Pe zke, Ma in
A icle — Published Ve sion
The cul u e o o icial s a is ics. Symbolic domina ion and
“bou geois” assimila ion in quan i a i e measu emen s o
immig an in eg a ion in Ge many
Theo y and Socie y
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Pe zke, Ma in (2022) : The cul u e o o icial s a is ics. Symbolic domina ion
and “bou geois” assimila ion in quan i a i e measu emen s o immig an in eg a ion in Ge many,
Theo y and Socie y, ISSN 1573-7853, Sp inge Ne he lands, Do d ech , Vol. 52, Iss. 2, pp. 213-242,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11186-022-09503-2
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/305215
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11186-022-09503-2
Abs ac
While cul u al sociology has ecen ly made a comeback in esea ch on social in-
equali y bo h in he con ex o po e y s udies and s udies o immig an in eg a ion,
i has a ely in es iga ed how pa icula cons uc ions o he p oblem o socioeco-
nomic mobili y a e hemsel es cul u ally si ua ed. The a icle add esses his neglec
by in es iga ing he p oblema iza ion o disad an aged li es wi hin he ela ional
amewo k o Bou dieu’s cul u al heo y o he s a e. He e, he s a e exe cises sym-
bolic iolence by ans o ming one a bi a y cul u al s andpoin in social space in o
a uni e sal s anda d, o a aken- o -g an ed “doxa,” agains which o he cul u al
posi ions can only come o as de icien . The a icle ex ends his pe spec i e by
add essing he ole o o icial s a is ics in his p ocess. Taking Ge many’s o icial
moni o ing o he socioeconomic in eg a ion o immig an s as i s case and d awing
om documen analysis, in e iews, e hnog aphic obse a ion, and da a om he
Ge man Gene al Social Su ey, he a icle shows how such s a is ical ins umen s
o he wel a e s a e in ac aci ly uni e salize a model o he good li e pa icula o
ci il se an s, he e y cons uc o s o he moni o s, as a benchma k o immig an
in eg a ion.
Keywo ds Cul u e · Pie e Bou dieu · Quan i ica ion · Social Inequali y · S a e ·
Symbolic domina ion
Exponen s o cul u al sociology ha e mo e ecen ly made a conscious e o o ex end
cul u al analysis o a b oade gamu o social phenomena (Binde e al., 2008) and
o expand i s concep ual epe oi e beyond a Pa sonian p eoccupa ion wi h no ms
and alues (Lamon & Small, 2008). Such maneu e s ha e once again opened up
Accep ed: 23 Augus 2022 / Published online: 21 Oc obe 2022
© The Au ho (s) 2022
The cul u e o o icial s a is ics. Symbolic domina ion and
“bou geois” assimila ion in quan i a i e measu emen s o
immig an in eg a ion in Ge many
Ma inPe zke1
Ma in Pe zke
[email p o ec ed]
1 Facul y o Sociology, Biele eld Uni e si y, Uni e si ä ss . 25, 33615 Biele eld, Ge many
1 3
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
p o oca i e cul u al pe spec i es on a cen al conce n o sociology: social inequali y.
Adding dep h and nuance o he a ious i e a ions o he cul u e-o -po e y hypo h-
esis, which deems he ep oduc ion o po e y a esul o cul u al adap a ions o such
condi ions (Lewis, 1966; Massey & Den on, 1993; Ogbu, 1978; Wilson, 1987), cul-
u al sociologis s ha e shed new ligh on how he poo na iga e and make sense o
hei li es (see, e.g., he con ibu ions in Ha ding e al., 2010).
This end has been lanked by a enaissance o cul u al pe spec i es in he sociol-
ogy o immig a ion, a ield simila ly d i en by conce ns wi h social inequali y. While
cul u e igu ed p ominen ly in Go don’s (1964) seminal wo k on immig an assimila-
ion, he la e has la gely come o be ope a ionalized by indica o s o socioeconomic
mobili y once quan i a i e pe spec i es had en e ed he ield in he 1970s (Alba &
Nee, 2003, p. 28; Sk en ny, 2008, p. 67). Cul u al pe spec i es ha e made a o ce ul
comeback, howe e , in mo e ecen heo ies o assimila ion.
Alba & Nee (2003), o ins ance, employ an “ins i u ional amewo k” ha gi es
p ominence o “men al models shaped by cul u al belie s” (ibid., p. 37), o “human-
cul u al capi al” (ibid., p. 48), and o alues and b oade ins i u ional changes (ibid.,
p. 57) in analyzing assimila ion. Like Zolbe g & Woon (1999), he au ho s u he -
mo e s ess he signi icance o bounda ies – i.e., hei blu ing, c ossing, and shi ing
– in p ocesses o immig an assimila ion and abso p ion, adop ing a concep ha has
simila ly in o med ecen wo k on mo ally imbued dis inc ions o ace, class, and
immig an s (Lamon , 2000).
Cul u al a gumen s ha e also igu ed p ominen ly in he heo y o segmen ed
assimila ion (Po es & Zhou, 1993). I posi s ha some immig an s may cul u ally
assimila e no o he mains eam bu o he u ban unde class and i s “opposi ional
cul u e” (a e m coined by Ogbu, 1978), hus o going social ad ancemen , while s ill
o he s may achie e upwa d mobili y p ecisely by no assimila ing bu by d awing on
he cul u al esou ces and o ien a ions o hei e hnic encla es.
Lee & Zhou (2015) ha e mo eo e explici ly la ched on o esu gen cul u al anal-
yses o social inequali y in in es iga ing he ac o s behind Asian Ame ican achie e-
men . They show how a “hype -selec ion” o highly educa ed Asian immig an s
impo s and consolida es a “success ame” and a endan ins i u ions om which
co-e hnics wi h di e en class backg ounds also bene i .
Ye , as cul u al sociology has eclaimed a p ominen posi ion in explo ing and
explaining social inequali y, i is s ill ma ed by a conside able neglec . In calling o
“bolde , deepe , and b oade ” cul u al analyses o socioeconomic mobili y in ela ion
o ace, e hnici y, and immig a ion, Sk en ny (2008, pp. 68–69) no es ha in es i-
ga ions in o he ole o mino i y cul u es ha e a ely been couched in a ela ional
amewo k wi h an equal ocus on he cul u e o he majo i y (bu see Jiménez 2017;
Lamon , 2000). Indeed, he middle-class o whi es ha e la gely cons i u ed a blind
spo in wha S eib e al. (2016) ha e mo e ecen ly c i icized as a “one-sided esea ch
agenda.” I is in o med by a aken- o -g an ed and uncon es ed bina y “whe eby seg-
men s o he poo , acial mino i ies, and immig an s a e posi ioned as ha ing a de i-
an , mo ally suspec cul u e ha unde mines hei po en ial upwa d mobili y whe eas
whi e middle- and uppe -class Ame icans a e posi ioned as ha ing a no mal, mo ally
ups anding cul u e ha secu es hei class posi ion” (ibid., p. 248). In many ways, he
1 3
214
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
cul u e o he la e is he “unma ked” side o he dis inc ion ha emains unp oblem-
a ic and hus unde explo ed (B ekhus, 1998).
Indeed, a mo e empha ic ocus on he pa icula i y o he dominan cul u al s and-
poin could cas u he doub on an imp obable assump ion ha ecen cul u al
analyses o social inequali y ha e only begun o disman le: “[I]s i likely, o e en
possible, ha all g oups on a e age wan all he same hings ou o li e, in he same
deg ee, and balance compe ing demands in he same ways? Does e e yone see he
same meaning in li e?” (Sk en ny, 2008, p. 69; see, e.g., Sanchez-Jankowski, 2008;
Vaisey, 2010; Young, 2010).
