Social Mobility

Defining social mobility in sociology

Let's look at a useful articulation of the concept of social mobility in sociology.

What is a lack of social mobility?

If social mobility refers to opportunities to change one's social class, then a lack of social mobility means the lack of such opportunities. Essentially, in a society with low or no social mobility, people are likely to remain in the same class they were born into all their lives.

This can be especially dire for poorer and disadvantaged groups in society, because it means they have little chance to improve their standards of living.

Types of social mobility

Now that we know the definition of social mobility and the lack thereof, let's familiarise ourselves with the two broad types of social mobility that are recognised in sociology.

Absolute mobility

Absolute mobility is also known as structural mobility because it is concerned with structural changes in society. Absolute social mobility looks at the total number of people moving from one social class to another.

Fig. 1 - An increase in "middle-class" occupations such as office work has led to a rise in absolute mobility.

Relative mobility

Relative mobility is sometimes known as exchange mobility because it refers to individuals ‘exchanging relative positions’ in the social hierarchy. That is, as some people experience upward social mobility, others experience downward mobility.

Relative social mobility measures the ways in which mobility differs according to someone’s starting position in the class structure, i.e. due to their social group.

It is important to distinguish between absolute and relative forms of social mobility because we come to different conclusions about society depending on how we view social mobility. For instance, it is possible for absolute mobility to increase while relative mobility stays the same.

Patterns of social mobility in the UK

Let's lay out some of the broad patterns of social mobility we can observe in the UK.

Absolute (structural) mobility

A major trend over the past century that has resulted in increased absolute mobility is structural changes in the economy. This is illustrated by:

• the decline in so-called "blue-collar" jobs, from around 75% of the workforce in 1911 to around 35% in 2000, and

• the increase in "white-collar" occupations from about 7% to 35% over the same period².

Put differently, at the start of the 1900s, the majority of jobs in the UK could be defined as largely working-class. At the beginning of the 21st century, this was the opposite – around three-quarters of all occupations can be considered middle-class.

This means that many people have achieved, and were more likely to achieve, upward social mobility.

Relative (exchange) mobility

In contrast to the rise in absolute mobility, available evidence suggests relative mobility in the UK was low and somewhat static throughout the 20th century.

Sociologists such as John H. Goldthorpe (1972) argue that, despite the rise in the number of middle-class occupations, the chances of an individual from a working-class background moving to the service class, for example, were extremely minimal.

The odds of achieving upward mobility were still significantly skewed towards those already from higher classes. This was echoed by similar studies which conclude that exchange mobility within most Western societies is both low and constant (when compared to structural mobility).

Intergenerational mobility

Studies have found that intergenerational mobility rose throughout the 20th century for both men and women.

According to Heath and Payne (2000), in the late 1900s, about 40% of men and 36% of women in the UK experienced upward mobility (in comparison to their fathers) and 13% and 27% respectively experienced downward mobility³.

The impact and importance of social mobility

Social mobility is important to society for a myriad of reasons.

• It has a critical effect on class formation and structure. Anthony Giddens (1973) suggests that low rates of social mobility breed higher rates of class solidarity among people. This can change existing class structures if downwardly mobile populations resent their misfortune and demand more opportunities, higher pay, better conditions, etc.

• Studying the social mobility of society can provide an indication of the life chances of its members. For instance, it can reveal the degree to which a person’s original class background influences their chances of obtaining a high-paying or high-status occupation.

• Social mobility has practical benefits. For modern economies to function and develop properly, they have to make the best use of people's skills and abilities. A society will therefore be economically prosperous if it can provide opportunities for people to develop and use their talents by rewarding their efforts through higher incomes, status, etc.

• Social mobility can act as a form of social control. Individually, it reinforces the idea of meritocracy (instead of, for example, nepotism) by recognising and rewarding people's abilities and merits. On a group level, if the chances of advancement of a certain social group, e.g. an ethnic minority, are undermined, they may develop behaviours that are both socially and economically disruptive.

• The level of mobility in a society is a test of fairness. Aldridge (2001) proposes that mobility can tell us a lot about equality of opportunity because a lack of upward mobility "implies inequality of opportunity"¹.

• Social cohesion is more likely to be achieved in a society where people believe they can improve their and their family's quality of life through their own efforts and determination.

Cultural capital and social mobility

Social mobility is also related to another important concept and phenomenon you will come across in sociology - cultural capital.

Sociologists believe that a person's level of cultural capital, which includes their perceived intelligence, education, speech pattern, mannerisms, and clothing, can impact their social mobility. People can gain social relevance, stature, and power by amassing and displaying their cultural knowledge.

Examples of social mobility research

Let's outline some examples of sociological research on social mobility, including seminal social mobility studies.

