As mentioned in the previous subsection, Lawler (2005) claims that as identity is a social construction, and is historically located, then class must also play a part in its formation. Therefore, this subsection seeks to place social class as an
65
important determinant of the young people’s occupational destinations, and consequently their occupational and social identities. It addresses the revival of interest in class analysis, and discusses theories of individualisation in
connection with this study’s aims.
Interest in class analysis in the social sciences, has declined since the middle of the 1970s (Savage, 2005) from its previously held central position, having been thought to have lost it popular appeal (Pakulski & Waters, 1996). The effects of class on youth transitions have similarly been dismissed as irrelevant by writers such as Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002), who termed it a ‘zombie category’ as a consequence of the percieved primacy of the individual identity over the collective identity, which post-industrial society has produced.
The waning of social class analysis has its origins in postmodernist thought, and the decline of traditional occupational groups and industries as a consequence of post-industrialism (Strangleman, 2008). During this period, the ‘death of class’ was proclaimed in both political and theoretical discourse (inter alia, Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992; Pakulski and Waters, 1996) as it was thought to no longer serve as a useful analytical category (Lawler, 2005). In this post-
industrial, late modern world, theories of individualisation flourished instead (inter alia, Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). But in more recent times, interest in the function of class and of collective identities in youth transitions, has been rekindled (inter alia, Gillies, 2005; MacDonald, et al., 2005; Woodin, 2005).
The individualisation argument claims that due to the process of modernisation and globalisation, the inequalities of wealth distribution have been replaced by inequalities of risk (Beck, 1992). The risk society proposed by Beck, posits that
66
the modern world has created global risks which cannot be managed by traditional means. As a consequence the old social forms and categories that existed in industrial societies have been destroyed, and individuals displaced from their previous classifications. This position contends that in such a fluid and reflexive phase of modernisation, people must define their own biographies by becoming more engaged in planning and rationalising their choices (Elliott, 2002).
With rising standards of living creating increased levels of consumption and a move away from previous cultural values such as a settled family life and respectability (‘zombie categories’ include the concept of the household as well as class), the individual’s focus is now centred on self-fulfilment and individuality (Atkinson, 2007). A growing market for young adults or ‘kidults’15 participating in
pastimes more associated with children, such as computer gaming or adult colouring books, is but one manifestation of this phenomenon. Increasingly large numbers of ‘nesters’ still living with their parents whether at university, or work is another (Furedi, 2003). An expanding education sector along with a growing commodification of education (inter alia, Lyotard, 1984; Lave, 1991), plays its part in this process by replacing traditional ways of thinking and living with ‘universalistic’ knowledge (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002: 32). In this new social order it is contended that people now identify themselves more acutely with categorisations of race, gender, sexuality, and consumption rather than as a class (Lyotard, 1984).
In this understanding of society, an individual’s success is now their own responsibility and so, forces them to ‘…take charge of their own life’ (Beck and
15 Kidult is a term originating in the field of television marketing (Brown, 2016) and is used to describe an
67
Beck-Gernsheim, 2002: 32). Individuals are freed from the constraints of
‘structure’ to act according to their ‘agency’ (Adkins, 2003), which are the terms used in the social sciences to describe the effects of the
social/political/economic context on the individual, and the individual’s freedom to act. Using a structural approach, the individual is considered to be bound by the reproduction of social systems such as relations and interactions, and structure exists as memory traces (Giddens, 1991). Conversely, an agentic perspective portrays social outcomes as the consequence of the aggregation of individual actions, which are ‘…outcome orientated’ (Goldthorpe, 1998:169). Thus, Lyotard (1984) argues, in a postmodern world, it is impossible to predict life chances by using structural variables such as class or gender.
