The limits of the 1%. Weaknesses and implications of the new form of social categorization

HEREDIA, MARIANA

Trento

Conferencia; Ethnography and Qualitative Research 2023; 2023

University of Trento

At first glance, 1% is just a percentage. With the 21st century, it became a symbol. With all the force of scientific authority, "the 1%" asserted itself as the equivalent of the richest minorities, as the focus of the dazzle and anger aroused by the elites. Along with households below the poverty line and the Gini indices, the number of millionaires and the wealth concentrated in the "1%" was affirmed, with the studies developed by Thomas Piketty, as a thermometer to measure the seriousness of the social question. Rather than designating "typical cases" that link a set of attributes, both the notion of "rich" and that of "poor" resort to a line that statistically demarcates groups. We know very little about those who make up the universe of opulence or indigence; it is enough to note the exuberance of their fortunes or the extreme nature of their needs. Much less attention was paid to the weaknesses of this new form of social categorization. The triumphal march of the "1%" made it possible to erase at a stroke conceptual disquisitions, historical singularities and regional particularities. As in the case of poverty, the obsession with measurement emancipated itself from concepts. In the streets and in academia, the same mandate seemed to win over sensitive spirits: if there are no clear ideas, let there be at least percentages. As in the case of poverty, all efforts concentrated on mathematical operations. But the heterogeneity of the "1%" concealed something more important: the trajectories (and therefore the causes) behind these extraordinary wealth and which made it possible to pinpoint the power they were or are capable of exercising. The hegemony of the "1%" in the designation of the highest classes expresses the authority of the economic sciences and a certain capitulation of the other social sciences in their desire to document and interpret the evolution of social inequalities. Given the prestige of economists and their mathematical sophistications, it does not matter that there is no clear concept, that methodological strategies are exported deaf to any contextual consideration, or that the sources of information used show disparities in tax legislation and profound shortcomings in tax collection. It would seem that the important thing is always and everywhere to calculate. It is not that measuring is useless, the problem is what for. Undoubtedly, in order to perform statistical analyses, it is essential to standardize patterns, to cut phenomena, to replicate operations. But the decisions that guide the production and analysis of data have costs and consequences. Among the costs are the minimum requirements to support their reliability. Also, a certain caution that leads to the recognition that laboratory calculations are not homologous to categories observable in the world of life. Like the notion of the ruling class, the symbolic strength of the "1%" lies in a puerile simplicity: in its ability login | search IT | EN map to convince us that there is a single scale, a single principle of inequality and a single group of beneficiaries and responsible parties. Although attractive and capable of alerting us to the growing social polarization on a planetary scale, this monolithic vision hinders the formulation of more specific questions, with problems that are more limited and easier to solve or at least address. During the second postwar period, social studies became accustomed to linking society with the geometry of nation-states, inequalities with the distributive struggle between capital and labor, and the elite with the top of the social pyramid where economic, social and political power was concentrated. However, in light of the changes that have occurred since the 1970s, it became more difficult to refer to a single vector of inequality, a single scale and a single elite. Based on qualitative research, this paper reflects on the limits and implications of this form of social categorization and proposes to answer three fundamental questions: Who are designated today as elites? Which scales should be differentiated? Which social policy should be adopted to reduce inequalities in each case?