Inequality (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes

Social Mobility

Social mobility refers to how easily individuals can move between different social classes within a society. This concept examines whether people can improve their social position or whether they remain trapped in the class they were born into.

Key definitions

Understanding social mobility requires familiarity with several important terms that sociologists use to analyse movement between social classes.

Social mobility is the movement from one stratum (social class) to another. This movement can occur in different ways and at different points in a person's life.

Intra-generational mobility describes social mobility that occurs within a single person's lifetime. For example, someone born into a working-class family who becomes a doctor during their career experiences intra-generational upward mobility.

Inter-generational mobility refers to social mobility between different generations, typically comparing parents and their children. If a working-class parent has a child who becomes middle-class, this represents inter-generational mobility.

Absolute mobility measures how much social mobility exists in society as a whole. It looks at the total amount of movement between classes without comparing different groups.

Relative mobility examines how much social mobility different social groups experience compared to each other. This reveals whether certain groups have better opportunities for advancement than others.

Status and stratification systems

Social mobility is closely linked to how status is acquired in society. Ascribed status refers to social position given at birth, either through family background, gender, or ethnicity. In contrast, achieved status results from an individual's hard work, merit, and effort.

Societies can be classified based on how much social mobility they allow. Open systems of stratification permit substantial social mobility and are considered meritocratic, meaning social position depends on individual ability and effort. Closed systems of stratification severely limit social mobility, with social position primarily determined by birth circumstances.

Major studies of social mobility in Britain

Glass (1954) - The first comprehensive study

Oxford Mobility Study - Goldthorpe et al (1980)

Supporting research by Kellner and Wilby (1980) revealed a pattern they called the "1:2:4 rule" - for every working-class son reaching professional status, there were twice as many from intermediate classes and four times as many from upper-class backgrounds.

Other important studies

Goldthorpe and Payne (1986) conducted follow-up research during the economic recession of the 1970s. They found that mobility rates had generally increased, but opportunities to reach top positions remained unequal, favouring those from privileged backgrounds.

Payne (1987) discovered regional variations in social mobility, with working-class people in southern England more likely to experience upward mobility than their northern counterparts.

Problems with measuring social mobility

Sociological research on social mobility faces several methodological challenges that limit the reliability and validity of findings.

Most studies focus exclusively on the middle and upper sections of society, largely ignoring the experiences of the long-term unemployed. This creates a significant gap in understanding mobility patterns for the most disadvantaged groups.

Research has predominantly used quantitative approaches rather than qualitative methods, meaning they often ignore people's feelings and lived experiences of social class. The emphasis on statistical measurement misses the subjective aspects of class identity and mobility experiences.

Studies typically employ crude employment-based scales with five to seven categories, which fail to capture subtle changes within class groups. Someone might improve their position significantly within their class without appearing to move in these broad classifications.

Generational comparisons become problematic as technology and work patterns evolve. Jobs that existed for older generations may no longer exist, making direct comparisons between parents and children difficult.

The exclusion of women from early studies (discussed below) meant that patterns discovered might not apply to half the population, raising questions about the generalisability of findings.

Elite reproduction and upper-class advantages

Research consistently shows that upper-class individuals tend to remain in privileged positions across generations. This challenges the notion that Britain operates as a true meritocracy.

Higher-class people are more likely to maintain their privileged position than working-class people are to achieve upward mobility. The top social classes in Britain remain relatively static, with the majority of members coming from families who have held upper-class positions for generations.

Stanworth and Giddens (1974) found that among top company positions in over 400 British companies, only 1% were occupied by individuals with working-class origins. This suggests that elite positions are largely self-recruiting.

Upper-class individuals possess significant advantages in education, employment opportunities, and health outcomes. These advantages compound across generations, making it increasingly difficult for working-class individuals to compete on equal terms.

Gender and social mobility

Women's experiences of social mobility were largely ignored by sociological research until the 1980s, creating a significant gap in understanding mobility patterns.

Heath (1981) conducted the first comprehensive study including women, comparing fathers' and daughters' social class positions for 1971 and 1975. The research revealed that daughters were more likely to experience downward mobility than sons.

Goldthorpe and Payne (1986) argued that women's mobility rates varied according to their social class position, following similar patterns to men. They suggested that class background was more influential than gender in determining mobility outcomes.

However, Savage and Egerton (1997) challenged this view, finding that class affected mobility opportunities differently for men and women. They identified the "old boys' network" and sexism in traditional upper middle-class professions as barriers specifically affecting female advancement.

Debates about meritocracy

Sociologists disagree about whether social mobility data demonstrates that Britain operates as a meritocratic society.

Peter Saunders (1996), a New Right thinker, argues that research like the Essex study proves that opportunities exist for social mobility, but individuals must put in the effort to achieve advancement. Saunders contends that inequality results from differences in individual talent and hard work rather than structural barriers.

However, Saunders faces substantial criticism for his methodology and conclusions. Critics argue that his analysis excludes unemployed and part-time workers, creating a biassed sample. Additionally, his focus on individual responsibility ignores how class bias in schools might discourage working-class pupils from pursuing higher education and professional careers.

Research by The Sutton Trust (2013) found that by age 15, clever boys from advantaged backgrounds were more than two years ahead of clever boys from disadvantaged backgrounds in reading achievement. In Scotland, the gap was almost three years, suggesting that structural advantages rather than individual merit explain differential outcomes.

Savage and Egerton (1997) analysed the same data as Saunders but reached different conclusions. They found that individuals with similar abilities did not have equal chances of reaching higher social classes. Social networks, confidence, and cultural advantages helped upper-class children succeed, while educational qualifications and tests reflected middle and upper-class culture and values rather than pure merit.

Trends in absolute social mobility

Despite debates about relative mobility, sociologists generally agree that absolute social mobility has increased in Britain since the mid-20th century.

Goldthorpe's 1972 study identified improved opportunities for working-class people to enter professional occupations. However, he argued this did not necessarily indicate that Britain was becoming more meritocratic, as structural changes in the economy were creating more professional positions overall.

This economic transformation led to substantial growth in service-sector employment while traditional manual jobs declined. Absolute mobility improved as society moved towards service-sector work, but advantaged individuals remained more likely to secure these desirable positions.

Contemporary trends show continued changes in absolute mobility patterns. The service, business, and professional sectors have expanded, while skilled manual trades have declined. Administrative and secretarial roles have also decreased due to technological advancement.

However, some sociologists worry about labour market polarisation, with many professional jobs at the top requiring high-level qualifications, plenty of low-skilled jobs at the bottom, but fewer opportunities in the middle. This could create problems for relative mobility, as working-class individuals may struggle to access top positions while having limited alternative advancement opportunities.

Remember!