Symbolic interactionist criticism of the individualisation argument comes from a variety of sources and lack of space here, prevents a comprehensive
discussion. However, a principal rejection of this position is that Beck’s and Giddens’ analyses are excessively realist and cognitive. Their position suggests that rather than being social actors living in socially situated worlds, individuals exist outside of social settings, and are able to reflect on their choices without reference to the world (Adkins, 2003). But, it is argued that individuals, in order to see how they should act, need to be able to assess how others are acting (Dawson, 2012). As examples of this ‘position taking’, Dickens (1999) suggests that mothers refer to what other mothers are doing in order to think of
themselves as a ‘decent mother’, and Stevenson (2009) proposes that masculine identities are determined by reference to male role models. Furthermore, it is has been suggested that the impact of postmodernity has been overstated, with historical epidemics, plagues and wars having an comparably devastating impact on previous societies (inter alia, Elliott, 2002;
68
Furlong, 2009). Additionally, Beck (1992) acknowledges that inequalities still exist, but are now manifest at the level of the individual, rather than as a class. Furlong (2009: 349) however, argues that whilst the perception of increased opportunity exists, inequalities still form in groups that are remarkably like classes and so effectively, social classes still exist, ‘…irrespective of whether we can identify a set of cultural perspectives that neatly map into such
divisions’.
In addition, the developmental-contextual perspective which proposes that career development is a lifelong process influenced by a multitude of factors, is a long established one. Research has shown that diverse interpersonal, social and environmental factors shape career outcomes. For example, Schulenberg, Vondracek, and Crouter (1984: 130) state that ‘It has been well documented that background SES [socio-economic status] is positively associated with an individual's occupational status aspirations and expectations’. This is a view supported by Furlong and Cartmel (1997) among others, who suggest that the individualisation thesis is misleading, and that the social world is merely
considered to be risky and unpredictable. Structural factors they argue still remain as powerful as ever.
Recent research from the discipline of cognitive and social psychology also casts doubt on the individualisation thesis, by suggesting that the choices made by humans are not the result of a rational thought process, but are often intuitive as a consequence of unconscious social conditioning and experience
(Kahnemann, 1982; 2011). This research proposes that decisions made by individuals are influenced by the ‘priming effect’ (ibid., 2011:52) of previous experiences which predispose them to certain choices.
69
Priming occurs because the infinite instantaneous decisions that the human mind is required to make are not possible without the use of shortcuts.
Thoughts, emotions and actions are all unconsciously primed by past events in a phenomenon known as the ‘ideomotor effect’: that is, ‘…the influencing of an action by the idea’ (ibid., 2011:53). Consequently, such involuntary behaviours compromise ‘…our self-image as conscious and autonomous authors of our judgements and our choices’ (ibid., 2011: 55).
The individualisation theory is consequently undermined by the notion that our choices are not rationally made, but affected by structural conditioning.
Therefore as Adkins (2003) contends, the reflexivity required by the modern risk society proposed by Beck (1992) requires reflection on unconscious, as well as conscious actions. Even the distribution of risk, which Beck (1992) argues is a product of technological development in a postmodern society, cannot be adequately assessed by individuals objectively as research contends that ‘The world in our heads is not a precise replica of reality’ (Kahnemann, 2011: 138). The degree to which individuals have control over their own destinies has also been called into question by Evans et al (Evans and Heinz, 1991; 1993; Evans,
et al, 2001; Evans, 2007; Heinz, 2009), whose research suggests that agency
operates in ‘…differentiated and complex ways in relation to the individual’s subjectively perceived frames for action and decision’ (Evans, et al, 2001: 17). Using this understanding of agency, an individual’s frame for action has limits which can be changed over time, but is underpinned by structural factors which include their socio-educational legacy. This view bears similarities to the familial social capital suggested by Bourdieu’s (1977a; 1977b) reproduction theory discussed in the next subsection, and to the areas of employment to which qualifications lead.
70
Therefore, if socioeconomic inequalities still manifest themselves in groups of people as proposed by Furlong (2009), something very like ‘class’ still exists and shows strong indications of still being relevant (Eidlin, 2014). In addition, if decisions made by individuals are primed by structural conditioning as proposed by Kahnemann (1982; 2011), then as Roberts (2009) suggests, class-based reproduction still exists. Therefore, the proposal that postmodern individuals are masters of their own destiny, free from their past, does not entirely provide the answer. Adkins (2003) offers an explanation, using the work of Bourdieu to reconcile the realities of the greater reflexivity required by late-modern societies, and Bourdieu’s work is explored below.