The importance of evidence from studies of social mobility

There are two main theoretical debates about social class; firstly the debate as to whether society is a meritocracy or whether it is based on ascription and secondly the debate as to whether class matters anymore and whether the lines between classes are still clear or whether they are now blurring.

This theoretical debate is supported by evidence from a study conducted by New Right sociologist Peter Saunders (1996). In this study, Saunders examined the results of the National Child Development Study (NCDS), a longitudinal study which focuses on a sample of people born in 1958 and 1970 and follows them and their children. Saunders found that the rate of absolute mobility according to this study was 52%. This means that 52% of children in the study were in a different social class to their parents.He also found that in relation to relative mobility, those that were born in the middle class were twice as likely to end up in the middle class than those born in working class were. Due to this evidence Saunders concludes that Britian is a meritocracy as there are high levels of upward mobility between generations due to children acheiving qualifications.

This evidence is thus important to one of the main theoretical debates about social class as it supports the theoretical debate with figures that can be easily evaluated.However, Savage and Eggerton re-examined the data from the NCDS and concluded that Saunders had been incorrect in his findings. They found instead that 70%+ of service class sons were in the service class by the age of 33 compared to 40% of intermediate class sons and only 25% of working class sons. This is supported by Goldthorpe's study (1972) which found that out of every 7 males in the service class, 4 had been born there, 2 had moved up from the intermediate class and 1 from the working class.

He explained this finding as follows; after World War II (WWII) the number of service jobs increased, this coupled with a low service class birth rate and a reformed education system meant that the service class had to employ from lower classes, thus leading to upward mobility and a meritocratic society. Conversely, Savage and Eggerton also found that 75. 5% high ability service class sons remain in the service class compared to 67% high ability service class daughters. This thus supports the feminist view that society is not a meritocracy but is infact gender based and patriarchal.This highlights one reason why the importance of evidence from studies of social mobility for the main theoretical debates about social class is debated; the same evidence can be used to support two opposing views as seen above.

However, an issue with this, as mentioned in Item A, is the issue of measuring inter-generational mobility; in the study of couple, most sociologists will class the couple by the man's job, thus ignoring female mobility and being 'malestream'. This therefore devalues the evidence from studies of social mobility and makes the evidence less valid.On the other hand, evidence from studies of social mobility can be seen as important for the main theoretical debates about social class as it reveals little known information about the upper class, for example, the Sunday Times Rich List concluded that 50% of the wealth in the upper class is inherited and 50% of the wealth has been earnt by the current owner something that would not be known if a study into social mobility was not conducted. This also shows that while Britian could be viewed as a meritocracy, it can also be viewed as a society based on ascription.

The above information supports that Marxist view that social mobility mostly consists of of people moving within the proletariat (working and middle classes) and that those born into the capitalist class tend to stay there and inherit their wealth. This links into Weber's view that in the capitalist class, 'old money' or wealth that is inherited is more valued than 'new money' (that that has been earned by the current individual) for example, Katie Price would not be allowed into the VIP area at Ascot.This again shows that although evidence from studies of social mobility is important for the main theoretical debates about social class, and allows both support and evaluation of the theoretical debates making them more relevant to real life it does not aid with the search for the correct theory as there is evidence supporting the theory that society is based on ascription and supporting the idea that society is meritocratic. The other main theoretical debate about social class is whether class matters anymore, or whether class boundaries have blurred too much for it to be influential.Marxists believe that the education system reproduces class inequality as it teaches those in the upper classes how to rule and those in the lower classes to accept their lot in life and to obey the upper classes using bible stories and biblical songs such as 'All things bright and beautiful'.

It also, according to the Marxists, legitimises inequalities in income and wealth as mentioned in Item B eg. most people accept that David Beckham earns 81p a second as they have been socialised to believe that this is legitimate. However, the post-modernists disagree, they believe 'class is dead'.This is because globalisation leads to a large amount of choice and weak social norms eg. A pick 'n' mix view to religion has led many people to reject traditional values, this then dissolves the differences between classes and makes them unimportant in today's world. According to post-modernists such as Walters, two processes are occurring in todays society that encompass the above problems, the first of these being embourgeoisement.

Embourgeoisement is the process whereby the working class take on middle class values such as deferred gratification and thus gain the perks of the middle class eg.Job security and a pension, this coupled with the process of proletarianisation, the process where the middle class become more like the working class, have led to the lines between classes dissolving and making class unimportant. Conversely, Marxists believe that class still affects society as it affects eventual class position. This is supported by evidence from a study conducted by New Right sociologist Peter Saunders (1996). In this study, Saunders examined the results of the National Child Development Study (NCDS), a longitudinal study which focuses on a sample of people born in 1958 and 1970 and follows them and their children.

Saunders found that the rate of absolute mobility according to this study was 52%. This means that 52% of children in the study were in a different social class to their parents. He also found that in relation to relative mobility, those that were born in the middle class were twice as likely to end up in the middle class than those born in working class were. It is also supported by Goldthorpe's study (1972) which found that out of every 7 males in the service class, 4 had been born there, 2 had moved up from the intermediate class and 1 from the working class.He explained this finding as follows; after World War II (WWII) the number of service jobs increased, this coupled with a low service class birth rate and a reformed education system meant that the service class had to employ from lower classes.

This consequently leads to a conclusion that the Marxists are correct and that class is still important. This shows that evidence from studies of social mobility are important for this theoretical debate as in this case at least it helps to deduce which is the stronger of the two theories. However, feminists believe that class is unimportant in todays society as gender is the main division.This is visible in the study by Savage and Eggerton who found that 75. 5% high ability service class sons remain in the service class compared to 67% high ability service class daughters, as well as this, there are still gender divisions in work, religion and politics. For example, in work, women often encounter a glass ceiling where they cannot gain a promotion as they take maternity leave and this holds them back in their career, as well as this, many religions restrict women and do not allow them to become members of the clergy.

Therefore, although evidence from studies into social mobility are can be seen as important for this theoretical debate on social class, it can also be seen as misleading as their is still evidence for multiple sides of the theory. Overall it can be seen that although evidence from studies into social mobility can help weed out unhelpful theories on social class, it is also relatively unimportant as generally studies can be found to support both sides of an argument.