Social Mobility - Lecture notes 28 PDF

Preview

Summary

SOCIAL MOBILITYSocial class is essential to define social difference and to explain everything related to conflict, social change and behavior of certain groups. There are authors who say that the class has lost importance, such as R. Gramptan (feminist Marxist) in Class and Stratification: an Intro...

Description

SOCIAL MOBILITY Social class is essential to define social difference and to explain everything related to conflict, social change and behavior of certain groups. There are authors who say that the class has lost importance, such as R. Gramptan (feminist Marxist) in Class and Stratification: an Introduction to Current Debates"(1994). In this book, the author says that the transition to a modern society, d galloping pace in changes and increases in inappenability, has brought into crisis the theoretical and analytical categories that had endured for years. This step to modernity implies more unstable categories, without conscience, do not share the same lifestyle; it is no longer a closed category... Also the increase of jobs different from the traditional positions of the workers: manuals, qualified... justified the functionalist argument that social inequalities were legitimized on the basis of equal starting opportunities and difference achievement. The best ones will be placed in the best positions regardless of their social background. This way of distributing power, gain, status, is the fairest and most rational way. For functionalists, classes as a collective have disappeared and conflicts would now be individual in nature. There are other currents that weaken the idea of social class as a key in industrial societies. Authors such as Bell Touraine, Inglehart, Lipset... All agree on the decline of the class structure, stating that the new positions that society requires are not based on the old structures, but that we are all immersed in a process of change for adaptation to new conditions that require a qualification, high mobility capacity... The new social movements (feminism, ecology...) blur the centrality of the conflict that the social classes had occupied. Before, the conflict was the labor conflict. Increasing discrimination in the importance of employment as a criterion of stratification in favour of consumption. The issue of social mobility is important because of stratification in advanced societies and, in the international Sa, determines that stratification. In post-industrial societies also because there are behaviors in social groups (affiliation, vote, lifestyle...) For Marx, social mobility is one of the keys that has an indemnity in the training and action of the classes and compares the mobility of European and American classes. In European women, there is a class training developed, with intellectual awareness; in the U.S. even though there are classes, they have not yet been able to translate because they are constantly changing groups and employment, making it difficult to create awareness. The more mobility, the lower class awareness; and conversely: the less mobility, greater awareness and stability. Mobility is the main obstacle to revolution. Class demographic stability, the class itself, for Marx, is important for the formation of consciousness, the class for itself; if there is more mobility, there are also more difficulties in achieving revolutionary potential (change) Also the fact that the classics have not dealt with social mobility is not only because it is an obstacle to revolution but because traditional societies were more closed and not as present as today. There are many types of mobility. Mobility would express the transition from one social category to another. In this sense, we can distinguish: occupational mobility (between different occupational categories) and sectoral mobility (between different classical sectors).

The most important categories are intergenerational (between generations: from parents to children) and intragenerational (change of occupation or sector in the same person) Intergenerational, in turn, has two types: relative refers to the varying degrees of fluidity of a company. The social propensity to move from one social class to another. I mean, what I've moved about what the others have moved. The absolute: the volume of individuals who changed position. The intragenerational category distinguishes: Class history: the idea that the set of jobs accessible to individuals belonging to a class throughout their working life is limited. Centermobility: idea or tendency towards the social position of the father; trend to occupy the family social category of origin. There are other types of mobility: Categorial: between different social categories, which do not have to be marked hierarchically. Vertical: involves some kind of hierarchy of individuals or categories according to various criteria (salary, income) Analyzing mobility is not entirely easy. Bourdieu in The Distinction,says that maintaining the same position in the structure, requires a translation associated with a change of condition: to stay you have to move. It is important to take into account the social space that is defined by the economic, political, institutional, where movements or changes of position occur in the class structure, taking into account that the social space is mobile and dynamic. Individuals do not move to lazar, but that displacement always occurs in relation to social class. The class path in this regard comes to say that each class has a beam of class paths that would lead it to more or less equivalent positions. Individuals of a particular class follow certain trajectories in which not only material or technical resources must be taken into account, but what Bourdieu calls "the social capital" which, in short, is the set of relationships that the class has. It follows from all this that, as a result of the transformations produced in the social space, collective changes of condition may occur corresponding either to class fractions, or changes in the relative position in the social structure; in this case, we are talking about structural mobility due to the changes in the structure of occupations that take place between the generation of parents and children. There are many authors who give more importance to collective mobility, but others point to the possibility of individual trajectory changes as a result of either chance or the realization of some family or personal mobility strategies. Julio Caravaña explains that, for example, families do their best to achieve the best for their children and, therefore, to place them in the best possible structural position, putting the resources available to them at stake and taking into account the rules Institutional. Julio Caravaña talks about personal and subjective resources that are secondary to Bourdieu.

The term mobility strategy is important. In this sense, it would be said that families and individuals tend to always accept strategies, taking advantage of the conditions of a given social space to maintain or improve their class position. In this sense, there are three types of mobility strategies.