Wha is mo e, such di ec ions in esea ch would s and o bene i om a ho oughly
ela ional pe spec i e ha examines he cons uc ion o he p oblem o inequali y
wi hin a comp ehensi e ield o ecology o class posi ions. To be su e, some ha e
u ned he analysis back on he wel a e discou se o poli ical eli es (Gue zkow, 2010;
Some s & Block, 2005; S eensland, 2006). Ye , as such wo k highligh s ames o
dese ingness and undese ingness, i con inues o all sho o ully objec i ying he
cul u al s andpoin om which such ames a e cons uc ed. I s ill lea es open he
ques ion: how is he way policy eli es make sense o hei li e implica ed in he way
hey make sense o he li es o he poo ?
In he his o ical s udy on Po e y Knowledge, O’Conno (2001, p. 23) has ouched
on such ela ional pe spec i es in highligh ing “ ha po e y knowledge has been
il e ed, no jus h ough he expe iences and cul u al biases o he p i ileged, bu
h ough he social posi ion o ‘ he p o esso s’ in ela ion o he ‘poo ’” (see also Gans,
1991, p. 299). This poin s owa ds he need o a sys ema ic sociological explo a ion
o such il e ing p ocesses. I calls o a cul u al g ounding no o social inequali y
i sel bu o he epis emology o obse ing and p oblema izing inequali y.
The a icle hus seeks o ecas he ligh on he cul u al p emises h ough which
ce ain li es yles a e deemed p oblema ic in he i s place. As al eady indica ed by
he i s s eps unde aken by he schola s men ioned abo e, such a ocus ine i ably
alls on wo majo ins i u ions in ol ed in cons uc ing he p oblem o social inequal-
i y: he wel a e s a e and he social-scien i ic communi y. Bo h ha e mo e ecen ly
been he subjec o sc u iny ega ding implici no ma i e commi men s inhe en in
pu po edly neu al pe spec i es on socioeconomic (im-)mobili y. Fo he wel a e
s a e, S eensland (2010) has made a b oade case o conside he connec ion be ween
mo ali y and social policymaking. Fo he social sciences, Abbo (2016) has high-
ligh ed aci ly bou geois concep ions o s anda d li e ajec o ies in quan i a i e
esea ch on inequali y.
Taking hei insigh s as a cue, his a icle ocuses i s inqui y on a case in which
o icial pe spec i es o he s a e as well as social-scien i ic me hods o inequali y
esea ch in e sec . In Ge many, adminis a i e bu eauc acies on he municipal, s a e,
and ede al le el ha e eso ed o social-scien i ic expe ise and quan i a i e esea ch
me hods in o de o moni o he social ad ancemen o he immig an popula ion. In
so-called “in eg a ion moni o ing sys ems,” compila ions o socioeconomic indica-
o s de i ed om o icial s a is ics a e used o compa e he popula ion segmen s o
mig an s and non-mig an s in o de o e ec i ely go e n he ins i u ional inco po a-
ion o i s - o hi d-gene a ion immig an s. The s a is ical pa ame e s include le el o
educa ion, unemploymen a es, income, heal h, household size, a ea o li ing space
1 3
215
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
pe household membe , a e o eal es a e owne ship, e ili y a e, ci ic engagemen ,
and poli ical in ol emen . In line wi h much o social inequali y esea ch and he
sociology o immig an in eg a ion, policies o ien ed by hese s a is ics seek o close
he gap be ween bo h popula ion segmen s, o , in o he wo ds, o elimina e he sys-
ema ic e ec o a mig a ion his o y on hese socioeconomic indica o s. An analysis
in e es ed in he cul u al g ounding o he epis emological appa a us o obse ing
social inequali y and socioeconomic mobili y would ha e o a end p ecisely o such
a s a is ical moni o ing ins umen .
And indeed, I a gue ha he indica o s o he moni o ing ins umen aci ly impose
a class-cul u ally pa icula is ic ideal o a ypically “bou geois” li e. They do so i s
and o emos h ough hei choice o a iables. Ine i ably, he ac ha a ce ain
dimension is measu ed al eady bes ows signi icance on he dimension i sel . The
speci ic con igu a ion o indica o s inad e en ly p oduces a “g id” o a pa icula
biog aphical s anda d. Thus, no ma i e implica ions emana e no only om mea-
su ing and publicizing s a is ical “no ms” as cap u ed by he means o medians o
a ious pa ame e s; hey a e also, and pe haps mo e undamen ally so, con eyed
by he e y ac ha some aspec s a e deemed “wo hy” o measu ing in he i s
place. Al e na i e concep ions o he “good li e” ha would lead o en i ely di e en
measu emen s a e hus eclipsed o mani es hemsel es only as de ia ions om he
s a is ical a e ages o he selec ed indica o s. Epis emologically, hen, he s a is ical
pe spec i es o he moni o s exhibi no jus biases bu e asu es as hey s anda dize
he ma ix h ough which images o immig an s a e il e ed.
The a gumen builds on he ela ional pe spec i es o Pie e Bou dieu, speci i-
cally his mo e ecen ly published heo y o he s a e, which he de eloped in a lec-
u e cou se a he Collège de F ance be ween 1989 and 1992 (Bou dieu, 2014). As I
will demons a e, in eg a ion s a is ics espouse cul u al s anda ds ha ha e a speci ic
loca ion in social space. Among all occupa ional g oups, hey a e mos p onouncedly
exhibi ed by ci il se an s wi h execu i e du ies (Beam e im höhe en Diens ), i.e.,
he occupa ional g oup ha in Ge many includes depa men heads o adminis a i e
bu eauc acies and uni e si y p o esso s. In many ega ds, hen, he e y people who
cons uc indica o s o in eg a ion a e unwi ingly uni e salizing hei pe sonal ideas
abou he good li e as a s anda d o success ul in eg a ion. The cul u al he e ogene-
i y e en o he na ional mains eam is hus obscu ed, and he p esence o al e na i e
o subcul u al ideals and aspi a ions is emo ed om he s a is ical pic u e.
I is p ecisely his symbolic dimension o s a ehood ha Bou dieu b ings o he
o e in his heo y o he s a e. Fo Bou dieu, he s a e holds no jus he monopoly o
legi ima e physical iolence bu also o legi ima e symbolic iolence: I monopolizes
he means o ans o m one pa icula s andpoin among many in o a doxa: a eali y
p e e lexi ely ecognized as na u al, sel -e iden , and wi hou al e na i e. This doxa,
howe e , is me ely masking an o hodoxy ha could in p inciple be challenged.
I a gue ha o icial s a is ics on in eg a ion can be unde s ood as an example o
how he s a e exe cises i s monopoly o legi ima e symbolic iolence and how i
es ablishes he doxa o a “no mal” biog aphy. These s a is ics cons uc as well as
e lec aken- o -g an ed schemes o pe cep ion ha de e mine which ques ions can
and canno be asked abou social inequali y in he i s place and wha can ac ually
1 3
216

Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
be seen when p oblema izing he li e o o he s. In so doing, hey a he same ime
obscu e he pa icula i y o hei own pe spec i e.
The a icle hus adds o a g owing li e a u e on he s a e ha has aken a cue om
Bou dieu in examining he cul u al backd op o s a e ac ion (e.g., Lo eman, 2005;
Mo gan & O lo , 2017; No on, 2014; S einme z, 2007). I ex ends such wo k in
d awing speci ic a en ion o he p ocess in which s a e ac o s implici ly uni e sal-
ize hei pa icula habi us as a model o he good li e in he con ex o obse ing
and add essing socioeconomic inequali y and mobili y om he pe spec i e o he
wel a e s a e.
