Social mobility: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:37, 5 March 2004

Social mobility is the degree to which, in a given society, an individual's social status may change throughout the course of his or her life.

An example of a society with low social mobility is Hindu society under the caste system. Only with rare exceptions can individuals leave the caste into which they are born, regardless of wealth or merit. Societies which use slavery are an example where, for the enslaved individuals, mobility is nonexistent.

The modern United States has considerably more social mobility. Officially or legally recognized class designations do not exist, and it is possible for individuals to move from poverty to wealth or political prominence within one generation. Examples of this are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, who were born into working-class families yet achieved political office in adult life, and Andrew Carnegie, who arrived in the U.S. as an poor immigrant and later became a steel tycoon.

In market societies like the modern United States, class and economic wealth are strongly correlated and, therefore, often conflated. However, in some societies, they are different entities altogether. Usually, though, membership in a high social class provides more oppotunities for wealth and political power, and therefore economic fortune is often a lagging indicator of social class. In newly-formed societies with little or no established tradition (such as the American West in the 19th century) the reverse is true: Made wealth precipitates the elite of future generations.

Social mobility is normally discussed in a positive light, but it is a two-sided phenomenon. Unlike economic prosperity and individual standards of living, social class, strictly speaking, is a zero-sum game, and when there is upward mobility, there is also downward mobility. In the past 30 years, the United States has seen both directions of mobility. The 1990s tech boom allowed many bright entrepeneurs to enter the ranks of the wealthy, while layoff in the manufacturing, and later, information technology sectors resulted in massive job-loss and dislocation throughout recent decades. Social mobility encourages entrepeneurism and, according to the mainstream liberal and conservative opinion, leads to a more fair society, but an excess thereof leads to widespread insecurity and anxiety.

The ability to for an individual to become wealthy, out of poverty, does not necessarily indicate that there is social mobility in his or her society. Even societies with low or nonexistent social mobility afford free individuals opportunities to initiate enterprise and amass wealth, but wealth fails to "buy" entry into a higher social class. In feudal Japan and Confucianist China, wealthy merchants occupied the lowest ranks in society.

A (theoretical) society with perfect social mobility and ample opportunity is called a meritocracy, because, in such a society, individuals' responsibilities and compensation would be matched to their capabilities.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 In [[market]] societies like the modern United States, class and [[economics | economic]] wealth are strongly correlated and, therefore, often conflated. However, in some societies, they are different entities altogether. Usually, though, membership in a high social class provides more oppotunities for wealth and political power, and therefore economic fortune is often a [[lagging indicator]] of social class. In newly-formed societies with little or no established tradition (such as the American West in the 19th century) the reverse is true: Made wealth precipitates the elite of future generations.
-Social mobility is normally discussed in a positive light, but it is a two-sided phenomenon. Unlike economic prosperity and individual standards of living, social class, strictly speaking, is a [[zero-sum game]], and when there is upward mobility, there is also downward mobility. In the past 30 years, the United States has seen both directions of mobility. The [[1990s]] [[tech boom]] allowed many bright entrepeneurs to enter the ranks of the wealthy, while [[downsizing]] in the [[manufacturing]], and later, [[information technology]] sectors resulted in massive job-loss and dislocation throughout recent decades. Social mobility encourages [[entrepeneurship]] and, according to the mainstream liberal and conservative opinion, leads to a more fair society, but an excess thereof leads to widespread insecurity and [[anxiety]].
+Social mobility is normally discussed in a positive light, but it is a two-sided phenomenon. Unlike economic prosperity and individual standards of living, social class, strictly speaking, is a [[zero-sum game]], and when there is upward mobility, there is also downward mobility. In the past 30 years, the United States has seen both directions of mobility. The [[1990s]] [[tech boom]] allowed many bright entrepeneurs to enter the ranks of the wealthy, while [[downsizing | layoff]] in the [[manufacturing]], and later, [[information technology]] sectors resulted in massive job-loss and dislocation throughout recent decades. Social mobility encourages [[entrepeneur | entrepeneurism]] and, according to the mainstream liberal and conservative opinion, leads to a more fair society, but an excess thereof leads to widespread insecurity and [[anxiety]].
 The ability to for an individual to become wealthy, out of poverty, does ''not'' necessarily indicate that there is social mobility in his or her society. Even societies with low or nonexistent social mobility afford free individuals opportunities to initiate enterprise and amass wealth, but wealth fails to "buy" entry into a higher social class. In feudal [[Japan]] and [[Confucius | Confucianist]] [[China]], wealthy merchants occupied the ''lowest'' ranks in society.