The concept of social mobility and its types
Possibilities for measuring social mobility
Positive and negative qualities of mobility
Social mobility in modern Russia
Theories of social stratification
Bibliography
Introduction
The topic of social mobility is especially relevant for modern Russian society. The fact is that with the end of the era of perestroika, the process of polarization of society is becoming more and more obvious. Under these conditions, the narrowing of opportunities for social mobility can be very negative for the stability and continuity of the emerging social system. Thus, it is necessary to try to understand whether the problem of social mobility is of a long-term nature, what trends are currently emerging in this area and what consequences this may have for society.
The purpose of the essay will be to analyze social mobility and development trends of this phenomenon in modern Russia.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to consider the theories of social stratification that sociologists operate with today, to find out the empirical essence of the concept of social mobility, to study its existing classifications and ranking methods. It is also necessary to find out the possibilities of measuring social mobility, because without this, operating with the concept will only be purely speculative. Further, a category such as social mobility cannot but have an evaluative characteristic, if only because it is closely related to the ideological concepts of social structure (it is no coincidence that social mobility received so little attention in Marxist sociology, and so much in liberal democratic sociology) . Therefore, it is worth trying to understand what and who is behind the positive and negative assessment of this phenomenon. Although almost all researchers note the positive aspects of high social mobility, not everyone recognizes the need to achieve it, and many even focus on its risks for society. And finally, we should consider the state of affairs with mobility in the specific conditions of modern Russia, and moreover, in specific social institutions, especially specific to our country. What social institutions are most specific for the Russian Federation in terms of social mobility? As it seems, this is the army, the church, and the education system, that is, those formations on the development of which the Soviet social system left a special imprint.
1. Theories of social stratification
The very issue of social mobility is closely related to the concepts of stratification. The concept of “stratification” came to sociology from geology, where “strata” means a geological layer. This concept quite accurately conveys the content of social differentiation, when social groups are arranged in social space in a hierarchically organized, vertically sequential series along some dimension of inequality.
One of the problems in studying stratification and mobility is that the criteria for organizing inequality can vary. Marxism called such a criterion the attitude to the means of production, to property, that is, the basis of stratification is economics. M. Weber expands the range of criteria, including attitude to power and social prestige, which allows one to take one or another place on the social ladder in accordance with one’s status.
P. Sorokin identifies different forms of social differentiation. Property inequality gives rise to economic differentiation, inequality in the possession of power indicates political differentiation, division by type of activity, differing in the level of prestige, gives grounds to talk about professional differentiation.
In modern Western sociology, based on a multidimensional approach, different dimensions of stratification are distinguished: based on gender, age, race, property status, education, etc.
However, social differentiation is only one component of social stratification. Another, no less important, is social assessment.
American sociologist T. Parsons emphasized that social hierarchy is determined by the cultural standards and values prevailing in society.
In accordance with this, in different societies, with the change of eras, the criteria determining the status of an individual or group changed.
Thus, in primitive societies, strength and dexterity were valued above all; in medieval Europe, the status of the clergy and aristocracy was high. Even an impoverished representative of a noble family was more respected in society than a rich merchant. But in bourgeois society, capital increasingly began to determine a person’s position in society and opened the way up the social ladder. On the contrary, in Soviet society, wealth had to be hidden, while at the same time belonging to the Communist Party opened the way to a career, etc.
So, social stratification can be defined as a structured system of social inequality in which individuals and social groups are ranked according to their social status in society.
A socially stratified society with its numerous layers can be represented as a vertical structure with three levels, which in modern sociology are usually called classes (in contrast to strata, classes are characterized by a number of specific characteristics and criteria: income level, education, profession, etc. .).
These are the upper, middle and lower class. Sometimes they are also divided into levels inside.
It is believed that the broadest stabilizing role between the upper and lower classes is occupied by the middle class, whose share averages 60-80%.
The social stratification of a developing society will have a different profile. This is a pyramid where the lower part from the base represents the lower class, which makes up the majority of the population, and the upper part represents the upper and middle classes, which together make up a minority (less than 30%) of the population.
It must be borne in mind that the height and profile of stratification can vary, but not indefinitely. Leveling, movement towards the plane of stratification leads to the destruction of the economy, anarchy and chaos.
An unlimited increase in it is also fraught with catastrophic consequences. According to P. Sorokin, there is a point of “saturation” beyond which society cannot move without the risk of a major catastrophe. When it is achieved, the social edifice collapses and its upper layers are overthrown."
The formation and maintenance of social stratification is not an absolutely self-regulating and natural process. Power has a significant influence on him. Depending on its nature, certain adjustments may be made to the construction of a system for ranking social positions. We are talking, in essence, about one of the aspects of social control exercised in society by power structures.
Analysis of the hierarchical structure of society shows that it is not frozen, it constantly fluctuates and moves both horizontally and vertically. When we talk about a social group or individual changing their social position, we are dealing with social mobility.
2. The concept of social mobility and its types
The term social mobility was introduced by P. Sorokin in his work in 1927. Sorokin wrote that this is any transition of an individual or social group from one social position to another. Today, social mobility refers to the movement of an individual or group up, down or horizontally. Social mobility is characterized by the direction, type and distance of social movements of people in society (individually and in groups).
So social mobility can be horizontal(in this case, the concept of social movement is used) if a transition is made to other professional or other groups of equal status. The movement of an individual from a Baptist to a Methodist religious group, from one citizenship to another, from one family to another, from one factory to another, while maintaining his professional status, are all examples of horizontal social mobility.
In all these cases, "movement" can occur without any noticeable change in the individual's social position in the vertical direction. A type of horizontal mobility is geographic mobility. It does not imply a change in status or group, but a movement from one place to another while maintaining the same status. An example is international and interregional tourism, moving from city to village and back, moving from one enterprise to another. If a change of location is added to a change of status, then geographic mobility becomes migration. If a villager came to the city to visit relatives, then this is geographical mobility. If he moved to the city for permanent residence and got a job here, then this is already migration.
Vertical(upward) mobility means the transition of an individual or group to a higher social position with greater prestige, income, and power.
Downward mobility is also possible, involving movement to lower hierarchical positions. Ascending currents exist in two forms: the penetration of an individual from a lower layer into a higher layer; or the creation by such individuals of a new group and the penetration of the entire group into a higher layer to the level with already existing groups of this layer. Accordingly, downward currents also have two forms: the first consists in the fall of an individual from a higher social position to a lower one, without destroying the original group to which he belonged; the other form is manifested in the degradation of the social group as a whole, in the lowering of its rank against the background of other groups or in the destruction of its social unity.
Between ascent and descent there is a well-known asymmetry: everyone wants to go up and no one wants to go down the social ladder. Usually, ascent- phenomenon voluntary, A descent- forced.
A special variety is intergenerational, or intergenerational mobility. It refers to the change in the status of children compared to that of their parents. Intergenerational mobility was studied by A.V. Kirch, and in the global historical aspect - A. Pirenne and L. Febvre.
Soviet sociologists used different terms. They called the transition between classes interclass movements, and a transition within the same class is intraclass. These terms were introduced into Soviet sociology in the 70s. Interclass movements meant a transition from one class to another, say, if a person from a working environment graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy and became a teacher, thus moving into the stratum of the intelligentsia. If a worker, peasant or intellectual increased their level of education and moved from a low-skilled to a medium- or highly skilled position, remaining a worker, peasant or intellectual, then they made intra-class vertical movements.
The classification of social mobility can be carried out according to other criteria. So, for example, they distinguish individual mobility when movement down, up or horizontally occurs in an individual independently of others, and group mobility, when movements occur collectively, for example, after a social revolution, the old ruling class gives way to a new ruling class.
On other grounds, mobility may be classified into, say, spontaneous or organized. An example of spontaneous mobility is the movement of residents of neighboring countries to large cities in Russia for the purpose of earning money. Organized mobility (the movement of individuals or entire groups up, down or horizontally) is controlled by the state. These movements can be carried out either with the consent of the people themselves or without their consent. An example of organized voluntary mobility in Soviet times is the movement of young people from different cities and villages to Komsomol construction sites, the development of virgin lands, etc. An example of organized involuntary mobility is repatriation(resettlement) of Chechens and Ingush during the war with German Nazism.
