Do we need more or less focus on “class” in migration research?

Abstract

Is “class” a metaphor in migration studies? A cursory review of recent literature suggests “class” is sometimes central to analysis (e.g. Bonjour & Chauvin, 2018; Kofman, 2018; Robertson & Roberts, 2022; Rye, 2019; Stock, 2024). However more often, “class” is mentioned as a figure of speech, symbolically referring to socio-economic dimensions of difference. The economic dimensions are often explicit but vague, e.g. “low skilled”, “high skilled”, “working class” or “privileged”. Links to social and cultural spheres are often implicit, echoing the influence of Bourdieu's conceptualization of social, cultural and economic capital (Oliver & O'Reilly, 2010). Thus, “class” sometimes assumes the function of a metaphor, suggesting that there lies potential in further reflection on how the term is used in order to enhance contextual depth and analytical generalization in migration research.

Calls for deeper engagement with “class” in migration studies are not new (Van Hear, 2014), but are far from omnipresent. After all, people's socio-economic circumstances have a bearing on life, including for key areas of inquiry in migration research, such as considerations and decisions about leaving, staying or returning. Material and immaterial resources and networks, key aspects of what often counts as class, are often defining for experiences before, during and after migration, and crucial for analysis not only at the micro-level but also at the meso- or macro-levels. Indeed, how “class” is understood and assumed to matter also has a bearing on migration governance (Bonjour & Chauvin, 2018) or gendered dimensions of migration (Kofman, 2018; Cederberg, 2017), reflective of macro-level and group-level dynamics.

In this commentary, I offer some responses to the question: do we need more or less focus on “class” in migration research? My main concern is that where “class” is not clearly operationalized, nor adequately situated in specific analyses, the risk of analytical slippage is high. This is because “class” is not a universal phenomenon, nor is it synonymous to “inequality” (Lentz, 2020). This notwithstanding the fact that the stratification of people and groups within societies, and various logics underpinning such layering—hierarchies—are (and have been) common across most human societies over time (see also Erdal et al., 2020).

It is reasonable to ask how relevant debates about a concept emanating from industrializing, mainly North-West European societies a long time ago, are for migration research today. “Class”, following Weber, referred to income differences between groups, but such economic differences, he proposed, might be less salient than other dimensions of social status. This contrasts with perspectives drawing on Marx's work, foregrounding the role of class conflicts, placing class-based groups at the centre of societal development (in nineteenth century Europe). Bourdieu-inspired analyses of social capital, and its interplay with economic and cultural capitals, moved towards the micro-level (Oliver & O'Reilly, 2010). In much research centring or merely referencing “social capital”, the focus is rarely on relationships between individuals socio-economic positioning and a group-level (class); instead, such research often sheds light on matters of social status, comparative differences or inequalities (Cederberg, 2012).

For migration research, the geographic location of socio-economic resources and opportunities that might matter for our analyses are central, but also fraught with conceptual and methodological challenges. To illustrate, Pisarevskaya et al.'s (2020) mapping of migration studies identified “migration and socio-economic stratification” as a key topic. However, it is sorted under the “immigrant incorporation” rubric, which, on the one hand, points to an important body of work analysing upward social mobility among the “second generation” in North America and Europe (e.g. Midtbøen & Nadim, 2022; Zhou et al., 2008) but, on the other hand, is also revealing of a persistent “receiving country” bias (De Haas et al., 2015) in dominant parts of the English-language research literature.

An exciting area of conceptualization of class is that on transnational class-formation (e.g. Carlson & Barglowski, 2024; Nieswand, 2012; Rother, 2017; Rye, 2019). The transnational approach enables examination of “the dynamic quality of class distinctions” (Zotova & Cohen, 2019: 2251), centre-staging the potentially relevant roles of different places that migration brings about. This dynamism may be illustrated by the description of “working class cosmopolitans” (Werbner, 1999), here Pakistani migrants in Manchester and “back home”. In other words, attention to transnational class formation allows for the roles of different places—past, present or future—and resources and opportunities embedded in them, and/or transferable between them, to be examined.

In light of the above, there is a need for migration research to look beyond Europe and North America to reflect on and interrogate our use of concepts such as “class”. The growth of “Asian middle classes” is a well-known reality, reflecting that Asia is the most populous continent, but also of improvements in living conditions, moving beyond poverty—if only slightly—for many people in recent decades (Burki, 2015; Liao et al., 2024). Referring to “Asian middle classes” in the plural is deliberate, signalling their manifold nature, across different countries, rural/urban contexts and varying trajectories. However, it is also deliberate as it reflects the terms' use both as a category of analysis and of practice (Lentz, 2020). That is, “middle classes” is a phrase used, debated and filled with meaning in everyday life and on social media, but it is simultaneously also used for analytical purposes in research, thus clearly encompassing varying understandings, depending on its usage.

For migration research broadly, the example of Asian middle classes may serve as a reminder of how the term “class” is both contextually embedded and will thus mean different things to different people in different places, and yet, simultaneously, offers some overarching analytical promise of generalization, since socio-economic differences are also a measurable reality across societies (see also Erdal & Abraham, 2025). Indeed research on “becoming middle class” in African contexts such as Ethiopia (Breines, 2021) and Tanzania (Mercer, 2024) points to similar dynamics of emergence as those seen in Asian contexts. This includes individual, family and household perspectives, sometimes over a life course or intergenerationally, where internal migration may emerge as central.

We might draw inspiration from an example of research from South-East Asia that offers contextualized analyses of socio-economic circumstances. Rigg (2020) discusses changing agricultural practices, larger political economy developments and rural/urban (im)mobilities jointly. This reveals changing socio-economic stratification within a locality, bringing fresh approaches to wealth: financially, culturally and in “quality of life” terms. His analysis furthermore illuminates key dimensions of resources and opportunities—as these are relevant for understanding social change and the roles of (im)mobilities therein.

Looking ahead, migration research needs to enhance efforts to describe and explain complex dynamics of socio-economic stratification and their implications while striving for both contextual depth and analytical generalization. In contexts of spatial movement, where people—individuals and families, but also groups of people—migrate from one place to another or between multiple places across individuals' life courses, this is incredibly challenging in methodological terms, but it is necessary.

Is there a need for more or less focus on “class” in migration research, then? Certainly, a more deliberate, considered and refined use of the term class is called for. One which is more clearly explicit about whether or not class is used in reference to an individual's belonging to a defined group, a class. However, also one that aids our understanding of the socio-economic resources and opportunities that might be relevant to a given analysis, and how these are integrated in purposeful ways, or transparency about the fact that they might not be engaged with, if that is the case.

Because socio-economic stratification does not travel in any automatic way, migration research is well placed to analyse the dynamism and change which spatial movement may bring about for individuals' and families' socio-economic positioning, as well as for existing societal hierarchies. This might call for a more specified approach to actors, geographies and time (see Table 1) but also transparency about which aspects of socio-economic positioning (or class) are engaged with and how, such as education, work, social networks, wealth and debt.

Meanwhile, there is also a need for analytical generalization, illuminating cross-case insights, similarities as well as differences. Societal stratification and individuals' socio-economic positions are both dynamic constructs, which can be approached through a particular geographical and temporal window. However, in contexts where migration may play some role, they inevitably stretch across space, to some extent, but also time, to some degree. This necessitates deliberate, purposeful and transparent choices about the specific window we choose to look through, including the choice of terms we use to describe what we see.

The MigrationRhythms project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement no. 94840 (2021–2026).

The opinions expressed in this Commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors, Editorial Board, International Organization for Migration nor John Wiley & Sons.