Social Mobility: Types, Forms, and Theoretical Perspectives

What is Social Mobility?

Social mobility is a concept that embodies the movement of individuals, groups, or values within a society’s structure. This concept, classically defined by sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin, indicates that any entity modified by human activity can undergo such transitions. These movements are significant as they often involve considerable changes in life-chances and lifestyles, thereby impacting not only the entities involved but society as a whole.

The Essence of Social Mobility

Implicit in the concept of social mobility is the recognition of societal gradations. This hierarchy is typically based on three pillars: power, prestige, and privileges. Consequently, social mobility opens a pathway for sociological investigations into how individuals or groups gain or lose these attributes within society. Changes in social position signify a dynamic society where the time taken for such transitions can vary significantly from one society to another.

Types of Social Mobility

Social mobility can be analyzed through two fundamental axes: horizontal and vertical. Each type offers a distinct lens through which sociological changes can be understood.

Horizontal Mobility

Horizontal mobility refers to the movement across a society that doesn’t necessarily translate to moving up or down within the social hierarchy. Sorokin describes it as transitions within social groups that are at the same level. For instance, changing religious groups, shifting from one job to another of the same status, or relocating geographically without altering one’s social stratum are all examples of horizontal mobility. Modern sociologist Anthony Giddens expands this definition to include lateral movements, such as geographic relocations between areas, highlighting the prevalence of such movements in contemporary societies.

Vertical Mobility

Vertical mobility, on the other hand, is characterized by an upward or downward movement within the social hierarchy. This type of mobility is where the individual or group experiences a change in rank, either enhancing or lowering their position. Such changes are observed through promotions or demotions, shifts in income, changes in social circles, or residential moves to neighborhoods reflecting a different status. Sorokin defines vertical social mobility as the shift between different social strata, characterized as ‘social climbing’ or ‘social sinking.’

Giddens concurs, emphasizing that in modern societies, vertical and horizontal mobilities often occur simultaneously. For instance, a promotion might lead an individual to move not only upward within a company’s hierarchy but also to relocate to a different city or country.

Forms of Mobility

Sorokin identifies four principal forms of mobility, which can be both ascending and descending. These include the infiltration of individuals from a lower stratum into a higher one without displacing the existing hierarchy and the creation of new groups that insert themselves into higher strata. Conversely, there is the dropping of individuals from a higher to a lower stratum without affecting the original group and the degradation or disintegration of an entire group leading to its decline in the social hierarchy.

Ralph H. Turner provides a comparative analysis of the predominant modes of mobility in England and the United States, introducing two ideal-typical normative patterns of upward mobility: contest mobility and sponsored mobility.

Contest Mobility

Contest mobility is a system where status is attained through open competition, governed by fair play rules, where the ‘prize’ of successful mobility isn’t distributed by an existing elite but is won by the aspirants through their efforts. Turner uses the term ‘elite’ to refer to high-status categories within society, emphasizing that in contest mobility, individuals have wide latitude in the strategies they may employ to ascend socially.

Sponsored Mobility

In contrast, sponsored mobility is a system where the elite or their representatives choose individuals to be included in their ranks. In this scenario, upward mobility is akin to entry into a private club, where potential members must be ‘sponsored’ by current members. The elite grants mobility based on their judgment of the candidate’s merits, which are supposed to align with the qualities they desire in their peers.

Dimensions and Implications of Social Mobility

Social mobility is a concept that plays a pivotal role in understanding the dynamics of any society. It involves the movement of individuals or families within the social hierarchy, either during their lifetime or across generations. In this article, we will explore the various dimensions of social mobility and delve into their implications for the broader social structure. We will examine concepts such as intragenerational and intergenerational mobility, the range of mobility, downward mobility, and the possibilities of mobility.

Intragenerational Mobility and Intergenerational Mobility

To comprehend social mobility, it’s essential to differentiate between intragenerational and intergenerational mobility. Intragenerational mobility focuses on an individual’s career progression throughout their working life. In contrast, intergenerational mobility examines how children follow in the occupational footsteps of their parents or grandparents.

