The concept and types of social mobility

Social mobility refers to the ability of individuals or groups to move between different social classes or strata within a society. It reflects the openness of a society's structure and the opportunities available for people to change their social position.

Categories of social mobility

• Intra-generational mobility - Changes in social class within an individual's lifetime.
• Inter-generational mobility - Differences in social class between generations, such as a person remaining in or moving from their parents' class.
• Absolute mobility - The overall level of social mobility within a society, indicating how many people change class.
• Relative mobility - The comparison of social mobility chances between different social groups, showing disparities in opportunity.

Social status and systems of stratification

• Ascribed status - Social position assigned at birth, often based on family background, gender, or ethnicity, such as inheriting a noble title.
• Achieved status - Social position gained through personal effort, merit, or hard work, like becoming a successful professional.
• Open systems of stratification - Societies that allow for achieved status and high social mobility, often described as meritocratic, where success depends on individual ability.
• Closed systems of stratification - Societies where social position is largely ascribed, limiting mobility due to fixed roles from birth.

Key studies on social mobility in Britain

Several significant studies have explored social mobility in Britain, providing insights into how class structures have evolved over time and the extent of movement between classes.

Glass (1954) study on early social mobility

• Method - Conducted in 1949 and published in 1954, this study compared the social class of fathers and sons using statistical data across seven defined classes.
• Results - Found a high level of social mobility, with approximately two-thirds of sons in a different class from their fathers. This movement was evenly split, with one-third moving up and one-third moving down, though most shifts were short-range (to the adjacent class).
• Conclusions - Highlighted unequal chances of reaching the top in British society, as the upper class showed less mobility compared to other classes.
• Evaluation - Glass later critiqued his own work as rudimentary, lacking depth to assess long-term trends or international comparisons, and intended only as a starting point for research.

Oxford Mobility Study by Goldthorpe et al. (1980)

• Method - Conducted in 1972 and published in 1980, often referred to as the Goldthorpe or Nuffield Study, it examined father-son class differences.
• Results - Reported higher mobility than in 1949, with around half of sons in a different class from their fathers, and more upward than downward movement.
• Conclusions - Indicated improved opportunities for working-class individuals in the latter 20th century, suggesting Britain was becoming more open and meritocratic according to functionalist perspectives. However, relative mobility showed that those from upper-class backgrounds had significantly better chances of staying at the top.
• Evaluation - Critics, such as Saunders (1990), argued Goldthorpe focused excessively on relative mobility and class injustice, overlooking improvements in absolute mobility.
• Relative hope rule - Summarised by Kellner and Wilby (1980) as the 1:2:4 rule, indicating that the chance of a working-class son reaching a professional class was half that of an intermediate-class son and one-fourth that of an upper-class son.

Later research on mobility patterns

• Goldthorpe and Payne (1986) - A follow-up during the 1970s recession showed increased overall mobility but persistent inequality in accessing top classes for those from lower backgrounds.
• Payne (1987) - Identified regional disparities, with working-class individuals in southern England more likely to experience upward mobility compared to those in the north.
• Essex Study by Marshall et al. (1988) - Analysed 1984 data, noting increased but mostly short-range mobility. Working-class individuals were less likely to secure or retain top positions compared to those from upper-class origins.

Factors affecting social mobility and class persistence

Social mobility in Britain is influenced by various structural and cultural factors, often reinforcing class persistence, particularly at the top levels of society.

Persistence of upper-class dominance

• Higher retention rates - Individuals born into the upper class are far more likely to remain there compared to working-class individuals moving up.
• Elite self-recruitment - The upper class often recruits from within its own circles, with many members coming from families with long-standing elite status.
• Evidence from Stanworth and Giddens (1974) - Found that only about 1% of top positions in over 400 major British companies were held by individuals of working-class origin, illustrating limited upward mobility into elite roles.
• Enhanced life chances - Upper-class individuals benefit from superior opportunities in education, employment, and health, further entrenching their position.

Gender disparities in social mobility

• Historical exclusion - Early studies largely ignored women, with class often determined by the male household head until changes in government statistics in 2000 began measuring women based on their own occupations.
• Heath (1981) - Revisited 1972 and 1974 data, finding daughters in higher classes (I and II) were more likely to experience downward mobility than sons.
• Goldthorpe and Payne (1986) - Suggested women's mobility patterns mirrored men's, arguing class was more significant than gender, thus justifying earlier exclusions.
• Essex Study by Marshall et al. (1988) - Noted women frequently moved into routine non-manual roles, regardless of origin class, with most such work performed by women.
• Savage and Egerton (1997) - Found class influenced opportunity less for daughters than sons, possibly due to middle-class sons benefiting from social networks like the 'old boys' network' or due to sexism in traditional upper-class roles.

Challenges in measuring social mobility

Measuring social mobility presents several methodological and conceptual difficulties, limiting the accuracy and applicability of findings.

Limitations in research approaches

• Focus on middle and upper classes - Studies often neglect the long-term unemployed, skewing results towards higher strata.
• Quantitative bias - Emphasis on numerical data overlooks qualitative aspects, such as personal experiences or feelings about class.
• Crude classification scales - Use of simplistic five- or seven-point scales fails to capture intra-class variations, where conditions at the bottom of a class differ significantly from the top.
• Employment-based metrics - Class categorisation relies on job types, yet not all roles fit neatly into defined ranges.
• Generational comparison issues - Comparing older and younger generations is problematic as the younger group's status may still evolve.
• Evolving job landscapes - Technological and industrial changes make it difficult to compare occupations across generations.
• Initial exclusion of women - Early research ignored female mobility, potentially misrepresenting overall patterns until later studies addressed this gap.

Debates on meritocracy and social mobility trends

The interpretation of social mobility data has sparked debates about whether Britain is truly meritocratic and how trends in mobility are evolving.

Arguments for and against meritocracy

• Support for meritocracy by Saunders (1996) - A New Right thinker, Saunders used studies like the Essex research to argue that opportunities for mobility exist, but success depends on individual talent and effort, not class origin.
• Critiques of Saunders' view - His methodology is contested for excluding the unemployed and part-time workers, potentially skewing results. Additionally, class bias in education, through labelling and stereotypes, may hinder working-class achievement, reflecting background more than ability.
• Evidence from The Sutton Trust (2013) - Research showed that by age 15, clever boys from advantaged backgrounds in England were over two years ahead in reading compared to equally clever boys from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the gap wider in Scotland at almost three years.
• Contrasting analysis by Savage and Egerton (1997) - Using the same data as Saunders, they concluded that equal ability did not translate to equal outcomes, as social networks, confidence, and cultural advantages disproportionately benefited upper-class children, with educational systems often reflecting middle- and upper-class values.

Trends in absolute and relative mobility

• Post-war expansion - Goldthorpe's 1972 findings noted improved absolute mobility for working-class individuals, driven by the Welfare State creating new service-sector roles in health and education, alongside growth in finance, while manufacturing declined.
• Continuing absolute mobility - This trend of increased absolute mobility has persisted into the 21st century, with growth in professional and service-sector jobs, but a decline in skilled trades and administrative roles that historically offered working-class progression.
• Stagnant relative mobility - Despite absolute gains, relative mobility remains limited, with individuals from advantaged backgrounds more likely to secure top service-sector positions.
• Future concerns - Some sociologists warn of labour market polarisation, with abundant high-skill professional jobs at the top and low-skill jobs at the bottom, but few middle-tier opportunities. This could hinder relative mobility, as working-class individuals may struggle to access top roles and lack alternative paths for advancement.