Question No 1 Solution:
Social mobility,
movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. If such mobility involves a
change in position, especially in occupation, but no change in social class, it is called “horizontal mobility.” An example would be a person who
moves from a managerial position in one company to a similar position in
another. If, however, the move involves a change in social class, it is called
“vertical mobility” and involves either “upward mobility” or “downward
mobility.” An industrial worker who becomes a wealthy businessman moves upward
in the class system; a landed aristocrat who loses everything in a revolution moves downward in the system.
In revolution an
entire class structure is altered. Yet once the society has been radically
reorganized, further social mobility may be minimal. Social mobility, however,
may come about through slower, more subtle changes, such as the movement of
individuals or groups from a poor, agrarian region to a richer, urban one.
Throughout history international migration has been an important factor in upward mobility. One instance may
be seen in the 19th-century migration of members of the working and peasant
classes from Europe to the United States. On the other hand, Western European
colonial expansion, while benefiting some, served to enslave others. In modern
societies, social mobility is typically measured by career and generational
changes in the socioeconomic levels of occupations.
The social results
of mobility, particularly of the vertical type, are difficult to measure. Some
believe that large-scale mobility, both upward and downward, breaks down class
structure, rendering a culture more uniform. Others argue that those who attempt
to rise or maintain a higher position actually strengthen the class system, for
they are likely to be concerned with enforcing class differences. Thus, some
sociologists have suggested that class distinctions might be reduced not by
individual mobility but by the achievement of social and economic equality for all.
One positive consequence
of mobility has been a better use of individual aptitude. This has been aided
by the expansion of educational opportunities in modern industrial nations. On
the negative side, a high rate of vertical mobility may produce individual and
societal anomie (a term coined by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim). The
individual experiencing anomie feels socially isolated and anxious; in a
larger, societal context, generally accepted beliefs and standards of conduct are
weakened or disappear.
Many believe that
the class system of Western industrial nations has changed dramatically since
the provision of extensive welfare services, beginning in Germany in the 1880s.
Greater social mobility has resulted from changes in the occupational
structure, typified by an increase in the relative number of white-collar and
professional occupations, with a decrease in the less-skilled and manual
occupations. This has led to higher standards of living. Such increased
mobility, it is argued, has minimized class differences, so that Western
nations are moving toward a relatively classless (or predominantly
middle-class) society. Yet other observers contend that a new upper class is in
the process of formation, comprising production organizers and managers in both the public
and the private arenas. Most recently, in postindustrial societies, inequality
seems to be increasing between highly educated and poorly educated workers or
between those with access to evolving technologies and those who lack such
access.
Horizontal Mobility
the movement of
groups or individuals to positions that differ from those previously held but
do not involve any change in class, status, or power
Intra-generational mobility
Intragenerational
mobility refers to a person's social movements throughout his or her
lifespan. This is in contrast to intergenerational mobility, which refers
to social movement across different generations.
Question No 2 Solution:
Women have never
been in a stronger position to lead, change and shape the economic, social and
political landscape. The 21st century has seen a dramatic shift in
"traditional" family dynamics and greater recognition of gender in
legislation has helped pull apart gender-role divisions. As a result women are
far more economically independent and socially autonomous, representing 42% of
the UK workforce and 55% of university graduates. Yet women are still
less likely than men to be associated with leadership positions in the UK:
they account for 22% of MPs and peers, 20% of university professors, 6.1% of
FTSE 100 executive positions, and 3% of board chairpersons. This stark
inequality is consistently reflected in pay gaps, despite the introduction of
the Equal Pay Act in 1975. Income inequality has risen faster in the UK than
any other OCED country and today women earn on average £140,000 less than men
over their working careers.
In recent reports
2.4 million unemployed women said that they want to find employment, and nine
out of 10 people want to see men and women equally represented in leadership
positions. If the intention to change is there, and basic social and political
frameworks support women in the workforce, then we need to look beyond facts
and figures to establish what other factors contribute to the gaping hole in
gender equality. While statistics offer insights into current patterns and
behaviours, they do not address why the skills and talents of women are not
being fully utilized.
A relatively
neglected factor is the role of stereotypes, reinforced by social and cultural
norms, which underline certain expectations about gender. Decades of research
has shown that stereotypes about men and women have a huge impact on our
beliefs about how they should (or should not) behave. Consequently gender
stereotypes reinforce social status and gender hierarchies: for example,
surveys and experiments show that women are generally perceived as more
"communal" and "loyal", whereas men are described more as
"protectors" and "competent". Of course not everyone
subscribes to these stereotypes, but there is evidence that men and women who
behave in ways that contrast with these traditional stereotypes – such as
career women or stay-at-home dads – are likely to be evaluated negatively by
others. A lifetime of exposure to what women should be, how they should behave
and who they should represent drives and reinforces unconscious and unseen
biases.
Unconscious bias is
particularly important as it arises from the implicit assumptions and unspoken
attitudes, beliefs and expectations that we all have about others. Study after
study has highlighted that both men and women have unconscious gender biases.
For example, people view men as more capable leaders, men are rewarded more
highly than women – just having a male name is more likely to get you the job.
If you are a mother, your chances of getting the job are reduced by 70%.
Overcoming stereotypes and unconscious bias can only be achieved if we are all
willing to address our own immediate judgments and can put in place practices
and procedures to mitigate their potential effects.
When we pair the
psychological evidence with the economic facts, the argument for gender
equality is overwhelming. Research consistently shows that groups perform to a
higher standard if the gender balance is even, or when women outnumber men. For
example, Catalyst research found that companies with high-level female
representation on boards significantly outperformed those with sustained low
representation by 84% on return on sales, 60% on return on invested capital,
and 46% on return on equity. The Women's Business Council predicts that we
could add 10% (that is over £150bn) to our GDP by 2030 if all the women that
wanted to work were employed.
In the long term
encouraging women to participate in the labour market is vital to ensure economic
growth at both micro and macro level. As we face an increasingly ageing
population and the resulting shortage of skilled workers, it is fundamental
that we also depend on high female employment and high wage returns in order to
manage the skills deficit.
We are taking
bigger and bigger steps towards providing more flexible workplaces, better
parental leave policies and more chances for women to get back into the
workplace. But these opportunities are wasted if our stereotypes and biases
distort the way we evaluate others, and often to their disadvantage.