It is necessary to distinguish from organized mobility structural mobility. It is caused by changes in the structure of the national economy and occurs beyond the will and consciousness of individuals. For example, the disappearance or reduction of industries or professions leads to the displacement of large masses of people. Social mobility can be measured using two indicator systems. In the first system, the unit of account is individual, in the second - status.
3. Possibilities for measuring social mobility
To understand how high mobility is in a society, we need ways to measure and evaluate it. Accordingly, new concepts appear, such as volume, scale, coefficient, degree, range, intensity of mobility, etc.
Under volume of mobility refers to the number of individuals who have moved vertically up the social ladder over a certain period of time. In other words, volume of mobility- this is the number of people who changed their previous status to another down, up or horizontally. Ideas about the movement of people up, down and horizontally in the social pyramid describe direction mobility. If the volume is calculated by the number of individuals who have moved, then it is called absolute, and if the ratio of this quantity over the entire population, then relative volume and is indicated as a percentage.
Types of mobility are described typology social movements. Measure of mobility indicated step And volume social movements. Mobility distance - this is the number of steps that individuals managed to climb or had to descend. A normal distance is considered to be moving one or two steps up or down. Most social movements happen this way. An abnormal distance is an unexpected rise to the top of the social ladder or a fall to its base. The unit of mobility distance is movement step. To describe the step of social movements, the concept of status is used: movement from lower to higher status - upward mobility; moving from a higher to a lower status - downward mobility. Movement can take place one step (status), two or more steps (statuses) up, down and horizontally. A step can be measured in 1) statuses, 2) generations. Therefore, the following types are distinguished:
intergenerational mobility,
intragenerational mobility,
interclass mobility,
intraclass mobility.
The scale of social mobility is defined as the percentage of those who changed their social status in comparison with their fathers. When Hungary was capitalist, i.e. in the 30s, the scale of mobility was 50%. In socialist Hungary (60s) it rose to 64%, and in 1983 to 72%. As a result of socialist transformations, Hungarian society became as open as developed capitalist countries. With good reason, this conclusion applies to the USSR. Western European and American scientists who conducted comparative studies found that in Eastern European countries mobility is higher than in developed capitalist countries.
However, today this ratio is clearly beginning to change. The socio-economic realities of modern Russia, as well as government policies, have led to the fact that mobility in Russia is beginning to fall sharply. For example, the circle of middle and senior government officials is becoming an increasingly closed layer, a hereditary business elite is emerging, and nepotism is becoming increasingly entrenched in show business. Surprisingly, it is a fact that the state, which should be most interested in broad social mobility, is putting forward discriminatory bills. One of them is the complication and increase in cost of the procedure for obtaining a driver’s license. People who do not have a fairly serious income and secondary education are now unable to obtain a license, and accordingly their opportunities for social advancement are sharply narrowed.
Changes in mobility across individual strata are described by two indicators. The first one is mobility rate for leaving the social stratum. It shows, for example, how many sons of skilled workers became intellectuals or peasants. Second - mobility rate entry into the social layer, indicating from which layers, for example, the layer of intellectuals is replenished. He discovers the social background of people. Degree of mobility in a society is determined by two factors: the range of mobility in society and the conditions that allow people to move. Range of mobility(amount of mobility), which characterizes a given society, depends on how many different statuses exist in it. The more statuses, the more opportunities a person has to move from one status to another.
In a traditional society, the number of high-status positions remained approximately constant, so there was moderate downward mobility of offspring from high-status families. Feudal society is characterized by very few vacancies for high positions for those who had low status. Some sociologists believe that, most likely, there was no upward mobility here. However, this understanding is not correct. The same layer of knighthood was initially almost entirely recruited from lower social strata. The consolidation of the caste of chivalry occurs only with the beginning of the decline of this layer, when, in order to preserve the lost privileges, the corporation begins to create obstacles for those wishing to penetrate this layer. But the fact of the matter is that if the bourgeoisie had not tried and infiltrated the knights’ corporation, there would have been no need to create such obstacles. We can say that the social mobility of medieval society was directly proportional to its resources for social development (economic, political, etc.). Rich but unstable Byzantium, Spain during the Reconquista, demonstrate fairly high social mobility. In addition, throughout Europe, monasticism served as a center of social mobility, which provided ample opportunities for advancement, although only within a specific church hierarchy. P. Sorokin agrees with this, who in his “general principles of social mobility” concludes that “there have hardly ever been societies whose social strata were absolutely closed or in which there was no vertical mobility in its three main forms - economic , political and professional."
However, upward mobility was greatly hampered.
Industrial society expanded range of mobility. It is characterized by a much larger number of different statuses. The first decisive factor in social mobility is the level of economic development. During periods of economic depression, the number of high-status positions decreases and low-status positions expand, so downward mobility dominates. It intensifies during periods when people lose their jobs and at the same time new layers enter the labor market. On the contrary, during periods of active economic development, many new high-status positions appear. Increased demand for workers to keep them busy is the main reason for upward mobility. The main trend in the development of industrial society is that it simultaneously increases wealth and the number of high-status positions, which in turn leads to an increase in the size of the middle class, whose ranks are replenished by people from lower strata. The second factor of social mobility is the historical type of stratification. Caste and class societies limit social mobility, placing severe restrictions on any change in status. Such societies are called closed .
If most statuses in a society are ascribed or prescribed, then the range of mobility in it is much lower than in a society built on individual achievement. In pre-industrial society, there was little upward mobility, since legal laws and traditions practically denied peasants access to the landowning class. There is a well-known medieval saying: “Once a peasant, always a peasant.” In an industrial society, which sociologists classify as open societies First of all, individual merits and achieved status are valued. In such a society, the level of social mobility is quite high.
In an open society there are no formal restrictions on mobility and almost no informal ones. However, in the most egalitarian situation, where everyone has legitimate opportunities for advancement, some want to be “more equal” than others. Thus, many difficulties arise when realizing advantages for representatives of ethnic, racial or social groups lagging behind in their development, for example, during admission to universities. In this case, the rights and interests of more prepared youth may be infringed. At the same time, social, racial and gender barriers still exist in open societies. Both the “patronizing” system of training personnel with high-quality higher education in England and the “competitive” system of training them in the USA do not really contribute to increasing mobility “from below” to the “ruling class”, since in both cases this is available to a small number of people with the highest abilities, and in the rarest cases. After all, there are many formal and informal restrictions and regulations that favor the advancement of persons from the higher stratum and hinder those who belong to the lower.”
Sociologists also note the following pattern: the wider the opportunities for advancement, the stronger people believe in the availability of channels of vertical mobility for them, and the more they believe in this, the more they strive to advance, that is, the higher the level of social mobility in society. Conversely, in a class society, people do not believe in the possibility of changing their status without wealth, pedigree or the patronage of the monarch.
During periods of revolutions and social cataclysms, a radical change in the social structure occurs, a radical replacement of the upper layer with the overthrow of the former elite, the emergence of new classes and social groups, mass group mobility.
The concept of “group mobility” characterizes a society experiencing social changes, where the social significance of an entire class, estate, or stratum increases or decreases.
According to P. Sorokin, the reasons for group mobility were the following factors:
social revolutions;
foreign interventions, invasions;
interstate wars;
civil wars;
military coups;
change of political regimes;
replacing the old constitution with a new one;
peasant uprisings;
internecine struggle of aristocratic families;
creation of an empire.
During stable periods, social mobility increases during periods of economic restructuring. At the same time, education, the role of which is increasing in the conditions of transition from an industrial society to an information society, is an important “social elevator” that ensures vertical mobility.
Social mobility is a fairly reliable indicator of the level of “openness” or “closedness” of a society. A striking example of a “closed” society is the caste system in India. A high degree of closedness is characteristic of feudal society. On the contrary, bourgeois-democratic societies, being open, are characterized by a high level of social mobility. However, it should be noted that here, too, vertical social mobility is not absolutely free and the transition from one social layer to another, higher one, is not carried out without resistance.
