Social Mobility. What Is A Social Mobility And Why Isn't There More Of It - Essay Example

?Social Mobility While there exists considerable debate on the definition, sociologists agree that social mobility relates to the movement of entities from one class to another within a social structure (Galiani 2010, p.1). These entities include individuals, families, and other social groups whose activities determine the accession or descent from one socio-economic level to another. In most cases, social mobility compares between socio-economic statuses of past and present generations to describe emerging trends as well as define economic progress. Studies into intergenerational social mobility seek to explore the extent at which individuals achieve or fail to achieve a higher social status than that of their parents (OECD 2010, p.182). Simply put, social mobility is the ability to move from one social class to another at whichever direction depending on the prevailing environment. It is important to describe the types of social mobility that are feasible under the right conditions, and they are vertical and horizontal mobility. Vertical social mobility illustrates change in a group’s or individual statue along the social hierarchy, which can be upward or downwards depending on the prevailing factors. On the other hand, horizontal mobility involves change in the occupational role in the society without any subsequent ascend or descend in the social stratification. Max Weber’s definition of social class dwells on the demarcation of the three spheres of society, where class is a non-social form, and status groups, as well as parties are viewed as the modes of associative or communal socialization that go beyond state and national boundaries (Gane 2005, p.211). Weber’s philosophies go deeper to define social class as an intrinsic social institution or entity by labelling and referring to it as a status group and class. As such, his suppositions are that social class is based on cultural values, as opposed to the economic interests that are found in the ideologies and philosophies of Karl Max in defining and describing social classes and issues. Weber declares that a social class is the largest component, if not the only component in the totality of class situations in which individual and generational mobility is found (Gane 2005, p.213). As such, his definition of power in social classes has nothing to do with economic wellbeing as found in the Marxist theory, but rather dwells on the political and cultural power. Therefore, for him the basis of social classes relies heavily on the interests of the said classes rather than what they can or cannot do because the interests of the social classes define the existence of a market. On the other hand, Karl Max, the founder of Marxism, is of a different school of thought with his philosophy based on economic doctrine and social revolution. As such, the economic theory is based on a well-defined system, which is structured as a logical array revolving around the notions of value and surplus value (Milios, Dimoulis and Economakis 2002, p.42). The theory is deeply embedded in the theory of class struggles, which is crucial to his definition of social classes, where he rejects all forms of traditional, theoretical and philosophical humanism. The humanism rejected in the above case refers to a belief that individual human nature is the main determinant of form and evolution patterns of societies. In addition to Karl’s theory of class struggle between the different social classes, Karl is of the opinion that certain societies have class relations that do not belong to the same form of class power, as they constitute of different class systems. As such, the class system follows the earlier mentioned system of social power where there are the leaders with social power and the dominated. However, the two groups are further stratified based on their materialism and historical background. It should, however, be noted that this has nothing to do with the culture in spite of the use of historical backgrounds in discerning social classes. This is especially so for the capitalist system, which is permanent and bases its notions on production and political power. Nevertheless, different classes in the society depict the level of social mobility in play and illustrate various levels of mobility ranging from high to stagnant. In an open class society, there is significant mobility owing to the presence of a favourable environment while a closed class society shows little mobility. Such is attributable to the limitations experienced when fulfilling aspects of social development such as education and occupation structures. Extreme cases of closed class societies exist with the caste system in which individuals remain confined to their ancestral occupation and status. Notably, social mobility has been on the rise in most countries as individuals seek improved lifestyles owing to the common belief on equality. This aspect serves to level the socio-economic playing field and individuals believe they have an equal chance to achieve a higher status. Notions suggesting otherwise especially in third world countries, confines people in the status of their ancestors (Andrew and Leigh 2009, p.1492). Benefits derived from social mobility relate to unlimited financial potential in the society since a vast majority participate actively in