Intragenerational Versus Intergenerational Mobility in Relation to Sociopolitical Attitudes

Recent work in stratification has suggested that the extent to which vertical mobility influences sociopolitical attitudes depends on whether the mobility is intergenerational or intragenerational. In an effort to clarify previous statements of the issue, we suggest that (1) the validity of the proposition depends in turn on the manner in which mobility is conceptualized, and (2) any differences between the two types of mobility can be interpreted in terms of differential resistance to resocialization into the political perspectives of the class of destination. Using survey data from Italy, and focusing on upward mobility, according to one specific conceptualization of mobility, the intragenerational achievers are found to be more resistant to resocialization into middle-class political perspectives than intergenerational achievers. Explanation of this finding makes reference to the selection processes of formal education and to the obstacles encountered in career ascent. R ecent work in social stratification has pointed to the question of whether vertical social mobility, when measured intragenerationally, has different attitudinal "consequences" than when it is measured intergenerationally. In the absence of systematic data, the temptation has been to predict that a person's political perspectives and evaluations are changed less by his experiences of intrageneratio;nal or "career" mobility than by those of intergenerational mobility (Wilensky and Edwards, 1959; Wilensky, 1966; Janowitz and Curtis, 1957; Dahrendorf, 1959; Westoff et al., 1960). The issue is of importance for a number of reasons, including the opportunity to study from different vantage points such crucial gauges of social stress and integration as sociopolitical attitudes. This paper reports an attempt to test the tenability of the suggested difference between the two forms of vertical mobility with respect to such attitudes. The strategy is, first, to review several theoretical statements of the problem with a view toward This content downloaded from 157.55.39.243 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:44:54 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms GENERATIONAL MOBILITY AND ATTITUDES 201 some clarifications of it, and second, to present survey data that bear upon it. MAJOR STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE Following Durkheim's (1951:242-254; cf. also Sorokin, 1959:522-526; Ellis and Lane, 1967) analysis of the anomic effects of social mobility, Janowitz and Curtis (1957) suggest that the disruptions attending mobility are greatest with respect to the individual's primary-group affiliations. To the extent that other members of a person's family and circle of close friends do not experience similar transitions in status, at least two of his major sources of normative support are fragmented, and in consequence he suffers some degree of personal strain. Since adult primary-group bonds tend to be anchored in generational agegroups, intragenerational mobility should produce greater strains than status change across generational lines (cf. Blau, 1956:293-294). As a means of resolving such strain, the intragenerationally mobile may, in effect, partially deny judgments of mobility by rejecting critical aspects of culture in the class of destination and retaining those of his origin culture. Wilensky and Edwards (1959), in their examination of ideological adjustments to downward mobility, report some evidence that bears upon this line of argument. They find that, among manual workers 30 years of age and older, career skidding is more closely related to ideologically conservative attitudes than is skidding between generations. For the younger workers the relationship is reversed. Thus the authors conclude (somewhat ambiguously) that career mobility is "much more influential than intergenerational mobility in shaping the adult perspectives of all but very young workers and older educated workers;" Wilensky (1966:103) has recently elaborated on this conclusion by suggesting that "where mobility rates are high and a success ideology prevails," the referents used in the evaluation of class situations vary by age, "and the comparison with the father may be relevant only for young men." For older men the important comparisons of success and failure are likely to be made within the career context, not with their fathers' positions in the status hierarchy (cf. also Wilensky, 1960). A third statement of the issue is given by Dahrendorf. In his (1959:219-223) treatment of the "classless society," he observes that where "the personnel of classes changes between generations only, there is a sufficient degree of stability to permit the formation of conflicting interest groups." Where, on the other hand, a high rate of mobility within generations prevails, such stability is precluded and class interests and consciousness do not coalesce. But, Dahrendorf (1959:59) argues, the barriers to a person's social ascent "are sure to be . . . higher . . . for intragenerational mobility than for mobility between generations." Thus, his theory for class conflict in industrial society is safeguarded. Although Dahrendorf does not spell out the reasoning or implications of his position, these can be easily extracted from his contextual remarks. In industrial society, barriers to intergenerational mobility are both less frequently encountered and less insurmountable because of the institutionalization of education as a "transmission belt" from social-origin status to entry into the labor market. To be sure, educational attainments are still in significant measure tied to social-origin status, such that children of working-class parentage have poorer chances of completing college, say, than middle-class or elite offspring. Nonetheless, while critical inequities remain, the movement toward equal opportunity has been substantial when viewed in historical perspective.' Aside from the differential consequences of social-origin status itself, educational attainment-either simply the number of years of schooling or, oftentimes, additional and more incisive measures of ability-has become the single greatest determinant of occupational achievement. For intragenerational mobility, conversely, there is no comparably effective institutionalized avenue of occupational advancement. Indeed, many scholars (cf. Sjoberg, 1960:191192; Chow, 1966:38-40; Schumpeter, 1951: I On the role of education in institutionalized recruitment processes, compare Lipset and Bendix (1959:189-191); Sjoberg (1960:191,239-244); Floud et al. (1956); Chow (1966); Foster (1965: 255-259, 297ff); Goldthorpe (1966); Coleman (1965); Blau and Duncan (1967). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.243 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 05:44:54 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms