Social mobility
The controversy generated by the article in the Atlantic magazine written by the late Pulitzer-winning journalist Alex Tizon prompted me to revisit the topic about social mobility. I remember studying about social mobility in my Economics and Political Science classes in college.
Known for his deep reporting and philosopher-type pieces (considered a “rarity in today’s fast-paced media cycle”), Tizon’s story about their family’s dark secret of keeping a slave in the United States where they migrated, was as powerful and moving as it was complex and nuanced.
But I won’t join the throng of online commentators in either praising or condemning Tizon, except in saying that he was indeed an excellent writer. You can search and read about the article “My Family’s Slave” at The Atlantic’s website, www.theatlantic.com.
Like many of the kids during the 1980s who grew up in a middle class environment, the idea of a need for a domestic helper was widely accepted. In our household, we were taught to respect our yaya (nanny) and helper like they were part of the family.
As I grew older and entered high school and then college, I became exposed to progressive ideologies from the books that I read and the company that I kept. Foremost of which was the idea that the Philippines is a semifeudal society where much of the resources are in the hands of a few families.
I began to ask questions and search for answers about the social inequality and class stratification in my midst. On why many people are condemned to remain in poverty and utter subservience for the rest of their lives. To my parents’ relief, I did not go to the extent of rebelling against the system.
But those questions still linger in my head, and perhaps, will always endear me to situations and communities where I could find the answers. When opportunity came that led me to visit other countries in Asia and Europe, the scene of Filipino workers toiling in developed countries far from their families and the amazing progress those countries have achieved served only to stir up more questions about the situation in my own country.
That brings me back to what I said earlier about how Tizon’s article has driven me to revisit the topic of social mobility. That is because social mobility is closely tied to the situation of social inequality and social class.
Social mobility refers to the “likelihood that a child will grow up into adulthood and attain a higher level of economic and social wellbeing than his/her family of origin.” It is defined as the “movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society.”
If a society plagued by inequality fails to commit to achieve the goals of social mobility, then whatever gains it will have from increased economic activity and output will only serve to increase the power and wealth of its already privileged class.
To atone for such failure, that society may likely pay homage to the idea of meritocracy – that people should be rewarded for their achievements. The problem with that idea standing alone is the fact that classes of people are not similarly situated in both available resources and opportunities. Meritocracy is what one writer describes as “the great delusion that ingrains inequality.” In fact, the gospel of meritocracy impliedly blames the poor for their situation.
So how do we achieve increased social mobility? I believe it starts with making quality education accessible to all. That would be another topic for lengthier discussion.