building the economy. Mobility serves to provide equal opportunities to individuals aspiring to advance to the next tier. This sees individuals born in lower social status get a chance to prosper and move classes, which has a cascade effect on the next generation. In addition, social mobility is responsible for the emergence of new social classes, which provides an opportunity for individuals to progress. Similarly, the provision and delivery of social services such as education, healthcare among others, is often improved to cater for a higher level of specialisation. However, a number of factors influence social mobility owing to limitations in the delivery of services across the social structure. Factors influencing social mobility are usually intertwined in a complex relationship that creates difficulty in resolving their limitations. Among these factors is social capital, cultural capital, education, healthcare, and local environment. Social capital illustrates a network of relationships found in the social structure, which facilitates bonding within similar social groups and acts as a bridge between different social groups. As such, lack of positive role models and the zeal to fight poverty serve to enhance social immobility (Great Britain, House of Commons: Work and Pensions Committee 2008, p.26). Similarly, an enhanced cultural capital provides various social classes with an opportunity to increase the potential of the next generation. Studies attribute this phenomenon to positive early-year influences such as providing quality education, home environment, and sound family structures. Quality education is regarded as the key to social mobility as it is critical in conferring skills and knowledge required for employment opportunities; however, this is not always the case as observed in the current education system in the United Kingdom. This has seen the government, through its social policies; renew its commitment to create a successful society by focusing on social mobility (Francis 2013, p.2). An open society where individuals place their positions with little influence from prevailing social characteristics is most preferred as it is efficient. However, recent studies indicate that the social mobility is on the decline and significantly low in the UK when compared to other countries at the same economic level. This in turn affects the overall capacity to increase their income, material condition, and security and remain stagnated at a particular lifestyle (Blanden et al 2005, p.20). Most of the affected by this phenomenon lie in the middle-income class and below. It is therefore safe to indicate that individuals at the peak of the hierarchy do not face similar challenges, but act to maintain the status quo. This can be attributed a number of factors that serve to limit options for those seeking to advance to a higher social class. These limitations fall squarely on the government’s radical policies that are seen to protect the needs of the few in a largely capitalistic economy. The government made efforts to expand the country's education system in order to encourage literacy and provision of quality education as well as facilitate social mobility. However, these measures have not succeeded in increasing social mobility, which is a sharp contrast to the success reported in post-second world war UK (Nunn 2007, p.43). This is because most families especially those in the middle-class, are unable to exploit fully the ever-increasing educational opportunities. As such, students seeking higher education settle for less prestigious institutions and proceed to study ill-advised subjects as a risk aversion strategy. Most stakeholders are in consensus that education plays a fundamental role in social mobility, but little has been achieved in raising it quality. This follows the move by the government to limit funding to the education sector through unfavourable policies. This is the case for SureStart, whose funding has been reduced even as the importance of preschool cannot be overemphasised (Ramesh, 2011). In light of this, analysts indicate the move as a backward step and warns of negative effects with regard to social mobility. Moreover, limitations in funding affects the level of student retention in school or college thus incubating a future social crisis. In addition, a successful and diverse labour market is a critical determinant of social mobility as it defines the capacity of individuals to fend for themselves. While the government managed to raise the rate of employment, there is significant concerns over inequalities registered in the labour market. Over the years, the United Kingdom has experienced substantial disparities in levels of unemployment distributed along geographical communities. This accounts for the emergence of lower skilled worker facing uncertainty with regard to employment since they are often poorly paid and on temporary basis. Job insecurity, which threatens to spread to the rest of the labour force, influences negatively on social mobility by limiting future prospects and aspirations (Platt 2011, p.40). The labour market in the United Kingdom is known to punish severely individuals who seek career breaks regardless of the reasons. Women often fall victims to this hostility when they take breaks to care for their families and later seek to re-enter the market in the same position (Boyle and Halfacree 