Conceptualizing Intragenerational Social Mobility through the 'Politics of Recognition' Debate

Abstract

‘Self’ is constantly striving for the realization of its own freedom, wherein,  all individuals are in a perpetual struggle to rid themselves from external determination and instate the ability to determine their relationship with the world. Considering that ‘self’ is embedded in society within which it is located through the notions of “class, status and power” actualizing such a proclamation is explicitly challenging (to say the least). Although, a broader conception of ‘Self’ transcends the barriers imposed by these notions of ‘class, status and power’ and exercises one’s ‘Self’ independent from the barriers of aforementioned sources of limitations. Though, this individuation is undertaken through the acknowledgement of relational nature of one’s self with one’s surroundings which have explicit social, economic and political underpinnings. This paper engages with the categories of ‘class’ (which is akin to Economics), ‘status’ (which is akin to Sociology) and ‘power’ (which is akin to Politics) as the primary dimensions defining the dynamism that ‘intragenerational social mobility’ is subject to, however, these categories are not watertight but rather intermingle because one’s sociological location and how one is perceived by the ‘other’ is largely determined by their class location (i.e., redistribution) , social status (i.e., recognition) as well as the political power (i.e., representation) that they hold. This paper attempts to highlight and advocate the rationale for engaging with the ‘Politics of Recognition’ debate in the attempt to conceptualize ‘Intragenerational Social Mobility’, through addresses the implications of the schism upon its core tenets which are on the lines of ‘recognition, redistribution and representation’ that hold the potential to aid and abet our understanding of how they can be employed in operationalizing an inquiry of the life chance, life course and life histories of different members of society. Such an inquiry can prove fruitful in analyzing people’s narrative concerning their social, economic and political locations, as well as, identifying what measures they intend or have been able to undertake for the sake of altering how they and fellow members of society recognize themselves.

Key Words: Social justice; Social Mobility; Redistribution; Recognition; Redistribution; Self; Equality; Equity; Life-Chances; Life-Course; Life History; Identity 

Introduction

This paper attempts to advocate that the key components in the study of Intragenerational Social Mobility, namely ‘life chances’, ‘life course’ and ‘life history’ of an individual are deeply influenced and determined by sociological, economic and political factors which manifest in forms of exploitation, economic marginalization and deprivation (through the perspective of ‘redistribution’), as well as cultural domination, nonrecognition and disrespect (posing pivotal challenges with regard to ‘recognition’) consequently instating “social patterns of representation, interpretation and communication” (Frazer, 2003). This paper engages with the means of Intragenerational Social Mobility (or lack thereof) to be a social justice issue, in this regard it advocates an admonition from Nancy Fraser’s stand on ‘recognition’ not being a matter of self-realization issue but that of justice. This paper argues that self-realization itself is a crucial issue for justice because one’s inability to hone their true potential and establish the grounds through which one determines their relationship with the world is largely an effect of ‘structural injustices’. Also, this paper voices admonitions towards Axel Honneth’s assertion concerning “it is not yet entirely clear what is meant by the personal integrity which people generally expect their society to recognize” by advocating that “equal moral worth” of human beings and instating individual liberty (whereby the uniqueness and differences across individuals and groups are recognized as a form of actualization of one’s own identity and not be seen as a ‘stranger’ or ‘other’ in one’s own society) are the core contention of ‘recognition’ which has been denied through myriad ways on account of systemic oppression that have economic, social and political underpinnings. 

This paper stresses on the dire need of inculcating ‘reflexivity’ within the “Politics of Recognition” debate arguing how one’s “internal conversation” is crucial for understanding how one negotiates their identity and the role of ‘how one imagines the society to be like’ as well as, ‘what role does sociological imagination play in this aforementioned negotiation’. Sociological imagination explicates the relationship between individual and the collective, which is subject to rigorous schism amongst the canon of Sociological thinkers around its role and scope, whereby, Durkheim argues along the lines of vitality of ‘social facts’ which need to be discerned through assessing the coalescence between their functional and causal analysis stating how ‘social facts’ exist independent of their internalization within individuals, hence, the scope of sociological imagination in Durkheim’s view is how individual adapts to the society that one is born in (which exists independent of one’s violation but is organically perpetuated through needs and desire of social organisms); while Simmel argues that the social order is constantly being reproduced on account of the “interactions” between individuals and the relationships between members of society are premised on the precondition that they know something about each other (though there are fellow means of establishing relations, for instance, Simmel understands the role of ‘money’ in society is that it acts as an instrument to ‘establish relations’ where there are none, as in, beyond the ties of kith and kin or interaction between immediate social actors which are in close proximity, ‘money’ holds the potential to facilitate interactions, engagements and relationships between people which would otherwise have no means or purpose to interact with each other, global political economy wherein the supply and demand chains are stretched across the geographic expanse of the world can be seen as a contemporary example of the cosmopolitan society). C. Wright Mills in his book titled Sociological Imagination writes “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” Considering that all actions happen reflexively rather than automatically, this holds true for social practices as well which are perpetuated through individual agency within a social structure which might exist way prior to the existence of said individual but it’s ontology is maintained through individual action (as argued by the supporters of ‘reflexivity’).

