There was an old model of development, not yet vanquished but much discredited. There were three parts to it. One was the 'trickle down' part that belonged mainly to economic thinking. It said that if you gave enough incentives and privileges to the wealthiest people they would invest their money and build factories, farms, and services, which would employ others so that the investments would trickle down to the middle and lower classes in the form of salaries and wages.

The second part of the model came mainly from sociological thinking. It's the social mobility part. It went that the middle and lower classes would be able to save something of their salaries and wages for social investments in education, houses, health, consumer items and other advantages to better themselves, so that they and their children could move up in the social system and live satisfied and decent lives.

Welfare state

The third part of the model was that of the welfare state, which belonged mainly to political thinking. The welfare state would make the above happen by providing the incentives to investing capitalists, see to policies for housing, education, health, law and order so that the middle and working classes could move up. It would also provide protection for the seriously disadvantaged, aged and children.

The model did not work. Too much of the wealth remained at the top and did not trickle down. Those at the bottom still expected to move up and states spent more than they were getting in revenue on welfare to the point of running up debts. The combination of unequal wealth distribution and state indebtedness kept those at the bottom there and limited upward mobility. We were left with increasing inequality. The rich got richer and the poor were no better off.

Ultimately, the aim was to create middle class societies built around home, family, friends and the public services. The model worked much better for the developed countries than for the developing ones. The former had the latter upon which to build and from which to profit. The latter had no countries of their own to exploit and could only exploit their own poor, often in association with the rich countries. It was in this way that their middle classes developed but it was a dependent form of development.

Recession

That kind of middle class society has been badly shaken by the economic cataclysm of 2008 and, of course, the dependent middle class will be shaken even more because of their dependency. The coming year will show how much shaking up will take place and how much falling out will result. It will show how the middle class will begin to try to renew itself and in what shape and form middle class society and lifestyle will continue.

David Brooks, writing in the New York Times (November 17), made some interesting observations about what happens to the middle class at times of recession. His examples go back to the 1880s in the United States, showing that recessions have been shaking up and shaking out the middle class for a long time.

Sometimes recessions bring on a moral revival, as people see the fallacy of greed and extravagance. Sometimes they bring out populism, as people resort to scapegoating in order to find others to blame for their dislocations and disappointments in life. Recessions might result in the growth of an escapist culture (movies, music, art) and apocalyptic foreboding of doom and catastrophe (religion, politics).

A very telling point that Brooks makes is that recessions bring on cynicism that might linger over the long term. Pointing to the rise of a cynical American generation after the 1970s recession, Brooks says, "The share of students who admitted to cheating jumped from 34 per cent in 1969 to 60 per cent a decade later." People lost faith in the higher ideals of society (like honesty and hard work). Surveys also showed that levels of job dissatisfaction grew and workers admitted to producing goods so shoddy that they wouldn't buy them themselves.

Recession also breeds pessimism. Birth rates tend to fall and suicide rates increase, as people did not want to face the future, and lost interest in bringing up children in a bleak world. Advertising strategies might change. Messages and models are made to look and sound more reassuring than glitzy and sexy, as is the case when people are happy to spend.

A new class

The disturbing question is: what if we are still trying to produce a middle class society but the middle class has changed as a result of periodic economic crises so that it is not the same middle class that is capable of leadership and progress as had been thought it was? If the middle class becomes more cynical, pessimistic, apocalyptic and escapist, how can it have the confidence to be the leading class of modernity? What, in other words, if we are trying to build a middle class and the middle class is not a building class?

If the middle class is driven from houses to apartments because of mortgage crises, has to get by on small engine rather than family size vehicles, and cannot afford to educate its children in prestigious overseas universities, how can it live up to the expectations of house, family and education that it was groomed to have as members of the middle class?

Writers have begun talking about the 'formerly middle class'. This is the social group that was on the fringes of the middle class before the economic recession broke and which will slip back down the order. There is a gap between where they are and where they used to be. But among people in the middle class in general, there will be a widening gap between where people are and where they feel they ought to be or where they expected to be.

Psychological and existentialist crisis

This is the more psychological and existentialist crisis of the middle class. Migration for countries like Jamaica is no longer the easy answer, since things are also hard for the middle class in the countries where they want to migrate to. They will become frustrated and become escapist at home.

It seems that the best thing for the middle class to do is to engage in moral renewal, and be honest and realistic about what it can afford, what it really needs and what brings people respect.

Jamaicans have to adjust. We have always been big-time consumers, with habits that us academics call 'conspicuous consumption', which basically means consumption practices designed to make us conspicuous. We must stop imitating and start developing confidence in our own style.

This is what our leaders should be advising us to do in the new year. We should redefine ourselves in ways appropriate to the state of the economy and our identity. The last thing we want is for our leaders to become escapist at a time like this. We should not be told that there is no crisis or that we can go on living the way we have been doing. Escapism is also a feature of our middle class governments.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com.