The a icle will p oceed as ollows. In a i s sec ion, I in oduce Bou dieu’s cul-
u al heo y o he s a e and a icula e i wi h a li e a u e on he sociology o s a is ics
and quan i ica ion. I hen b ie ly discuss he adminis a i e moni o ing o immig an
in eg a ion in Ge many. A e a sec ion on da a and me hods, I highligh he p ocess
h ough which ci il se an s on he municipal, s a e, and ede al le el selec and
compile indica o s o in eg a ion. I p oceed wi h an ideal- ypical depic ion o Ge -
man bou geois cul u e and b ie ly highligh how ci il se an s we e no only among
i s mos cen al ca ie s bu also he pionee s o social su eys in he con ex o he
wo ke ques ion. C ucially, such su eys we e pa o a b oade agenda ha explici ly
unde s ood he ins i u ional inco po a ion o wo ke s as a p ojec o cul u al assimi-
la ion o he bou geois li es yle. I a gue ha his his o ical legacy con inues o e e -
be a e in con empo a y o icial s a is ics, hough now implici ly so, no leas because
hei p oduc ion and main enance is s ill si ua ed a he e y same loca ion in “social
space” (Bou dieu, 1984), occupied by he mos senio anks o ci il se an s. I p o-
ceed o highligh he implici ly bou geois p esupposi ions in he in eg a ion moni-
o ing, composed o such social s a is ics, and co obo a e my a gumen wi h da a
om he Gene al Social Su ey o Ge many, o he ALLBUS. Using quan i a i e
ables, I show ha e en among Ge man na ionals alone he di e en occupa ional
g oups exhibi subs an ial di e ences on hese indica o s, wi h ci il se an s – o
he Beam enbü ge um as a pa icula segmen o he educa ed bou geoisie – mos
closely con o ming o he model o li e s anda dized by hei own s a is ics. I end
wi h a discussion on he b oade implica ions o hese indings.
Bou dieu’s heo y o he s a e
Bou dieu’s heo y o he s a e can be encapsula ed in a de ini ion ha ex ends Webe ’s
classic de ini ion o he s a e as he monopoly o legi ima e physical iolence. Fo
Bou dieu (2014) he s a e also needs o be unde s ood as he monopoly o legi ima e
symbolic iolence.
Despi e he cen al posi ion o s uggle, an agonism, and compe i ion in Bou -
dieu’s social on ology, his heo e ical edi ice is o no small ex en a heo y o sym-
bolic o de . His wo k is as indeb ed o Du kheim as i is o Webe , and in his ega d
he idea o mo al and logical con o mi y in he in eg a ion o socie y has been cen al
o Bou dieu’s heo y. Indi idual habi ūs in social space inco po a e sha ed “p in-
ciples o ision and di ision” and a p ac ical unde s anding o he di e en ial legi i-
macy o pa icula posi ions and li es yles. Such pe cep ions a e di e en ly in lec ed
1 3
217
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
and weigh ed acco ding o each agen ’s posi ion wi hin social space (Bou dieu, 1984,
p. 468). The unique colo ing each habi us lends o such classi ica ions ansla e in o
eelings o en i lemen , con idence, and epulsion, o , con e sely, espec , esen men ,
sel -consciousness, and shame. This is he basis o symbolic iolence: The domina ed
pa icipa e in and assen o hei own domina ion as hey hemsel es pe cei e he
wo ld h ough classi ica o y schemes which, being he p oduc o such domina ion,
a e hemsel es cons i u i e o i (Bou dieu, 2001).
Howe e , his concep ion o he social space lea es open he ques ion o how,
in ac , mo al and logical in eg a ion a e gua an eed. A e all, Bou dieu disassoci-
a es himsel om s uc u alism in wha he calls “gene ic s uc u alism” (Bou dieu,
1990, p. 14). Classi ica o y schemes a e his o ical p oduc s and hey a e amenable
o change h ough “symbolic e olu ions” (Bou dieu, 2017). How, hen, is such a
comp ehensi e symbolic o de a leas empo a ily es ablished?
I is he e whe e he s a e comes in. In ac , as Bou dieu (2014, p. 223) acknowl-
edges e ospec i ely, when he had been w i ing o he social space as he “space o
spaces” o “ ield o ields,” all along he had been in ac e e ing o he “na ional
social space ha is cons uc ed a he same ime as he s a e is cons uc ed, ha he
s a e cons uc s as i cons uc s i sel .” Fo Bou dieu, he key unc ion o he s a e
goes beyond e i o ial and economic in eg a ion; i lies as much in he uni ica ion
o he symbolic o de , o o he “ma ke in symbolic goods.” (Bou dieu, 2014, p.
225). This uni ica ion, howe e , simul aneously amoun s o he uni e saliza ion o a
pa icula s andpoin . Such a monopoliza ion o he uni e sal, o he “double ace”
o domina ion and in eg a ion, o ms he cen al cha ac e is ic o Bou dieu’s (2014,
pp. 222–223) concep ion o he s a e. P ocesses o in eg a ion and uni ica ion a e
in ima ely ied o p ocesses o subjuga ion and dispossession as “non-o icial cul-
u es [a e] made in o mo e o less accomplished o ms o he dominan de ini ion o
cul u e” (ibid., p. 223).
Bou dieu ouched upon his c ucial ope a ion o a uni ica ion o he symbolic ma -
ke in ea lie s udies, o ins ance in his 1970 s udy on social ep oduc ion (Bou dieu
& Passe on, [1970]1990), his wo k on Language and Symbolic Powe (Bou dieu,
1991), and se e al a icles on he ma imonial ma ke o Béa n, he ea lies o which
da es back o 1962 (Bou dieu, 2008). In each o hem, he shows how one cul u al
a bi a y is imposed as he legi ima e s anda d, e ec i ely de aluing all o he s, be
hey F ench dialec s o he han he Pa isian one in he uni ica ion o he linguis ic
ma ke o u al li e as opposed o u ban li e in he uni ica ion o he ma ke o li e-
s yles. Only la e in his lec u e cou se does Bou dieu (2014) inally iden i y he s a e
as he en i y d i ing such p ocesses o monopoliza ion and symbolic domina ion; i
is he undamen al elemen o his sociology o mode n socie y which un il hen had
been le la gely unspeci ied.1
Fo he s a e, o icial s a is ics, i.e., “s a is ics ha go e nmen s p oduce, inance,
o ou inely insc ibe in o hei decisions” (S a , 1987, p. 8), a e ob iously a c ucial
elemen in imposing a symbolic o de on he social wo ld. I is he e whe e Bou dieu-
sian pe spec i es can be ui ully a icula ed wi h a li e a u e on he sociology o
1 On he ela ion o Bou dieu’s heo y o he s a e and G amsci’s no ion o hegemony, see Bu awoy (2019).
1 3
218
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
quan i ica ion ha akes nume ical p ac ices and s a is ics as an objec o in es iga-
ion in i s own igh ( o a ecen o e iew see Mennicken & Espeland, 2019).
As ea ly p oponen s o such an agenda ha e poin ed ou , o icial s a is ics ha e he
powe o “change images, pe cep ions, and aspi a ions” simply “[b]y he ques ions
asked (and no asked), ca ego ies employed, s a is ical me hods used, and abula ions
published” (Alonso & S a , 1987, p. 1). Mo eo e , “poli ical judgmen s a e implici
in he choice o wha o measu e, how o measu e i , how o en o measu e i , and how
o p esen and in e p e he esul s” (ibid., p. 3).
I is p ecisely such implici judgmen s which lie a he hea o his a icle. Such
judgmen s, I a gue, o no small deg ee de i e om s a e o icials’ class-based con-
cep ions o he good li e. I is in his ein ha Bou dieu ad ises us o “ ela e he
ca ego ies o classi ica ion sys ems used o he use s and o igina o s o hese clas-
si ica ions and o he social condi ions o hei p oduc ion” (Bou dieu, 2004, p. 90).
