ARTICLES
THE MIDDLE CLASS:
SELF-IDENTIFICATION
IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE
OF SOCIETY
Mykhailo MISHCHENKO,
Deputy Director,
Sociological Service,
Razumkov Centre
P
roblems of the middle class (middle stratum) cannot be examined without the analysis of self-perception
(self-identification) or self-affiliation of citizens with that social community, since, first, such self-identification
presents a recognised criterion of affiliation with the middle class, second – in transitional societies, including
the Ukrainian, self-identification is especially important due to the difficulty of application of some objective
criteria of affiliation with the middle class (incomes, property)1.
Meanwhile, analysing the results of public opinion polls on self-identification, one should keep in mind a
few things. First, in mass media and many political programme documents “the middle class” is referred to as
a leading, “progressive-reformist” social community. Therefore, polled respondents naturally tend to affiliate
themselves with that community, seen as a reference group by many people. Second, respondents often
affiliate themselves with the middle class during public opinion polls due to their reluctance to admit their
affiliation with lower social strata.
Furthermore, comparing social features of the “subjective”2 middle and lower classes in Ukrainian society,
one should keep in mind that their differences are largely conditioned by the age factor, since the share of
elderly people among those affiliating themselves with the lower class is more than two and half times bigger
than among those calling themselves representatives of the middle class.
Presented below are the results of self-identification survey of citizens as representatives of the middle
class, along with an attempt to identify a social group that, in addition to steady self-identification, meets
some objective criteria of the middle class, including a high level of education and a relatively high living
standard.
Indicators of self-identification
One of the key problems of survey of the middle class
as a social community is presented by some conditionality
of its limits and immaturity of self-identification as a class3.
Meanwhile, it looks like a social community does exist as
an integral actor only if a part of society views itself as
members of that community4. However, identification of
such perception (community affiliation) through public
opinion polls involves the problem of choice of its
criteria.
One way or another, self-perception (or claimed
self-perception) as a representative of the middle class,
even in absence of sufficient reasonable grounds, is a
feature of human social self-identification (under the
influence of public consciousness) deserving special
examination.
1
The latter is conditioned, on one hand, by lower, compared to developed countries, standards of well-being, on the other – by higher dynamics of those
standards, requiring continuous adjustment of the relevant objective criteria of affiliation with the middle class.
2
“Subjective middle class” − a term used to denominate people identifying themselves with that social stratum, irrespective whether they meet objective
criteria of affiliation with it. See: Khakhulina L. Monitoring of the Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, Kyiv, 1999, No.2, p.25.
3
For more detail see: Popova I. Middle Strata, Middle Class in Russian Society – on the Problem of Correlation. − Sociological Survey, 2005, No.12, p.7.
4
See: Khakhulina L. Subjective Aspects in Processes of the Middle Class Formation in Modern Russia. – The Middle Class in Russia: Problems and Prospects, –
Moscow, 1998, pp.28-29; http://www.ecsocman.edu.ru
RAZUMKOV CENTRE
• NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008 •
5
THE MIDDLE CLASS: SELF-IDENTIFICATION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
�����������
��������������
�����
����
����������
����������������������������
������������������������
�����������������
����������������������
�����
����������������������
������
�����������
���������������
�������
������
������������
�����
������
�����
����������
Comparing the answers to those two questions, one
can easily notice that the share of those who identify
themselves with the upper class remains stable, while
under the second wording, the shares of those associating
themselves with the middle and lower classes and of those
undecided go down.
Many of those who under the first wording of the
question associated themselves with the middle or lower
class and of those undecided (16.4%, 28.2% and 32.0%
Hard to say
�����
The lower
stratum
���������������
�����
Which stratum of society do you tend to
affiliate yourself with?
The working
class
��������������
“Cross-flow” of respondent answers about social affiliation dependent on the question wording and composition
of possible answers,
% of those polled
The middle
stratum
��������������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������
����������������������������������
�����������������
of representatives of the mentioned groups, respectively),
under the second – associated themselves with the working
class (Table “Cross-flow” of respondent answers about
social affiliation dependent on the question wording and
composition of possible answers”)5.