To measure social mobility, P. Sorokin introduces the concepts intensity(or speed) and universality vertical social mobility
From a quantitative point of view, it is necessary to distinguish between the intensity and universality of vertical mobility. Under intensity refers to the vertical social distance or the number of layers - economic, professional or political - traversed by an individual in his upward or downward movement over a certain period of time.
Under universality vertical mobility refers to the number of individuals who have changed their social position in a vertical direction over a certain period of time. The absolute number of such individuals gives absolute universality vertical mobility in the structure of a given population of the country; the proportion of such individuals to the entire population gives relative universality vertical mobility.
By combining the intensity and relative universality of vertical mobility in a certain social sphere, we can obtain aggregate indicator of vertical economic mobility of a given society . By comparing one society with another, or the same society at different periods of its development, one can discover in which of them or in which period aggregate mobility is higher. The same can be said about the aggregate indicator of political and professional vertical mobility.
According to P. Sorokin, in society, from time to time, peaks of social mobility. The study of vertical mobility within the political stratification of different countries reveals periods of particularly pronounced movements. In the history of Russia, such periods were: the second half of the 16th century - the beginning of the 17th century. (the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the subsequent interregnum), the reign of Peter the Great and, finally, the last Russian revolution.
During these periods, throughout almost the entire country, the old political and government nobility were destroyed or deposed, and "upstarts" filled the highest ranks of the political aristocracy. It is well known that in the history of Italy these were the 15th-16th centuries. XV century is rightfully called the century of adventurers and rogues. During this time, historical protagonists were often people from the lower classes. In the history of England, such periods were the following eras: the conquest of England by William, the civil war of the mid-17th century. In US history - mid-18th century. and the period of the civil war. In most European countries, the Renaissance and Reformation represented periods of extremely intense social mobility.
In any case and at any period, social mobility puts the individual in the conditions of the need to adapt to a new socio-cultural environment. This process can be quite difficult. A person who has lost the socio-cultural world familiar to him, but has failed to perceive the norms and values of the new group, finds himself, as it were, on the verge of two cultures, becomes marginal. This is also typical for migrants, both ethnic and territorial. In such conditions, a person experiences discomfort and stress. Mass marginality gives rise to serious social problems. As a rule, it distinguishes societies at sharp turning points in history. This is precisely the period Russia is currently experiencing. But, unlike “marginal revolutions” (it would be more correct to call some of the “peaks of mobility” considered by P. Sorokin), at the beginning of the new millennium the changes are no longer of an intensive nature.
4. Positive and negative qualities of mobility
Important aspects for understanding mobility were expressed at one time by representatives of German and British sociology, cited in the article D. Goldthorpe.
Thus, Lipset drew attention to the fact that the mobility of individuals can affect the social and political order. A high degree of mobility can lead not only to personal satisfaction and therefore socio-political tolerance, but also to feelings of personal insecurity and ressentiment(indignation, resentment, anger) and, thus, leads to individuals refusing to support them status quo, which increases the likelihood of them joining extremist social movements.<...>Thus, for Lipset, mobility is not only a process of moving up the socio-economic ladder, but also a process of alienation from and affiliation with certain groups. This process can be more complex and psychologically distressing since mobility is often only partial, i.e. occurs in only one dimension. For example, the upward mobility of individuals and groups in the professional sphere, caused, say, by economic growth, does not necessarily entail an improvement in their social status or an increase in the amount of political power.
These ideas are developed in her article by Yu. Tykheeva, who notes that no matter how attractive the thesis about the vertical mobility of members of society with a positive exponential may seem, it is still necessary to look at social processes with a sober look. After all, social mobility can be considered simultaneously as a process of positive development of society, and at the same time as a process of its destabilization and destruction. On the one hand, it reorganizes and structures society in accordance with the achievements and level of development of individual members of society, introduces a new spirit into old processes, on the other hand, it breaks apart established, still workable structures, and for the sake of novelty, it disrupts connections and relationships between groups of people and society. Its influence on an individual is also ambiguous. A person who is transported by a “social elevator” to the desired place (regardless of up or down) inevitably becomes marginalized. Having left one group, he cannot always fit into a new one, and this discomfort arises not only psychologically, but also professionally.
On the other hand, the results of the research of the British sociologist Glass were aimed at substantiating the values of an open society. In the researcher’s opinion, such a society is supported not only by ideas about social justice, but also by considerations of economic and social rationality, “since with a flexible social structure there is a greater likelihood that positions requiring greater abilities will be occupied by individuals who have such abilities.” , and there will also be “less personal frustration and a greater likelihood of achieving social harmony.”
D. Galthorpe himself views mobility as a positive phenomenon if it is combined with significant openness of society: with a tendency to provide equal opportunities to people of different social origins in occupying different positions in the system of social division of labor. However, he is concerned about the extent to which the characteristic features of the social structure of a liberal democratic society limit the ability of individuals of certain social backgrounds to realize their full civic and human potential. In other words, like Glass, in contrast to Lipset, he believes that greater openness of society is a goal that still needs to be strived for, and not a phenomenon that needs to be improved in the interests of socio-political stability.
Consequently, any social process that prevents class formation and the emergence of class conflict, such as mobility, is positive for society as a whole, but is often not at all in the interests of liberal democratic ideology and various forms of the state.
5. Social mobility in modern Russia
The process of transition from an economy based on an administrative-bureaucratic way of managing social production and distribution to an economy based on market relations, and from the monopoly power of the party nomenklatura to representative democracy is extremely painful and slow. Strategic and tactical miscalculations in the radical transformation of social relations are aggravated by the peculiarities of the economic potential created in the USSR with its structural asymmetry, monopolism, technological backwardness, etc.
All this was reflected in the social stratification of Russian society in the transition period. To analyze it and understand its features, it is necessary to consider the social structure of the Soviet period. In Soviet scientific literature, in accordance with the requirements of official ideology, a view was affirmed from the position of a three-member structure: two friendly classes (the worker and the collective farm peasantry), as well as a social stratum - the people's intelligentsia. Moreover, in this layer, representatives of the party and state elite, a rural teacher, and a library worker seemed to be on equal terms.
This approach veiled the existing differentiation of society and created the illusion of society moving towards social equality.
With the collapse of the USSR and during perestroika, the old social system was largely destroyed, and the illusion of equality was dispelled.
Research by Bogdanova L. and Shchukina A. showed that in the sphere of social reproduction the situation with social mobility in Russia is not very good, since forced mobility predominates. Both types of assessments, subjective (based on changes in social status) and objective (based on the number of job changes), indicate a low level of population mobility. An analysis of the reasons for changing jobs and the motives for choosing a new workplace allows us to draw a conclusion about the predominantly forced nature of mobility: when choosing a new place of work, the main motive is to ensure material wealth, for all categories of respondents; Achievement motivation for mobility is significantly inferior to motives of a material nature. Consequently, mobility is focused primarily on support and maintaining social status, and not on increasing it.
The conclusion about the predominance of forced mobility is also confirmed by the structure of motivation for secondary employment, the spread of which is another characteristic feature of the transitional state of the economy and society. According to the survey results, 38% of men and 14% of women had an additional job; the structure of motivation for secondary employment characterizes the latter as predominantly forced, since the main motive is to satisfy current expenses.
The difficult situation in the labor market, especially in the 90s, led to the expansion of labor migration. The scale and direction of such migrations depend on the professional and educational parameters of the population and the supply of jobs, their structure and quality. The intensity of labor migration is determined by the degree of correspondence between supply and demand in the labor market, while the younger and more educated categories of the population are most active in looking for work outside their places of residence. Large-scale and long-term structural discrepancies cause the transformation of regular labor migrations into migration outflow.
The final subjective assessment of the results of social mobility, taking into account two components of social status - property and social - showed significant differences between these assessments - changes in property status are higher than in social status. The differences in assessments of changes in social status by age groups are natural: in the age group of 30-39 years the highest proportion of answers about its increase, in the older age group 50-59 years - about a decrease in social status. It should also be noted that respondents with higher education had a higher share of positive assessments of changes in property and social status.