Wo k in he sociology o quan i ica ion has al eady ui ully highligh ed he cons i-
u i e ole o class backg ound in he in en ion o pa icula me hods o s a is ical
analysis (MacKenzie, 1981). Bou dieusian in e es s in he social condi ions o social
knowledge p oduc ion ha e also se ed as an inspi a ion o Alain Des osiè es’s
(1998) seminal u n o he his o y and sociology o quan i ica ion. His wo k, speci i-
cally, highligh s he “con en ions” and his o ical con ex s ha unde lie he c ea ion
o s a is ical objec s o na ional s a is ics such as unemploymen a es. He e, social
in e es s ha e igu ed p ominen ly in he discussion o he genesis o sociop o es-
sional ca ego ies (Des osiè es, 1998, pp. 267–273). The la e pe spec i es connec
o p e ious s udies which, in expe imen al eenac men s o coding si ua ions, ha e
shown ha an indi idual’s posi ion in social space has a subs an ial impac on how
she cons uc s occupa ional classi ica ions and which occupa ion she conside s ep e-
sen a i e (Bol anski & Thé eno , 1983; Des osiè es & Thé eno , 1988).
The p esen pape builds on such wo k bu b ings i in o a deepe con e sa ion
wi h Bou dieu’s heo y o he s a e. I show ha o icial s a is ics a e a cen al means
h ough which s a e o icials uni e salize a pa icula iew o he social wo ld om
a speci ic loca ion in social space. Speci ically, I a gue ha h ough he cons uc ion
o in eg a ion indica o s, bu eauc a s o he wel a e s a e and social scien is s who
ad ise hem implici ly uni e salize a pe spec i e oo ed in he habi us o a pa icula
segmen o he educa ed bou geoisie, i.e., ci il se an s wi h execu i e du ies, which,
in Ge many, include heads o adminis a i e depa men s and uni e si y p o esso s.
O icial s a is ics and social-scien i ic indica o s compiled by adminis a o s o he
pu pose o iden i ying and add essing inequali ies con ibu e o a speci ic doxa o
wha cons i u es a s anda d biog aphy. I is a concep ion o he good li e which is in
ac pa icula o ci il se an s. E ec i ely, in de e mining wha is “wo h” measu -
ing and wha is no , s a is ics o m a subs an ial ye unde heo ized cog in he uni ica-
ion o a symbolic ma ke o li es yles.2 In implici ly imposing he ele an measu es
o a s anda d biog aphy, hey eclipse and ob usca e al e na i e cul u al pe cep ions
2 Saeed (2021) simila ly a gues ha he ways in which symbolic powe is exe cised by he s a e has been
unde heo ized. See also Lo eman (2005), who ies o shed mo e ligh on he ways in which he s a e
accumula es symbolic powe in he i s place. Fo a c i ique ega ding an un esol ed ension be ween
Bou dieu’s concep ion o he s a e as a ield and he s a e as unmo ed mo e gua an eeing a symbolic
o de , see Schinkel (2015) and Loyal & Quilley (2017).
1 3
219
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
o he good li e ha would call o en i ely di e en indica o s. In so doing, s a is ics
aid in ans o ming “o hodoxy” in o “doxa,” he key ope a ion in he monopoliza ion
o legi ima e symbolic iolence (Bou dieu, 2014, pp. 173–174). Quan i ica ion and
indica o s in ac o m a powe ul mechanism o such an ob usca ion o al e na i e
concep ions o wo h, gi en ha h ough hei “au a o objec i i y” (Me y, 2011;
Po e , 1995) he e y ac o ob usca ion is i sel ob usca ed.
Case and me hods
The s udy is pa o a la ge in es iga ion in o how quan i a i e indica o s a ec o i-
cial pe spec i es on immig an in eg a ion in Ge many. O e he las wo decades,
municipali ies, s a es, and he ede al go e nmen in Ge many ha e inc easingly
ins alled s a is ical ins umen s o he pu pose o moni o ing immig an in eg a ion.
This de elopmen is ela ed o a shi in immig a ion policy ushe ed in by he Social
Democ a /G een Pa y coali ion ha came o powe in 1998. Ge many was now o i-
cially conside ing i sel a coun y o immig a ion, pu ing an end o he gues -wo ke
pa adigm ha had p e ailed be o e. Wi h he ecogni ion ha immig an s and hei
descendan s we e he e o s ay, he ques ion o hei in eg a ion now became a cen al
pa o poli ical discou se.
The ini ial impulse o employ s a is ical indica o s in moni o ing and add ess-
ing in eg a ion p oblems came om he municipal le el, wi h some communi ies
pionee ing such measu es in he ea ly 2000s. S a e adminis a ions soon ollowed
sui and es ablished a join wo king g oup ha has main ained a s a e-le el in eg a-
ion moni o ing since 2008. Some s a es ha e also de eloped hei e y own and
o en mo e ex ensi e in eg a ion moni o ings. On he ede al le el, he o ice o he
Commissione o Mig a ion, Re ugees, and In eg a ion published wo pilo s udies
on in eg a ion indica o s in 2009 and 2011. Some o hese indica o s had al eady
appea ed in he Commissione ’s egula epo ing on he si ua ion o “ o eigne s”
since 1978. These epo s, which meanwhile ha e also shi ed o a mo e comp ehen-
si e ocus on i s - o hi d-gene a ion mig an s, a e now ea u ing many o he new
indica o s es ed in he pilo s udies. In 2020, he Commissione mo eo e launched
i s i s o icial in eg a ion moni o ing epo as a sepa a e publica ion (see Commis-
sione o Mig a ion, Re ugees, and In eg a ion, 2009, 2011, 2020).
All in eg a ion moni o ings in Ge many gene ally ollow he same basic pa e n.
They d aw upon o icial s a is ics and egis e s o he a ious go e nmen al depa -
men s and he gene al social su eys in Ge many such as he mic ocensus and he
Socioeconomic Panel (SOEP) o indica o s, which include le els o educa ion,
unemploymen a es, income, heal h, household size, a ea o li ing space, a e o
eal es a e owne ship, e ili y a e, ci ic and poli ical engagemen , and o he s (see
Table1).
Such indica o s gene ally compa e a e ages be ween he na i e popula ion and he
immig an popula ion, excep whe e such compa isons a e no applicable (as in a es
o na u aliza ion). Fo such compa isons, he moni o s employ a dis inc ion be ween
pe sons wi h and pe sons wi hou a “mig a ion backg ound,” he i s including all
1 3
220
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
p. 370), which in eg a ed a he e ogeneous mix o middle-class demog aphics. This
cul u e includes: a “pa icula alo iza ion o indi idual achie emen ,” which is ied
o a “posi i e a i ude owa ds egula wo k, a ypical penchan o a a ional and
me hodical li e conduc ”; he “pu sui o an au onomous a angemen o indi idual
and mu ual asks, he la e in he o m o olun a y associa ions”; an “emphasis on
educa ion (Bildung)” a he han eligion; a “close a ini y o aes he ic cul u e (a , li -
e a u e, music)”; inally, a cen al unde s anding o amily as a p i a e, au onomous,
and emo ionally cons i u ed uni wi h “ ew child en and a sus ained e o a hei
educa ion” (Kocka, 1987, pp. 36, 43–44; my ansla ions). This ideal- ypical depic-
ion o 19 h-cen u y bou geois men ali y and cul u e will be adop ed he e o assess
he ex en o which s a is ics in he in eg a ion moni o s in ac implici ly subsc ibe
o ypically bou geois alues.
C ucially, Kocka has highligh ed he signi ican ambi alence inhe en in he Ge -
man e m “Bü ge ” ha esona es wi h p ecisely he “double ace o he s a e” as
elabo a ed by Bou dieu (2014). “Bü ge ” conno es bo h he “ci izen” as he uni e sal
subjec o he s a e and he “bou geois” as he membe o a pa icula social s a um.
