Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
Global inequality reveals itself in the differences amongst groups of people across the
world in respect of their ability to participate in and contribute to society and its
economic markets (Grabb 2007, p. 1). In other words, inequality is manifest in the
degree to which people are excluded from any given activity in society. Inequalities
can be seen between groups or people differentiated by characteristics such as age,
gender, race and class (Hartman 2011, p. 4). The first three of these characteristics
are not economic in essence, but have an economic aspect placed upon them
according to prevailing social norms and values which render them excluded from
various economic activities.
Thus, economic inequality is often the result of
inequities in political power (Corra 2005, pp. 42-45).
Economic inequality is
evidently a significant constituent of global social inequality, yet the two are not
synonymous, despite definitions which seem to indicate otherwise (cf Institute for
Policy Studies (US) c. 2011). However, the degree to which inequality can be entirely
separated from economic concerns is complex and contested (Grabb 2007, p. 2;
Hartman 2011, p. 60; Lemel & Noll 2002, p. 3).
It is the aim of this paper to
investigate the competence of sociological theories to account for global inequality,
with reference to recent global wealth and development data. It is beyond the scope
of this short paper to investigate all sociological theories, therefore two have been
chosen: those of Karl Marx and Ulrich Beck.
Marx has been attributed as being the founding father of sociological investigation
into inequality, through the development of his theory of class divisions (Grabb 2007,
pp. 3, 8-9). To briefly summarise Marx’s theory, society comprises two fundamental
groups: those who control the means of material production (capital); and those who
do not (Grabb 2007, pp. 16-17). Furthermore, the individual power conferred by
1
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
ownership of capital, and the opportunities afforded by it, also correlates with a social
status (class) in the process of production with concomitant social power (Marx &
Engels [1848] 1959, p. 21, cited in Corra 2005, p. 47). In Marxian terms, this socialindividual power nexus creates hegemonic cultural ideals which serve the dominant
classes in any society, creating a situation of inequality. Marx’s theory has been
applied to past colonisation by dominant powers with the proposition that industrial
capitalism requires an external source of materials, labour and markets to
expropriate and exploit in order to stabilise its inherent cyclical crises of over- and
under-production (Rosa Luxemburg [1963], cited in Bonefeld 2011, p. 381).
Beck is a contemporary theorist who rejects the adequacy of traditional metanarrative theories of class to explain inequality in a globalised world (Beck 1992, p.
88, cited in Atkinson 2007, p. 354). In quasi-Buddhist fashion, Beck emphasises
individual reflexive agency as an instrumentally constructive force in the personal,
social and political realms. Beck’s individual is a global, ‘cosmopolitan’ citizen with
inclusive rights evocative of the ‘social rights’ predicted by Marshall (1964, cited in
Pakulski 2004, p. 124). Beck posits ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’ as the key to
contemporary analysis of global inequality: embracing the erosion of symbolic
borders which separate people, cultures and markets – an enmeshing with ‘the alien
other’ (Beck 2009, p. xi).
This cosmopolitanism provides a counterpoint to Beck’s ‘Brazilianisation’ concept,
whereby he explains how neoliberal market effects have disrupted the once stable
employment and social patterns of the western countries to reflect risks and
insecurity previously found primarily only in developing countries (Munck 2004, p.
30). Beck’s reflexive modernization theory reveals that, just as inequality results
from failed modernisation attempts, equally it results from successful ones (Beck
2005, p. 114). Beck (2009, p. xi) argues that effectively addressing the underlying
2
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
issues of global inequality has been hampered by ‘methodological nationalism’ in
sociology: the productivity global inequality generates for individual nations becomes
justification for both perpetuating and ignoring the wider negative global effects
(Martell 2009, p. 254). Further, nation-state sociological analysis is deficient in
explaining global power and equity discrepancies in an increasingly fluid, mobile and
volatile world (Beck 2009, p. xii). Beck (2005, p. 110) asserts that ‘powerful norms
of inequality’ within nations result in equalising measures within nation-states’
borders, with comparative disregard to inequalities in the wider global context.
Let us now turn to actual data revealing the inequalities in contemporary global
society. In terms of wealth, the recent Credit Suisse Research Institute team defined
it as net worth: “the value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally
housing) owned by individuals less their debts” (Credit Suisse Research Institute
2010, p. 8). Total global household net worth in mid-2010 was equated to individual
net worth of US$43,800 if divided equally amongst 4.4 billion adults (Credit Suisse
Research Institute 2010a, p. 17). This figure is significantly lower than average adult
net worth in Australia: US$321,000 (Credit Suisse Research Institute 2010, p. 39).