Defining ‘Intragenerational Social Mobility’ 

One of the most distinct attributes of living beings is motion, wherein being animate enables movement which has  severely aided evolution through enabling the quest for survival and actualization of one’s potential. This movement is undertaken at the cellular, mental, physical and social realms. The concept of ‘intragenerational social mobility’ is primarily concerned with the movement across the imaginary, abstract and arbitrary social ladder and how it manifests during the course of an individual’s lifespan through assessing one’s relationship with the collective. Its core contention lies in examining the role of the ‘collective’ or the social order in aiding, abetting or limiting the pursuit of honing one’s true potential. Understanding intragenerational social mobility entails the study of the means for attainment of ‘merit’ and how it enhances one’s life-chances, alongside the barriers in attaining ‘merit’ as an exemplar of stratification in society. This inquiry is premised on questioning the validity of capitalist credo stating ‘you can make it if you try’ as well as various philosophical and theosophical tenets which hold that “one’s due is the result of one’s actions, virtues and deeds” (Sandel, 2020); this line of questioning aims to address the variety of social factors involved in determining one’s “success” (which can mean ‘material well-being’ within the framework of capitalist economy, and the attainment of ‘wisdom’ or ‘salvation’ from philosophical and theosophical perspective respectively), wherein different forms of socialization at the behest of various types of institutionalization starting from family, ranging to the set of organizations that comprise of ‘civil society’ whose affairs are governed by the ‘state’ which inturn are influenced by the dynamics of domestic and international affairs. Hence, at every given point of time the factors that influence one’s life-course are countless yet observable because although stratification exists in both homogeneous and heterogeneous societies but the kinds of stratification are much nuanced and elaborate (as well as ingrained within the social order) as opposed to former where stratification functions as an exception to the rule or its inapplicability on account of being different from the homogenous normative identity (though this generalization too is subject to question with regard to its validity as forms of ‘intersectionality’ exist despite of the categorization between homogeneous and heterogeneous societies). These factors are only properly observable when there is an inclination towards acknowledging ‘intragenerational social mobility’ through the study of longitudinal data sets (either cohort or panel studies) because only studying ‘intergenerational social mobility’ has major flaws of comparability wherein the need of ensuring precise measurement of age as well as understanding the context dimensions attached to upward (or downward) occupational and educational mobility, also the prominence of intragenerational social mobility is highlighted in ‘status attainment approach’ (as opposed to ‘class mobility approach’). Intragenerational Social Mobility is important for conducting studies undertaking causal analysis which are traditionally classified into two sources namely: structural and individual (Sorenson, 1975). 

The reason why ‘Self’ is inclined towards mobility is because through associations and relationships that one makes across different social stratum helps (i) realization and knowledge about one’s self considering that how one behaves and acts is a reflection of how one supposes themselves to be perceived by the other (that is the basic tenet of recognition); (ii) enhances one’s life chances and life opportunities because it enables more agency and liberty towards the use of one’s time as well as the ability to automate one’s tasks and duties (either through technology or outsourcing by employing others for certain objectives which happen to be part of the ‘ends’ one sets for one’s self); (iii) aids the longevity of the “Self” through preserving one’s energies and instigates inclusion through social ties as well as facilitating integration into the ‘social division of labor’ (which instruments ethical participation in the functioning of society). The modernization thesis holds that (i) industrial societies are inclined to have high absolute mobility rates which further more upward mobility than downward mobility; (ii) the relative rates of mobility reflect a decline in inequality of opportunities, as in, individuals pertaining to different social origins compete on more equal terms (Erikson & Goldthorpe, 2014); also, (iii) absolute and relative rates of mobility tend to increase over time (Vaid, 2018). Although, this paper shares an admonition towards the modernization thesis because of its inclination towards macro-sociology and its tendency to ignore the inequality within societies which are late developers as well as the inequality of wealth, opportunities and life chances across and within societies. Also the actualization of process of modernity wherein the ideals of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ are instrumented into ground realities are not quite universally instated within and across societies, considering that structure has a dualist nature because it offers to empowers but also constraints an individual, the fluidity of the structure is pertained by institutional reflexivity and its rigidity or form dictated by global institutions (as well as the conventional normative order within society) which influences the functioning and purpose that the structure sets itself to, whereby even though there are some global and local structures which are powerful yet dynamic because they’re constantly changing; these institutions (which are social, political and economic in nature) are reflexive and directing towards the future on account of the existing and perpetually evolving knowledge.