• Reproductionstrategy: a set of practices by which families tend to preserve or maintain their heritage and therefore their position in the structure of class relationships (all that needs to be done to stay the same, which does not mean standing still) • Reconversion strategy:these are those that, after certain structural or institutional changes, aim to change one type of resources for another, in order to maintain in the new situation, a position similar to the previous one. These two strategies are not change, because the first one seeks continuity in the sector and the second has external change.

• Mobility strategy. They represent an improvement of the relative position. Society must be taken into account. If we are facing a moment of change, maintaining the position of class (reproduction) may require an increase in resources or a transformation in them (conversion), in order not to lose position. Depending on the society in which we are in, the strategies will be different; in traditional ones, reproductive strategies are often marriage, inheritance and family education. In less traditional, more fluid societies, reproductive and conversion strategies are education systems. For Bourdieu, strategies 1 and 2 are the most important. He doesn't think about mobility. However, this approach presents some problems in times of economic change, where important class transformations take place. In Spain, in the 50-60 years of further transformation with the advent of industrialization and the emergence of the new middle classes, the changes did not exactly respond to conversion strategies in the sense that small material owners will move to new owners in cultural resources. These are middle classes that used the education system to ascend. This change is not explained around conversion, but about mobility. This mobility is reduced to specific times of great changes, as it is not always possible. Theories that explain social mobility A) Functionalist theory Regardless of how industrialization has occurred, all societies will reach liberalism. In this sense, the extension of educational institutions reduces adhereny: positions are no longer attached; are given according to education, they will be acquired. The effects of this theory can be reduced to: In these liberal democratic societies, the middle classes develop and upward mobility is more likely than downward mobility, due to technological development and the growing division of labour. The association between social origins and destinations is weakened (the line of division is not so clear). You can talk about more open and meritocratic societies.

In the expansive sectors of the economy (those most technologically advanced), it is where a more important selection will be produced depending on the legre, while in declining sectors (agriculture, small businesses...) they will continue to use criteria adscribed. This current justifies social inequalities as it is based on equal opportunities. These high rates of mobility reduce the potential for social action of the most disadvantaged groups, as it generates expectations for promotion and promotion. B) Theories of social reproduction Contrary to functionalist theory, the norm is immobility. They say that these industrial societies are not open and there is no mobility. Nor is it the educational level that marks the positions but, on the contrary, the general trend is the reproduction of social classes. There are three authors working from similar fields, albeit with certain differences: Farquim, Bourdieu and Bernstein. Farquim: explains differences based on sociocultural disparities; that is, in this case, the relationship between success in school and social origin is not so much due to economic and cultural elements. The privileged positions from an economic and cultural point of view, have an inheritance that manifests itself through the transmission of particular content, mental habits or scheme of thought. Bourdieu: talks about differential educational expectations and demands, depending on the type of provenance. Based on a lifestyle, subjective expectations will be generated that will determine the results. This case looks great in the gypsies. In the end, popular classes, privileged groups or those with the most culturally adaptive problems (such as immigrants and gypsies) have fewer cultural ambitions. The chances of getting out of your situation are slim and, in any case, not dependent on the school. The school here performs an ideological function of legitimizing social inequalities. The school becomes a privileged instrument for the privileged who manage to convince disadvantaged groups that they owe their social destiny to their lack of merit and qualities. Bernstein: language is the criterion used to mark inequality between social groups. In this sense, there would be two different codes: the restricted one, for popular classes; and the elaborate, of the middle classes. In the restricted code many things are given for pressuring, no arguments are needed; it is taken for granted, because we live in the context, more is spoken from experiences of coexistence. In the elaborate code, things are talked about, negotiated, justified, and argued because they can change. It presents a world of possibilities, since everything is debatable. In schools, the code itself is the elaborate one. There are also two types of control: direct and indirect. The direct is that of order, hierarchy, authority; would be typical of the restricted code. In indirect, more elaborate control, there is according to Bernstein - a contradiction between the codes C) Proletarization theory They say something very different from the functionalists. Braverman at the helm says that the mobility that exists is descending: there is a disqualification of workers and changes occur downwards.