The upper
stratum
The tasks of this study included identification of
factors influencing self-identification of Ukrainian
citizens (or, rather, their part) as representatives of the
middle class, their self-affiliation with the “subjective
middle class”. This can be done, in particular, through
analysis of the reported self-identification of respondents
for different wordings of questions and variants of
answers concerning such affiliation (the results are
presented on Diagrams “If the Ukrainian society were
conventionally divided into three social classes…”
and “Which stratum do you tend to affiliate yourself
with?”).
Upper
54.3
22.9
8.6
8.6
5.6
Middle
0.8
78.2
16.4
1.9
2.7
Lower
0.5
6.4
28.2
58.9
9.5
Hard to say
0.9
20.4
32.0
12.3
34.5
June, 2008
Therefore, it may be assumed that in absence
of the “working class” option, at least 16% of respondents
who associated themselves with the middle class made
this mainly because they did not want to be associated
with the lower class. Among large socio-professional
groups, exactly workers and pensioners more often
“refused” from self-identification as representatives of
the middle class, in presence of the “working class”
option6.
“Subjective middle class”:
dynamics of strength
The second wording of the question is quite often used
in international comparative polls, enabling comparison
of the results obtained by Razumkov Centre with other
polls. Since their results are cited as percentage of not all
respondents but of those who reported their affiliation with
a certain stratum, the data of that poll were also respectively
prorated7 (Table “Which stratum of society do you tend to
affiliate yourself with?”).
Of particular interest here is the comparison of the
results of two Ukrainian surveys: a much higher share of
those who affiliated themselves with the middle stratum,
according to the poll held by Razumkov Centre in June,
2008, as compared to the poll held by TNS-Ukraine in
November, 2002 (at the expense of the increase in the share
of those who affiliated themselves with the working class).
This may be explained by the effective reduction of shares
of those who associate themselves with the working class
over six years between those two surveys and emergence
of a new identity of those people – representatives of the
middle class.
5
This proves the opinion of О. Symonchuk that when a respondent in case of self-identification has to choose among three alternatives − the upper, middle
and lower class, a mechanism of psychological protection works preventing many respondents from association with the lower class, seen as a “negative
identity”. As a result, they identify themselves as “the middle class”. For more detail see: Symonchuk O.V. The Middle Class: People and Statuses, Kyiv, 2003,
p.47. As described below, some of those respondents are not only aware but openly mention this motive of their self-identification as representatives of the
middle class.
6
Among the representatives of those groups who, answering the first question, called themselves representatives of the middle class, respectively, 29.6% and
18.9%, answering the second one, identified themselves as representatives of the working class.
7
I.e., without those who opted for “hard to say”.
6
• RAZUMKOV CENTRE • NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008
THE MIDDLE CLASS: SELF-IDENTIFICATION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
As one may see from Table “There are groups in our
society…”, over the past six years the share of respondents
positioning themselves between the fourth and sixth rungs
on a 10-point scale increased from 27.3% to 49.1%. The
share of those who place themselves on the first-third
rungs in that timeframe increased from 3.1% to 9.6%, and
the share of those who reported the seventh-tenth rungs
fell from 69.7% to 37.6%. Among the respondents who
in June, 2008 affiliated themselves with the middle class
answering a direct question in the first wording, the share
of those who assessed their status fourth-sixth positions
made 68.3%, among those who affiliated themselves with
the middle stratum answering a direct question in the
second wording – 70.5%.
There are groups in our society belonging to the upper
strata, and groups belonging to the lower strata of society.
How would you assess your own status in society?*
Points
However, comparison of answers to the question in
the first wording obtained in 2002 and 2008 (Diagram
“If the Ukrainian society were conventionally divided
into three social classes…”) shows that the share of
those who associated themselves with the middle class
remained almost intact, while the share of those who
affiliated themselves with the lower class fell by 12% (at
the expense of growth of the share of those undecided).
I.e., the dynamics of social self-identification of Ukrainian
citizens rather strongly depends on the indicators (in this
particular case – questions put in the questionnaire) used
to describe it.
