Theories of Social Differentiation and Social Change

Social Mobility; Industrialization and Convergence

Social Mobility refers to ‘movements’ of individuals from one social position to another.

Pitrim Sorokin's Social Mobility (1927)

Pitrim Sorokin (1889-1960) Russian born sociologists; pioneered the study Social Mobility (1927) & developed typological approach to the study of culture (Social and Cultural Dynamics, four volumes, 1937-41) – which he called integralism.

“By social mobility is understood any transition of an individual or social object or value – anything that has been created or modified by human activity – from one social position to another.”

Sorokin introduces 3 important distinctions:

- Vertical & horizontal mobility; - Individuals and objects;- Intergenerational and intragenerational.

- generated theoretical reflection on the causes, processes, and consequences of social mobility;

Why bother with social mobility studies?

Ascription (social position assigned by birth, over which individuals have no control) vs. Achievement (characteristics acquired at some stage of the life cycle)

Theoretical Views of Mobility Mechanisms

Sorokin’s Thesis of trendless fluctuation

Industrialization and Convergence Thesis

S.M. Lipset and R. Bendix (Social Mobility in Industrial Society, 1959); Lipset and Zetterberg (1959)

Peter Blau & Otis D. Duncan „The American Occupational Structure” (1967): Industrialization increases importance of achievement relative to ascription processes

Featherman, Jones and Hauser (1975): “…the genotypical pattern of mobility (circulation mobility) in industrial

societies with a market economy and a nuclear family system is basically the same. The phenotypical pattern of mobility (observed mobility) differs according to the rate of change in the occupational structure, exogenously determined … by… technological change, the supply and demand for specific kinds of labor…, and changing social values …(F, J and H, 1975, p. 340).

The CASMIN Project (Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations)

Goldthorpe; Erikson Goldthorpe & Portocarero (1983) Thesis: Constant flux in response to the FJH convergence thesis about

the similar mobility patterns in the industrialized countries.

Constant flux :similar mobility patterns stem form the similar occupational and class structures that are observed in the industrialized countries; relative mobility however can create “ distinctive national variations”, supporting Sorokin’s thesis bout the trendless fluctuations – mobility constant flux.

Social Mobility in State Socialist CEE

Connor, Walter D. 1979. Socialism, Politics and Equality. New York: Columbia University Press

- primary cause for these countries’ high mobility = combination of political & economic measures that imposed a fast pace on industrialization processes. While the communist revolution’s role in changing the social mobility regime cannot be disregarded, this role is circumscribed to the beginning of the structural change;

- transmission of social & cultural advantages

Domanski, H. 1996. On the Verge of Convergenc: Social Stratification in Eastern Europe Budapest: Central European University Press

Measurement of Social Mobility

The Class Mobility Paradigm

Status Attainment

The Class Mobility Paradigm

- analyzes mobility as carried out btw. class positions; - uses occupations as indicator of class position (occupational groups

as nominal data)- analysis is based on matrices of occupational categories, indices of

association and log-linear models.

Goldthorpe’s class schema- aggregates occupational groupings based on members who share similar "market situations" and "work situations," without creating a consistent hierarchical order.

- The differentiation of classes rests on the nature of the employment relationship (i.e. service relationships vs. essentially contractually regulated labor relations.

The Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero Class Schema:

I. Upper service classII. Lower service classIIIa. Routine nonmanual employees, higher gradeIIIb. Routine nonmanual employees, lower gradeIVa. Small proprietors with employeesIVb Small proprietors without employeesIVc. Farmers and self-employed workers in primary productionV. Technicians and supervisorsVI. Skilled manual workersVIIa. Semi- and unskilled manual workers (not in agriculture)VIIb. Semi- and unskilled manual workers in agriculture

The Status Attainment Model