1999, p.24). This trend serves to enhance downward social mobility in some households especially after having children. Notably, ethnicity is indicated to play a role in the social mobility in the UK owing to existing inequalities. As such, the level of occupational mobility experience in the country among non-white minorities is significantly low as opposed to the majority whites. This is in spite of having proper and adequate qualifications for various high status positions in the society. Moreover, ethnic minorities are often concentrated in areas that are largely deprived of development opportunities. Several aspects of social capital act as barriers to social mobility by creating hurdles for individuals in different socio-economic levels. For decades, society prefers to maintain association among people with similar social and/or educational backgrounds. This is cemented by associative pairing, which encourages relationships and marriages among individuals of the same social status. Consequently, intergenerational mobility is constrained while social stratification is maintained denying the opportunity to pacify inequality by magnifying disparity (Kendler et al 2007, p.78). The corporate world could be a perfect example in the British society where not everyone or anyone can own and run a successful business without going through bureaucratic and socially imposed hurdles to filter out the unwanted. As a result, it is a force-binding people together based on their judgments and opinions of each other and their worthiness to be in the said groups (Ozturk n.d., p.257). This is in line with Bourdieu’s concept of economic capital, which dwells on the Marxist theory of materialism, where it is used to refer to capital that can be easily converted into money. In addition to the use of social capital, the monarch is a closely guarded affair in which few people are part of considering it is based on family ties. The family ties act as a weapon against the lower classes in the UK society since one cannot just be a part of the ruling class since one is not part of the royal family. The society in the United Kingdom is divided into classes of the main social strata that are recognized officially. Studies link health and wellbeing to social mobility where analysts suggest that an individual’s social status is dependent on the ability to perform well in the labour market (Panel on Race, Ethnicity, and Health in Later Life, National Research Council 2004, p.208). In essence, when one is healthy, mentally and physiologically, he/she has a better chance of progressing to the next class. Similarly, poor health limits one’s accession in the occupational hierarchy since the UK’s labour market is significantly competitive. References Andrew, D & Leigh, A 2010, More inequality, less social mobility, Applied Economics Letters, 16, 1489–1492. Blanden, J Machin, S & Gregg, P 2005, Social mobility in Britain: low and falling, [Online] Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/centrepiece/v10i1/blanden.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013] Boyle, P & Halfacree, K 1999, Migration and Gender in the Developed World, London: Routledge. Francis, B 2013, Promoting Social Mobility: What the government can and should be doing, ASCL. [Online] Available at: http://www.ascl.org.uk/resources/library/promoting_social_mobility/what_the_government_can_and_should_be_doing [Accessed 12 August 2013] Galiani, S 2010, Social Mobility: What is it and why does it matter?, [Online] Available at: http://cedlas.econo.unlp.edu.ar/archivos_upload/doc_cedlas101.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013] Gane, N 2005, Max Weber as Social Theorist: ‘Class, Status, Party’, European Journal of Social Theory. vol. 8 no. 2 211-226. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Work and Pensions Committee 2008, The best start in life? alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility, and eradicating child poverty, second report of session 2007-08. Norwich: The Stationery Office. Kendler, L Eaves, L & Oldham, J 2007, Psychiatric Genetics, Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Pub. Milios, J Dimoulis, D & Economakis, G 2002, Karl Marx and the Classics, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company. Nunn, A Johnson, S Monro, S Bickerstaffe, T & Kelsey, S 2007, Factors influencing social mobility, [Online] Available at: http://217.35.77.12/CB/england/research/pdfs/2007/rrep450.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013] OECD 2010, A Family Affair: Intergenerational Social Mobility across OECD Countries, [Online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/tax/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013] Ozturk, S n.d., Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Action, [Online] Available at: http://www.aku.edu.tr/aku/dosyayonetimi/sosyalbilens/dergi/vi2/sozturk.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013] Panel on Race, Ethnicity, and Health in Later Life, National Research Council 2004, Critical Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Platt, L 2011, Understanding Inequalities: Stratification and Difference. Cambridge: Polity. Ramesh, R 2011, Social mobility of young people 'being held back by government policy', the guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/01/social-mobility-held-back-government [Accessed 12 August 2013] Read More