Such studies are expensive and relatively few in number. But in practice, mobility studies have primarily been carried out by means of large, random samples of individuals. In principle, all manner of entities-such as nations, firms, or ethnic groups-could be said to experience mobility. Plainly, all results are contingent on how rank is defined. Those with the same rank are “immobile.” Those with different ranks at different points are “mobile” and, depending on the scheme of rank, may be mobile in different degrees. Mobility requires taking assessments of social rank at two (or more) points in time and comparing them. As an illustrative complexity, Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992 (see Methods for Analyzing Mobility Tables) identifies “class” with nonvertical contrasts in addition to vertical ones. However, colloquial usage no longer plays much part in terminology and class, standing, and status have all acquired special meanings. Colloquial terms for this include “class,” “standing,” and “status.” All convey some notion that households are ranked, or stratified, from higher to lower as a consequence of economic roles of principal breadwinners. A central intuition is that the division of labor associates type of work with regularities in rank, including economic rank and ranked social condition(s), potentially extending to standards of living, politics, esteem from others, health, and much else. Since stratification is metaphoric and mobility concepts are derivative, mobility notions are rich in complexity. Conceptions of social stratification form a necessary backdrop, but mobility has long been recognized as a distinct area of concern.
Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals, families, or groups among stratified social positions.
0 kommentar(er)
