Difference between revisions of "Social mobility" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 8: Line 8:
 
According to the degree or the ease of the circulation, it is possible to make distinction between immobile ( or closed societies ) and mobile societies where the transition from one social stratum to another has had minimum resistance. An important caveat: There scarcely has existed a society whose strata were absolutely closed, just as there has hardly ever existed a society where the vertical mobility was absolutely free of obstacles.  
 
According to the degree or the ease of the circulation, it is possible to make distinction between immobile ( or closed societies ) and mobile societies where the transition from one social stratum to another has had minimum resistance. An important caveat: There scarcely has existed a society whose strata were absolutely closed, just as there has hardly ever existed a society where the vertical mobility was absolutely free of obstacles.  
  
Examples of closed societies were feudal and caste societies. Societies which use [[slavery]] are an example of low social mobility because, for the enslaved individuals, mobility is nonexistent. In [[Hindu]] society, under the [[caste system]], only with rare exceptions could individuals leave the caste into which they were born, regardless of [[wealth]] or [[merit]]. However, even there, the individuals born in a lower social stratum might succeed in entering the top caste as, for example, the son of Mahatma Gandhi, the rank of a Brahmin. There is a catch in it, though. Although societies with low or nonexistent social mobility might afford free individuals opportunities to amass wealth, wealth itself very rarely can "buy" entry into a higher social class. In feudal Japan and Confucius-era China, wealthy merchants occupied the lowest ranks in society. In pre-revolutionary France, a nobleman, however poor, was from the "second estate" of society and thus superior, at least in theory, to a wealthy merchant (from the "third estate"). Similar case can be made for quasi-feudal monarchies of modern era too. In Saudi Arabia and neighboring sultanates, a commoner cannot become a head of state nor can he hold any high or important position in the government. He can become rich, though.     
+
Examples of closed societies were feudal and caste societies. Societies which use [[slavery]] are an example of low social mobility because, for the enslaved individuals, mobility is nonexistent. In [[Hindu]] society, under the [[caste system]], only with rare exceptions could individuals leave the caste into which they were born, regardless of [[wealth]] or [[merit]]. But even in such a society, there have been individuals born in one of the lowest castes - the son of late Mahatma Gandhi - whoisuceeded in entering the top, Brahmin, caste. There is a catch in it, though. Although societies with low or nonexistent social mobility might afford free individuals opportunities to amass wealth, wealth itself very rarely can "buy" entry into a higher social class. In feudal Japan and Confucius-era China, wealthy merchants occupied the lowest ranks in society. In pre-revolutionary France, a nobleman, however poor, was from the "second estate" of society and thus superior, at least in theory, to a wealthy merchant (from the "third estate"). Similar case can be made for quasi-feudal monarchies of modern era too. In Saudi Arabia and neighboring sultanates, a commoner cannot become a head of state nor can he hold any high or important position in the government. He can become rich, though.     
  
 
On the other hand, modern western [[democracy|democracies]]  are characterized by much more intensive vertical mobility.  
 
On the other hand, modern western [[democracy|democracies]]  are characterized by much more intensive vertical mobility.  
 
