Russell Haggar
Site Owner
The Class Ceiling- Why it pays to be privileged: Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison [2019]
The Class Ceiling- Why it pays to be privileged by Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison addresses patterns of upward social mobility into privileged class positions and subsequent career progress in various occupations within the privileged class concentrating mainly on class mobility but also referencing the mobility patterns of women and ethnicity minority members and the existence of intersectional disadvantage [ although Indian and Chines people are more likely than White people to reach the privileged class because they are more likely to be graduates] . There is also a video presentation [highly recommended] in which the authors present their main data and analyse in more detail some of the points which I have briefly considered below.
Friedman and Laurison rely initially on the NS SEC in which individuals are divided into 7 social classes which may also be combined into three major class [the privileged class, the intermediate class and the working class. However whereas researchers such as John Goldthorpe and associated have based their research of a proximately 10.000 respondents , Friedman and Laurison use a Labour Force data combination approximately 100,000 respondents which enable them to illustrate that, as expected, the children of privileged parents are proportionately more likely than children from intermediate or working class parents to gain entry to the privileged class there is considerable variability in upward social mobility into particular occupations within the privileged class: upward social mobility into medicine and law is lower than upward social mobility into other occupations such as engineering and IT.
The authors then draw an important distinction between “getting in” and getting on”: that is between initial social mobility into the privileged class and further upward social mobility via into the higher echelons of occupations within the privileged class. Here they note that for a variety of reasons often associated with differences in educational achievement children of privileged class parents are more likely than children of intermediate and working class parents to enter the privileged class but that also among all individuals of whatever class who enter the privileged class , those from a privileged background are much more likely to make further career progress than are those from an intermediate class or working class background. In summary children from privileged backgrounds are both more likely to enter the privileged class and to make further career progress within it.
Several studies of social mobility concentrate almost entirely upon initial patterns of social mobility into the privileged class whereas Friedman and Laurison wish to concentrate much more on the longer term social mobility of entrants to the privileged class i.e., on the process of “getting on.”
Their overall data suggest that among people in privileged occupations there is an average pay gap of £6, 400 p.a. between entrants to privileged occupations who are themselves m privileged backgrounds and entrants from working class background s
It is noted that there are several possible reasons why children of privileged class parents may be most likely to make career progress within the privileged class. It may be, for example, that within the privileged class sample the children of privileged class parents may on average be older than the children of intermediate and working class parents and more likely to have secured age-related promotions; the children of privileged class parents may have higher educational qualifications; may have been more likely to have attended an elite university; be more likely to work in London; and more likely to work in large firms offering greater promotion opportunities. However, with the use of regression analysis the authors conclude that these factors do explain approximately 50% of the social class differences in career advancement but that this obviously leaves 50% of this difference unexplained and the remainder of the book is concerned with the explanation of this remaining social class difference in career progress.
To explain the remaining differences in career progress in privileged occupations Friedman and Laurison conducted 175 detailed interviews among members of the acting, accountancy, and architecture professions and among TV executives and analysed their results using a Bourdieusian theoretical framework noting , however that there are significant differences as well as similarities among respondents in different industries.
Thus, they argue that in general differences in career progress can be explained in terms of a Bourdieusian framework using differences in the possession of economic, cultural, and social capital. High levels of parental income [ the bank of mum and dad] may enable privileged children to make decisions in their early careers which make future career progress more likely; that parental connections[ their social capital] may facilitate career advancement; and most especially that their career progress is often highly dependent upon the possession of cultural capital which working class entrants to privileged occupations do not possess.
Successful privileged entrants tend to argue that their promotion depends to a considerable extent on their own talents and abilities but agree also that their promotion may well arise because they present themselves via their cultural interests, language, their demeanour and their dress which enable them easily to gain acceptance among their superiors, not least because their overall styles of behaviour are similar to those of the senior executives who will be responsible for their promotion.
Here Friedman and Laurison refer to the distinction made for example by RH Turner in the 1960s between contest mobility [where upward social mobility is the result of fair competition and sponsored mobility where individuals are more likely to be promoted if they possess the characteristics such as an education at a private school and an elite university] possessed by those in charge of the promotion process.
It is noticeable, however, that cultural capital appears to operate differently in different occupations. In the acting profession so- called received pronunciation remains a prerequisite for many acting roles and that actors are more likely to be successful if they share the cultural ethos of major producers and directors. It is suggested that in the accounting profession, promotion to the highest levels depends not on accounting skills [ which all aspirants to promotion possess] but on so-called corporate polish [ language, dress, deportment and communication skills]] which are assumed to impress major clients. Conversely In TV commissioning , there is no formal dress code and promotion prospects are considered to depend upon a studied informality a studied informality and a somewhat laid back awareness of the cultural attitudes seen as appropriate within the occupation.
Conversely again, in the architecture profession promotion prospects are seen to depend primarily on the kind of technical competence which comes from years of hard work and far less on less tangible aspects of cultural behaviour. It turns out that in architecture social class background is a less important determinant of promotion prospects, but that gender is extremely important with women less able due to domestic commitments to work extremely long hours and more likely to have their careers disrupted due to pregnancy.
The authors also address the more limited promotion prospects of working class entrants into privileged occupations, and they do so via the Bourdieusian concept of self- elimination. Thus, whereas privileged entrants can deploy appropriate cultural capital almost effortlessly because they have already accumulated it from their social background, working class entrants must try to deploy a kind of cultural capital which is alien to them while recognising that if they are successful in achieving promotion they may be obliged to behave in ways which feel unnatural to them [like fishes out of water as Bourdieu has expressed t] and which may cause them to lose touch with their own true identity and with their working class family and friends.
It is therefore unsurprising that many working class entrants to privileged occupations come to believe that the costs of high level promotion outweigh the benefits.
Promotion prospects in privileged occupations are dependent upon the talents and abilities of promotion aspirants. However, S. Friedman and D. Laurison suggest that individuals from privileged backgrounds have access to levels of economic, cultural and social capital which enhance their promotion prospects beyond those of candidates from less advantaged backgrounds. The promotion prospects of those from privileged backgrounds may also be enhanced because the promotion process itself may be based upon sponsored mobility rather than contest mobility which means that the promotion criteria adopted may reflect the preferences of supervisors [who are also mainly from privileged backgrounds] for the qualities displayed especially by privileged aspirants and this clearly compromises the extent of true meritocracy within the promotion process.