Extended Summary

One of the most significant developments observed in recent years is the trend towards defining employees as a disadvantaged group rather than a social class. The question of whether employees constitute a disadvantaged group is of great importance from a social policy perspective, as its answer is closely linked to social policy being an independent scientific discipline. Indeed, classifying employees as a disadvantaged group instead of a social class would mean losing the unique perspective that distinguishes social policy from other policy areas.

The aim of this study is not to answer the question of whether employees are a disadvantaged group. The answer is clear, as employees are not considered a disadvantaged group in social policy. However, the crucial point is that the concepts of social class and disadvantaged group are based on very different intellectual foundations. Therefore, the “reduction” of employees to the status of a disadvantaged group indicates a fundamental shift that needs to be investigated. To explain this shift, the study will first address the role of social classes in the formation and development of social policy. Then, it will examine the transition from class politics, based on employees’ roles in production, to identity politics, based on their roles in consumption. Finally, the fragmentation of class and the resulting division of disadvantaged individuals and groups into various identities -such as poor, women, immigrants, or Black- will be evaluated from a social policy perspective.

From the perspective of the social policy discipline, the definition of social classes has remained largely unchanged to this day. However, the role of social classes in the formation of social policy has changed in various periods of history. To explain this change, the role of social classes can be examined from the very beginning of social policy, before, during, and after the welfare state.

Following the crisis of the second half of the 1970s, the restructuring of the capitalist economic system relied on neoliberal ideology. The spread of neoliberalism altered the balance of power between social classes and revealed the dominance of the capitalist class. The 1980s witnessed a weakening of the class consensus that had helped maintain the coalition shaped and based on the welfare state. This was reflected in the transformation of welfare state-specific values, social identities, and shared interests that developed alongside the welfare state. In the post-Cold War era, dominated by neoliberal economic and political principles, social interests, shared values, and social identities were redefined.

Social policy, as a multidisciplinary field, interacts with other disciplines. Therefore, debates about class within the field of sociology are closely related to social policy. The substitution of identity for class interests and the emphasis on identities such as gender, religion, or ethnicity over labour in class formation make these debates even more significant. The attempt to shift the focus away from the economic dimension of class inequality produced by the capitalist system has led to the working class being defined not as an economic and professional category, but as disadvantaged individuals and groups categorized into various identities such as poor, women, immigrants, or Black people. Therefore, there is a close correlation between the shift in the state’s role in the distribution of wealth, the abandonment of redistribution policies, and the emphasis on identity politics.

In today’s capitalist economic system, social inequality can be defined not according to class distinctions, but according to differences between individuals or groups/communities. This transformation of social inequality has led to class being identified as a significant source of disadvantage, and has aimed to transform social policy.

The assumed transformation in the discourse of social inequality has occurred alongside the dissolution of the social class structure and the individualization of the welfare system. Simultaneously, social risks have been individualized and detached from traditional class ties. In this context, for example, unemployment is defined not as a consequence of the functioning of the labour market, but as a risk that employed individuals may face. This creates a disadvantage for those exposed to it. Therefore, the unemployed no longer carry any meaning or significance beyond being a disadvantaged group. As a range of social risks emerge that increase the risk of income loss and poverty for the working class, the values ​​supporting social policy, such as equality, solidarity, and security, have increasingly lost legitimacy and/or become corrupted.