��������������������������������������������
����������������������������������
���������������������������������������������
�����������������
���������������
�����
�����
�����
��������������
�����������
�����
����
�����
0.4
0.7
2.0
3.3
5.0
19.0
20.9
22.7
15.7
10.4
0.0
7.32
June, 2008 (Razumkov Centre)
% of all
those
polled
0.5
1.6
7.5
11.2
22.9
15.0
13.8
14.2
6.5
3.1
3.7
5.97
% of those who
affiliated themselves
with the middle
stratum (in the
first wording of the
question)
0.2
1.4
9.3
14.2
33.2
20.9
10.8
4.9
1.4
1.4
2.3
5.33
% of those
who affiliated
themselves with the
middle stratum (in
the second wording
of the question)
0.2
1.1
9.8
14.7
34.5
21.3
8.3
4.6
1.5
1.2
2.8
5.26
* On a ten-point scale where “10” means the lowest status, “1” − the highest status.
** The poll was held by Taylor Nelson Sofres-Ukraine using a nation-wide representative
sample (1,200 persons) in November, 2002. The results are quoted from publication: Symonchuk O.V. The Middle Class: People and Statuses. – Kyiv, Institute of Sociology of the National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2003, p.53.
����
����
��������������
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hard to say
Average
November,
2002 (TNSUkraine)**,
% of all those
polled
��������������
����������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������
Quite often international comparative surveys use the
test of integral self-assessment of people’s status in society
to distinguish different strata of society. Polled respondents
report the rung (from 10 to 1) of the social ladder where
they think they are. Fourth-sixth positions on that scale are
interpreted as corresponding to the “proper middle” class8.
Proceeding from the analysis of the described dynamics,
it may be argued that compared to 2002, fewer people in
Ukraine now associate themselves with the social groups
ranking below the middle class (stratum). Answers to
two out of three examined questions also demonstrate an
increase in the share of people associating themselves with
the middle stratum. This may be primarily explained by
the improvement of well-being.
The same is witnessed, in particular, by the comparison of
results of two polls held by Razumkov Centre (in December,
2001 and June, 2008) cited in Diagram “Which of the
following do you have in ownership?” (p.8). Over six and a
half years, the share of respondents who reported possession
of a car and many household appliances increased. The
increase in the share of PC owners is especially striking –
from 4.6% to 32.7%, or more than seven-fold.
In the same timeframe, the share of people who own a
car and some household appliances also increased among
representatives of the “subjective middle class”9. Among
respondents who associated themselves with the lower
class, the growth was more moderate.
8
For more detail see: Symonchuk O.V. The Middle Class: People and Statuses …, pp.51-52.
Hereinafter, representatives of the “subjective middle class” mean those who associated themselves with the middle class, answering a direct question in
the first wording. The first wording was preferred mainly because it enables comparison of the results of the latest survey with the data of the previous polls held
by Razumkov Centre using that wording. Those who, answering this question, associated themselves with the lower class, are referred to as representatives of
the “subjective lower class”.
9
RAZUMKOV CENTRE
• NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008 •
7
THE MIDDLE CLASS: SELF-IDENTIFICATION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
Compared to early 2004, among all those polled and
among representatives of the “subjective middle class”
the share of those who reported that their families “hardly
made ends meet” or had enough money “for food and
acquisition of inexpensive necessary items” substantially
declined, and the shares of those who “generally could
live with it” or those who did well rose respectively
(Diagram “What is the overall financial standing of your
family?”).
“Subjective middle class” and the “core”
of the middle class
Proceeding from respondent answers to the three
above questions about their social self-identification and
from answers to the question about the well-being and
education, a conventional “core” of the middle class may
be distinguished, and for identification of its comparative
features – the “core” of the lower class (Insert “Core” of
the middle and “core” of the lower social classes”).
Hence, the “core” of the middle class included the
respondents who not only associate themselves with the
middle class under any wording of the question but also
meet the educational and minimum property criteria of
affiliation with the middle class10.
“Core” of the middle and “core” of the lower social
classes, or middle class-2 and lower class-2
The “core” of the middle class (middle class-2) includes respondents
who:
• associated themselves with the middle class (middle stratum),
answering a direct question both in the first and in the second
wording;
• answering questions of the test of integral self-assessment of their
social status, put themselves on the fourth-sixth rungs;
• answering the question about family well-being, chose the answers:
“by and large, you can live with it, but acquisition of durables causes
difficulties”, “we do well but so far, cannot afford some purchases”,
“we can afford actually anything we want”;
• answering the question about education, reported secondary
vocational or higher (incomplete higher) education.