The study of intragenerational social mobility is concerned with assessing and realizing the objectives set by the ‘Enlightenment’ movement as freedom from self-incurred tutelage through acknowledging that all human beings are thinking beings and are capable of ‘reason’ which establishes ‘equality and liberty’ of every individual as the core tenet of all socio-political and economic philosophies (as well as establishments), irrespective of the schism over vicissitudes upon the meaning of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ with regard to one’s own ideological inclinations and one’s worldview. “Equality” is seen as the ‘foundational value’ of all political and social ideologies but the questions concerning ‘equality of what’, ‘equality for whom?’ and ‘equality by whom?’ are at the heart of this debate. For instance, two contending paradigms can be identified as ‘equality of opportunities’ and ‘equality of outcomes’, wherein the former is concerned with putting everyone on same pedestal through providing equality in the pursuits of education, economic participation and political suffrage (as well as contestation) and the latter addresses the need for ensuring not just a decent but a good and dignified life for all members of society through acknowledging that each person has different circumstances and allocating the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome (as the maxims of ‘equity’ suggest). The study of intragenerational social mobility assesses the validity of ‘equality of opportunities’ or that of outcomes in ground reality and gauges how (or if) they manifest for an individual across societies.

Components of Intragenerational Social Mobility

‘Identity’ is no longer given, instead self faces ‘existential tremors’ (Giddens, 2013); the study of intergenerational social mobility entails undertaking the understanding of such tremors in the face of opportunities, barriers and its limitations which happen to be the common currency across people’s lives which one faces at every given stage, hence they become an important point of inquiry and hold the potential to teach us at great lengths about human life and its relationship with society as well as vice versa. This section of the paper deals with the methodological tools used in the study of these aforementioned opportunities, barriers and limitations for an individual, which are as follows: 

• Life Chances

“Life chances” are defined as the set of opportunities available to people on account of their current position in society which is constituted by one’s relationship with the labor market, one’s “status” or social rank, and one’s political power (Weber, 2002). Hence, life chances have a positive correlation with one's socioeconomic status. These are indicative of the peculiar opportunities that individuals can avail to enhance their standard of living, it can be understood as a probabilistic concept, which describes how likely it would be, under given circumstances, for an individual's life to manifest in a certain trajectory. Herein, opportunities refer to one’s access to resources, which can be tangible ones such as material goods, or intangible such as education and health care. Life chances can be defined as the individual's ability to procure material goods, pursue a career and obtain inner satisfaction; i.e. to be able to satisfy one's needs. Opposing Marx ideas on social stratification being premised on social class and class struggle, Weber argued that there is a link between life chances with non-random elements consisting of three-components regarding the theory of stratification explicating how social class, social status and political affiliation affect each individual's life, as in, individuals in certain groups have a specific causal component of their life chances which is common between them, i.e, the reason behind individuals pertaining to similar groups happen to be in a similar situation, perhaps implies a similar outcome of their actions (as well as opportunities availed to them). The concept of ‘life-chances’ explicates “the actor’s potential and actual ability to shape the social surroundings which render life worth living, as well as the formation of this ability by social structures and institutional role-complexes, constitutes sociology’s epistemological presupposition in the absence of which it becomes increasingly difficult to conceptualize both communal and individual life” (Dahrendorf, 1981). There is a subjective quotient attached to ‘life chances’, which supposes that one's assessment of one's life chances will affect one's actions; wherein, if one believes that one is or can become a respected and valued member of society, then that outcome and associated positive results are more likely to become a reality for such a person than they are for one without this conviction, and lacking such a conviction espouses and internalizes a belief on the contrary which may make one vulnerable to learned helplessness and its long-term effects. The concept of life chances can also be perceived as means through which “status is not entirely achieved, but instead ascribed”, because one’s socioeconomic status and social locations has a severe impact on the opportunities as well as the quality of opportunities that one is able to avail. Also, the associations and relationships one has with fellow members of society as well as “who” comprise on the close circle of people that one is acquainted and associated with affect educational attainment, socialization as well as one’s class identification, hence housing and the general inequalities in the real-estate market drastically impact one’s life-chances and perpetuate inequalities in this regard, through gatekeeping and different forms of exclusion (Zavisca & Gerber, 2016). One’s perception of their life chances is largely influenced by what one perceives their social class to be because both these categories are intrinsically interwoven with each other.