Social Mobility in Britain (1954)

In this landmark analysis, David Glass studied men over the age of 21 and compared their occupations to their fathers'. He found that two-thirds of the subjects were in different social classes than their fathers (a third higher and another third lower).

However, most of this mobility was short-range, meaning that they moved one adjacent spot up or down the class hierarchy - long-range mobility was very rare.

The Affluent Worker Study (1967)

In the 1960s, David Lockwood and J. H. Goldthorpe conducted a study on car assembly workers, an occupation generally considered working-class but who were earning high wages at the time. Lockwood and Goldthorpe wanted to investigate if the workers' wealth had any impact on their mobility rates and social classes.

The researchers found that although the assemblers were highly paid, most of them were not actually "middle-class" in attitude. They had formed a "new middle-class", in that they were rich in wealth and maybe property but not middle-class in views, values, norms, etc. - they didn't have the corresponding cultural capital.

The Oxford Social Mobility Survey (1972)

This study was based on over 10,300 men between the ages of 20-64 from England and Wales. Goldthorpe assigned these men to seven social classes of his own conception which were based on:

• the conditions of the labour market e.g. levels of income, job security
• the conditions of workplaces e.g. degree of control, authority in jobs

Goldthorpe’s survey found high rates of absolute mobility due to changes in the economic system of post-war Britain, as well as little change in relative mobility and equality of opportunity for the working class. Due to the latter findings, Goldthorpe argues that society has not changed significantly, since class inequalities still prevail.

The Sutton Trust (2005)

Researchers from the Sutton Trust compared the social mobility rates of people born in 1970 to those born in 1958. The results showed that the 1970 cohort's earnings were more similar to their parents' than the 1958 cohort's⁴.

They also found that the percentage of people who obtained higher education increased from 5% to 7% among the poorest fifth of families. For the richest fifth of families though, this change was much more pronounced - from 20% to 37%⁴.

Fig. 2 - Higher education is a stepping stone to achieving upward mobility.

Debates on social mobility research

Goldthorpe's Oxford Social Mobility Study produced some fascinating insights on mobility and class but also prompted debates. For instance, Goldthorpe's findings on relative mobility and unequal class positions were accused of painting an unnecessarily pessimistic picture of the UK.

Goldthorpe has also been criticised by other social mobility theorists, discussed below.

Payne

Rather than focusing on rates of mobility between classes, Geoff Payne's Scottish Mobility Study of 1974-75 concentrated more on mobility rates between occupations. This angle found even higher rates of absolute mobility in UK society and stated that relative class inequalities had reduced somewhat.

Payne argues that British society and its class structure is not as fixed and impenetrable as Goldthorpe presents it to be.

Saunders

Similarly, Peter Saunders (1990) disagrees with Goldthorpe’s claim that society has not changed significantly. Saunders asserts that Goldthorpe dismissed the importance of high absolute mobility by only emphasising relative rates of mobility.

According to Saunders, capitalism and the new economic structure may not have eliminated class inequalities, but they have created new possibilities for advancement. This has been advantageous to the middle-class and so is a positive development even if it doesn't solve all working-class issues.

Additionally, Saunders believes that "natural" abilities and talents play a part in deciding class positions, refuting Goldthorpe.

Issues with measuring social mobility

When examining and comparing rates of social mobility, it's vital to remember that there are problems with measuring it. These concerns are as follows:

Criteria for social mobility in studies

Occupation is often the primary indicator of class position in mobility studies and this can be problematic since different researchers use different criteria to rank occupations. Some categorise occupations by the level of social status associated with them, while others put more emphasis on the rates of pay they offer.

This means that the occupations cited in different studies and the results of these studies aren't always entirely comparable.

Cultural capital and social mobility

Another problem that can arise is the fact that many researchers or studies base a person's social class on their occupation. It is not always possible to identify who is working-class or middle-class this way because an individual's job doesn't necessarily determine their levels of social and cultural capital, which are also important in defining class.

Gender and social mobility

Furthermore, much of the research bases its data and assumptions entirely on men's occupations and mobility. Anthony Heath and Nicky Britten (1984) show that women's qualifications actually have a more substantial impact on their careers than their husbands' social class positions.

Michelle Stanworth (1984) adds that, contrary to popular belief at the time, women can and do have different careers and therefore class positions than their husbands and that obscuring this overlooks another dimension of the class system.

Ethnicity and social mobility

Social mobility studies can often overlook the role of ethnicity and the experience of ethnic minorities. Lucinda Platt's (2005) study of the intergenerational mobility of different ethnic groups in the UK finds that some minorities are more upwardly mobile than others, e.g. Afro-Caribbean, Indian and Chinese groups.

However, migrants were more likely to achieve this than non-migrants, and this was more so the case for men than women.