Sociology Optional, Paper-1, Chapter-7
Social Mobility
Syllabus- Types of mobility-open and closed models; intra-and intergenerational mobility; vertical and horizontal mobility; social mobility and social change.
Social mobility
According to Wallace and Wallace, social mobility is the movement of a person or persons from one social position to another. It normally entails changes in life chances and lifestyles. Social mobility may not just be limited to class. For example, simply adapting to a new language or mannerisms may also increase the mobility of a person in a relatively open structure.
Implicit in invoking the concept of social mobility is the recognition of social hierarchy and gradation in society. This gradation is usually in terms of power, wealth, and prestige.
Strata sub-cultures tend to be particularly distinctive when there is little opportunity to move from one stratum to another. This opportunity to move decides whether a system of stratification is open or closed. Mobility is an indicator of a meritocratic society and the stability of class architecture in society.
Open and Closed Systems
Weber talks of social closure by different status groups. For example caste endogamy in Hindus.
In a closed system, individuals are assigned their place in the social structure on the basis of ascriptive criteria like age, birth, and sex. This system emphasizes the associative character of the hierarchy. It justifies the inequality in the distribution of wealth, status, and power and discourages or even suppresses any attempt to change it. Considerations of functional suitability or ideological notions of equality of opportunity are irrelevant in this society.
In an open system, the norms prescribe and encourage mobility. There are independent principles of ranking like status, class, and power. Individuals are assigned to different positions in the social structure based on their merit or achievement. The system is characterized by occupational diversity, flexible hierarchy, and rapidity of change. The hold of ascription-based groups like caste, kinship, or family is insignificant. The dominant values in such a system emphasize equality and freedom of the individual and change and innovation. Industrialization and urbanization are the contributing factors.
Very little vertical mobility is possible in a closed society. Pre-modern India was a closed system to a great extent. In contrast, an open society allows for greater vertical social mobility.
However, even in open societies, people cannot move from one stratum to another without resistance.
Blau and Duncan in their study on mobility observe that most while open societies have a fairly high degree of vertical social mobility, the social distance traveled is not very long.
Every society has established criteria - which might be proper manners, family lineage, education, racial affiliation, etc., which must be satisfied before people can move to a higher social level.
A study by Willmott and Young in London revealed that 83% of the managing directors in the 1970s were the sons of professionals and managers. A recent survey by Stanworth and Giddens designed to investigate the social origins of company chairmen revealed a high degree of elite self-recruitment.
Lipset and Bendix’s study on social mobility confirms that the rate of mobility displays a basic similarity across industrial societies. But they also point out that the high mobility of industrial societies is less an effect of greater openness of these societies. Instead, they consider the high mobility primarily caused by structural change in these societies.
Types of Mobility
Horizontal and Vertical mobility
Horizontal social mobility means movement by individuals or groups from one position to another which does not involve a shift into a higher or lower stratum. For example, a rural laborer migrates to the city and becomes an industrial worker.
Anthony Giddens considers a great deal of mobility along the lateral direction in modem societies and refers to horizontal mobility as lateral mobility.
On the other hand, vertical mobility involves a movement into a different stratum.
Pitirim Sorokin states that according to the direction of the transition, there are two types of vertical social mobilities - ascending and descending, or 'social climbing' and 'social sinking' respectively.
Giddens calls those who gain in property, income, or status upwardly mobile, while those who move in the opposite direction downwardly mobile. He also comments that in modem societies vertical and horizontal mobility are often combined. For example, an individual working in a company in one city might be promoted to a higher position in a branch of the firm located in another town, or even in a different country. Mobility is being considered a factor of promotion in modern societies.
Intra-generational and Inter-generational mobility
Mobility taking place in personal terms within the lifespan of the same person is called intragenerational mobility. It refers to the development of one’s social level during one’s lifetime. Example: Ms. Arundhati Bhattacharya started as a PO in SBI and rose to the position of its Chairman. It is also termed career mobility.
Alternatively, one can analyze the status of a daughter, upon reaching adulthood, as compared to that of her parents. For example: if the daughter of a clerk becomes an IAS officer. This is inter-generational mobility and it tells us to what extent inequalities are passed on from one generation to the next. If there is very less inter-generational mobility, it shows that inequalities are deeply built into the society and life chances are majorly determined at birth.
Studying the American occupational structure, Blau and Duncan have found that a person's chances of moving up the occupational ladder are strongly influenced by - the amount of education, nature of the first job, and father’s occupation.
Absolute and Relative mobility
Absolute mobility is the actual change in position that occurs whereas relative mobility is judged in comparison to others.
Structural and Circular mobility
Structural mobility is the mobility of people who are already part of the occupational structure. By virtue of the change in technology, skills, education, and policy, such people become socially mobile.
On the other hand, there are people who are outside the social structure. When such people enter into occupations, it is referred to as circulation mobility.
Sponsored and Contested mobility
R.H. Turner calls sponsored social mobility the one which a person acquires due to some policy decision. For example policy of reservation is known as sponsored social mobility.
On the other hand, contested mobility is the one based on open competition.
Structural mobility
Structural mobility is a kind of vertical mobility. It refers to mobility that is brought about by changes in the stratification hierarchy itself. It is a vertical movement of a specific group, class, or occupation relative to others in the stratification system. It is a type of forced mobility for it takes place because of the structural changes and not because of individual attempts. For example, technology or labor market changes may lead to the rise or decline of an occupational group within the social hierarchy. Cotton mill workers in India saw a decline in their social position after the mass shutdown of mills and the increasing use of synthetic fabrics. An influx of immigrants may also alter class alignments, especially if the new arrivals are disproportionately highly skilled or unskilled.
