De las hipertopías a las utopías ambiguas

In the opening chapter of Social Mobility for the 21st _{Century: Everyone a Winner? Lawler and}

Payne (2018, p.2) state:

One of our interests is in the extent to which mobile people experience [authors’ emphasis] mobility as an unalloyed joy, when they have to ‘dissociate’ themselves from one class and adjust to life in another. While we would not wish to see ‘habitus’ and ‘cultural capital’ becoming established as a narrow new dominant paradigm, we suggest that newer 22 _{See Friedman (2014) for a detailed critique of Goldthorpe et al’s (1980) qualitative research on a} subsection of the large sample from their quantitative work.

conceptualisations of class, based on Bourdieusian insights about capitals, cultures, and habitus, can offer fresh insights into mobility outcomes.

The qualitative approaches to researching social mobility in Lawler and Payne’s (2018) edited collection draw largely upon Bourdieu’s theoretical work, particularly the dissociative role of cultural capital and habitus in experiences of social mobility (Bradley 2018; Friedman and Savage 2018; Gardner et al 2018; Mallman 2018; Reay 2018). However, qualitative mobility research began earlier than this, often seen as originating within cultural feminist work that draws upon Bourdieu’s theories such as Skeggs (1997) and Lawler (1999). To appreciate Bourdieu’s influence in qualitative social mobility studies, it is important to define two key concepts: habitus and capital. In their book arguing the importance of Bourdieusian theory to contemporary sociological research, Burke et al (2016, p.2) define habitus as “norms, values and dispositions inculcated via the family, education and to a lesser extent the environment”, and capital as “particular resources that individuals have access to which can be invested or exchanged for goods – tangible or otherwise”. There are three types of capital, economic, social and cultural, and these can be used to situate people within hierarchical social spaces. A fourth capital, symbolic capital, refers to prestige and positive recognition through attributes such as authority and charisma (Reay 2004; McKenzie 2016). Symbolic capital is usually recognised when a high volume of ‘legitimate’ economic, social and/or cultural capital has been accrued. I will discuss in closer detail the theorisation of social class in mobility studies in section 3.4, but for now it is important to be familiar with what Burke et al (2016, p.2) term Bourdieu’s ‘thinking tools’.

As qualitative social mobility research is not concerned with measuring social mobility, the term ‘social mobility’ is rarely explicitly defined or operationalised. Much of the work in this area aims to uncover the everyday experiences of social mobility and the messy and complicated practice of adjusting to a new social location. This approach utilises methods such as ethnography, narrative approaches and in-depth interviews (Skeggs 1997; Lawler 1999; Bathmaker et al 2016; Friedman 2016a; Mallman 2018). For example, Lawler’s (1999) work draws upon interviews undertaken with seven white British women who originated from working-class families but now locate themselves as middle-class. Similarly, Friedman (2016a) utilised a lifecourse interview technique with thirty-nine upwardly mobile respondents from the UK Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion Project. Both Lawler (1999) and Friedman (2016a) use Bourdieu’s concept of habitus to explain the painful experience of participants’ social dislocation, often using the term ‘disrupted habitus’ or ‘habitus clivé’ to describe the incongruence between the class positioning inscribed on the self from class of origin, and new class positioning following social mobility. As highlighted in Chapter Two, in new social fields such as higher education or professional workplaces where disrupted habitus is often experienced, there is concern by those who are upwardly mobile about being ‘found out’ to be an outsider or being accused of pretentiousness

(Skeggs 1997; Lawler 1999; Friedman 2014; Ingram and Abrahams 2016; Mallman 2018). However, Ingram and Abrahams (2016) have argued that experiencing a disrupted habitus does not always have to be a painful experience, instead advocating the occupation of an adaptive ‘third space’, which allows for greater reflexivity and the preservation of habitus origins.

Although not focused explicitly on social mobility, some earlier longitudinal qualitative research has examined gender and social class, particularly how notions of a dominant self-improving discourse were responded to by both working and middle-class women. Both Skeggs (1997) and Walkerdine et al (2001) demonstrated how working-class women attempted to defend themselves against fears of not being ‘good enough’ or ‘failing’ when following certain life trajectories. Mothering and caring were often essential to creating a ‘respectable’ self, whilst proving they were ‘okay’ and ensuring they ‘had enough’ to sustain their families were often the prime ambitions of the working-class mothers in these studies (and other studies which explore gender and class such as Gillies 2005; Casey 2008; May 2008; and McKenzie 2015). The pathologisation and othering of the working-class will be explored in more detail in the next section, however, it is important to highlight the impact of such rich, qualitative research in bringing women’s experiences of class and life trajectories to the fore, even though social mobility was not the primary focus.