In general, the structure of answers about changes in social status, in combination with answers to other questions in the questionnaire, indicates a sufficient degree of adaptation of the population to changes in socio-economic conditions, but forced, passive adaptation options predominate. The following groups of respondents can be identified as the most adapted: by age - younger (30-39 years old), by education - with higher professional education. Individuals in these two categories are more mobile and have more pronounced achievement motivation.
Since vertical mobility is present to varying degrees in every society, and since between the strata there must be some "openings", "stairs", "elevators" or "paths" along which individuals are allowed to move up or down from one strata to another, then It would be legitimate to consider the question of what these channels of social circulation in Russia actually are. The functions of social circulation are performed by various institutions. Of their number, which exist both in different and in the same society, but in different periods of its development, there are always several channels that are most characteristic of this society. The most important of them are: the army, the church, the school, political, economic and professional organizations...
Let us consider how these various “ladders” function today in our country, using the example of the army, church and higher school.
Army. According to P. Sorokin, it functions in this capacity not in peacetime, but in wartime. Large losses among the command staff lead to filling vacancies from lower ranks. During war, soldiers advance through talent and courage. Having risen in rank, they use the resulting power as a channel for further advancement and accumulation of wealth. They have the opportunity to rob, pillage, seize trophies, take indemnities, take away slaves, surround themselves with pompous ceremonies and titles, and transfer their power by inheritance.
However, it is well known that in the United States and Europe the army even in peacetime serves as a conduit for upward social mobility, since after service it allows one to receive free higher education at prestigious universities. In Russia, on the contrary, the army is one of the channels of downward mobility, since it recruits only representatives of lower social strata, and separates young men for two years from the opportunity to obtain a prestigious profession.
Church as a channel of social circulation, it moved a large number of people from the bottom to the top of society. Gebbon, Archbishop of Reims, was a former slave. Pope Gregory VII is the son of a carpenter. P. Sorokin studied the biographies of 144 Roman Catholic popes and found that 28 of them came from the lower strata, and 27 from the middle strata. The institution of celibacy (celibacy), introduced in the 11th century by Pope Gregory VII, obliged the Catholic clergy not to have children. Thanks to this, after the death of officials, the vacated positions were filled with new people. The church was a channel not only of upward, but also of downward movement. Thousands of heretics, pagans, enemies of the church were put on trial, ruined and destroyed. Among them were many kings, dukes, princes, lords, aristocrats and nobles of high rank.
Today, the church in Russia is once again promoting upward mobility for many people of low social status. However, we must not forget that as long as the church is separated from the state, the social mobility of priests is very limited; moreover, the increase in the number of clergy in a secular state is fraught with new social upheavals and additional risks for clergy. The example of Peter I, who turned thousands of priests and their children into serfs, is not at all a historical curiosity, but an objective desire to reduce non-production costs in a secular state.
School. Institutions of upbringing and education, no matter what specific form they take, have served in all centuries as a powerful channel of social circulation. The USA and the USSR are societies where schools are available to all its members. In such a society, the “social elevator” moves from the very bottom, passes through all floors and reaches the very top.
However, we have long been living not in the USSR, but in Russia, and here the situation is somewhat different. Nevertheless, education continues to play its inherent role, although the forms of increasing social mobility and the categories of the population that are drawn into this “gap” have changed significantly. As O. Bocharova showed, the spread of correspondence and second education today can be considered, firstly, a reaction to rapid changes in the labor market and its requirements, and secondly, a channel of vertical mobility for representatives of groups whose opportunities to receive full-time (read full-time) ) education is limited.
Another manifestation of this process is regionalization. The main increase in demand for educational services is observed in the province. The participation of metropolitan regions in the provision of educational services is decreasing, and accordingly, the share of the province is increasing. This is expressed, for example, in the emergence of large numbers of branches of metropolitan universities, including in small towns. Parents often see this as the only opportunity for their children to receive a higher education, and for relatively little money; in addition, they retain the possibility of guardianship and control over their children - “away from the temptations of the big city.” However, the quality of education in these branches is not necessarily good. Therefore, branches are considered either as a real way to “get a degree” (in this case, the quality of education does not play any role), or as a stepping stone to entering a “real university.” Often, branches of metropolitan universities and provincial universities are associated with so-called specialized classes, which are actually a version of preparatory courses.
Regionalization, the growth in the number of branches and related specialized classes, responding to society’s demand for education, at the same time strengthen the process of differentiation of the higher education system, the division of universities into prestigious, elite and all others, which partially coincides with regional division and processes in general going on in society as a whole. We can agree with O. Bocharova that these processes are rather negative for society, because contribute to the spread and reproduction of particularistic models to the detriment of universal ones.
A striking example of violations in the proper functioning of the education system is the transformation of the motivations with which people come to university. For a huge number of male applicants, a deferment from the army is mandatory, and sometimes the only criterion for choosing a university and an incentive to obtain higher education. This factor brings a change in the understanding of the functions of higher education. There are meanings and roles that are universal for the whole world, attached to higher education - it is an autonomous social institution with its own values for the transfer of knowledge and democratic orders, the first stage of professional socialization, a channel of vertical mobility. In Russia, higher education institutions, in addition to this, also play the role of social protection mechanisms, which for a large part of the objects of their services is the most significant.
On the other hand, sociologists draw attention to the fact that in modern conditions a place in the upper strata of society strongly depends on the quality of education and the level of knowledge of a person. Those. In society, the connection between education and professional success is constantly strengthening. Education and professional success become the basis for social mobility. Until this connection is weakened, opportunities for growth will remain quite limited, and as long as the role of education as a filter for entry into the professional hierarchy continues, it will contribute to the persistence of social inequality.
Conclusion
So, we can conclude that social mobility is a concept that arose in connection with the theory of social stratification and is a recognition of the fact that the social hierarchy is not a frozen, unchanging structure, that it is constantly changing, and at the same time specific places are changing in this hierarchy.
Different sociologists classify the types of social mobility in different ways, but everyone agrees that its main types are vertical and horizontal. In terms of harmonization of society, the division of vertical mobility into upward and downward seems most relevant, since evaluative characteristics serve in society as an instrument of segregation and political struggle. Ideally, in a closed society, the ideal is the maximum limitation of social mobility, and in an open society, its maximum development.
Researchers believe, and sociological material seems to indicate, that Russia today is an open society for which social mobility is an enduring value. At the same time, based on the analysis of the situation in the army, the church, higher education (only the scope of the abstract does not allow us to continue this list), and in the country as a whole, social mobility is either forced or completely limited. Where does this trend come from? Maybe our society is not so open after all?
The example of Kazakhstan shows that archaic layers of social consciousness, superimposed on the monopoly in power structures, can quickly lead to the revival of the clan structure, that is, to the transformation of an open society into a closed one. The openness or closedness of society turns out to be directly dependent on the development of a market economy and the ability to exercise a monopoly of power. That is, for the development of a market, industrial economy, high social mobility is necessary. But high mobility in conditions when an incompetent, corrupt government in power, incapable of serious reforms, destabilizes power. Conversely, conservation of the social structure stabilizes such power, but slows down the development of the economy.
Literature
Sorokin P. Social stratification and mobility. // Pitirim Sorokin. Human. Civilization. Society. (Series “Thinkers of the 20th Century”). M., 1992.
Frolov S.S. Sociology. Textbook for higher educational institutions. – M., 1994.
Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Volume 2: Social stratification and mobility. – M., 2002
Bocharova S. Higher education in Russia: vertical mobility and social protection. // Domestic notes. No. 1. 2002
Goldthorpe D. Social mobility and social interests. http://socnet.narod.ru/library/authors/Ilyin/hrest/Goldthorp.htm
Tykheeva Yu.Ts. City: education and social mobility. // Innovation and education. Collection of conference materials. Series “Symposium”, issue 29. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society, 2003. P.454-466
Bogdanova L.P., Shchukina A.S. Social mobility in the system of social reproduction. // II All-Russian Scientific Conference SOROKIN READINGS-2005. The future of Russia: development strategies. December 14-15, 2005
Sociology. Lecture course. Edited by Gubin S.A., Erofeev S.I., Kozlov O.N., and others (electronic version, year and publisher unknown).
Blo and Duncan also showed the relative importance for the professional mobility of an individual of a number of factors related to origin: father’s profession, nationality, size of the parental family, type and size of settlement, education received.