The “core” of the lower class (lower class-2) includes respondents who:
• associated themselves with the lower class (stratum), answering a
direct question both in the first and in the second wording;
• answering questions of the test of integral self-assessment of their
social status, put themselves on the seventh-tenth rungs;
• answering the question about family well-being, chose the answers:
“we hardly make ends meet, our money is insufficient to buy even
necessary foodstuffs” or “it is sufficient for food and acquisition of
inexpensive necessary items”.
10
By and large, the “core” of the middle class included 17.6% of those polled (or 34.6% of those who identified themselves as representative of the middle
class answering a direct question in the first wording, and 38.6% of those who affiliated themselves with the middle stratum, answering the second question).
8
• RAZUMKOV CENTRE • NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008
THE MIDDLE CLASS: SELF-IDENTIFICATION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
Respondents were asked about possession of not only
some property but also of specific personal qualities. The
Table “Which of the following (property, personal qualities)
do you possess?” cites answers given by representatives of
the “subjective middle class” who appeared in the “core”
of the middle class, and of respondents who, associating
themselves with the middle class, stayed beyond its “core”
(they may be termed as the “periphery” of the middle
class). Furthermore, for comparison, the Tables give the
data of those polled who associated themselves with the
lower class (they make 31% of all respondents), and
representatives of the lower class “core” (14% of all those
polled).
As one may see from the Table, representatives of the
“core” middle class differ from representatives of its
“periphery” mainly by the self-assessment of their well-
Which of the following (property, personal qualities) do you possess?*
% of those who possess
% of all
% of the
those polled, middle class,
N=2,016**
N=1,023
% of the
“core” of the
middle class,
N=344
% of those who,
associating
themselves with the
middle class, stayed
beyond its “core”,
N=679
% of the
lower class,
N=625
% of the
“core” of the
lower class,
N=288
Law-abidance
94.0
95.6
97.4
94.7
92.4
94.2
Tolerance, respect for others
94.0
95.4
96.2
95.0
91.8
92.2
Self-respect, dignity
91.9
95.3
96.3
94.8
86.1
83.9
Durables (household appliances, furniture, car, etc.)
80.8
88.0
94.6
84.6
70.4
65.8
Aspiration for well-being through one’s work
78.6
88.1
91.8
86.2
62.9
54.3
Self-confidence and self-reliance, instead of social assistance from the state
70.7
82.7
90.0
78.9
50.5
37.8
Rational needs, absence of lust for luxury and demonstration of one’s
superiority above others
69.1
72.8
75.6
71.4
65.3
63.4
Comfortable housing
59.1
70.8
79.4
66.3
43.5
35.9
Adherence to democratic values and resolve to defend them, including from
the state’s arbitrariness
54.7
62.8
67.0
60.5
42.5
35.2
Aspiration for professional self-actualisation, continuous self-education,
self-perfection, professional development
53.8
68.4
80.5
62.1
30.0
19.5
Public activity
53.2
61.5
62.4
61.0
40.3
33.4
An adequately paid job meeting qualification
36.1
47.9
62.8
40.0
18.2
12.1
High educational level
32.0
40.7
63.8
28.4
17.8
15.6
Professional affiliation with white collars (intellectuals, managers, etc.)
29.5
36.2
57.4
25.0
17.5
12.8
A stable income that guarantees high standard of life and making savings
26.3
36.8
49.8
29.9
9.4
4.2
Insurance policies (medical, pension, life insurance)
23.0
28.1
32.9
25.6
14.6
7.3
Use of credits (housing, car, etc.)
18.2
22.3
29.4
18.5
11.0
7.7
Country house (dacha)
14.7
16.9
18.8
15.8
10.8
10.8
Bank deposits; securities; yielding property, etc.
9.2
10.9
15.4
8.5
5.8
4.0
Own business
8.2
10.6
15.3
8.1
4.3
* Respondents were asked to mark all acceptable answers.