Intragenerational mobility, often referred to as career mobility, requires individuals to reflect on the jobs they’ve held at various points in their lives. Studies by Blau and Duncan in the context of the American occupational structure have highlighted several influential factors in intragenerational mobility, including:

• Amount of Education
• Nature of the person’s first job
• Father’s occupation

These factors indicate that a person’s chances of moving up the occupational ladder are influenced by educational attainment, the initial job they undertake, and their family background. Intragenerational mobility examines changes within an individual’s working life, providing insights into short-term shifts in social status.

Range of Mobility

Social mobility can encompass various degrees of movement within the social hierarchy. The extent of social distance covered during this movement is termed the ‘range’ of mobility. Short-range mobility refers to movement within a limited social distance, while long-range mobility involves substantial shifts across multiple strata.

Blau and Duncan’s study of 20,000 males in the United States revealed that there is considerable vertical mobility, but most of it occurs within occupational positions close to each other. Long-range mobility, where individuals move across distant strata, is relatively rare. However, scholars like Frank Parkin emphasize instances of long-range mobility, suggesting that social mobility can take diverse forms.

Downward Mobility

Downward mobility, although less common than upward mobility, is a prevalent phenomenon in society. Anthony Giddens suggests that over 20 percent of men in the UK experience downward mobility across generations, often involving short-range shifts. Downward intragenerational mobility is also significant and is often associated with psychological distress, where individuals struggle to maintain their accustomed lifestyles. Factors such as job loss and redundancy contribute to downward mobility, especially among middle-aged individuals.

In terms of intragenerational mobility, many downwardly mobile individuals are women. This occurs when women temporarily leave promising careers to raise a family and subsequently return to the workforce at a lower level than when they left. Downward mobility, whether intergenerational or intragenerational, has important implications for the well-being and social status of individuals and families.

Concepts and Forms of Social Mobility

Social mobility can be achieved through various means, with acquiring wealth and property being the primary pathway in modern societies. However, other channels also exist, such as entering prestigious occupations (e.g., judges), earning advanced degrees, or marrying into aristocratic families. In many societies, the family plays a crucial role in determining an individual’s social status. Family connections can lead to the inheritance of property, occupation, education opportunities, and even titles and legal privileges.

In pre-industrial societies, these familial processes were predominant in assigning individuals their social positions. While industrial societies have reduced the importance of kinship-based inheritance, it remains a significant factor. Additionally, emulating higher-class lifestyles and behaviors has historically served as a means of upward mobility.

Possibilities of Mobility

The openness or closedness of a society greatly influences the extent of social mobility it allows. In a rigid, closed society, little vertical mobility is possible, resembling pre-modern Colombia and India to some extent. In contrast, open societies offer greater vertical social mobility. However, mobility within any society is not without constraints, as established criteria, such as manners, family lineage, education, or racial affiliation, must be satisfied for individuals to move to a higher social level.

Industrialization and urbanization contribute significantly to vertical social mobility in open societies. As societies industrialize, new occupations are created, providing opportunities for a broader section of the population. Urban environments reduce the importance of ascriptive criteria, fostering achievement-oriented, competitive, and status-driven behaviors. Government welfare programs in industrial societies also promote mobility.

Structural mobility, driven by changes in occupational structures within a society, plays a crucial role in facilitating mobility. Changes that increase the number of middle- and upper-level occupations while reducing lower-level ones are essential for structural mobility.

Interestingly, some scholars argue that the capitalist path of industrialization has resulted in widespread downward mobility, particularly for the working class. White-collar occupations may not provide sufficient opportunities for upward mobility, and some suggest that late capitalism has led to a systematic degrading of labor. This has led to large-scale downward mobility among various segments of society.

Comparative Social Mobility

Comparative studies of social mobility across different societies provide valuable insights into the variations and similarities in mobility rates. Gerhard Lenski’s research, for instance, computed a manual-non-manual index based on data from various sources. The United States had a mobility rate of 34%, with several European countries closely following, such as Sweden (32%), Great Britain (31%), Denmark (30%), Norway (30%), and France (29%). These findings indicate that mobility rates are fairly consistent in industrial societies.

