TAKING DISADVANTAGE SERIOUSLY: THE ‘UNDERCLASS’ IN POST-APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA

Abstract

Inequalities are stark and obvious in post-apartheid South Africa. How to analyse inequalities, however, is far less clear. In Class, Race and Inequality in South Africa (Seekings and Nattrass 2005), we combined original analysis of quantitative data with critical use of a wide range of secondary historical, anthropological and sociological studies to examine both continuities and changes in the South African social structure over the second half of the twentieth century. Of the various arguments made in our book, the one that provokes the most criticism is our identification of an ‘underclass’ in post-apartheid South Africa. Focusing on this, Callebert (2014)1 argues that our analysis ‘assume[s] a fundamental divide in South Africa’s economy based on socio-economic exclusion’, ‘fail[s] to capture the many ways in which people cross these divides in making a living’ and has ‘problematic policy implications’. In his account, we offer a ‘bifurcated’ or ‘dualist’ analysis of the South African economy. ‘Access to formal sector jobs’ is the ‘new and fundamental divide that runs through South African society . . . . In this [that is, our] argument, being a labourer no longer puts one among the lower rungs of society, but is a privilege . . . .’ For Seekings and Nattrass, he writes, ‘the true socio-economic divide . . . is between those with and those without access to jobs and other income-earning opportunities’. We are guilty, it seems, of proposing not only that ‘the poor’ should become ‘low-paid labourers’, but that ‘non-unionized low-paid jobs’ should be created ‘at the expense of better-paid unionized employees’.2 Callebert’s article raises some important points, but it is based on a gross misrepresentation of our argument in Class, Race and Inequality. We do not present a ‘dualist’ or ‘bifurcated’ analysis of South African society. Our analysis of the class structure identified nine or ten classes, on the basis of occupation and earnings from wealth or entrepreneurial activity, not two as implied in Callebert’s charge of dualism. We combined these into three (not two) composite categories or strata (see Seekings and Nattrass 2005: 254, Figure 7.1; 337, Figure 9.4). Our ‘underclass’ formed one part of the poorest or most disadvantaged of these three strata. Moreover, this disadvantaged stratum comprised also what we called the