** N − number of respondents in a group.
1.2
June, 2008
RAZUMKOV CENTRE
• NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008 •
9
THE MIDDLE CLASS: SELF-IDENTIFICATION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
being and the nature of their work. For instance, among
the former, a stable income that guarantees a high standard
of life and savings was mentioned by 49.8%, among the
latter – by only 29.9%; an adequately paid job meeting
their qualification was mentioned by 62.8% and 40.0%,
respectively; professional affiliation with white collars –
by 57.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
By the self-assessment of personal qualities, those
two groups are more similar. For instance, such traits as
aspiration for well-being through one’s work was mentioned
by 91.8% and 86.2%, respectively, self-confidence
and self-reliance, instead of social assistance from the
state – respectively 90.0% and 78.9%, public activity –
respectively, 62.4% and 61.0%, adherence to democratic
values and resolve to defend them – respectively, 67.0%
and 60.5%.
By the self-assessment of personal traits, those
two groups differ the most in terms of “aspiration for
professional self-actualisation, self-education, selfperfection, professional development” (respectively,
80.5% and 62.1%). But even by this quality, representatives
of the “periphery” of the middle class are much closer to
representatives of its “core” than to representatives of the
“subjective lower class” (where this quality was reported
by only 30.0%).
The cited results make it possible to assume that the
respondents who objectively (by their well-being and
education) cannot be treated as the “core” of the middle
class are still rather close to it by self-assessment of
personal traits shaping their social behaviour.
Motivation of self-identification
Representatives of the “subjective middle class” were
asked about the motivation of their self-identification
(Diagram “Why do you affiliate yourself with the middle
class?”). The most popular answers were “I have high
level of income” and “I just feel like that”.
High incomes as a motive of self-identification were
more often mentioned by representatives of the “core” of
the middle class.
Representatives of the “periphery of the middle class”
also mention among the main motives high incomes and
“feeling like that”. 19.1% of them referred to the motive
of “reluctance to be associated with the lower class, as this
is humiliating”. Noteworthy, there are grounds to assume
that in reality, this motive guided more representatives of
that group, since respondents answering direct questions
about the motives of their actions are reluctant to mention
10
the ones that may downgrade their self-assessment and
perception by others.
Socio-demographic structure
The socio-demographic structure of the “subjective
middle class” may be compared with the structure of the
“core” of the middle class. For comparison, Tables and
Diagrams below present data of the socio-demographic
structure of the “subjective lower class” and “core” of
the lower class (Insert “Socio-demographic dimensions of
social classes”).
While among representatives of the “core” of the
middle class, compared to representatives of the “subjective
middle class”, the aggregate shares of entrepreneurs
(big, medium, small, and farmers) do not statistically
differ (respectively, 12.4% and 8.9%), the shares of top
(on enterprise/institution level) and middle (on the level
of an enterprise/institution division) managers are much
higher (respectively 8.7% and 4.2%). The difference is
even greater in the aggregate shares of specialists of the
production and non-production sectors (respectively,
27.8% and 16.1%), against the background of smaller
shares of skilled workers (respectively, 10.0% and 18.4%)
and pensioners (respectively, 8.3% and 16.1%).
Hence, specialists make the modal (i.e., widest
represented) group of the “core” Ukrainian middle class,
while all those who affiliated themselves with the middle
class have no single evidently prevailing modal group –
few groups dominate there: skilled workers, specialists
and pensioners. The modal group of the “subjective lower
class” and moreover of the “core” of the lower class is
made up by pensioners (respectively, 47.1% and 62.2%),
while employed representatives of the “subjective lower
class” and its “core” are largely workers, mainly – skilled
workers.
• RAZUMKOV CENTRE • NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL CLASSES
Social status
% of all those
polled
% of the middle
class
Pensioner
27.3
16.1
Skilled worker
16.1
18.4
Specialist in science, education, healthcare, mass media
8.6
10.9
Office worker
8.4
Employed in individual entrepreneurship
% of the “core”
of the middle
class
% of the lower
class
% of the “core”
of the lower class
8.3
47.1
62.2
10.0
14.1
5.5
19.2
3.2
2.6
8.9
10.1
5.8
3.7
5.0
6.9
9.3
2.1
0.0
Pupil, student
4.6
6.7
7.0
1.5
1.0
Housekeeper
4.5
5.4
3.3
3.2
3.5
Specialist of the production sector
4.2
5.2
8.6
3.1
1.8
Non-worker (but not registered as unemployed)
3.8
3.3
3.1
3.8
5.0
Unskilled worker
3.2
2.6
1.2
4.5
4.1
Agricultural/collective farm worker
2.3
1.8
0.8
2.5
2.1
Head (manager) of an enterprise/institution department
2.2
3.4
7.2
1.1
0.3
Low-level manager of an enterprise/institutions
1.9
2.4
3.8
0.8
0.6
Disabled (including invalids)
1.1
0.7
0.0
1.7
2.6
Serviceman of the Armed Forces, Security Forces, Ministry of Internal Affairs
0.9
1.2
1.8
0.6
0.0
Small enterprise owner
0.7
1.1
1.8
0.4
0.3
Farmer
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
Self-employed (artist, writer, actor, etc.)