Individual and Group mobility
When an individual changes their social position due to the achievement of economic means, prestige, or power, it is termed individual mobility.
When a group as a whole improves its social position, it is termed group mobility. For example: with an increase in trade and agriculture in the later Vedic period, Vaishyas experienced group mobility.
Sources and Causes of Mobility
Stratification system, economic or political restructuring, the role of the state, and value systems are some of the sources of mobility.
According to Harold Gould industrialization brought about the transfer of specialized occupations of all kinds from the context of the kin groups to factories organized on bureaucratic principles. This meant that occupational role and role occupant would be in principle separated. The preponderant criteria for determining occupations would be performance qualities and economic rewards and social mobility would constitute the principal standards for evaluating the worth or the status of any given role. Thus, industrialization and the accompanying urbanization are major sources of social mobility.
According to Sorokin, there are certain four primary factors that affect mobility in all societies:
Demographic factor - the birth rate of higher strata is generally lower than that of lower strata. The net population growth is such that there is usually some room at the top for members of lower strata. This is also true in terms of urban and rural populations, where migration from rural areas balances the low birth rate of the urban population. From the mobility angle, this means that new kinds of vacancies are created which must then be filled.
The abilities of parents and children - Sorokin notes that the abilities of parents and children may not match. In ascriptive societies, children may not always be as suited to their inherited status positions. Lipset and Bendix state that there are always new supplies of talent that must be absorbed somewhere or the other. Even in societies with inherited status positions, there were always opportunities for talented individuals to be upwardly mobile. For example: under feudalism, individuals with military prowess could rise. But critics argue that class of origin still matters and the topmost positions and the lowest positions are largely self-recruiting.
The faulty distribution of individuals in social positions - Pareto says that history is the graveyard of aristocracies. He contended that over time generations lose their innate qualities, or persons from lower strata might exhibit those qualities, and thus a change in the personnel of the elite would take place.
The change in the environment - economic, social, political, legal, and technological changes also affect social mobility. Example: globalization, democratization, increase in literacy rates and education standards, etc.
Lipset and Bendix emphasize that the rate of social mobility displays basic similarity across industrial societies. According to them, among industrial societies, no association is apparent between mobility rates and the rate of economic growth. Social mobility becomes relatively high once industrialization reaches a certain level. They list five factors that lead to social mobility in industrial societies. These are:
Changes in the number of available vacancies
Different rates of fertility
Changes in the rank accorded to occupations
Changes in the number of inheritable status positions
Changes in legal restrictions about potential opportunities
However, Goldthorpe cites the work of Miller, who, using more data than Lipset and Bendix, shows that there is a lack of convergence between the rates of mobility of industrial societies. This shows that perhaps it is not industrialization per se, but also other factors, such as cultural factors, the education system, etc., which also have a bearing on social mobility.
The personal talent of gifted individuals is also a source of mobility.
Subjective factors: Aspirations, motivation of people, degree of exclusivity. Merton writes about the importance of the reference group in determining social behavior. He states that an individual who seeks to be mobile has, as a reference group, a non-membership group rather than his group, and goes for anticipatory socialization. ‘Culture of Poverty as explained by Oscar Lewis.
Barriers to mobility: Marxian viewpoint.
Causes for downward mobility: because certain occupations have lost prestige through a re-ranking of positions, and thus their occupants have moved down. Or those very positions cease to exist.
Social Mobility and Social Change
Giddens suggests that if the rate of social mobility is low, class solidarity and cohesion will be high. Most individuals will remain in their class of origin and this will provide for the reproduction of common life experiences over generations. He criticizes conventional discussions of mobility which look at classes as fixed categories that can be populated by different people at different times.
Schumpeter for example likens classes to buses, which have different passengers at different times.
Merton's work on social structure and anomie sheds more light on this. He differentiates between socially accepted goals and means of achieving these goals. The goals refer to the values of society. Those who accept the goals and the means of achieving them are Conformists. But there may be those who reject the goals - the values, as well as the means of achieving them. These people may either retreat from social life - Retreatism or may rebel against society - Rebellion. In the latter case, they may, postulate a new structure of society, rather than seek advancement within the given structure.
Social mobility is a product of social change and also it also initiates social change.
Consequences of Mobility
High mobility adds to social cohesion. America did not witness class wars as the social structure was open. Europe had a rigid social structure and class inequality was far more pronounced.
Frank Parkin sees a relatively high rate of upward mobility as a political safety valve. It provides opportunities for many able and ambitious members of the working class to improve their situation. As a result, the frustration which might result, if opportunities for upward mobility were absent, is prevented from developing.
Greater innovation, creativity, and productivity. Better efficiency and economic growth. Cultural homogenization.
Anomie of infinite aspiration, illegitimate means may be used to climb up the ladder, by people with achievement motivation.
Weakens kinship ties. Social deviance increases.
Ralf Dahrendorf believes that the situation has arrived in modern western societies, where, there are considerable opportunities for individual advancement. There is, therefore, less need for people to join together as members of a social class, in order to improve their situation. In Dahrendrof’s words, instead of advancing their claims as members of a homogeneous group, people are more likely to compete with each other as individuals for a place in the sun. Although mobility diminishes the coherence of groups as well as the intensity of class conflict, it does not eliminate either.
0 Comments
please do not enter any spam link in the comment box.