In democratic societies, the social position of an individual,
 
In democratic societies, the social position of an individual,
at least theoretically, is not determined by his birth; all positions are open to everybody who can get them; there are  no judicial or religious obstacles to climbing ( or going down ). Official or legally recognized class designations do not exist, and it is possible - though rare - for individuals to move from poverty to wealth or political prominence within one generation. A case of [[Andrew Carnegie]], who arrived in the U.S. as a poor [[immigrant]] and later became a [[steel]] [[tycoon]] is well known. Another example, from France, is [[Pierre Bérégovoy]] who started working at the age of 16 as a metal worker and, in the end, became [[Prime Minister of France]]. Nevertheless, such examples tend to be the exception rather than the rule. While a few individual members of the working class or even immigrants manage to achieve positions of wealth or power, the overwhelming majority do not. Indeed, it is physically impossible to have more bosses than workers; thus it is impossible for the majority of workers to rise out of their social class.
+
at least theoretically, is not determined by his birth; all positions are open to everybody who can get them; there are  no judicial or religious obstacles to climbing ( or going down ). Official or legally recognized class designations do not exist, and it is possible - though rare - for individuals to move from poverty to wealth or political prominence within one generation. A case of [[Andrew Carnegie]], who arrived in the U.S. as a poor [[immigrant]] and later became a [[steel]] [[tycoon]] is well known. Another example, from France, is [[Pierre Bérégovoy]] who started working at the age of 16 as a metal worker and, in the end, became [[Prime Minister of France]]. Nevertheless, such examples tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Social mobility is normally discussed in a positive light, but it is a two-sided phenomenon. Unlike absolute economic prosperity and individual standard of living, relative social class is a zero-sum game, and where there is upward mobility, there is also downward mobility. While a few individual members of the working class or even immigrants manage to achieve positions of wealth or power, the overwhelming majority do not. Indeed, it is physically impossible to have more bosses than workers; thus it is impossible for the majority of workers to rise out of their social class. Besides, the ability for an individual to become wealthy, out of powerty, does not necessarily indicate that there is social mobility in his or her society. However, the entire paradigm of benefits of the unchecked social mobility to any society is based on the axiom of large-sample statistics. The bigger the sample of individual competitors for every single social position the society needs and can chose from - where the necessary attributes are: know-how, talent, education, ambiiton, character, presnce, etc. - the higher outcome the society is likely to get from that position. Despite the corrrepondent downward mobility, in macro-systems, this is the only way to societal progress.  
  
Also, in [[market]] societies like the modern United States, class and [[economics | economic]] wealth are strongly correlated and, therefore, often conflated. In some societies, on the other hand, they are time-lagged factors at play. Usually,  membership in a high social class provides more opportunities for wealth and political power, and therefore economic fortune is often a [[lagging indicator]] of social class. In newly-formed societies with little or no established tradition (such as the American West in the 19th century) the reverse is true: Made wealth precipitates the elite of future generations.
+
Some further remarks. In [[market]] societies like the modern United States, class and [[economics | economic]] wealth are strongly correlated and, therefore, often conflated. In some societies, on the other hand, they are time-lagged factors at play. Usually,  membership in a high social class provides more opportunities for wealth and political power, and therefore economic fortune is often a [[lagging indicator]] of social class. In newly-formed societies with little or no established tradition (such as the American West in the 19th century) the reverse is true: Made wealth precipitates the elite of future generations.
  
 
==== Social Mobility - Basic Theories, Trends, and International Comparison====
 
==== Social Mobility - Basic Theories, Trends, and International Comparison====

Revision as of 00:20, 27 February 2006


Social Mobility - Introduction

Social mobility is the degree to which, in a given society, an individual's social status can change throughout the course of his or her life, or the degree to which that individual's offspring and subsequent generations move up and down the class system. It is, in other words, the movement ( or circulation ) of individuals, families or groups within a social space mapped by status, occupation, income, and similar variables through which members of a society may be defined.

According to the degree or the ease of the circulation, it is possible to make distinction between immobile ( or closed societies ) and mobile societies where the transition from one social stratum to another has had minimum resistance. An important caveat: There scarcely has existed a society whose strata were absolutely closed, just as there has hardly ever existed a society where the vertical mobility was absolutely free of obstacles.

Examples of closed societies were feudal and caste societies. Societies which use slavery are an example of low social mobility because, for the enslaved individuals, mobility is nonexistent. In Hindu society, under the caste system, only with rare exceptions could individuals leave the caste into which they were born, regardless of wealth or merit. But even in such a society, there have been individuals born in one of the lowest castes - the son of late Mahatma Gandhi - whoisuceeded in entering the top, Brahmin, caste. There is a catch in it, though. Although societies with low or nonexistent social mobility might afford free individuals opportunities to amass wealth, wealth itself very rarely can "buy" entry into a higher social class. In feudal Japan and Confucius-era China, wealthy merchants occupied the lowest ranks in society. In pre-revolutionary France, a nobleman, however poor, was from the "second estate" of society and thus superior, at least in theory, to a wealthy merchant (from the "third estate"). Similar case can be made for quasi-feudal monarchies of modern era too. In Saudi Arabia and neighboring sultanates, a commoner cannot become a head of state nor can he hold any high or important position in the government. He can become rich, though.