0.7
0.4
0.3
1.1
1.0
Head (manager) of an enterprise/institution
0.6
0.8
1.5
0.2
0.0
Officially registered unemployed
0.6
0.1
0.0
1.5
2.1
Medium enterprise owner
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
Big enterprise owner
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
1.9
2.6
1.0
1.1
1.3
No answer
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
June, 2008
RAZUMKOV CENTRE
• NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008 •
11
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL CLASSES
12
• RAZUMKOV CENTRE • NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008
THE MIDDLE CLASS: SELF-IDENTIFICATION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
Most often, representatives of the “subjective middle
class” and its “core” affiliate themselves with the category
of hired workers (Diagram “With which category can
you associate yourself, in the first place?”), quite many
of them are unemployed and self-employed; the share
of employers and working co-owners of enterprises is
insignificant (some 5%).
Among those who affiliate themselves with the middle
class and representatives of its “core”, there are more young
people under 29 years and fewer elderly people (60 years
and above) than among the adult population of Ukraine in
general. Furthermore, among representatives of the middle
class “core” there are statistically more those of the middle
age group (30-49 years) than among the adult population
in general and among those who affiliated themselves with
the middle class, which does not look surprising, given
that exactly people of the middle age more often possess
such features of the middle class as high educational level
and living standard.
The gender structure of the middle class, as well as of
its “core”, does not statistically differ from the entire array
structure. However, the differences between the middle
and lower classes and the “cores” of those two classes are
significant: the share of males among representatives of
the middle class is higher than among representatives of
the lower class. This distinction may well ensue from the
age structure of classes, since women clearly prevail in the
eldest age group, and representatives of that group more
tend to affiliate themselves with the lower class.
Comparing the mentioned groups by the settlement
structure, one may see fewer villagers among the
“subjective middle class” than among the adult population
in general (respectively, 26.7% and 30.2%; differences
are statistically significant on the level of 0.05), while the
“core” middle class shows much greater differences by
the settlement structure – here, villagers make only 19.2%
(which is also no wonder, given the lower well-being and
education of villagers, compared to citizens).
By and large, the above gives grounds for the
following conclusions.
RAZUMKOV CENTRE
The existence of a social community as an actor of
public life rests on self-perception (self-identification)
of some members of society as members of that
community. This conditions the importance of study of
the social self-identification, including self-identification
of citizens as representatives of the middle class.
At the same time, one should keep in mind that
affiliation of a respondent with the middle class during
public opinion polls often reveals his unwillingness
to be associated with the lower class; in a situation
where the middle class is presented in mass media as a
“progressive-reformist” social community, the desire of
some respondents communicating with an interviewer
to be associated with that community is quite natural.
Compared to 2002, fewer people in Ukraine now
associate themselves with the social groups ranking
below the middle class (stratum), while the share of
those who associate themselves with the middle stratum
increased. This may be explained by outside factors,
first of all – a higher standard of living.
Inside the middle class, its “core” may be
distinguished, i.e., those its representatives who meet
objective property and education criteria of affiliation
with that social group, and demonstrate steady selfidentification of members of that group irrespective of
the wording of questions. The survey results show that
those representatives of the “subjective middle class”
who stayed beyond its “core” (periphery of the middle
class) are rather close to it by the self-assessment of
personal qualities shaping their social behaviour.
Specialists make the modal (i.e., widest represented)
group of the “core” Ukrainian middle class, while all
those who affiliated themselves with the middle class
have no single evidently prevailing modal group – a
few groups dominate there: skilled workers, specialists
and pensioners. The modal group of the “subjective
lower class” and even greater – of the “core” lower
class is made up of pensioners, among employed
representatives of the “subjective lower class” and its
“core” – workers, mainly – skilled workers.

• NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE • No.7, 2008 •
13