In his sense, he p ojec o Ve bü ge lichung o “embou geoisemen ” pu sued by he
Bü ge um, which saw i sel as allgemeine S and o “gene al es a e,” comp ises a
uni e salizing momen as much as a momen o dis inc ion. The ambi ion o build
an inclusi e bü ge liche Gesellscha as an o de o ee ci izens ha would do away
wi h “absolu ism, p i ileges o bi h, and cle ical manipula ion” (Kocka, 1993, p. 9)
was ambiguously in e wined wi h a p ojec o assimila ing o he g oups o he pa -
icula mo es and habi s o he bou geoisie. The his o ical case o Jews in Ge many
makes his pe ec ly ob ious:
“[I ] demons a es ha he achie emen o ull ci il igh s (S aa sbü ge ech e)
wen hand in hand wi h he ascen in o Bü ge um. Wi hou he la e i was di icul o
achie e he o me . The demand o ull equali y as ci izens was a demand ha Jews
could aise and g adually achie e only when hey had become bü ge lich in hei
language and educa ion, social manne s and cus oms, hei hygiene and hei manne
o d ess” (Kocka, 1993, p. 10; see Volko , 1993).
While he Ge man bou geoisie a ied widely in i s socioeconomic composi ion,
a i s co e i was decisi ely shaped by i s ela ionship o s a e o icialdom, he impo -
ance and p es ige o which “was s iking e en by Con inen al s anda ds” (Black-
bou n, 1991, p. 5). The g ow h o he Ge man bou geoisie was a i s beginning
closely linked o he g ow h o he s a e appa a us and he concomi an eme gence o
a class o educa ed o icials, he Beam en um. Indeed, he “Bildungsbü ge um,” o
“educa ed bou geoisie” was la gely seen e en by con empo a ies as coex ensi e wi h
academics in s a e-employmen : bu eauc a s, judges, uni e si y p o esso s, P o es-
an minis e s, and eache s (Bödeke , 1989, p. 25). In his Philosophy o Righ , Hegel
(1821) himsel e en iden i ied he “gene al es a e” o uni e sal class wi h he class
o ci il se an s. The ee p o essions o independen doc o s, lawye s, no a ies, e c.
a i ed only much la e on he scene, and e en he e he ela ionship wi h he s a e was
a compa a i ely in ima e one (Kocka, 1993, p. 30). This “bu eauc a ic men ali y”
(Kocka, 1993, p. 29) le a signi ican ma k on he gene al ou look o he bou geoisie
e en a e he p ope ied classes expanded in he wake o he bela ed ye apid onse
o indus ializa ion in Ge many. Thus, in o de o designa e mo e p ecisely he cen-
1 3
227

Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
al ca ie s o his cul u al co e, I use he e m Beam enbü ge um in his a icle. I
o ms a subsegmen o he educa ed bou geoisie (Bildungsbü ge um), wi h he la e
comp ising all occupa ions which, as opposed o he p ope ied bou geoisie (Besi z-
o Wi scha sbü ge um), de i e hei social posi ion and li e chances p ima ily om
hei academic c eden ials (Kocka, 1989, p. 9).
The assimila o y momen um o ci il se an s, especially, played a pi o al ole
in he incep ion o social s a is ics in Ge many. The i s social su eys a ose in he
con ex o he social ques ion, la e e-speci ied as he wo ke ques ion, o he mid-
19 h cen u y (Obe schall, 1965; S einme z, 1993). No jus in Ge many bu in mos
o Eu ope, he swelling wo king classes we e ega ded by he bou geois es ablish-
men wi h a conside able ea o social uphea al. C ucially, while pionee s o social
su eys in F ance and England p edominan ly hailed om he anks o physicians
o philan h opis s, in Ge many such ini ia i es “o igina ed di ec ly om he bu eau-
c acy and he uni e si y p o esso s who we e mockingly known as he ‘socialis s
o he chai ’” (Obe schall, 1965, p. 4). Indeed, some o he mos seminal empi ical
esea ch on he condi ions o he wo ke s was conduc ed by he Ve ein ü Sozialpoli-
ik, an associa ion “domina ed by academic economics, s a is icians, and adminis a-
o s” (G imme -Solem, 2003, p. 69) and hus by p ecisely he same segmen o social
space, highe ci il se an s, which is also behind oday’s in eg a ion moni o ing in
Ge many.
In an add ess deli e ed a he Ve ein’s inaugu al mee ing, Gus a Schmolle , a
p o esso and his o ical economis and one o he Ve ein’s mos in luen ial igu es,
spoke qui e candidly abou he ue conce n behind he wo ke ques ion. Acco ding
o him, he p oblema ic an agonism be ween he wo king classes and he p ope ied
and educa ed classes was no so much an economic one; “mo e dange ous” was he
“chasm in e hos, educa ion, iews, and ideals”; and he e he poin ed o he example
o “ci iliza ions as hose o he G eeks, he Romans, and o he s” whose demise was
b ough abou by “simila opposi ions” (Schmolle , 1873, p. 4).
Indeed, in his ea ise on he “Wo ke Ques ion,” which he deemed he Ve ein’s
de- ac o poli ical p og am (G imme -Solem, 2003, p. 138), Schmolle (1864, p. 525)
made i clea ha he ele a ion o he wo ke ’s li ing s anda ds was abo e all inhib-
i ed by his “e hical condi ions,” in oking his endency o li e “only o he momen ,”
his li le app ecia ion o a “com o able home” and “adequa e eading,” and his lack
o a “sense o pe sonal esponsibili y.”
No su p isingly, hen, ea ly s a is ical ini ia i es in Ge many such as hose by he
Ve ein guiding he “concilia ion be ween he highe and lowe classes” (Schmolle ,
1873, p. 4) we e deeply su used wi h bou geois cul u al no ms, dedica ing a sub-
s an ial pa o hei ques ionnai es o e hical beha io (Obe schall, 1965, pp. 19–21).
Jus as in he in eg a ion moni o ing o con empo a y Ge many, he impe us behind
such s a is ical obse a ions lay in a enua ing disc epancies be ween wo popula-
ion segmen s. Ye , in con as wi h oday’s e o s, his was consciously e lec ed
as an endea o o cul u al assimila ion o he mo al s anda ds o he bou geoisie.
This highligh s how “going back o he genesis is e y impo an , because he e a e
deba es a he beginning in which all kinds o hings a e said which la e appea as he
p o oca i e e ela ions o sociologis s” (Bou dieu, 2014, p. 63). I is he e whe e he
o hodoxy behind s a is ics on inequali y and he in eg a ion o disad an aged g oups
1 3
228
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
is s ill openly exp essed and i s con ingency appa en be o e i is u ned in o a aken-
o -g an ed doxa in “an amnesia o genesis” (Bou dieu, 2014, p. 184).
The ex en o which bou geois cul u e has been success ul in i s p ojec o
“embou geoisemen ,” whe he i pe sis ed, e oded, o eeme ged is a con o e sial
ma e (Conze, 2004; Kocka, 2008; Sieg is , 1994; Wehle 2001). Mos would ag ee,
howe e , ha he bou geoisie as a sel -conscious o ma ion has los i s con ou as he
an agonism wi h he a is oc acy and he wo ke s has aded. A he same ime, many
bou geois alues and p ac ices a e no longe exclusi e o a ci cumsc ibed social s a-
um bu widely sha ed, i o di e en deg ees and in a icula ion wi h o he class-
cul u al elemen s. The ully- ledged li e-s yle o he educa ed bou geoisie has hus
ceded i s uni e sal p e ensions and e ea ed in o a sub-cul u e (Lepsius, 1992, p.
18). Despi e i s loss o in luence, howe e , i pe haps s ill has i s mos undamen al
ancho ing in he appa a us o he ci il se ice (Nol e & Hilpe , 2007, p. 46).
This las ac is c ucial. Ci il se an s ha e a p i ileged posi ion in de ining uni e -
sal s anda ds, gi en ha hey con ol he means o exe cising symbolic powe . When
“s a es s a e” (Co igan & Saye , 1992, p. 3; Bou dieu, 2014, p. 11), i is abo e all
ci il se an s who a e s a ing. In so doing, hey “a emp o gi e uni a y and uni ying
exp ession o wha a e in eali y mul i ace ed and di e en ial his o ical expe iences
o g oups wi hin socie y, denying hei pa icula i y” (Co igan & Saye , 1992, p. 3).
