The phrase “social mobility” is stubbornly rooted within policy and discourse surrounding equality and opportunity. It conjures images of individuals climbing the socioeconomic ladder, transcending the circumstances of their birth towards “success”. The concept is presented, and widely received as aspirational, desirable and socially just, yet a constrictive unease prickles across me each time I hear it. This writing is an attempted textual unpicking of this visceral response, and an exploration of the complexities, classist undertones and internal colonialisms wrapped up in a loaded phrase.
Firstly, the reductionist language is harmful. “Social mobility” linguistically simplifies a complex issue into just two words. Attempts to judge the desirability of individuals' education, income and occupation in relation to others is problematic when we begin to ask questions about who defines success in each criteria, but to further reduce such complexities in language glosses over the intricacies and nuances of socioeconomic disparities and the diverse experiences of individuals and communities. “Social mobility” suggests upwards propulsion into socially desirable spaces, and in the encompassing unsaid speaks of leaving behind the socially undesirable. The concept fortifies a class hierarchy, disregards identity and hinders belonging of both the mobile and the left-behind.
Should we consider the phrase to refer to movement towards economic equity instead, it places the onus of such movement on individuals rather than acknowledging the structural inequities that impede progress. It suggests that anyone can rise through the social and economic ranks with hard work and determination alone. This overlooks systemic barriers such as racism, classism, and unequal access to education and resources that disproportionately affect marginalised communities. True social progress requires rapid, collaborative, and transparent addressing of systemic root causes of inequality to support economic and social equity of opportunity.