Walkerdine et al (2001, p.38) recognise the value of Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts in understanding class as, “Bourdieu’s theorisation of social class highlights the sensitivity of our cultural antennae to the qualitative, subjective, micro-distinctions through which social class location is expressed and understood”, however, they draw upon a psycho-social approach. Skeggs (1997, p.10) draws directly from Bourdieu’s theoretical tools and develops them by warning that the different types of capital “are essentially metaphors” and that Bourdieu’s work fails to bring out the “affective aspects of inequality” relating to class, gender and sexuality. Issues of exclusion, othering, and what constitutes ‘value’ underpin these qualitative inquiries, which are pertinent when considering who is the focus of the social mobility discourse and who has access to the resources to become socially mobile (Sennett and Cobb 1977; Skeggs 1997; 2004; 2005; 2011; Lawler 1999; 2005; Walkerdine et al 2001; Walkerdine 2003; Tyler 2013; 2015; McKenzie 2015; Morgan 2015).

One key area where Bourdieu’s work has had an influence is the study of education and social mobility. A body of work around the aspirations of young people has drawn upon Bourdieu’s capitals as a way of analysing the dynamic formation of young people’s aspirations and what helps or hinders their success (Archer et al 2014; Bathmaker et al 2016; Bowers-Brown 2016; Evans 2016). Other work has focused explicitly on higher education as a vehicle for social mobility, using Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capitals to analyse the differing experiences

of both working-class and middle-class students (Loveday 2015; Bathmaker et al 2016; Abrahams 2017). Loveday’s (2015) work specifically questions the notion of the middle-class university being the ‘creditor’ to working-class students, providing them with the ‘correct’ capitals to succeed. In her research, Loveday found a certain scepticism towards the deficit view of working- class culture, as participants stated they were not trying to ‘escape’ their origins or to become middle-class through their participation in higher education.

The way working-class and middle-class students use their capital resources in the labour market also differs as Abrahams’ (2017) work shows. In her research, Abrahams (2017) demonstrates that working-class students are less likely to use any of their social capital linkages to get ahead as they felt the need to prove themselves as belonging in a field where their habitus may not be aligned. In contrast, middle-class students were more willing to use their social capital know-how to get ahead and get a foot in the door of their desired career, relatively unencumbered by habitus disruption. There has also been longitudinal work focussing on the bigger picture of getting in, on, and out of higher education and the impact of this on social mobility trajectories. Bathmaker et al’s (2016) book focuses on the findings of the Paired Peers project, which followed working- class and middle-class students in both the University of the West of England (UWE, a new university) and the University of Bristol (an ‘elite’ university). Using Bourdieu’s theoretical tools, the research is an example of how higher education is socially stratified so that those with ‘legitimate’ capitals can get ahead whilst others struggle. As highlighted in Chapter Two, section 2.3.3, it is arguably about being able to ‘play the game’ correctly in order to succeed (Bathmaker et al 2013; Goldthorpe 2013; Friedman et al 2015; Savage et al 2015; Bathmaker et al 2016). Although there is a strong association with the theoretical work of Bourdieu and qualitative social mobility studies, it may be time to question this dominance. Skeggs (2011) argued that Bourdieu’s theoretical framework fails to address the affective aspects of inequality experienced in relation to class, gender and sexuality:

What Bourdieu cannot explain is the formation of any sort of personhood with value for those who are the source of labour, the non-propelling future-accruing subject with the wrong capitals, those who cannot access the fields of exchange to convert, accrue or generate value for themselves. For Bourdieu these subjects appear with negative capital, as lack, deficit, a void of value.

Skeggs (2011, pp.501-502) As Skeggs (2011) contends, Bourdieu’s theory can easily work to attribute those without the ‘legitimate’ forms of capital as lacking and deficit. Crompton and Scott (2005) also argue that using Bourdieu’s theory alone is inadequate as there needs to be both a cultural and economic appreciation of class. The issue of hierarchy and class stratification in relation to Bourdieu is explored in closer detail in the next section. One of the key critiques of the qualitative social

mobility tradition more widely is that despite its theoretical critiques of social mobility, such as the notion of needing to ‘escape’ your current social positioning and the devaluing of working- class culture, it still does not really question normative understandings of social mobility (Skeggs 2011; Bradley 2018; Littler 2018; Reay 2018). The focus of much of the research explored in this section is on individuals’ difficult experiences of social mobility, still buying into the notion that social mobility is an individual responsibility and experience. The attention given to education and employment again exemplifies this individualistic experience suggesting one maps out their trajectory in isolation from their relationships to people and places. I will extend this critique further when I argue for a reconceptualisation of social mobility in section 3.5. However, this section has begun to problematise a tradition that has been highly reliant on the theoretical work of Bourdieu, and which does not forcefully question the foundations of individualistic and compartmentalised notions of social mobility.

3.4. The elephant in the room: The place of class in social mobility