As a esul , such di e ences can only be hough o in “ e ms o he logic o dep i a-
ion” (Bou dieu, 1991, p. 53). E en wi hou he o hodox mili ancy o a conscious
agenda o embou geoisemen , and pe haps e en mo e e ec i ely so, ci il se an s
a e likely o shape o icial no ms simply by ac ing on hei habi ual inclina ions. As
I show in he ollowing, h ough hei choice o indica o s o immig an in eg a ion,
ci il se an s indeed ensh ine a doxa o an in eg a ed li e in Ge many o which hei
own li es co espond mos closely o.
The bou geois unde cu en o moni o ing in eg a ion
Gi en social s a is ics’ oo s in an agenda o assimila ion o he wo king class o he
bou geoisie, he e a e easonable g ounds o assume ha such bou geois legacies
ha e po en ially ca ied o e in o a s a is ical ins umen ha is likewise conce ned
wi h in eg a ion. The e is, howe e , ano he compelling eason o such assump ions.
As social s a is ics oday con inue o lie p edominan ly in he hands o ci il se an s,
hey a e s ill liable o exhibi p econcep ions o he Beam enbü ge um as a pa icula
segmen o he educa ed bou geoisie. As I a gue, class-cul u ally pa icula is ic p e-
concep ions o he good li e a e indeed palpable in he compila ion o indica o s in
he in eg a ion moni o ing. Building on he his o ical ideal- ype o bou geois cul u e
delinea ed abo e, I shall conside ou ideal- ypically bou geois alue-complexes
ha a e aci ly uni e salized by such in eg a ion s a is ics: s abili y, sel - eliance, and
o esigh ; he p i acy and sel -su iciency o he nuclea amily; sociabili y and ci ic
engagemen ; and poli ics and public discou se. I use da a om he ALLBUS, he
1 3
229
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
Ge man Gene al Social Su ey, o illus a e he ex en o which we a e in ac dealing
wi h an implici uni e saliza ion o ci il se an s’ ideas o he good li e.4
S abili y, sel - eliance, and o esigh
As indica ed abo e, bou geois men ali y is cha ac e ized by a pa icula ega d o
ou ine, con inui y, s eadiness, mode a ion, and p edic abili y, he hallma k o Max
Webe ’s mode n Be u smenschen um. I hus comes as no su p ise ha a majo com-
ponen o he s a is ical ins umen s o measu ing in eg a ion pe ains o educa ion
and wo k (see Table 1). Wha is mo e, mos o he moni o ing epo s on he munici-
pal, s a e, and ede al le el p o ide jus i ica ions in he ex o including a speci ic
indica o . These o en qui e no ma i e s a emen s se e well o highligh he implici
ideals ha in o m such s a is ical pe spec i es on in eg a ion. Wes landen’s moni o -
ing, o ins ance, pic u es educa ion and wo k as keys o an “independen li e” and a
“secu e occupa ional posi ion” ha “gua an ees a eliable income [and] makes li e-
planning possible.”
In emphasizing con inui y, planning, egula i y, and s abili y in his way, he a en-
dan indica o s in such sec ions do mo e han p oblema ize he inancially p eca ious
and indigen ci cums ances o he disad an aged. They a he same ime implici ly
de alue mo e al e na i e, non-commi al, and “bohemian” li es yles ha a e ma ked
by expe imen a ion, indulgence, and e en con a ianism.
An indica o which compa es he pe cen ages o hose owning ( a he han en ing)
eal es a e among pe sons wi h and wi hou a mig a ion backg ound u he con eys
his aci ega d o cons ancy and s ead as ness (see Table 1). The me e selec ion
ine i ably sugges s he ele ance o his aspec o li e, and he nega i e disc epancy
be ween pe sons wi h and wi hou a mig a ion backg ound wi ingly o unwi ingly
indica es which o he wo li ing a angemen s is o be p e e ed. I is e oca i e o
bou geois no ms o seden a iness, se lemen , and commi men . Such alo iza ions
implici ly hold a e y pa icula and bou geois li e model o be he no ma i e s an-
da d. In u n, li es yles cha ac e ized by mobili y, lexibili y, and ew a achmen s,
whe he hey a e pu pose ully chosen o no , a e implici ly ma ked as abe an .
No ma i e commi men s o such ideas o seden a iness also came h ough in
se e al o he ci il se an s’ commen s and ac ions. Fo ins ance, he S ad hausene
moni o ing no es ha he pe cen age among mig an s owning eal es a e o pe -
sonal use “is no e en hal ” (my emphasis) o he p opo ion among na i e Ge mans.
P omo ing an inc ease in eal-es a e owne ship is hus lis ed in he ac ion plan o
S ad hausen’s in eg a ion depa men . Ano he municipali y in Wes landen includes
he a e o luc ua ion in i s moni o ing epo s, which has e en led o a poli ical
campaign ad e ising he ci y as a “loca ion o s ay” (in e iew wi h head o he in e-
4 To be su e, no ions o he good li e can only be di ec ly in e ed om hose indica o s ha su ey a
pa icula e hical s ance (such as he subjec i e impo ance o poli ical engagemen ). Fo o he indica o s,
such no ions can only be indi ec ly in e ed om sel - epo ed beha io o li ing condi ions ha mi o
pe sonal choices. Howe e , while i is impo an o dis inguish be ween a i udes and ac ual conduc , i
seems less easonable o assume ha such beha io s un coun e o pe sonal ideas o he good li e han o
assume ha hey align. See Vaisey (2010) o a ecen con ibu ion on a i udes and beha io ha suppo s
his line o easoning.
1 3
230
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
g a ion depa men ). Likewise, du ing a ne wo k mee ings o in eg a ion o ice s in
Wes landian municipali ies, he mayo o he hos ing municipali y ga e a welcoming
add ess in which she no ed ha hey wan ed he people who mig a e o hei ci y “ o
pu down hei oo s he e” ( ieldno es).
Howe e , in segmen ing he popula ion o Ge man na ionals in Ge many in o di -
e en occupa ional g oups using da a om he Gene al Social Su ey (ALLBUS),
we ind ha such long- e m commi men s a e pa icula ly cha ac e is ic o he e y
people who cons uc in eg a ion moni o ings.5 Gi en ha hose op ing o li e in a
house gene ally end o own i , owned apa men s a e a mo e sui able indica o o
compa ing seden a iness as such, independen o ypes o eal es a e. And indeed,
when looking a all Ge man na ionals who li e in apa men s, ci il se an s wi h
execu i e du ies ha e he highes sha e o hose owning he apa men s hey li e in
compa ed o all o he occupa ional g oups, a 24% (see Table 2).
The e is a speci ic phenomenological ela ionship o ime a s ake wi h many o
hese indica o s. I is he ypically bou geois penchan o long- e m planning, he
me hodical and a ional pu sui o dis an ends, de e ed g a i ica ion, and an in es -
men in o he u u e.6 Such ime-pe spec i es a e o a signi ican deg ee “classed”
(Bou dieu, 1984, pp. 296–297, 2000, pp. 206–245).7 I is i s and o emos he
ascending ac ions o he middle class ha exhibi an asce ic, a -sigh ed, and a io-
nal pe spec i e on ime since i is hey who ha e he mos o gain om i .
E en such innocuous and uncon o e sial indica o s as he use o p e en i e
heal h measu es among pe sons wi h and wi hou a mig a ion backg ound implici ly
cas such empo al pe spec i es as he no ma i e s anda d (see Table 1 o examples).