The following conclusions of these scientists are of interest:
1. The level of occupational mobility in the United States is relatively high. (The correlation coefficient between the socioeconomic statuses of father and son is +0.38). The father's status influences the son's status mainly through education, but the socioeconomic position of the family also influences career opportunities, regardless of education.
2. Racial discrimination in the United States is manifested, in particular, in the worse chances of blacks for professional success. Their professional compensation for educational expenses is so much lower that it often negates their desire for further education, and this, naturally, worsens their chances in the labor market.
3. Urban migrants have greater opportunities to achieve the desired professional status than their fathers, compared to “settled” citizens. Moving to an industrial area promises greater success than moving to an agricultural area. Migration from an industrial area to a small city is most preferable. The larger the migrant's first place of residence, the greater his chances of professional success, regardless of the size of his last place of residence. In fact, both migrants and “settled” people show a direct connection between the scale of the area in which they grew up and their professional achievements.
4. Business opportunities are affected by the number of members of the parental family, as well as siblings. The achievements of a person from a large family, forced to divide resources among many brothers and sisters, are usually worse than those of someone who grew up in a small family.
Older and younger children tend to have better careers than average children, due to an interweaving of economic and psychological factors. In small families, the absence of an older brother gives the middle son some advantages on the path to professional success, since in practice older sisters are not a hindrance in the struggle for better life chances.
Bleau and Duncan, in their classic work, emphasize that paternal status has multiple—both direct and indirect—impacts on sons' educational attainment. At the same time, the connection between education and professional success is strengthening in society. Until this link is weakened, opportunities for increased social mobility will remain quite limited, and the role of education as a filter for entry into the professional hierarchy will continue, contributing to the perpetuation of social inequality.
Turning to the question of persistent obstacles to social mobility, the authors argue that prescribed characteristics: race, religion, age, gender, nationality can serve as an effective tool in the distribution of labor roles. The process of socialization in any society tends to link prescribed characteristics with social objectives. Socialization associated with prescribed characteristics penetrates the consciousness so much that 150
that it is confused with human nature and accepted as given, despite its conventionality. Hence, the rejection of the connection between social tasks and prescribed characteristics has a revolutionary character in a sociological context. Awareness of their own lack of rights leads many lower groups to social protest aimed at changing the traditional balance of power. Examples include the black movement, the women's movement, and the performance of Indian communities.
Blau and Duncan recall two important aspects of the ideology associated with the "American Dream" - the desire for higher status and the belief in the possibility of achieving it. When viewed in this context, it is clear that the prescribed status a priori excludes certain categories of the population from the sphere of the “American Dream”. Historically, this is due to both systematic discrimination from the outside and their own “internalization” (internal acceptance) of prescribed characteristics. The limited aspirations explained by this position have traditionally been approved by society, because they symbolically reinforce the principle of the division of labor. The “internalization” of traditional values had important consequences for mobility processes in society.
2. Factors of social mobility It should be noted that many comparative studies have shown that under the influence of the forces inherent in industrialization, fundamental changes occur in stratification systems. First of all, social differentiation is increasing. Advanced technology is giving rise to a large number of new professions. The emerging professions require greater qualifications and better training, are better paid and are more prestigious. As a consequence, education and training are becoming increasingly important factors in entry into the occupational hierarchy. In addition, industrialization brings greater alignment between professionalism, training and remuneration. In other words, individuals and groups become characterized by a tendency toward relatively stable positions in a ranked stratification hierarchy. As a result, social mobility increases. The level of mobility increases mainly due to the quantitative growth of professions in the middle of the stratification hierarchy, i.e. due to forced mobility, although voluntary mobility is also becoming more active, since the orientation towards achievements gains more weight.
The level and nature of mobility is equally, if not to a greater extent, influenced by the system of social structure. Scientists have long drawn attention to the qualitative differences in this regard between open and closed societies. In an open society there are no formal restrictions on mobility and almost no informal ones. However, in the most egalitarian situation, where everyone has legitimate opportunities for advancement, some want to be more equal than others.
Thus, many difficulties arise when realizing advantages for representatives of ethnic and racial groups lagging behind in their development, for example, in admission to universities. In this case, the rights and interests of more prepared youth may be infringed. At the same time, social, racial and gender barriers still exist in open societies. Both the “patronizing” system of training personnel with high-quality higher education in England and the “competitive” system of training them in the USA do not really contribute to increasing mobility “from below” to the “ruling class”, since in both cases this is available to a small number of people with the highest abilities, and in the rarest cases. After all, there are many formal and informal restrictions and regulations that favor the advancement of persons from a higher stratum and hinder those who belong to a lower one.
Among the structural conditions that contribute to increased mobility, we note the importance of wars and revolutions. Here it is enough to recall the consequences of the October Revolution in Russia. But even this bloody catastrophe did not lead to a complete renewal of the elite. Research has shown that economic management has practically remained in the hands of the former managers of trusts, concerns and syndicates. And the “great construction projects” of socialism and communism were carried out primarily according to the plans and projects of the pre-revolutionary years. Only the authors often “crossed over” from masters to comrades, although without obvious pleasure. True, the ranks of those in power were gradually replenished with “people from the people,” but not at all to the extent depicted in propaganda. And the “natives” increasingly strived to marry “countesses”, preferably red in faith, which was reflected in fiction. Such, however, is the fate of the makers of all kinds of revolutions. In the same way, a new elite is emerging in post-Soviet Russia. Yesterday's leading “comrades,” with little hesitation, transformed into masters, pushing politicians and other initiators of the destruction of the old system and the creation of bourgeois Russia into second positions. Continuity prevailed over renovationism here too.
Under certain conditions, the decisive factors of mobility can be the state, the army, and the church. In the past, the church was the second channel of vertical mobility after the army, especially in relation to the middle stratum. Significant opportunities for advancement from the bottom up appear during the formation of new religions.
In the modern world, education is a special factor in mobility, although it also played a decisive role in some ancient states, for example, in China. After the Second World War, in conditions of rapid economic growth in both Western and “socialist” countries, the idea of social mobility “through education” was formed. But these illusions gradually dissipated.
Educated workers occupy the same positions in the hierarchy of power and property as their less educated parents. Education itself has also become stratified, dividing with formal equality of levels (say, higher) into elite, advanced, “average” and low-level. Therefore, the modern education system is more likely to camouflage real inequality than to serve as an “elevator” to equalize positions. Social reasons for the distribution of power and privileges are replaced by their “natural” reasons associated with the individual natural abilities of people.
Political parties also play an equally important role, often in joint actions with the state. Professional associations and various types of public organizations take their place in mobility processes.
Of course, the role of the family is especially important - from its clan organizations, which have existed since ancient times in the East, to the modern family, which contributes in various ways to upward mobility: from marriages to support in the business sphere. However, research shows that significant upward mobility weakens family ties.
The influence of social stratification on parental values regarding children in the United States and Italy was studied many years ago by Melvin Cohn (1959-1966), his research showed that there are differences in this regard between the middle and working classes.
Parents belonging to the middle class give the highest rating to self-organization, while working-class parents rate conformity and externally imposed rules the highest.
As additional factors influencing mobility, we note different levels of fertility in different strata - lower in the upper and higher in the lower, which creates a certain “vacuum” from above and promotes advancement from below.
In rare cases, upward mobility depends on the conscious efforts of people; objective factors, and above all, economic development, are of decisive importance. However, since people's personal efforts cannot be discounted, one must take into account the motivation of their activities aimed at promotion.
For an individual, the opportunity to move up means not only an increase in the share of social benefits he receives, it contributes to the realization of his personal data, making him more flexible and versatile. Mobility also implies the possibility of creating new groups, ideas, and acquiring new experience. As for the downward movement, by reducing the share of social benefits, it contributes to an increase in self-awareness, a more realistic self-esteem of the individual and, accordingly, a more realistic choice of goals, including less paid but more interesting work, and finally, it strengthens family cohesion.
All this can be attributed to the positive results of mobility, regardless of its upward or downward direction.