Yet still, in Australia, sixteen percent of households fall below one tenth of the
nation’s average net worth, with one percent experiencing negative net worth (ABS
2007). Further comparison reveals that Indigenous peoples are more likely to be
unemployed or in precarious employment, more likely to experience financial stress
and more likely to live in overcrowded conditions than non-Indigenous Australians
(ABS 2011). In Marxian terms, Australia, a former British colony, has thrived under
capitalism at the expense of the Indigenous peoples through coercive expropriation
of resources and labour. Under Beck’s analysis, recent policy initiatives to rectify
internal inequalities, such as the Closing the Gap strategies (FaHCSIA 2011), deny
Australia’s obligations to the global population.
The stark discrepancy between
Australian households in terms of wealth is echoed in the global picture with African
3
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
countries such as Sierra Leone, Malawi and Guinea-Bissau recording individual
adult wealth figures at under US$450, whilst Switzerland, Norway and Australia sit
at the top of the list, all exceeding US$300,000 (Credit Suisse 2007a, table 2-1).
However, wealth is not the only measure of inequality.
Health and education
contribute substantially to opportunities to participate in society.
The Human
Development Index (HDI) provides indications of the level of poverty, deprivation and
insecurity experienced within and across nations as a comparative scale (Sen 2010,
p. vi). HDI trends reveal advances in health, education and income globally since
1970 (UNDP 2010, p. 26). Yet Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
Zambia have a lower level of development now than in 1970 (UNDP 2010, p. 27).
Particularly significant is that Zambia has recorded consistent positive GDP growth
in recent years (World Bank c. 2007) which speaks to the occasionally tenuous link
between economic growth and social equality: “Markets may be necessary for
sustained economic dynamism, but they do not automatically bring progress in other
dimensions of human development” (UNDP 2010, p. 5). Internal conflict and high
rates of disease afflict the African countries (WHO 2006, 2009, 2011), which
compounds and perpetuates both economic and developmental inequality.
Unsurprisingly, the highest development grouping overwhelmingly consists of
democratic, capitalist countries with no civil unrest (UNDP 2010, table 1). OECD
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) health aid commitments in 2006 were
US$13.3 billion, an historical high (Piva & Dodd 2009, p. 932), indicating there is
some degree of flow-on effect from the prosperity of the wealthier nations. However
the distribution of health aid amongst the least developed countries was skewed to
those with high prevalence of HIV/Aids, seemingly irrespective of the level of
morbidity and mortality generally (Piva & Dodd 2009, p. 936).
4
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
Given this diversity within and across nations, how does Marxist sociological theory
explain such a situation?
Intrinsic to all Marxist analyses is the thesis that
capitalism is based on the separation of the proletariat from the means of production
by the bourgeoisie (Bonefeld 2011, p. 388; Marx 1973, p. 471, cited in Bonefeld 2011,
p. 387). This has traditionally been achieved through the expropriation of land and
other resources by force, or violent compulsion, in the form of colonisation or
invasion, but many contend that the coercion now continues through economic
compulsion (Bonefeld 2011, p. 387, 388): linking development aid to fiscal policy and
growth (Hurt 2003; Rosser 2009); and undemocratic imposition of neoliberal policies
by governments (Cahn 2008). The result of such compulsion is submission to “the
command of capital” (Marx 1973, p. 508, cited in Bonefeld 2011, p. 387): exploitation
of the many to enable increasing accumulation of capital by the few. This tendency
is borne out in the latest wealth figures: half of the global population commands less
than two percent of global wealth, whilst the top decile commands over eighty percent
and the top percentile over forty percent (Credit Suisse 2010, p. 10). The United
States (US) tops the concentrated wealth list with just over five percent of the global
population commanding over twenty-eight percent of global wealth. Africa on the
other hand comprises over eleven percent of the global population yet commands
less than one and a half percent of global wealth (Credit Suisse 2007a, table 2-4).
In recent times, despite the raised global political awareness of human and civil
rights, the neoliberal market paradigm offers a justification of the unequal power
relationship: the labour contract constitutes an agreement between ostensibly ‘free’
citizens to exchange commodities, on the one hand labour, on the other money to
purchase the fruits of labour and other services marketed by accumulated capital
(Bonefeld 2011, p. 396). However, Marxism rejects this justification as inaccurate,
since opportunities for equal participation in markets are dictated by one’s class:
5
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
Ownership of the means of production and ownership of one’s own labor (sic) power
are explanatory of social action because these property rights shape the strategic
alternatives people face in pursuing their material well-being.
What people have
imposes constraints on what they can do to get what they want.
(Wright 1996, p. 695)
This returns us to the concept of exclusion from full, active participation in society
which is the hallmark of inequality.
Essentially then, Marxism proposes a
deterministic theory of inequality that presupposes the tendency for capital to
perpetually accumulate in concentrated forms through exploitation of the active and
reserve labour forces.