On the other hand, modern western democracies are characterized by much more intensive vertical mobility. In democratic societies, the social position of an individual, at least theoretically, is not determined by his birth; all positions are open to everybody who can get them; there are no judicial or religious obstacles to climbing ( or going down ). Official or legally recognized class designations do not exist, and it is possible - though rare - for individuals to move from poverty to wealth or political prominence within one generation. A case of Andrew Carnegie, who arrived in the U.S. as a poor immigrant and later became a steel tycoon is well known. Another example, from France, is Pierre Bérégovoy who started working at the age of 16 as a metal worker and, in the end, became Prime Minister of France. Nevertheless, such examples tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Social mobility is normally discussed in a positive light, but it is a two-sided phenomenon. Unlike absolute economic prosperity and individual standard of living, relative social class is a zero-sum game, and where there is upward mobility, there is also downward mobility. While a few individual members of the working class or even immigrants manage to achieve positions of wealth or power, the overwhelming majority do not. Indeed, it is physically impossible to have more bosses than workers; thus it is impossible for the majority of workers to rise out of their social class. Besides, the ability for an individual to become wealthy, out of powerty, does not necessarily indicate that there is social mobility in his or her society. However, the entire paradigm of benefits of the unchecked social mobility to any society is based on the axiom of large-sample statistics. The bigger the sample of individual competitors for every single social position the society needs and can chose from - where the necessary attributes are: know-how, talent, education, ambiiton, character, presnce, etc. - the higher outcome the society is likely to get from that position. Despite the corrrepondent downward mobility, in macro-systems, this is the only way to societal progress.

Some further remarks. In market societies like the modern United States, class and economic wealth are strongly correlated and, therefore, often conflated. In some societies, on the other hand, they are time-lagged factors at play. Usually, membership in a high social class provides more opportunities for wealth and political power, and therefore economic fortune is often a lagging indicator of social class. In newly-formed societies with little or no established tradition (such as the American West in the 19th century) the reverse is true: Made wealth precipitates the elite of future generations.

Social Mobility - Basic Theories, Trends, and International Comparison

In modern industrial societies with democratic tradition ( inclusive of the parliamentary "monarchies," such as in Britain, Denmark, Japan, etc.) that are open to social mobility, there were recognized at least two eras in which seemingly contradictory trends and, thus, theoretical concepts of social mobility have taken place:

Post-War Industrialization 1950-1970. In the period from the end of the Second World War until the 1970s all industrialized nations showed declining income inequality. Chances for upward mobility in this era increased steadily with increased education. This held for all countries that devised good educational system ( including tertiary education ) open to all social strata. It was found that the proportion of those who moved up a long distance from their social origins form 8% of those with less than 5 years of formal education, and 53% of those with some postgraduate work. On the other side, men with an intermediate amount of education ( at least 8 years of compulsory education, but without finishing college ) experienced considerable downward mobility from their social origins, whatever relatively high. In other words, the positions with best rewards and highest rank were those requiring the most extensive training and/or talent. So, a sufficient determinant of rank appeared to be scarcity of talent and know-how acquired through the education channels. It is worth mentioning, that a generally accepted hypothesis argues that class origin inequalities in upward mobility chances will have been roughly constant across nations.

Post-Industrial Societies 1970-2000 ( to Present ). On the one side, in most European countries the upward social mobility keeps its correlation with educational attributes and thus continue producing "meritocracy" where anybody with talent, education, and ambition can attain any social and economic apex ( as opposed to "aristocracy" where only blood-line was the main prerequisite for social status ). An assumption prevails that increased economic competition will cause employers to recruit on increasingly meritocratic bases, with the result that the social advantages attached to generally upheld factors, such as: class origin, sex or ethnic group membership, will decline in importance as resources for upward mobility.