3. Negative consequences of social mobility
The negative results of mobility (both vertical and horizontal) include the loss by an individual of his previous group affiliation and the need to adapt to his new group. This identification of behavior results in tension in relationships with other people and often leads to alienation. To overcome this barrier, there are several ways that individuals resort to in the process of social mobility:
1) changing lifestyle, adopting a new material status standard (buying a new, more expensive car, moving to another, more prestigious area, etc.);
2) development of typical status behavior (change in communication style, acquisition of new vocabulary, new ways of spending leisure time, etc.);
3) change in the social environment (the individual tries to surround himself with representatives of the social stratum into which he strives to join).
Let's consider several negative cases of the existence of individuals with high mobility in modern society:
Status instability.
A society with open borders between social groups gives a person a chance to rise to a higher social position, but it also creates in him the fear of social decline. He cannot blame society for his low status, but takes full responsibility for his low position upon himself. There is no guarantee that his status will not become even lower, but even if it remains at the same level, this does not mean that the individual is fulfilling his social responsibilities, since these responsibilities include not just maintaining this status, but also increasing it. This status anxiety in many countries of Europe and America has traditionally been demonstrated to a greater extent by the middle class. In our country, scientists consider middle and lower level managers in the management system to be the group experiencing the greatest concern. Representatives of the highest status level do not need to fight for higher status and are rarely afraid of losing it. At the same time, among the individuals representing the lower levels, very few hope for social advancement and few participate in the struggle for higher status. In a society with relatively open boundaries between social classes, some people may have a high rate of social mobility and have brilliant careers, while others may be so demoralized that they will try to find solace in alcohol, drugs, sex or other entertainment.
References……………………………………………………………23
Positive:
The upward movement of an individual contributes to the realization of his personal qualities, but if the movement occurs downward, then it helps the person develop a more realistic self-esteem and, accordingly, a more realistic choice of goal.
The opportunity to create new social groups, the emergence of new ideas, and the acquisition of new experiences.
Negative:
The loss by an individual of his previous group affiliation, the need to adapt to his new group. This can lead to tension in relationships with people around you;
Severance of social ties;
Status anxiety in both individuals and society as a whole - change can be for the worse.
To overcome this barrier, there are several ways that individuals resort to in the process of social mobility:
1) changing lifestyle, adopting a new material status standard (buying a new, more expensive car, moving to another, more prestigious area, etc.);
2) development of typical status behavior (change in communication style, acquisition of new vocabulary, new ways of spending leisure time, etc.);
3) change in the social environment (the individual tries to surround himself with representatives of the social stratum into which he strives to join).
Marginality.
Social mobility leads to the fact that some people find themselves at the junction of certain social groups, while experiencing serious psychological difficulties. Their situation is largely determined by their inability or unwillingness, for whatever reason, to adapt to a new social group.
This phenomenon of a person being, as it were, between two cultures, associated with his movement in social space, is called marginality. The individual value system of such people is so stable that it cannot be replaced by new norms, principles, and rules.
Their behavior is characterized by extremes: they are either overly passive or very aggressive, easily transgress moral standards and are capable of unpredictable actions.
Among the marginalized there are: ethnomarginals- people who find themselves in a foreign environment as a result of migration; political marginalized - people who are not satisfied with legal opportunities and legitimate rules of socio-political struggle: religious marginals - people who are outside the confession or who do not dare make a choice between them, etc.
Social norms.
In the course of their lives, people constantly interact with each other. A significant part of social relations is characterized by conflicting interests of their participants. The result of such contradictions is social conflicts that arise between members of society. One of the ways to harmonize the interests of people and smooth out conflicts that arise between them and their associations is normative regulation - regulation of individual behavior using certain norms.
Classes and castes. The nature of mobility processes in many societies and social groups is different and depends on the characteristics of the structure of the society or group. Some societies have established social structures that prevent various types of social mobility, while others more or less freely allow both social ups and downs. In open class societies, each member can rise and fall through the statuses that make up the structure based on his own efforts and abilities. In closed class societies, each social position is assigned to the individual from birth, and no matter what efforts he makes, society excludes him from achieving social rise or social fall. Obviously, both of these societies represent ideal types of structures and do not currently exist in real life. However, there are social structures that are close to ideal open and closed class societies. One of the societies that was close to closed was the caste society in ancient India. It was divided into a number of castes, each of which had its own social structure and occupied a strictly defined place among other castes.
Castes. Castes refer to social systems in which individuals' positions are based on descent and any possibility of achieving higher status is excluded, with strict rules prohibiting marriage between members of different castes. These rules are fixed in the mind with the help of religious beliefs. In ancient India, for example, social barriers between castes were very significant and transitions of individuals from one caste to another were extremely rare. Each caste had specific types of professions, used separate roads for movement, and also created its own types of internal relationships. The rank place of caste in society was strictly observed. Thus, representatives of the highest caste, the “Brahmans,” as a rule, had wealth and a high level of education. However, even if a member of this upper caste became bankrupt or for some reason remained illiterate, he still could not descend into the lower caste.
Modern societies as a whole cannot be organized according to the caste type for a number of social and economic reasons, which include, first of all, the needs of society for qualified and competent performers, for capable people to solve the problems of managing complex social, political and economic processes.
But even in modern societies there are social groups of a “closed” type, very reminiscent of castes. Thus, in many countries, such a relatively closed group is the elite - the upper layer of the social structure, which has advantages in occupying the highest social statuses and, therefore, advantages in the distribution of the social product, power, receiving the best education, etc.
So, in societies there are some social status groups in which vertical mobility is extremely difficult due to their isolation and barriers created in the way of representatives of other social groups. At the same time, no matter how closed a group is, there is still at least a small number of members of other groups penetrating into it. Apparently, there are certain paths of vertical social mobility that are almost impossible to block, and representatives of the lower strata always have a chance to penetrate into the upper strata.
Channels of social mobility. The availability of pathways for social mobility depends both on the individual and on the structure of the society in which he lives. Individual ability means little if society distributes rewards based on prescribed roles. On the other hand, an open society is of little help to an individual who is not prepared to struggle for advancement to higher statuses. In some societies, the ambitions of young people may find one or two possible channels of mobility open to them. At the same time, in other societies, youth can take a hundred paths to achieve higher status. Some paths to achieving higher status may be closed due to ethnic or social class discrimination, others due to the fact that the individual, due to individual characteristics, is simply not able to use his talents.
However, in order to completely change their social status, individuals often face the problem of entering a new subculture of a group with a higher status, as well as the related problem of interactions with representatives of the new social environment. To overcome the cultural and communication barriers, there are several methods that individuals resort to in one way or another in the process of social mobility.
1. Lifestyle changes. It is not enough to simply earn and spend a lot of money, even in the case when an individual is equal in income to representatives of a higher social stratum. To assimilate a new status level, he needs to accept a new material standard corresponding to this level. Setting up an apartment, buying books, a TV, a car, etc. - everything must correspond to a new, higher status. Material everyday culture is, perhaps, not a very noticeable, but very significant way of joining a higher status level. But the material way of life is only one of the moments of familiarization with a new status and in itself, without changing other components of culture, means little.
2. Development of typical status behavior. A person oriented toward vertical mobility will not be accepted into a higher social class stratum until he has mastered the behavioral patterns of this stratum enough to follow them without any effort. A graduate student, gradually becoming a professor, or an executive, turning into a director, must change his behavior in order to be accepted in a new environment. Samples of clothing, verbal expressions, leisure time, manner of communication - everything is subject to revision and should become habitual and the only possible type of behavior. Children are often prepared specifically for high-class behavior by teaching them music, dancing, and good manners. True, not all aspects of the subculture of a social stratum or group can be mastered as a result of deliberate training and conscious imitation, but such efforts can speed up the process of an individual's acceptance of a subculture of a higher social stratum.
3. Changing social environment. This method is based on establishing contacts with individuals and associations (social groups, social circles) of the status layer into which the mobile individual is socialized. The ideal condition for entering a new layer is a situation where the individual is completely surrounded by representatives of the layer he is trying to get to. In this case, the subculture is mastered very quickly. However, the positive aspect of networking is always that a new acquaintance (individuals, associations) can create a favorable public opinion in favor of the newcomer.
