Hardly any book has received as much attention in recent years as Andreas Reckwitz's “Society of Singularities”.

In it, the sociologist describes the global rise of a new middle class grouped around cultural values ​​such as creativity and authenticity, which has wrested the power of interpretation from a traditional middle class.

Along this fault line, he explains global upheavals such as the rise of right-wing populism and the decline of social democracy, as well as those cultural struggles that are provisionally circumscribed with the conceptual distinction between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism.

Thomas Thiel

Editor in the features section.

  • Follow I follow

    Celebrated in the media, the broad diagnosis of the times was received rather ungraciously in sociology. Reckwitz was accused of saying too little about how the new cultural capital was used for power and position struggles. There was also general doubt as to whether the new middle class even existed or whether it was just a portrait of urban hipsterism, puffed up into a social model. This raised the question of how the new cultural struggles can be explained differently if one does not want to dismiss them as sham opposites.

    The magazine Leviathan dedicates two issues to this debate (Volume 49, 2021, Issues 1 and 2). First of all, Nils Kumkar and Uwe Schimank renew the specialist criticism. On the basis of their own empirical research, they come to the conclusion that the new middle class is not that much different from the old middle class in terms of values ​​and income. Both are about status maintenance and status maintenance. In addition, Kumkar and Schimank criticize the fact that Reckwitz so easily equates the new middle class with the academic milieu. Wouldn't professions such as business economist, lawyer or pharmacist also belong to the new middle class, which are unspectacular when measured against the new creative standard? The authors feel compelled to de-dramatize the new class antagonism.But how can the very real cultural struggles of the present be explained?

    Expressive individualism

    In his reply, Reckwitz reproaches his critics for neglecting the general structural change. This can be tied to terms such as cognitive-cultural capitalism or de-industrialization and has brought about a worldwide change in values. Since the 1970s and 1980s, the Sinus Studies have clearly traced the rise of values ​​such as diversity, cosmopolitanism and self-realization. Reckwitz concludes that this lifestyle, known as “expressive individualism”, has a backing layer across all internal differences. The studies also clearly show the growing gap between a traditional middle class that adheres to ethics of duty and values ​​such as order and security. Therefore one is not completely different. Both milieus pursued status maintenance.The new middle class only adapts better to structural change, while the old middle class fends off it. Beyond questions of lifestyle, it is also about attitudes towards a form of modernity driven by technology and economy.

    The constant criticism of his colleagues is clearly getting on Reckwitz's nerves. Where does the suspicion about his book come from, he asks back? Is it because of the insistence of the professional representatives that values ​​must have a solid base and a material equivalent? That culture is not given its own weight?

    Reckwitz also asks himself this question, because his concept of culture is so devoid of contours that the most boring project routine is still there as a creative activity.

    He mentions in passing that the rational logic of industrial society continues to apply above all maxims of self-realization.

    The “singularities” are therefore only surrogates of the claimed individuality and authenticity.

    Nevertheless, Reckwitz only explains one side.

    What does that mean for the associated political attitudes?

    Are the expressions of cosmopolitanism and diversity just tactical maneuvers in the struggle for status and jobs?

    Do they even serve to keep political conflicts away from you and to be able to devote yourself to the refinement of your lifestyle undisturbed, as Sahra Wagenknecht criticized in her book about the “Lifestyle” left?

    Claim and Reality

    In the second Leviathan issue, Patrick Sachweh criticizes that Reckwitz relies entirely on the private-sector Sinus study, which does not disclose its criteria, for the class analysis. In fact, the Sinus study largely uncritically adopts the self-description of the milieus without asking how this corresponds to the material status and real behavior. If, for example, according to a study by the Federal Environment Agency from 2019, Green voters are among the designated frequent flyers, one may wonder whether one is really dealing with a post-materialist clientele here. The same applies to AfD voters, whose cultural traditionalism collides with the party's liberal economic orientation.

    Integrated into the general structural change, it is difficult for both fractions of the middle class to fill their values ​​with content.

    The traditionalist has to assert the common sense against advancing individualization.

    The new middle class is asking itself whether a lifestyle based on the collectivizing mechanisms of the digital economy is creative and authentic.

    In Reckwitz one finds a slight distance from the self-portrayal of the singularities.

    But anyone who proclaims a new class situation is walking on thin ice if he attaches it to self-images alone.

    Reckwitz admits that the material background of the new academic class has hardly been researched.

    It remains to be seen whether it is even a meaningful unit of analysis.

    A look behind the scenes will certainly not harm cultural sociology.