On the other side, and somewhat surprisingly, in the U.S. and Britain these meritocratic trends have actually been producing decline in social mobility. In America, there is a higher correlation today between parents' and children's' income than in the 1980s, while the income gap between college graduates and non-graduated doubled between 1979 and 1997. Unchecked, these trends might lead the U.S. toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired ever more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top. No wonder that many believe that America is becoming a stratified society based on education: a meritocracy and that class is reappearing in a new form.

The belief that more education will make Britain more meritocratic and shatter the class system caused a huge expansion in higher education during the past two decades and the government's determination to steer half the country's 18-30-year-olds into universities. The idea that we live in a "knowledge economy" has strengthened that notion. But the recent trends show that education plays a smaller role in social mobility than it used to, according to current research. It discovered that firms want recruits that formal education does not necessarily bring: "high touch" in the jargon, rather than hi-tech. Typical example are management jobs in fast-growing industries, such as leisure and retailing, as well as posts in public relations, in sales and customer care. What these posts did require were skills in communication and team-working, and personal attributes as "good appearance," "good manners," "character," and "presence" ( i.e."proper accent" ). Hence, all these newly sought after attributes were more clearly linked to wealth and to educational attainment ( coming with it ) with children from the poor backgrounds trapped in the worst schools and less likely to continue their studies. Thus, the old class system has been reconstituted into a more or less meritocratic upper tier and a lower tier which is defined principally by its failure to qualify for the upper tier.

Transitional Societies . Many of the countries that have recently converted to a market-based economic system have also an alarming increase in income inequality: a widening gap between the haves and have-nots. Social mobility encourages entrepreneurs and, according to the mainstream opinion, leads to a more fair society. However, any excesses on the road lead to widespread insecurity and anxiety instead. The problem of transitional societies is in high correlation of income inequality with asocial, unethical and/or downright criminal behavior of the "nouveau-riche" ruling class - former oligarchy, the only social strata with money, connections and information - that operates in the legal limbo created by the institutional framework consisting of the old constitution, securing the dictatorship of the former oligarchic cliques, with only a few partially novelized laws. Since the large part of police and the judicial apparatus is corrupt with strong personal ties to the old oligarchs ( now presidents ), the problems of social mobility might be negligible relative to the lingering danger of societies destruction. This scenario is not at all far-fetched, given the societies' dissatisfaction with lawlessness is rising well to the previously uncharted levels.

Conclusion

Social mobility is the movement of the members of a certain society within the social space mapped by status, occupation, income and similar factors. In a perfect world anybody's background would be of no importance, since everybody would be competing for jobs under the same conditions. We don't live in a perfect world, though. There are differences in the social circumstances of classes, of men and women, and people of different ethnic groups. We know, however, that the traditional democracies - with the enshrined rights and freedom to all prerequisites of social mobility - are, apart from being law-abiding societies, also invariably leaders in economic prosperity and individual standards of living, stagnant or decreased mobility notwithstanding. A New York Times columnist points out that since 1993, we have seen declines in violent crimes, family violence, teenage births, abortions, child poverty, drunken driving, teenage sex, teenage suicide and divorce. Also apparent are increases in test scores and membership in voluntary associations and he concludes: "...meritocracy may mean less mobility, but that is bearable if America is becoming more virtuous...." From all of this it follows that a sound moral foundations, law abiding societal behavior, successful educational system open in the whole spectrum for everybody ( no matter from which social strata the students come ), quality of legal framework and law enforcement capability, respect for human rights, freedom of religion and credibility of the legal institution should, at the end, take care of any social mobility vs. meritocracy fluctuations. These attributes should, first of all, bring the sustainable growth growth of societal prosperity and well-being, which is, after all, the ultimate goal of every society.

External links

The New York Times offers a graphic about social mobility, overall trends, income elasticity and country by country. European nations such as Denmark and France, are ahead of the US. [1]


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.