4. Marriage to a representative of a higher status stratum has always served as the best means of overcoming barriers to social mobility. Firstly, such a marriage can greatly contribute to the manifestation of talents if it provides material well-being. Secondly, it provides the individual with the opportunity to quickly rise, often bypassing several status levels (everyone, of course, remembers Cinderella’s rapid vertical mobility to the highest strata of society). Thirdly, marriage with a representative or representative of a higher status largely resolves the problems of the social environment and the rapid assimilation of cultural patterns of a higher status layer. This kind of marriage allowed people to overcome the most difficult social barriers in caste society, as well as penetrate into the elite strata. But such a marriage can only be useful if an individual from a lower status layer is prepared to quickly assimilate new patterns of behavior and lifestyle in a new social environment. If he cannot quickly assimilate new cultural statuses and standards, then this marriage will not yield anything, since representatives of the higher status layer will not consider the individual “one of their own.”
3. Individual and social mobility
The belief that social mobility is beneficial and necessary is an integral part of the culture in any modern democratic society. A society with closed social groups prevents the expression of human individuality and does not give talented people the opportunity to actively participate in public life. However, high social mobility is most appropriate and beneficial in complex societies. Relatively simple societies, which, for example, existed in the 18th century. in Europe and Asia, as well as in America, there were very few social roles that could not be performed by people with average abilities, provided, of course, that a person prepared to fulfill his main role from childhood. In such a simple society, even the role of leaders, defining rules and rituals, requires thoroughness and long training rather than extraordinary ability to perform well. An inherent quality of a society with a closed social class structure is its internal simplicity and stability. This guarantees that most roles will be performed quite adequately even without an influx of talented people from lower social strata.
The speed of change in society, of course, requires more from a leader than the ability to mechanically perform certain rituals. In addition, for technical achievements in society, more highly intelligent, highly educated professionals, performers, and experts are needed. Such a society is unable to cope without a constant influx of “brains” into key positions, coming from all social strata of society. It follows that an open class system is a necessity for modern society. However, the cultivation and development of an open system can have unpleasant consequences for some of the individuals within it. Let us consider several cases of the existence in modern society of individuals with high mobility.
Status instability. The medieval shoemaker had little chance of climbing the social ladder, but there was practically no danger for him of falling below his status. He felt at ease as a shoemaker, free from ambition and fear of failure. He could work without feeling shame or humiliation, or find pleasure in his modest comfort without craving for a luxurious life.
A society with open borders between social groups gives a person a chance to rise, but it also creates in him the fear of social decline. He cannot blame society for his low status, but takes full responsibility for the low position upon himself. There is no guarantee that his status will not become even lower, but even if it remains at the same level, this does not mean that the individual is fulfilling his social responsibilities, since these responsibilities include not just maintaining this status, but also increasing it. Other people of low birth may have high status, but why not him? This status anxiety in many countries of Europe and America has traditionally been demonstrated to a greater extent by the middle class. In our country, the group experiencing the greatest concern is, perhaps, middle and lower level managers in the management system. Representatives of the highest status level do not need to fight for higher status and are rarely afraid of losing it. At the same time, among the individuals representing the lower levels, very few hope for social advancement and few participate in the struggle for higher status.
In a society with relatively open boundaries between social classes, some people may have a high rate of social mobility and have brilliant careers, while others may be so demoralized that they will try to find solace in wine, drugs, sex or other entertainment. Many individuals try to protect their status by creating institutional formations that reduce the freedom of vertical social mobility. Social formations such as trade unions, entrepreneurs' unions, societies of actors, lawyers, etc., create some social barriers to free social mobility. One of the institutional means of protecting the positions of individuals are scientific degrees and titles awarded to actors, military personnel, and teachers. A serious factor limiting free social mobility may be the health requirements of workers in certain areas.
Tension when accepting new social roles. Ascending vertical social mobility leads not only to new benefits and privileges, but also to greater responsibility and new restrictions. It happens that some people reject the proposed increase in status because taking on a new position creates additional tension and new responsibilities that increase dissatisfaction. Nervous tremors and stress among newly appointed to higher positions are far from an exception. In addition, tension arises due to the rather difficult process of learning the patterns of a new subculture for an individual: new manners, etiquette, types of relationships. The process of adapting to a new subculture can be very difficult. This sometimes manifests itself so strongly that it threatens nervous disorders and a sharp decrease in motivation to perform one’s role.
Breaking ties in primary groups. Many people are focused on upward mobility and achieve significantly higher statuses than their parents. If, for example, an individual’s parents belong to the working class, and he himself “made it” into the stratum of the creative intelligentsia and occupies a fairly high position there, then it is obvious that the individual and his parents must move in different subcultures, in two different social and intellectual spheres. Communicating with his parents, this individual will find less and less common ground, common topics for conversation, common views on the surrounding reality. Thus, parents who have done so much to ensure that their son or daughter rises to the top are convinced that a gap has appeared between them and their children. This is very painful for both parties.
Downward mobility can also cause extremely unpleasant consequences for individuals and, naturally, to an even greater extent than upward mobility. Social decline breaks primary ties with friends and many relatives, can break up families, and put barriers between fathers and children. Let's take, for example, a young married couple in which the spouses are equally strongly motivated by mobility and achievement. If the different abilities of the spouses, different conditions and circumstances elevate one of them, the other will experience painful difficulties. Mutual tension and breakdown of relationships may occur. Statistics show that families often break up for this very reason.
Many primary groups disintegrate due to social mobility. If in a friendly circle of workers one of them becomes a foreman or senior foreman and begins to direct the actions of his friends, friendly ties almost immediately cease. Even confrontation is possible. It was precisely because of the cessation of primary connections that the practice of appointing workers-leaders as foremen of production sites collapsed.
In general, social mobility of society is a contradictory process. If a complex society allows individuals to relatively freely bypass the barriers between social classes and strata, this does not mean that every individual with talents and motivation can painlessly and easily move along the steps of the ladder of social ascent. Mobility is always difficult for all individuals, as they have to adapt to a new subculture, establish new connections and fight the fear of losing their new status. At the same time, for a complex society, an open path to the top, a large number of achieved statuses, is the only path of development, because otherwise social tension and conflicts arise.
Migration
Migration is the process of changing the permanent place of residence of individuals or social groups, expressed in moving to another region, geographical area or another country. Migration also includes moving to live from a village to a city and back.
The migration process is closely related to both horizontal and vertical mobility, since each migrating individual, in addition to moving to another social group, strives to find better economic, political or social conditions of existence in a new place. Sociology, as a rule, examines mass migration flows and their impact on demographic and social processes in a particular region.
Migration mechanism. In order for people to want to change their usual place of residence, conditions are necessary that force them to move to other cities, regions, and countries. These conditions are usually divided into three main groups: pushing, attraction And migration routes.
1. Pushing associated with unsatisfactory or difficult living conditions of the individual in his native place. The expulsion of large masses of people is associated primarily with serious social upheavals (interethnic conflicts, dictatorships, wars), economic crises, natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc.). In case of individual migration, the pushing force can be career failure, death of relatives, loneliness, etc.
2. Attraction - it is a set of attractive features or conditions for living in other places, for example in regions where there are higher wages, where higher social status can be achieved, or where there is greater political stability, which ultimately leads to a feeling of greater confidence in the future. The greater the difference in the social, economic or political conditions of existence in two regions, the more likely is migration under the influence of gravity to areas with better conditions. Differences in living conditions can be created artificially to control the flow of migrants and to attract labor and “brains” to certain areas where they are in short supply.
3. Migration routes - it is a characteristic of the direct movement of a migrant from one geographical location to another. Migration routes include the accessibility of the migrant, his luggage and family to another region, the presence or absence of barriers to the route, and information to help overcome financial obstacles. Very often, it is the lack of accessibility in movement that negates the effect of push and pull forces. For example, the high cost of tickets cannot allow an individual and his family to travel to another country. The same can be said about language barriers, obtaining permission to leave and enter, lack of information about living conditions in a new place and many other difficulties encountered on the way of migrants.