Frank Parkin’s study sought data from communist-run societies in Eastern Europe to compare social mobility. His research revealed that while dominant classes in these societies could transmit advantages to their children, there was significant social mobility for peasants and manual workers. For example, Hungary had high levels of mobility, with many individuals from lower occupational ranks moving into managerial, administrative, and professional positions.

These comparative studies underscore the significance of social context in understanding social mobility. Different societies have unique criteria and resistances to mobility, but generally, industrial societies tend to exhibit similar levels of mobility. Even communist societies can have substantial mobility, challenging stereotypes of their rigidity.

Unpacking Social Mobility: A Contemporary Analysis

Social mobility, the movement of individuals or groups within or between social strata in a society, has long been a subject of significant interest among sociologists. The modern discourse around this topic is rich with debates and theories, one of the prominent ones being the thesis put forth by Seymour Martin Lipset, Reinhard Bendix, and Hans L. Zetterberg. To unravel the nuances of social mobility, it is essential to delve into these theories and the arguments they have sparked.

The Liberal Theory of Industrialism

At the heart of the ‘Liberal Theory’ of industrialism lies the belief that industry inevitably reshapes society. The theory suggests that in industrial compared to pre-industrial societies, there is typically:

1. A high and predominantly upward absolute rate of social mobility, implying that most transitions are from less to more privileged statuses.

2. Relative rates of mobility are more equitable, meaning that people from different backgrounds have more equal opportunities to change their social positions.

3. An increase over time in both the levels of absolute mobility and the equity of relative mobility rates.

Sociologists like P.M. Blau and O.D. Duncan in 1967 have supported this scenario. The rationale being that the dynamic nature of industrial societies necessitates constant restructuring of the labor division, thereby facilitating mobility. This, coupled with the shift in the basis for job allocation from ascription to achievement, and the expansion of education and training, furthers the industrial narrative of enhanced mobility.

Lipset and Zetterberg’s Thesis

Lipset and Zetterberg, though often linked to the liberal theory, actually present a nuanced argument. They do not contend that mobility invariably escalates with industrial progress. Instead, they observe that once a society reaches a certain level of industrialization, its social mobility rates become relatively high but do not necessarily associate with the pace of economic growth. Contrary to a linear perspective on openness and mobility, they argue that the similarity in mobility rates across industrial societies is a function of structural changes rather than a universal trend towards greater social openness.

Challenging Lipset and Zetterberg

Advancing the conversation, researchers like Featheman, Jones, and Hauser have utilized more sophisticated tools to reassess Lipset and Zetterberg’s proposition. They distinguished between absolute and relative rates of social mobility, affirming the original hypothesis only when considering relative rates. They posited that absolute rates, influenced by diverse economic and technological factors, do not show a cross-national uniformity. Thus, when mobility is viewed as net of structural effects, the relative rates might indeed show greater international similarity.

In a separate study, Robert Erickson and John Goldthorpe examined social mobility trends across nine European countries. Their findings contradicted the liberal theory of industrialism; no consistent trends towards higher overall mobility or social fluidity were found. Their research challenges the idea that mobility rates, absolute or relative, follow a consistent direction or are converging internationally.

The Complexities of Studying Social Mobility

Researching social mobility is fraught with challenges. Following the insights of Anthony Giddens, some of these challenges include:

1. The dynamic nature of job roles and their corresponding social statuses over time, which complicates the task of defining ‘upward’ mobility, especially between white-collar and blue-collar work.

2. The difficulty in comparing career stages between parents and children in studies of intergenerational mobility, given the fact that careers evolve and are not static.

These obstacles, while significant, are not insurmountable. Researchers can adjust for changes in the nature and prestige of occupations over time, and they may resolve issues of intergenerational comparisons by considering both the start and end points of careers, assuming the data allows such flexibility.