Again, da a om he ALLBUS indica es ha his is associa ed wi h class. Table 2
shows he pe cen ages o people wi hin he di e en occupa ions who ha e isi ed
a doc o o p e en i e ca e o accina ions wi hin he las 3 mon hs. Ci il se an s
wi h execu i e du ies ha e he highes p opo ion o hose wi hin an occupa ion who
ha e isi ed a physician o such easons.8
Ci il se an s also exhibi ed such alo iza ions o o esigh and u u e-planning
in in e iews. The head o S ad hausen’s depa men o economic a ai s, who is also
a membe o he execu i e commi ee esponsible o he moni o ing, was palpably
bewilde ed ha immig an s showed compa a i ely li le inclina ion o a ail hem-
sel es o he ee consul a ions his depa men o e s o business s a -ups:
The ypical ounde who is being ad ised by ou agency... comes he e and
makes a business-plan and goes on o I don’ know how long in delibe a -
5 Fo he occupa ional di e en ia ion, a sligh ly condensed e sion o he a iable “Be u liche S ellung:
Eino dnungsbe u nach Te wey” [occupa ional me a-classi ica ion acco ding o Te wey] was used ( 864).
See GESIS (2016, pp. 1478–1483) o de ails.
6 C . Lyman & Sco (1989, pp. 45–46) on he pe cep ion o “hippies” as a h ea o he social o de which
is p ecisely due o hei wi hd awal om hegemonic egimes o ime; see also Thompson (1967/2018, p.
36).
7 The classic e e ence o ime o ien a ion is LeShan (1952) and o de e ed g a i ica ion Schneide &
Lysgaa d (1953).
8 The independen p o essions a e classi ied as one o ensu e ha N > = 30 o each occupa ional g oup.
Types o medical insu ance, o which da a was no a ailable, may play a ole he e.
1 3
231
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
ing [legal i les such as] ‘LLC’ o ‘ egis e ed me chan ’…and does e e y con-
cei able hing i s . Some o he e hnic g oups unc ion di e en ly…He e one
doesn’ go o he classic consul ancy agency o business s a -ups. One simply
goes ahead and opens he business.
The commen also exempli ies well how such di e ences a e gene ally a ibu ed o
e hnici y o mig a ion backg ound a he han o class.
P i acy and sel -su iciency o he nuclea amily
Se e al indica o s in he in eg a ion moni o ing sys ems on he municipal, s a e, and
ede al le el p esen da a on he size and composi ion o households and/o on e il-
i y a es (see Table 1). As hey do so, hey highligh he ele ance o he amily and
inad e en ly alo ize a speci ic model o amily li e o e o he s. Ine i ably, in he
con ex o an in eg a ion moni o ing ocused on in eg a ion de ici s, he gene ally
la ge amily s uc u es o mig an s a e implici ly p oblema ized in hei jux aposi-
ion o he mo e “nuclea ” s uc u es o non-mig an s. This esona es wi h bou geois
ideals. In ac , he 19 h-cen u y Bildungsbü ge um “in en ed” he idea o he p i a e
amily ci cle secluded om public, i.e., economic o poli ical, a ai s (Kocka, 1987,
pp. 36, 43). Compa isons o household size e oke i s dis inc ion om “olde o ms
o communali y in he ex ended amily which con inued o be obse ed among he
‘people’…un il long a e he eigh een h cen u y” (Habe mas, 1991, p. 44).
Mo eo e , he ocus on he numbe o child en u he alida es he calcula i e
ime-pe spec i es ypical o he educa ed bou geoisie. Again, i is p ecisely in his
class segmen whe e bi h con ol o igina ed (Nippe dey, 1990, p. 384). Less child en
allow o a mo e concen a ed ansmission o cul u e and o mo e esou ces o be
channeled in o hei social a ainmen , some hing ha is ob iously o less ele ance
o he al eady es ablished uppe classes and less easible, because compa a i ely less
likely, o hose on he lowe ungs o socie y.
Indeed, he a ionale o including his indica o in he moni o ing, gi en by he
head o S ad hausen’s depa men o in eg a ion, is in many ways elling: “Fo us
he indica o was impo an o see – I you ha e amilies wi h many child en, you
can p esume ha he inancial si ua ion is mo e di icul han when one has less chil-
d en, ha he li ing space needed is a di e en one and so on. So, i was a planning
app oach.” I onically, in selec ing his indica o wi h an eye owa d “planning” in e-
g a ion policy, he ci il se an s we e conside ing p ecisely hose issues which, as
no ed, membe s o he educa ed bou geoisie would ypically ake in o accoun in
hei own amily “planning.”
Howe e , da a om he ALLBUS again subs an ia es ha he ex en o which such
pe spec i es a e sha ed a ies widely among Ge man na ionals hemsel es. Among
he Ge man popula ion abo e he age o 50, when, p esumably, amilies ha e la gely
eached o come close o hei inal size, ci il se an s wi h execu i e unc ions ha e
a numbe o child en almos iden ical o he o al mean. In ha , hey clea ly s and
apa om a me s, unskilled and low-skilled wo ke s, as well as om he majo
en ep eneu s o he uppe class (see Table2). The equi alence wi h he gene al mean
indica es ha ci il se an s alue amily in ha hey gene ally do ha e child en (as is
1 3
232

Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
also indica ed by he inclusion o his indica o ) bu no as many child en as hose on
he op and bo om ungs o economic p ospe i y.9
Sociabili y and ci ic engagemen
Mos o he in eg a ion moni o ings de o e much space o he ques ion o how ci ic
engagemen among pe sons wi h a mig a ion backg ound compa es o pe sons wi h-
ou a mig a ion backg ound. Da a o in ol emen in olun a y associa ions, poli ical
pa ies, and spo s clubs come mos ly om na ional su ey esea ch and he Socio-
economic Panel (SOEP). In he con ex o discussing he p ocess o selec ing indica-
o s, we ha e al eady seen ha ci il se an s un ese edly poin o a “ci ic sense o
esponsibili y” and an expec a ion o “con ibu ing o socie y” in jus i ying such a
ocus.
Howe e , in su eying ci ic engagemen , especially in such associa ional o ms,
a e y pa icula and bou geois concep ion o he good li e is once again implici ly
p esen ed as uni e sal. The Ge man e m o olun a y associa ions, bü ge liche Ve -
eine, once again mi o s his ambi alence. In hemsel es, hey a e an embodimen
o co e alues o he 19 h-cen u y bou geoisie (Eisenbe g, 1993, p. 154; Nippe dey
1976, p. 181). O iginally, hey we e seen as means o os e sociabili y o he “pu -
pose o ‘se ious,’ ‘ a ional,’ and ‘use ul’ discou se, o uni ed edi ica ion…o join
ac i i ies o he common good” (Ruppe , 1984, p. 131). As such, hey we e a he
same ime ega ded as a way o mix and cul u ally assimila e he classes by “ ans-
mi ing bou geois alues o he sub-bou geois s a a” (Eisenbe g, 1993, p. 154).
Consequen ly, one would expec associa ional li e in Ge many o be s ill mos cen-
ally si ua ed in he bou geois milieu. Su ey esea ch in Ge many indeed iden i ies
ci il se an s as he occupa ional ca ego y wi h he highes sha e o hose pu suing
olun ee wo k (Schwa z, 1996, p. 264). Da a om he ALLBUS can loca e such
engagemen mo e speci ically in he uppe echelons o he ci il se ice. As Table2
shows, along wi h he ee p o essions wi h up o one employee, he wo mos senio
ca ego ies o ci il se an s once mo e s and apa as he occupa ional g oup wi h he
highes p opo ion o hose engaging in such wo k a leas once a week o e en daily.
Poli ics and public discou se
The implici no maliza ion o ci ic engagemen and associa ional membe ship eso-
na es wi h a bou geois ideal o a ional discou se and delibe a ion o he sake o
p og ess and he au onomous go e nance o socie y by ee and equal ci izens (Eisen-
be g, 1993; Nippe dey, 1976). Unsu p isingly, hen, he deg ee o poli ical ac i ism is
also measu ed in he moni o ing epo s by indica o s on he equency o pa icipa -
ing in poli ical pa ies, local poli ics, o ci izens’ ac ion commi ees/g ass oo s ini ia-
i es (see Table1).
