Educational stratification and welfare attitudes in six European countries

Social exclusion and welfare dependency are no longer a matter of risk, but have become predictable outcomes of vulnerable social positions. This implies that the legitimacy of the welfare state has to make a strong appeal to solidarity and inclusion, since the principle of insurance, based on a ‘veil of ignorance’, is becoming less adequate (Rosanvallon, 1995). Finding a social basis for inclusive social policy, however, remains problematic, especially among the lower educated strata whose social status has become threatened. Drawing on data of the European Social Survey (2002) from six European countries, social attitudes with regard to equality, solidarity and redistribution are examined in connection to educational stratification. The paper shows that educational stratification not only influences the measure of agreement with egalitarian attitudes, but also influences the social and political meaning of these attitudes. The lower educated strata show higher levels of egalitarianism, but at the same time lower levels of social trust and universalistic social attitudes. But more importantly, with regard to egalitarianism an interaction effect is found between education and left-right attitudes. Among the higher educated strata, strong relations between egalitarianism and leftist (universalistic and inclusionist) social attitudes as well as leftist voting behaviour is found. Among the lower educated strata, these relations prove to be considerably weaker. This implies that the social and political meaning of egalitarianism differs between the educational strata. Egalitarianism of people with low educational attainments is relatively more particularistic and therefore it will fit in more easily with welfare chauvinism. Theoretically, this issue will be discussed with reference to the debate on meritocracy, the crisis of the welfare state and the ‘new social question’. I. General Introduction: meritocracy and the frustration of egalitarian ideals Equality is one of the most central values of modern societies. Louis Dumont (1977) characterized modern man as a Homo Aequalis, the antithesis of the Homo Hierarchicus which he described in his earlier study on the caste system (Dumont 1966). The Homo Hierarchicus accepts and even appreciates inequalities, endorsing a holistic ideology that ascribes a fixed status to members within a hierarchical social community. Conversely, the Homo Aequalis adheres to an individualistic ideology centred on social mobility. Inequality can only be justified if it is related to legitimate (modern meritocratic) criteria. Nevertheless, Dumont does not always paint a rosy picture of modern society. The upheaval of the closed hierarchical social structure does cause new social tensions. The emergence of modern racism for instance can be seen as a drawback of the abolishment of slavery. 1 I would like to thank Nils Duquet for linguistic proofreading and Dimokritos Kavadias for help with the multilevel analysis. Modern societies are characterised by a fundamental tension between an egalitarian ideology and the persistence of social inequalities. T.H. Marshall reached a similar conclusion in his classical essay Social Class and Citizenship (1950). Modern societies have created new, egalitarian views on citizenship. Marshall distinguishes three elements in his concept of citizenship: civil, political and social. The emergence of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by the creation of a set of individual rights, such as liberty, freedom of speech and equality before the law. In the 19 century, civil rights were supplemented with political rights, facilitating the right to participate in the decision making process (through universal manhood suffrage and labour unions). During the 20 century, citizenship was expanded with social rights, guaranteeing to every citizen a social, economic and cultural minimum existence level. Marshall referred to the development of social policy and the expansion of (compulsory) education, but the emergence of the welfare state, that appeared after Marshall wrote his essay, can also be mentioned in this respect. One of the most important aspects of Marshall’s concept of citizenship is its assumption of equality. But modernization is linked with capitalism. This causes a tension, because capitalism creates social inequality. “Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. (.) [S]ocieties in which citizenship is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed. The urge forward along the path thus plotted is an urge towards a fuller measure of equality, an enrichment of the stuff of which the status is made and an increase in the number of those on whom the status is bestowed. Social class, on the other hand, is a system of inequality. (.) It is therefore reasonable to expect that the impact of citizenship on social class should take the form of a conflict between opposing principles. ” (Marshall 1950: 92) Marshall did not expect that the conflict he was describing would cause social instability. Inequalities can be tolerated given that they remain between reasonable standards and provided that they are not an expression of hereditary privilege but of personal achievement (1950: 127). Marshall acknowledged the ambiguous role of the educational system in this respect. On the one hand, the democratization of education is in itself an important accomplishment in the field of social rights. But on the other hand, education, in its relation with occupational structure, creates and legitimizes social stratification and inequality. The status acquired by education is legitimized because it has been conferred by an institution designed to give the citizen his just rights (1950: 121). Consequently, social inferiority, as long as it is based on a lack of education, can no longer be regarded as unjust, but will be conceived as a personal failure. This paper focuses on the social attitudes regarding (in)equality and redistribution of European citizens. In a meritocratic society, characterized by a conflict between egalitarian ideology and actual social inequality, the experience of social inequality and the corresponding social attitudes will differentiate along the lines of educational achievement. My analysis is less optimistic than the one made by Marshall in 1950. It rather fits in with Michael Young’s (1958) scepticism regarding the meritocratic society and with Bourdieu’s and Passeron’s (1970) critical assessment of the contribution of education in reproducing social inequalities. People with low educational attainment not only find themselves in a social and economic precarious situation. Due to the prevailing collective representation of the open, meritocratic society, they also experience a lack of cultural resources in order to cope with or to oppose against their social inferiority. The quest for equality threatens to be frustrated and to be transmuted in discomfort. Later on in this paper I will try to show empirically how egalitarian attitudes of people with low educational attainment are related with social distrust and with narrow exclusionist views, and how they are getting detached from economic leftist ideology. II. Public support for institutionalized solidarity among the underprivileged From an elementary rational-choice approach we could expect people in social vulnerable positions to support interventionist politics aimed at redistribution and equality. The conventional model of class politics departs from a traditional alignment of the working class with leftist political parties, whereas the conservative-liberal parties of the political right were associated with the middle class. The current debate on “the end of class politics” and “declining class voting” indicates that this relationship is not self-evident anymore (Svallfors 1995; Kriesi 1998; Esping-Andersen 1999; Clark & Lipset 2001; Houtman 2003). Various questions are currently being discussed, such as: Is class voting declining or just changing in nature? ; Are concepts such as social class and political cleavages still suitable in postindustrial society? This paper does not discuss the relationship between class and voting behaviour in general, but addresses a specific question. I will focus on the position of people with low educational attainment: can we find indications of a pattern of frustrated egalitarianism and if so, what are the political-ideological implications of this finding? To what extend are the underprivileged susceptible to anti-welfare state discourse, while at the same time holding on to (frustrated) egalitarian views? Before proceeding with the empirical analysis, drawing on comparative survey data, I will consult theoretical and empirical literature dealing with the problem of social support for welfare politics. The main argument I will try to develop is that, although the lower educated are the apparent victims of the crisis and retrenchment of the welfare state, this crisis at the same time threatens their support for welfare state politics. Successively, three crises of the welfare state will be discussed: the economic crisis, the ideological crisis and the “new social question”. II.1 The economic crisis and the reinvention of the story of the parasitic class The economic recession of the seventies restrains the steady increase of social expenditures of the post-war welfare states. During the eighties, the effects on social policy are becoming tangible for many welfare states. The Reagan and Thatcher policies are the well-known examples of the retrenchment of the welfare state (Pierson 1994). In order to gain public support for retrenchment politics, economic arguments by themselves will be insufficient. After all, the cut down on social expenditures always runs a risk of provoking social discontent for the people involved. Therefore, pol