The primary insufficiency of this theory to explain
contemporary inequality lies in the omission of discussion regarding the
contributions of poor governance and internal conflict to inequality; and its
problematic application to the significant disparities in health aid allocations.
Beck’s rejection of the meta-narrative attempts to embrace the temporality, the
contingency, of agency in globalised social action (Hay 2002). Beck’s theory espouses
the universalisation of human rights in its dissolution of symbolic borders, whilst
almost counter-intuitively acknowledging the significance of characteristics such as
gender, status, age or race for life choices.
Beck attempts to contextualise
inequalities, not just within and across national borders, but also within and across
individual life stories, yet rejects cultural relativism and ethnocentrism as sources of
injustice (Nowicka & Rovisco 2009, p. 3).
Recognition of difference comes in
acceptance of and positive engagement with “the otherness of the other” (Nowicka &
Rovisco 2009, p. 2). It forces a reassessment of the relativity of responsibility for
global inequality, demanding governments and citizens look beyond their borders to
recognise and redress their role in modernisation’s disparate effects. It echoes Gore’s
directive to:
6
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
...raise questions about the nationality of social exclusion, that is to say, the
significance of the nation state in the institutionalization of exclusionary practices.
(Gore 1995, p. 10, cited in Munck 2004, p. 31)
Beck recognises the problematic aspects of this ‘cosmopolitanism’. For example, to
attempt to assert equal labour rights in a globalised environment means wealthy
countries’ trade unions must take the path of political utopianism, risking economic
crises by insisting on equally high rates of pay for developed and developing countries
alike (Beck 2005, pp. 111-112). But risk is an inescapable facet of Beck’s worldview,
hence reflexive agency is paramount in all social interaction, be it on an individual
or collective basis.
Thus, Beck’s theory explains inequalities between nations, but rarely touches on
causes of inequality within nations. Yet, his explanation of global inequality between
nations is dependent upon intra-national, often institutionalised, norms of
inequality. That is, he simultaneously rejects meta-narratives of Marx or Weber as
inapplicable today, yet depends on them to explain institutionalised power
imbalances. To many of Beck’s critics, this would not seem unusual, for often his
theories have been found to be paradoxical, if not blatantly contradictory (Atkinson
2007, pp. 350-351; Martell 2009, p. 254).
From this brief analysis of two sociological theories, it is apparent that there are
strengths and weaknesses in both, but together they can combine to create a
nuanced explanation for the disparity in equality that is evident across the globe.
Marxism is able to account for the relative poverty of the majority of Indigenous
people of colonised nations: their resources and land expropriated and their labour
exploited for capital gain by dominant cultures. Marxism also accounts for intranational inequalities, whereby institutionalised hegemonic norms exclude the
proletariat class from various social activities, often restricting their opportunities to
7
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
the extent that health and wellbeing are adversely affected. However, Beck provides
a contemporary account of the shifting dynamics of economic and social inequality
as companies, governments and people reinvent their directions, their borders, their
identities.
Highlighting the inherent inequalities resulting from maintaining a
nation-state perspective, Beck urges a cosmopolitan perspective that will lead
eventually to inclusion of the excluded other and a global frame of reference,
increasingly allowing a diffusion of risks and benefits across traditional class, status,
race, age and gender boundaries.
8
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
References:
Australian Government 2011, Budget 2011-2012 [online], viewed 6 Sep 2011 via <
http://www.apo.org.au/research/closing-gap-prime-ministers-report-2011 >.
ABS 2007, ‘Summary of Findings’, Cat. 6554.0 – Household Wealth and Wealth
Distribution, Australia, 2005-06 [online], viewed 6 Sep 2011 via <
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6554.0Main%20Featur
es22005-06?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6554.0&issue=200506&num=&view= >.
ABS 2011, ‘Demographic, Social and Economic Characteristics: Language, Culture
and Socioeconomic Outcomes’, Cat. 4704.0 – The Health and Welfare of Australia’s
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Oct 2010 [online], viewed 6 Sep 2011
via <
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/lookup/4704.0Chapter230Oct+2010
#socioeconomicoutcomes >.
Atkinson W 2007, ‘Beck, Individualization and the Death of Class: A Critique’, The
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 349-367 [online], viewed 3 Sep 2011
via Wiley Online Database.
Beck U 2009, ‘Foreword’, in Nowicka M & Rovisco M (eds) 2009, Cosmopolitanism in
Practice, Ashgate Publishing Group, Oxonford, Great Britain [online], viewed 5 Sep
2011 via Ebrary database.
Beck U 2004, ‘Reinventing Europe: A Cosmopolitan Vision’, Quaderns de la
Mediterrània [online], viewed 6 Sep 2011 via <
http://www.iemed.org/publicacions/quaderns/10/q10_109.pdf >.
