The underlying argument of this chapter has been for the need to reassess how value, aspiration and social mobility are constructed through dominant policy and lay discourses. As Reay (2013) argues, social mobility is a ‘mirage’ which is brought to life through such dominant discourses and rhetoric. For Reay (2018, p.146), “social mobility is one such optimistic fantasy that ensnares and works on both the individual psyche and collective consciousness”, and this is what I argued featured in the Communities First programme with its individualising employability-focused projects. I provided examples where both gender and class worked to exclude (sometimes voluntarily) participants from accessing the dominant social mobility and self-improvement narrative, suggesting that although a ‘widening access’ approach is important, essentially there needs to be a widening of ‘valuable’ aspirations and trajectories outside of the middle-class ideal (Fishkin 2014; Lott 2016; Littler 2018).
Skeggs (2011) notes that attempts to introduce individualism into working-class communities in the UK have been unsuccessful, and value gained through a ‘capital loaded fetish’ approach is therefore not desired by all working-class communities. It did not appear to be desired by the residents included in this chapter. Instead of the individual mobility of a few and encouraging the working-class to leave their values behind, Bradley (2018) and Reay (2018) argue for an alternative to social mobility whereby upward movement entails whole tiers of people, including a redistribution of wealth element, rising with class and not out of it.
Although I cannot draw such idealistic conclusions from a small-scale study, this chapter argued that ‘meritocratic’, individualised and competitive notions of selfhood promoted through dominant social mobility discourses were not what created local value and were often rejected by participants. Drawing on the work from both Bradley and Reay, I suggested that investment in communities such as Hiraeth instead of investment in individuals may be a method of shifting the rhetoric towards a more collective understanding of merit, and valuing people outside of material terms such as employment status, income and consumption (Lawler and Payne 2018; Littler 2018). This would be more compatible with the model of selfhood invested in by participants. Not everybody can be ‘middle-class’ nor want to be, and often it was the desire for family security and support that drove participants, which is why the chapter argued that a relational sociality and selfhood was what provided value in the local community (Skeggs 2005; 2011; Pearce 2011;
Chapman 2018; Reay 2018). The working-class discourse of fulfilment drawn upon in the final section is therefore fundamentally at odds with the individualising social mobility narrative. The importance of family, kinship, and having ‘enough’ were central to residents’ narratives, often drawing upon more widely accessible resources such as the heteronormative ‘dominant coupledom’ narrative and the ‘property ladder’ narrative (Taylor 2010; Mallman 2018). Often these narratives took not only a classed but a gendered nature, whereby the roles of both men and women were largely influenced by the inheritance of narratives over time and generations. Women inherited their roles as ‘caring subjects’ whilst men inherited the centrality of hegemonic masculinity over time. The local value of these narratives is largely absent in dominant social mobility discourses, as they go beyond the individual to consider kinship relations and the importance of classed and gendered narratives across generations.
This chapter drew on the work of Communities First as a localised example of the Welsh Government’s policy approach to ‘improving’ disadvantaged communities, albeit largely through more individualistic projects encouraging individual social mobility. I highlighted how this approach was met with resistance from staff, who were frustrated with the way the programme was ran and its limited scope to improve communities. Projects of self-improvement can induce what Tyler (2013) terms ‘stigma governmentality’, whereby responsibility and blame for life trajectory and low-income are placed on those with the least resources, distracting from the social and economic structure of neoliberal society that is inherently unequal (Skeggs 1997; 2005; Walkerdine et al 2001; Tyler 2013; 2015; Littler 2018; Shildrick 2018). The chapter illustrated that value, fulfilment, and success exist beyond the limits of supposed meritocratic and neoliberal projects of self, calling for a recognition and value appreciation of working-class culture and narratives. Fulfilment and success are about more than the individual and their middle-class capitals, and for participants it was about having ontological security for your family and systems of kinship support. Although this may be read as a romanticisation of working-class life and culture, this chapter has demonstrated some of the tensions and difficulties inherent in this value system, particularly surrounding exclusion due to class and gender.
The next chapter will bring the thesis together, considering the key findings and situating this study within wider academic and policy discussions around social mobility. It evaluates the study, highlighting some of its limitations which could be addressed in future research. The chapter also discusses the political implications of this study and suggests a future direction for social mobility policy and research.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Conclusions and Reflections – The Contribution of this Thesis
to Social Mobility Studies
8.1. Introduction
Having identified how Hiraeth residents developed their own value practices through constructing narratives of fixity, anchorage and relationality, this final chapter draws out the main contributions of this research, situating it within wider academic and policy discussions about social mobility. The core of the argument presented throughout the thesis has been the critique of individualised notions of selfhood and self-improvement within a neoliberal ‘meritocracy’. To situate the study, the Welsh Government’s improvement intervention, Communities First, has featured throughout, demonstrating the regulatory nature of self-improvement for ‘underperforming’ populations. The thesis has illustrated how social class, place-attachment, and gender are interconnected within narratives of social (im)mobility, working to shape the horizon of participants’ trajectories, resulting in the construction and maintenance of alternative value practices. As the data analysis took a narrative-discursive approach, the findings from this study cannot be read as insights into the inner psychological workings of participants, but rather as intersubjective performances of identity work (Edley 2001; Burr 2003; Taylor 2006; 2010). Local discursive resources such as the born and bred narrative, and previous tellings of the same narrative, helped to construct consistency and continuity. My role as a researcher was also important in the construction of participants’ narratives, and this chapter provides a reflexive space to describe the experience of undertaking research on a topic which holds personal significance.
This chapter aims to bring together the previous chapters and reflect upon the study’s contribution to social mobility studies by reiterating and situating the research findings. It begins with a reassertion of the importance of studying social mobility in today’s increasingly divided society. The chapter then situates the study and provides an overview of the methodological approach taken, restating the central research questions and establishing how each question has been addressed. As transparency is pivotal to rigorous research, there is a reflection on some of the study’s limitations, including issues of scope and participant ‘voice’, on which future research could build and address. I discuss some of the political implications of the study, making suggestions for the direction and scope of future social mobility policy and research. Although cautious of overstating and overstretching the findings from a small-scale, qualitative study, I argue that this research does raise serious questions about how to conceptualise social mobility, and how social justice is commonly understood. Therefore, this chapter aims to illustrate the purpose and significance of the study undertaken and reiterate why it is important to be critical of the dominant social mobility discourse.