In recent decades, political parties have championed the concept of social mobility – but what does it really mean? Charlie Beckett finds recent discussions around the concept by the government and Labour to be confusing and unhelpful, and suggests that the term itself no longer has any meaning, especially in the current economic climate.
I wonder if the words ‘social mobility’ should join @johnrentoul ‘s list of banned phrases? I think it has now reached the point George Orwell’s described where ‘political writing becomes bad writing’.
Social mobility is now a meaningless phrase, or rather, it has a different meaning according to your political position and vision. And this matters because your definition of the language dictates your policy, too.
Real social mobility – all other things being equal – must surely mean that some people will rise over their lives and others will fall. If we all rise then that is simply economic growth. If only a lower social group rise relative to a higher group, then that is egalitarianism, not social mobility. If just a few people rise, then that’s just tokenism. Of course, you might have all of this at the same time. And West Ham might win the Champions League. It’s possible but extremely unlikely.
This is a presentational problem for all the political parties. If the Tories really advocate genuine social mobility then they will be attacking core middle class supporters who have fought so hard to preserve their children’s life-chances. One of the great social changes in the last few decades has been the professional classes successful protection of their economic status over generations.
David Willetts rightly pointed out recently that middle class women have taken up virtually all of the places in the UK’s expanded Higher Education sector. But what’s he going to do about? Reduce the size of the sector? Reverse the celebrated gains of gender equality? Offering a few paid internships in the civil service to working class teenagers is not going to change the structural dynamic of, for example, poor schooling and unsupportive parenting.
If Labour abandons real social mobility in favour of structural income redistribution then it is sending a negative message to the many aspirational voters who hope that they or their family can rise through greater opportunity. Gordon Brown did achieve some income redistribution during Labour’s government, but even Ed Miliband has recognised the political and economic limits of using tax and benefit systems to bring about social change.
As for the Liberal Democrats. They are at least trying to come up with specific policies. In classic fashion they have created a quango that will oversee Universities. It is supposed to ensure they adopt policies that increase access for working class people, while pocketing the £9,000 fees. It may make some difference. But I am willing to bet my son’s student loan that the social make-up of Russell Group students will not have changed by more than 2% in the next five-ten years.
Of course, all this is being played out against a background of income reduction and public spending cuts. These may be absolutely necessary. However, I can’t see how they won’t reduce social mobility and egalitarianism. The effects may be much longer-term than the period of deficit reduction as a whole generation has its life chances reduced. That may be a price we have to pay, but it makes the confused talk about social mobility sound even more like empty rhetoric.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
This article first appeared on Charlie Beckett’s blog on 5 April.
However it is defined, why would social mobility be desirable for everyone? In my view, the concept and desirability of social mobility is very much rooted in the particular world view and social norms of the professional middle classes. Like Ben, I have been involved in many market and social research projects, and time and time again I observe that there are many people who earn a living and indeed enjoy their lives who live and work close to home, who operate in the hidden economy, earning money and providing for themselves and their families. They do not share the notions of the legitimacy and morality of certain types of taxation and other forms of economic inclusion. They see no reason to change and the incentives are often perverse. Why would they as they feel excluded from notions of success as represented in the media? But, at the risk of romanticising the working class, some, not all, of these individuals in the invisible economy will benefit from living and working locally as they can take care of their extended families more easily, and actually form a vibrant part of the local community and economy. If these people do not want to change, and feel that the red tape and the costs of economic inclusion are detrimental to their lives, why would they? I too am frustrated that policy makers do not listen to the research they commission about people’s real lives. If you purport to want to understand people’s lives, then you should use the insight you gain, and question and remake your policies. Different kinds of incentives and pathways may be necessary for different types of people. What is right for, and the value systems of, a stockbroker, will not suit everyone.
Of course, the current backdrop to all this is the fact that a supposed 70% of us now consider ourselves to be ‘middle class’. This extraordinary statistic, which has been in the press a lot recently, tells us more about people’s perceptions of society and themselves than it does about their social mobility, and it renders the concept of a (self-defined) ‘middle class’ pretty meaningless. But it does show that social mobility can’t be measured on a linear income scale, and that it’s not a question of people climbing up and slipping down the social ladder, moving from one social grade or class to another. All sorts of things like self-image, resilience, peer group, aspirations and values inform one’s self-defined ‘position’ in society, as well as income.
For example, who’s to say whether a skilled production line manager who thinks of himself as working class, or an office administrator who thinks of herself as middle class, is in the higher or lower social group? And what would it mean anyway, since there is no chance of mobility between them, of one entering the other’s group? Similarly, how do we compare a corporate lawyer who considers herself in the top echelons of middle class because of her income, and a social entrepreneur who earns considerably less but derives immense satisfaction from his work? Or a trainee plumber and a trainee sales assistant? If the factors that inform their views of their ‘positions’ in society are so different, how do we relate one to the other and how do we say which is the ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ in mobility terms?
Social mobility may be, as you suggest, a zero-sum concept, but UK society is too complex for it. Perhaps the focus should be on maximising ‘social satisfaction’ instead, and recognising that income isn’t the only way to measure this. Then we could all be climbers.