Bonefeld W 2011, ‘Primitive Accumulation and Capitalist Accumulation: Notes on
Social Constitution and Expropriation’, Science and Society, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 379399 [online] viewed 3 Sep 2011 via Ebsco database.
Cahn PS 2008, ‘Consuming Class: Multilevel Marketers in Neoliberal Mexico’,
Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 429-452 [online], viewed 8 Sep 2011 via
ProQuest database.
Corra M 2005, ‘Separation and Exclusion: Distinctly Modern Conditions of
Power?’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 41-70 [online], viewed 2
Sep 2011 via Ebscohost database.
Credit Suisse Research Institute 2010, Global Wealth Report [online], viewed 5 Sep
2011 via <https://infocus.creditsuisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/291481/credit_suisse_global_wealth
_report.pdf >.
Credit Suisse Research Institute 2010a, Global Wealth Databook [online], viewed 5
Sep 2011 via < https://infocus.credit-
9
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
suisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/291465/credit_suisse_global_wealth
_databook.pdf >.
Grabb, EG 2007, Theories of Social Inequality, 5th Edition, Nelson/Thomson,
Canada.
Hartman Y 2011, SOC00115: Global Inequality – Study Guide, 6th Edition, Southern
Cross University, Lismore, viewed 5 Sep 2011 via SOC00115: Global Inequality CDROM, Southern Cross University, Lismore.
Hay C 2002, “Globalisation as a Problem of Political Analysis: Restoring Agents to a
‘Process without a Subject’ and Politics to a Logic of Economic Compulsion”,
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 379-395 [online],
viewed 6 Sep 2011 via Ebscohost database.
Hurt SR 2003, ‘Co-operation and Coercion? The Contonou Agreement between the
European Union and ACP States and the end of the Lomé Convention’, Third World
Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 161-176 [online], viewed 8 Sep 2011 via Ebscohost
database.
Institute for Policy Studies (US) c. 2011, Global Inequality [online], viewed 5 Sep
2011 via <http://inequality.org/global-inequality/ >.
Lemel Y & Noll H-H 2002, Changing Structures of Inequality: A Comparative
Perspective, McGill-Queen’s University Press [online], viewed 31 Aug 2011 via
Ebrary database.
Martell L 2009, ‘Global Inequality, Human Rights and Power: A Critique of Ulrich
Beck’s Cosmopolitanism’, Critical Sociology, Vol. 35, No 2, pp. 253-272 [online],
viewed 5 Sep 2011 via Sage Database.
Munck R 2004, Chapter 2, ‘Social Exclusion – The New Poverty?’, Globalization and
Social Exclusion: A Transformationalist Perspective, Kumarian Press, Conneticutt
[online], viewed 8 Sep 2011 via Ebrary database.
Nowicka M & Rovisco M (eds) 2009, Cosmopolitanism in Practice, Ashgate
Publishing Group, Oxonford, Great Britain [online], viewed 5 Sep 2011 via Ebrary
database.
Pakulski J 2004, Globalising Inequalities: New Patterns of Social Privilege and
Disadvantage, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, pp. 123-130, viewed via ‘Readings’,
SOC00115: Global Inequality CD-ROM, Southern Cross University, Lismore.
Piva P & Dodd R 2009, ‘Where Did All the Aid Go? An In-Deptth Analysis of
Increased Health Aid Flows over the Past 10 Years’, Bulletin of World Health
Organization, Vol. 87, No. 12, pp. 930-939 [online], viewed 6 Sep 2011 via Proquest
database.
Rosser A 2009, “Risk Management, Neo-Liberalism and Coercion: the Asian
Development Bank’s Approach to ‘Fragile States’ ”, Australian Journal of
10
Vanessa Thomas
Coercion, Class and Social Exclusion:
Unpacking Global Inequality
2011
International Affairs, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 376-389 [online], viewed 8 Sep 2011 via
Ebscohost database.
Sen A 2010, ‘Introduction’, in UNDP 2010, Human Development Report 2010 – The
Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development [online], viewed 5 Sep
2011 via <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf >.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program) 2010, Human Development Report
2010 – The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development [online],
viewed 5 Sep 2011 via
<http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf >.
WHO 2006, Country Health Profile – Guinea-Bissau [online], viewed 7 Sep 2011 via
< http://www.afro.who.int/en/guinee-bissau/country-health-profile.html >.
WHO 2009, Country Brief: Sierra Leone [online], viewed 7 Sep 2011 via
< http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_sle_en.pdf >.
WHO 2011, Country Brief: Malawi [online], viewed 7 Sep 2011 via
< http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_mwi_en.pdf >.
World Bank c. 2007, The World Bank Group in Zambia [online], viewed 6 Sep 2011
via <
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTZAMBIA/Resources/Zambia_Brochure_V_3
.pdf >.
11