained support from debates on German social structures. Since the 1980s, a group of German sociologists has provided empirical evidence that shows the weakness of class theories , especially with regard to socio-cultural differences in society. In addition, these studies show that the differentiation of socio-economic positions no longer follows clear-cut class differences .1 I had the chance to develop my critique in a contribution to a special issue of the journal âPeripherieâ (Neubert 2005). Referring to concepts developed in respect of German society, I presented the basic argument that will be developed in this book: I am convinced that analysis of social structures in Africa needs to be accompanied by an independent analysis of socio-cultural differentiation . This is because, in contrast to conventional class theories , socio-cultural differentiation is not just determined by socio-economic inequality. People with a similar socio-economic position may conduct their lives in very different ways and follow different values and norms. In Africa, we do not find social classes with a common class consciousness defined by relation to the means of production or occupational positions . For the analysis of inequality and social differentiation in Africa, we need a framework that goes âbeyond class â.
I refer to Africa for empirical evidence to support my critique of class concepts, in respect of the need to include socio-cultural differentiation , and for the development of my analytical concept. This does not imply that Africa is an exotic or exceptional case. Rather, from a global perspective, Germany, like other European countries, is an exceptional case, marked by early industrialisation in nineteenth century, and by its imperial and colonial power. I will not analyse the peculiarities of Europe and its sociology and its powerful influence on the rest of the world. This has been done successfully by the post-colonial debate.2 From a different perspective, Therborn also refers to global inequalities and structural differences created by capitalism inside national societies and between world regions (Therborn 2003, 2013; see also Nederveen Pieterse 2002). My intention is much more humble: I simply try to understand social structures in Africa using sociological means, while remaining open for empirical realities. The case of Africa has at least two interesting aspects. First, even more clearly than the case of Germany, it shows the limits of conventional class analysis . Second, concepts developed in Germany require conceptional adaptation and further development. This reminds us that it is not sufficient to develop sociological concepts based on a particular case (in this case Germany or Europe) and apply them worldwide. To become general sociological concepts, they have to be tested and adapted in different historical, social and cultural contexts. This often seems to be forgotten, and concepts and theories developed in and for the Global North, which represents just a quarter of the world population, are taken as general concepts or theories, without testing their applicability to the other three quarters. Hopefully, this analysis of social structures in Africa south of the Sahara will form a basis for the development of concepts applicable to at least considerable parts of the variety of social conditions existing there. A further step will be to apply similar concepts to other regions, and then to Europe, in order to define the basic elements of the concepts.3 I am well aware of claims like âprovincializing Europeâ Chakrabarty (2000) and developing âTheories of the Southâ (Comaroff and Comaroff 2012).4 However, this enterprise is less ambitious. Its aim is to widen the empirical perspective of social structures analysis without taking Europe as the dominant model, and to develop concepts that are open for a variety of patterns of social change in different societies.
At the beginning of the 2000s, social structures seemed to be an outdated topic for the sociology of Africa. Poverty was an issue in development policy, but this did not lead to an analysis of the structure of African societies. In the public of the Global North, apart from critiques of âneo-liberalismâ, there was hardly any real interest in systematic research on inequality in general. This has changed in recent years and new debates in the social sciences in general, and new empirical research in African Studies, have paved the way for developing a new approach to the analysis of social inequality, social differentiation and social structures beyond class in Africa. Thomas Pikettyâs book entitled Capital in the Twenty-First Century revitalised the critique of capitalism (Piketty 2014, in French 2013). His thesis of the still growing inequality between the super rich and rest of the population gave the critics of neo-liberalism further arguments; and his empirically well-founded economic analysis brought the topic of social inequality back to economic research. His book triggered a media debate in the Global North on the ambiguities of capitalism in a public that was already sensitised to the issue because of the financial crisis of 2007. The release of an edited volume by prominent economists with the title After Piketty underlines the influence of Pikettyâs thesis (Boushey et al. 2017). The critique of the Great Divide in the societies of the Global North also reached the USA (Stiglitz 2013, 2016).
This critical view confirms at least partly the Marxist analysis of global capitalism. From this perspective, global capitalism follows the Fordist-Keynesian model of a capitalism that had despite international connection still a clear national element that offered the working class a certain economic participation and security (Robinson 2011, 351). The concept of global capitalism points at the reduced autonomy of states towards the international pressure for liberal policies and underlines the growing inequality that cuts across the different countries (Anievas 2012; Panitch and Gindin 2012; Robinson 2004, 2011; Van der Pijl 2005 [1998]). Especially, Robinson points at the societal consequences of global capitalism. He identifies a new transnational elite that dominates former national elites, the working class and the proletarized peasantry . Especially the working class lost due to the flexibility of international capital its political power and has to accept instable working relations and insecurity. Only a small professional middle class linked to transnational production processes participates in global consumption patterns whereas the majority of the societies faces downward mobility or at least insecurity (Robinson 2004; in short: Robinson 2011).
A second point of reference for the new interest in social structure and the development of capitalism was a journal article (âClass in the 21st centuryâ) and a book (The Killing Fields of Inequality) by Goran Therborn (Therborn 2012, 2013). Even if his publications did...