Resea ch has, o cou se, long poin ed o a ma ked class-based a iance in poli ical
engagemen , wi h mo e highly educa ed people in highe income b acke s ypically
9 When no il e ing o age, ci il se an s wi h execu i e du ies a e abo e he mean (1.61 wi h a mean
o 1.45).
1 3
233
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
Occupa ional G oup Li ing in
sel -owned
apa men
(%) a
P ophylac ic
med. exam
in las qua e
(%) b
A g. child en a
age 50+
(biol., s ep,
adop .) c
Ci ic
engagemen
once a week o
mo e (%) d
Poli ics and
public li e
e y impo -
an (%) e
In e es in
poli ics
e y high
(%)
Poli ical
engagemen
e y impo -
an (%) g
Independen a me s 19.1 27.1 2.53 16.0 24.6 6.9 22.2
Independen p o essionals: 31.6
wi h one employee o less 18.9 - 1.58 30.0 39.3 22.2 11.4
mo e han one employee 14.5 - 1.78 25.0 33.0 25.7 19.4
Sel -employed in ade o c a , indus y, o se ice:
wi h one employee o less 13.4 29.3 1.70 14.4 25.0 12.3 17.2
wi h wo o nine employees 20.5 30.5 1.80 19.9 24.9 12.7 15.9
wi h mo e han nine employees 22.8 13.3 1.98 20.2 36.0 19.1 26.3
Ci il se an s:
ca ying ou simple/mid-le el adminis . du ies 11.0 28.1 1.65 19.5 29.8 10.5 18.9
ca ying ou senio adminis a i e du ies 19.4 33.3 1.74 31.7 33.0 22.7 17.1
ca ying ou execu i e du ies 24.0 36.8 1.81 29.7 41.9 33.1 27.8
Mas e c a - and adesmen and o emen 13.2 23.0 1.83 21.4 28.0 10.3 14.2
Employees:
wi h simple du ies 8.9 27.2 1.86 10.0 21.5 4.1 5.2
unde loose supe ision ca ying ou complex
asks independen ly
12.4 30.8 1.68 16.9 25.6 8.1 9.6
ca ying ou esponsible asks independen ly 15.2 31.0 1.73 21.3 29.6 14.7 14.1
w./ manag. espons. & decision-making powe s 16.6 36.7 1.78 22.3 38.5 21.5 19.4
Wo ke s:
unskilled wo ke 5.5 15.3 2.31 7.9 18.1 3.0 10.4
semi-skilled wo ke 6.9 17.2 2.05 9.6 20.7 4.0 7.9
Table 2 “In eg a ion indica o s” by occupa ional g oup
1 3
234
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
Occupa ional G oup Li ing in
sel -owned
apa men
(%) a
P ophylac ic
med. exam
in las qua e
(%) b
A g. child en a
age 50+
(biol., s ep,
adop .) c
Ci ic
engagemen
once a week o
mo e (%) d
Poli ics and
public li e
e y impo -
an (%) e
In e es in
poli ics
e y high
(%)
Poli ical
engagemen
e y impo -
an (%) g
skilled wo ke 7.2 19.9 1.81 12.7 22.2 6.5 11.9
To al 11.2 27.1 1.82 16.4 25.4 9.8 12.5
NOTE.  Base: Ge man na ionals excep whe e o he wise indica ed; weigh ed da a.
Pe cen ages o each i em a e based on o als wi hin each occupa ional g oup.
a N = 25,477 (27,910 unweigh ed) / ALLBUS 1980–2014 / Base: Ge man na s. li ing in ap s.
b N = 3922 (3975 unweigh ed) / ALLBUS 2004, 2014 / Indep. p o . g ouped as one so ha N>=30
c N = 11,019 (11,266 unweigh ed) / ALLBUS 2000–2014 (biannual) / Base: Ge man na s. aged 50+.
dN = 11,159 (11,287 unweigh ed)/ ALLBUS 1998, 2002, 2004, 2012
e N = 22,234 (22,377 unweigh ed) ALLBUS 1980, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1998
N = 51,327 (51,790 unweigh ed) ALLBUS 1980–2014 (exc. 1988)
g N = 5727 (5787 unweigh ed) ALLBUS 2002, 2012
Table 2 (con inued)
1 3
235
Theo y and Socie y (2023) 52:213–242
exhibi ing mo e poli ical engagemen bo h in he o m o o e pa icipa ion as well
as mo e sophis ica ed poli ical ac i i ies such as pa icipa ion in poli ical ini ia i es,
pa ies, and o ganiza ions (B ady e al., 1995; Ve ba e al., 1978). Cul u alis expla-
na ions o such a iances ha e ci ed no ions o “ci ic du y” (Campbell e al., 1960)
o a el “obliga ion o pa icipa e” (Almond & Ve ba, 1963, pp. 161–179), which,
as seen, we e in oked almos e ba im by he ci il se an s hemsel es. These ac-
o s may indeed be unde s ood as pa icula ly bou geois. They no only ca y an ai
o “noblesse oblige” ega ding ci ic engagemen bu a e also indica i e o deeply
ing ained belie s o “poli ical e icacy” (see Ab amson, 1983, pp. 135–189 o an
o e iew), i.e., o being a he helm o he social p ocess and seeing onesel as a pa
o a common social p ojec .
A close in es iga ion using da a om he ALLBUS can loca e he s onghold
o poli ical engagemen wi hin social space in an e en mo e exac ashion. Table2
shows pe cen ages o hose wi hin an occupa ional g oup assigning high impo ance
o he sphe e o poli ics and public li e, p o essing a high in e es in poli ics, and
assigning high impo ance o poli ical engagemen . Among all occupa ions, ci il se -
an s wi h execu i e du ies again show he highes sha es wi hin hei occupa ional
g oup on each o he h ee indica o s.
Jus as in he 19 h cen u y, hen, when ci il se an s i s launched su eys wi h he
aim o in eg a ing a disad an aged g oup, oday’s indica o s a e deeply imbued wi h
a concep ion o he good li e mos s ongly held by he Beam enbü ge um as a co e
segmen o he educa ed bou geoisie. Wha has changed is he deg ee o which hese
cul u al pa icula isms a e e lec ed. Indeed, he bou geois “o hodoxy” explici in
ea ly moni o ings o wo ke s’ li es has become se led “doxa” in oday’s ins umen s
o measu ing immig an in eg a ion.
Concluding discussion
This a icle adds o a ecen ly ein igo a ed li e a u e ha mobilizes pe spec i es
om cul u al sociology o explo e social inequali y and immig an inco po a ion.
While such wo k has b oken new g ound concep ually and empi ically, a ely has
i u ned i s iew o he cul u e o hose cons uc ing he p oblem o socioeconomic
mobili y i sel .
This a icle has add essed his neglec by mobilizing Pie e Bou dieu’s cul u al
sociology o he s a e. This amewo k ad ances ex an li e a u e in se e al ways.
Fo one, i allows o a ela ional pe spec i e ha si ua es he cons uc ion o social
inequali y in an ecology o class posi ions. Second, by unde sco ing he s a e’s
monopoly on legi ima e symbolic iolence, i illumina es how he e y e ms o he
deba e on social inequali y and immig an in eg a ion a e se by and il e ed h ough
concep ual schemes oo ed in he habi us o ci il se an s wi h execu i e unc ions.
Thi d, in employing he concep o symbolic domina ion, i does mo e han me ely
highligh biased alo iza ions o ce ain class cul u es. I a gues ha in cons uc ing
no jus o hodoxy bu doxa, he pe spec i es o he s a e essen ially cons i u e an e a-
su e o al e na i e o ms o li e conduc . Domina ed li es yles now necessa ily all
along he line o a one-dimensional scale o p oximi y o he unques ioned s anda d
1 3
236