Marxist theory is resumed. What is going to occur in the working class is a depauperization and an increase in social conflict. In this context, mobility has little interest; there is no class mobility, although it can be the situation that some, even many, have to change places, but always by system requirements, not of their own free will. Braverman analyzes the changes and consequences of these evolutionary processes in different sectors. He says that overall, what he observes is a tendency towards disqualification and loss of autonomy by the worker, with increased control of jobs and pressure to get more work out in less time. Braverman is aware that proletarization occurs in some sectors more than others, there are many who are more technified, who employ a higher percentage of qualified people, for which they produce little reduction in the workforce, which would lead to workers to deal with sectors where qualifications are not required. One of the sectors where there is a visibly declining sector is administration, or white-necked jobs, in general. Braverman's idea is that it is true that the middle class has increased but, at the same time, there is a dualization: there are highly qualified sectors but others suffer the opposite process, of disqualification. There is more and more separation between each other. D) Other contributions: Erickson, Goldtorpe, Sping-Andersen Contrary to the three theories above, there is no possibility of homogenization, but will enter to evaluate the nuances. We will encounter different mobility regimes. There are two different contributions. Erickson y Goldtorpe They have a very relevant book on social mobility: A study on class mobility in industrial societies. It has a very important empirical art, since the authors say that the methodology used is essential to determine results in mobility. They use a mixed strategy. With quantitative techniques, comparing rates of mobility between countries, and qualitative, explaining the characteristics of that mobility. The authors take a sample of 12 countries (9 European and 3 non-European), in a study in the '70s, and conclude that neither the functionalist theses (we are all going to ascend) are true, nor the contrary thesis (in the end the only downward mobilization is descending) . They conclude that in industrial societies there is a similar degree of social fluidity between them and that it hardly varies over time; but there are different patterns of social fluency between classes; that is, agricultural farmers would have a certain degree of fluidity, as would industrial ones... Each of these classes would have different patterns according to social class, which would also be stable over time and similar according to countries. There are several: Economic and social institutions: more or less traditional societies, more or less developed. The family. Personal mobility strategies of individuals: marriage, etc. To this set of factors, the role of policies in promoting or hindering social fluidity (change or stability) should be added.

Depending on the social classes, there are similar patterns of different mobility in workers, bourgeois, etc. as well as a different degree of fluidity as well. Absolute mobility will depend on differences in rhythms and the structural position of each society. Sping-Andersen Changing Classessays the differences in mobility patterns in different countries will depend on institutions. He focuses on three country blocs and wonders about the emergence of the new post-industrial proletariat in services. These country blocks are: well-represented in the Anglo-Saxon countries: Australia, USA. Corporate Welfare, in Continental Europe: Germany, Benelux... structure their state network around work. Social Democratic countries, in Nordic countries: Norway, Sweden... It analyses the changes that occur in these blocs and perceives that the U.S., as a paradigm of liberal society, is creating jobs in the service sector, with very low wages and with a tendency to polarize in remuneration (groups in the best positions increasingly separate from those in worse situations). In the Nordic countries, positions are being created in public services, in the lower part mainly occupied with women (cleaning, administration) but, unlike in liberal systems with low pay, here a training policy that facilitates upward social mobility. In mainland countries, there are very high wage costs and a welfare state with weaker social insurance. This (the separation between those who work and those who do not) makes it difficult to create public and private employment. The results are high unemployment rates and low participation of the most disadvantaged groups (women, the elderly...) Sping-Andersen says there is no proletariat of services being produced because in the US, mobility is wide enough to allow proletarians to stay in the same job for a long time. With regard to the Nordics, he said that there was also no such proletarization because the Welfare State facilitates mobility... proletarian groups in services. In continental countries it could be occurring, although mobility is less and heterogeneous. Julio Cararabaña He says that the moments of mobility coincided with the moments of industrialization and absolute mobility increased in Spain and is the same mobility of all backward countries when they initiate a major change. This will involve the possibility of mobility, of promotion, for all groups, but not the reversal of roles; that is, if the working class has gone up it is because all the classes have gone up and all have changed or increased their position. As a case study, the one developed by Echeverría, applied to Spain. Set different levels of analysis to take into account all possible factors that influence mobility. The starting point would be the target class and, to analyze it, another set of levels must be taken into account: Mobility mechanisms: inheritance, social relations, marriage, education, institutions... Personal characteristics: intelligences, skills, attitudes, physical and psychic characteristics... Structural level: the source class would be found with resources, expectations of this class (and sex)...

Institutional level: political, trade union, cultural, religious, educational system, degree of development of the Welfare State... Systemic level: degree of development of the capitalist system, relative position of that country in the system, world, economic development... Echevarría takes a Navarro village from the '40s to the '70s (entrance of democracy) and tries to discover the particular strategies or possibilities of the groups to ascend, descend, reproduce or become converted. (Look at photocopies) Statistical table 2.6 ESD - sociodemographic school. Upward mobility in Europe is lower than in the US and Japan. There is not much difference between the European countries excepto_ Sweden, very high and Ireland very low. In downward mobility, they stand out for high mobility England and Scotland; France, Germany, Northern Ireland and Sweden; Hungary, Poland and Spain. Comparing European countries to non-European countries, downward mobility is average ly for low. Reflections on American social mobility. It's high, especially the ascending one. Based on studies, in the U.S. mobility is homeless. These studies lead to 4 conclusions: The mobility of American males is quite high. It has dominated upward social mobility, explained through industrialization, the expansion of the American economy and the growth of white-collar work throughout the 20th century. Within the same generation, social mobility occurs gradua...