social mobility

mobility (def. 2).

[1925-30]

* * *

      movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. If such mobility involves a change in position, especially in occupation, but no change in social class, it is called “horizontal mobility.” An example would be a person who moves from a managerial position in one company to a similar position in another. If, however, the move involves a change in social class, it is called “vertical mobility” and involves either “upward mobility” or “downward mobility.” An industrial worker who becomes a wealthy businessman moves upward in the class system; a landed aristocrat who loses everything in a revolution moves downward in the system.

      In revolution an entire class structure is altered. Yet once the society has been radically reorganized, further social mobility may be minimal. Social mobility, however, may come about through slower, more subtle changes, such as the movement of individuals or groups from a poor, agrarian region to a richer, urban one. Throughout history international migration (human migration) has been an important factor in upward mobility. One instance may be seen in the 19th-century migration of members of the working and peasant classes from Europe to the United States. On the other hand, Western European colonial expansion, while benefiting some, served to enslave others. In modern societies, social mobility is typically measured by career and generational changes in the socioeconomic levels of occupations.

      The social results of mobility, particularly of the vertical type, are difficult to measure. Some believe that large-scale mobility, both upward and downward, breaks down class structure, rendering a culture more uniform. Others argue that those who attempt to rise or maintain a higher position actually strengthen the class system, for they are likely to be concerned with enforcing class differences. Thus, some sociologists have suggested that class distinctions might be reduced not by individual mobility but by the achievement of social and economic equality for all.

      One positive consequence of mobility has been a better use of individual aptitude. This has been aided by the expansion of educational opportunities in modern industrial nations. On the negative side, a high rate of vertical mobility may produce individual and societal anomie (a term coined by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim (Durkheim, Émile)). The individual experiencing anomie feels socially isolated and anxious; in a larger, societal context, generally accepted beliefs and standards of conduct are weakened or disappear.

      Many believe that the class system of Western industrial nations has changed dramatically since the provision of extensive welfare services, beginning in Germany in the 1880s. Greater social mobility has resulted from changes in the occupational structure, typified by an increase in the relative number of white-collar and professional occupations, with a decrease in the less-skilled and manual occupations. This has led to higher standards of living. Such increased mobility, it is argued, has minimized class differences, so that Western nations are moving toward a relatively classless (or predominantly middle-class) society. Yet other observers contend that a new upper class is in the process of formation, comprising production organizers and managers in both the public and the private arenas. Most recently, in postindustrial societies, inequality seems to be increasing between highly educated and poorly educated workers or between those with access to evolving technologies and those who lack such access.

Additional Reading

Classic discussions of social mobility include Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social Mobility (1927, reissued 1998); Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (1959, reissued with new introduction, 1992); and S.M. Miller, Comparative Social Mobility: A Trend Report and Bibliography (1960). For studies of social mobility in the United States, see Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (1967, reprinted 1978); or William H. Sewell, Robert M. Hauser, and David L. Featherman (eds.), Schooling and Achievement in American Society (1976). Other examples from around the world are John H. Goldthorpe, Catriona Llewellyn, and Clive Payne, Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain, 2nd ed. (1987); and Harry B.G. Ganzeboom, Donald J. Treiman, and Wout C. Ultee, “Comparative Intergenerational Stratification Research: Three Generations and Beyond,” in Annual Review of Sociology, 17:277–302 (1991).

* * *