Usually, a distinction is made between international migration (i.e. moving from one state to another) and internal migration (moving within one country). Both types of migration are considered natural and normal up to certain limits. If the number of migrants exceeds a certain level (which has different values for different countries and regions), they say that migration is becoming excessive and consider it as a negative phenomenon. Excessive migration can lead to a change in the demographic composition of the region (for example, the departure of young people and the “aging” of the population, the predominance of men or women in the region, which affects the birth rate), to a shortage or, conversely, to an excess of labor, to uncontrolled urban growth, negative changes in the culture of the region and many other consequences.
Thus, the process of mobility as a whole takes a variety of forms - from simple movement from family to family to ingenious and complex actions aimed at achieving high status. Mobility largely depends on the motivation of individuals and their starting capabilities. Moreover, opportunities for vertical mobility are different in each society and may change. The migration process is closely related to mobility and does not take place without it.
Conclusion
Analysis of the hierarchical structure of society shows that it is not frozen, it constantly fluctuates and moves both horizontally and vertically. When we talk about a social group or individual changing their social position, we are dealing with social mobility. It can be horizontal (the concept of social movement is used) if there is a transition to other professional or other groups of equal status. Vertical (upward) mobility means the transition of an individual or group to a higher social position with greater prestige, income, and power.
Downward mobility is also possible, involving movement to lower hierarchical positions.
During periods of revolutions and social cataclysms, a radical change in the social structure occurs, a radical replacement of the upper layer with the overthrow of the former elite, the emergence of new classes and social groups, and mass group mobility.
During stable periods, social mobility increases during periods of economic restructuring. At the same time, education, the role of which is increasing in the conditions of transition from an industrial society to an information society, is an important “social elevator” that ensures vertical mobility.
Social mobility is a fairly reliable indicator of the level of “openness” or “closedness” of a society. A striking example of a “closed” society is the caste system in India. A high degree of closedness is characteristic of feudal society. On the contrary, bourgeois-democratic societies, being open, are characterized by a high level of social mobility. However, it should be noted that here, too, vertical social mobility is not absolutely free and the transition from one social layer to another, higher one, is not carried out without resistance.
Social mobility places an individual in the need to adapt to a new sociocultural environment. This process can be quite difficult. A person who has lost the sociocultural world familiar to him, but has failed to perceive the norms and values of the new group, finds himself, as it were, on the verge of two cultures, becoming a marginalized person. This is also typical for migrants, both ethnic and territorial. In such conditions, a person experiences discomfort and stress. Mass marginality gives rise to serious social problems. As a rule, it distinguishes societies at sharp turning points in history. This is precisely the period Russia is currently experiencing.
List of used literature
1. S. S. Frolov. Sociology. M., 1994.
2. Sorokin P. Man. Civilization. Society. M., 1992.
Classes and castes. The nature of mobility processes in many societies and social groups is different and depends on the characteristics of the structure of the society or group. Some societies have established social structures that prevent various types of social mobility, while others more or less freely allow both social ups and downs. In open class societies, each member can rise and fall through the statuses that make up the structure based on his own efforts and abilities. In closed class societies, each social position is assigned to the individual from birth, and no matter what efforts he makes, society excludes him from achieving social rise or social fall.
Obviously, both of these societies represent ideal types of structures and do not currently exist in real life. However, there are social structures that are close to ideal open and closed class societies. One of the societies that was close to closed was the caste society in Ancient India. It was divided into a number of castes, each of which had its own social structure and occupied a strictly defined place among other castes.
Castes refer to social systems in which individuals' positions are based on descent and any possibility of achieving higher status is excluded, with strict rules prohibiting marriage between members of different castes. These rules are fixed in the mind with the help of religious beliefs. In Ancient India, for example, social barriers between castes were very significant and transitions of individuals from one caste to another were extremely rare. Each caste had specific types of professions, used separate roads for movement, and also created its own types of internal relationships. The rank place of caste in society was strictly observed. Thus, representatives of the highest caste, the Brahmins, as a rule, had wealth and a high level of education. However, even if a member of this upper caste became bankrupt or for some reason remained illiterate, he still could not descend into the lower caste.
Modern societies as a whole cannot be organized according to the caste type for a number of social and economic reasons, which include, first of all, the needs of society for qualified and competent performers, for people capable of solving the problems of managing complex social, political and economic processes.
But even in modern societies there are social groups of a “closed” type, very reminiscent of castes. Thus, in many countries, such a relatively closed group is the elite - the upper layer of the social structure, which has advantages in occupying the highest social statuses and, therefore, advantages in the distribution of the social product, power, receiving the best education, etc.
So, in societies there are some social status groups in which vertical mobility is extremely difficult due to their isolation and barriers created in the way of representatives of other social groups. At the same time, no matter how closed a group is, there is still at least a small number of members of other groups penetrating into it. Apparently, there are certain paths of vertical social mobility that are almost impossible to block, and representatives of the lower strata always have a chance to penetrate into the upper strata.
Channels of social mobility. The availability of pathways for social mobility depends both on the individual and on the structure of the society in which he lives. Individual ability means little if society distributes rewards based on prescribed roles. On the other hand, an open society is of little help to an individual who is not prepared to struggle for advancement to higher statuses. In some societies, the ambitions of young people may find one or two possible channels of mobility open to them. At the same time, in other societies, youth can take a hundred paths to achieve higher status. Some paths to achieving higher status may be closed due to ethnic or social class discrimination, others due to the fact that the individual, due to individual characteristics, is simply not able to apply his talents.
However, in order to completely change their social status, individuals often face the problem of entering a new subculture of a group with a higher status, as well as the related problem of interactions with representatives of the new social environment. To overcome the cultural barrier and communication barrier, there are several ways to or otherwise, individuals resort to the process of social mobility.
1. Lifestyle changes. It is not enough to simply earn and spend a lot of money in the case when an individual is equal in income to representatives of a higher social stratum. To assimilate a new status level, he needs to accept a new material standard corresponding to this level. Setting up an apartment, buying books, a TV, a car, etc. - everything must correspond to a new, higher status. Material everyday culture is, perhaps, not a very noticeable, but very significant way of joining a higher status level. But the material way of life is only one of the moments of familiarization with a new status and in itself, without changing other components of culture, means little.
2. Development of typical status behavior. A person oriented toward vertical mobility will not be accepted into a higher social class stratum until he has mastered the behavioral patterns of this stratum enough to follow them without any effort. A graduate student, gradually becoming a professor, or an executive, turning into a director, must change his behavior in order to be accepted in a new environment. Samples of clothing, verbal expressions, leisure time, manner of communication - everything is subject to revision and should become habitual and the only possible type of behavior. Children are often prepared specifically for high-class behavior by teaching them music, dancing, and good manners. True, not all aspects of the subculture of a social stratum or group can be mastered as a result of deliberate training and conscious imitation, but such efforts can speed up the process of an individual's acceptance of a subculture of a higher social stratum.
3. Changing social environment. This method is based on establishing contacts with individuals and associations (social groups, social circles) of the status layer into which the mobile individual is socialized. The ideal condition for entering a new layer is a situation where the individual is completely surrounded by representatives of the layer he is trying to get to. In this case, the subculture is mastered very quickly. However, the positive aspect of networking is always that a new acquaintance (individuals, associations) can create a favorable public opinion in favor of the newcomer.
4. Marriage with a representative of a higher status stratum. At all times, such a marriage has served as the best means of overcoming barriers to social mobility. Firstly, it can greatly contribute to the manifestation of talents if it provides material well-being. Secondly, it provides the individual with the opportunity to quickly rise, often bypassing several status levels (everyone, of course, remembers Cinderella’s rapid vertical mobility to the highest strata of society). Thirdly, marriage with a representative or representative of a higher status largely resolves the problems of the social environment and the rapid assimilation of cultural patterns of a higher status layer. This kind of marriage allowed people to overcome the most difficult social barriers in caste society, as well as penetrate into the elite strata. But such a marriage can only be useful if an individual from a lower status layer is prepared to quickly assimilate new patterns of behavior and lifestyle in a new social environment. If he cannot quickly assimilate new cultural statuses and standards, then this marriage will not yield anything, since representatives of the higher status layer will not consider the individual “one of their own.”
Loading...