• Life Course

Life course approach attempts to examine the life history of an individual and investigates how early events in one’s life have influenced future decisions and events such as marriage and divorce, engagement in crime or deviance, incidences of disease, educational attainment or one’s age and circumstances at the time of entering the workforce. A life course is defined as "a sequence of socially defined events and roles that the individual enacts over time", this approach which accounts for the connection between individuals’ historical and socioeconomic context which the individuals being studied have experienced. Life course perspective, refers to a multidisciplinary paradigm for the study of people's lives, structural contexts, and social change which includes observations and investigation concerning history, sociology, demography, developmental psychology, biology, public health, economics and one’s political inclination. Life course has been theorized on the basis of five key principles, namely,  (i) life-span development; (ii) human agency; (iii) historical time and geographic place; (iv) timing of decisions; and (v) linked lives (Elder Jr. et al., 2003). Life course approach aims to study the entirety of a person's actual experience, wherein events and roles might not necessarily proceed in a given sequence, hence it is different from uniform life-cycle stages and life span approach because it is concerned with age-differentiated social phenomena. This approach undertakes the vitality of time, context, process, and meaning on human development and family life. The unit of family is projected and perceived as a micro social group within a macro social context wherein "collected group of individuals with shared history who interact within ever-changing social contexts across ever increasing time and space (Bengtson & Allen, 1993)."

• Life History

Life History is a methodological tool which undertakes interviews to record autobiographical history from an ordinary person's perspective; this has been prominent in narrative ethnography, phenomenological studies, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and sociology of knowledge. The important usage of life history method lies in providing a kind of voice to the select members of the social milieu that are often underrepresented and invisible. Life history method is closely associated with the development of biographical research and biographical-narrative interviews. The narrative interview as a method for conducting open narrative interviews in empirical social research provides much deeper insightful and accurate data because this means that the generalization of life chances, life course and life history through macro data need not be inferred.

Determinants of Intragenerational Social Mobility

This paper finds the status attainment and class mobility approach to be very limiting but yet useful applications of the study of ‘intragenerational social mobility’, although it argues that the concept’s role and purpose should ascend the mere understanding how an individual proclaims a certain “status” or exercises mobility across one’s “class”, but rather the real scope of ‘intragenerational social mobility’ lies in understanding how, where and why is one situated within the quest for “recognition, redistribution, representation” and what role does “reflexivity” plays in the process. This quest is not separate from the ‘status attainment’ and ‘class mobility’ approach but attempts to expand and enhance the scope of Intragenerational Social Mobility by advocating that the aforementioned ‘determinants’ are both the objectives and means for actualizing the true potential of the concept. Intragenerational Social Mobility can be understood as the process of ‘becoming’ through which one realizes their ‘Self’ and proceed towards manifesting their true moral worth through undertaking the ethical practices and pursue their roles, obligations and entitlements towards the claim of social justice (which in the view of this paper is inclusive towards the initiatives of self-realization) because the inability to realize one’s self have social, economic, political as well as interpersonal undertones which consequently impacts ‘recognition, redistribution, representation and reflexivity’ because it results in ‘status subordination’ whereby one’s claim to equal moral with is violated. Considering that identification – not a tangible ‘thing’ per se, in fact, it is not something that one can have, or not; it is something that one does (Jenkins, 2014), intragenerational social mobility undertakes the inquiry and investigation of what one ‘does’ in the process of construing one’s own identity.

• Recognition

Recognition designates an ideal reciprocal relation between subjects in which each sees the other as its equal and also as separate from it; this notion was derived from Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Self-Consciousness”, this relation is deemed constitutive for subjectivity, as one becomes an individual subject only in virtue of recognizing, and being recognized by, another subject. Therefore,the Hegelian thesis implies that "recognition" is often at odds with liberal individualism and that social relations are prior to individuals and intersubjectivity is prior to subjectivity. Recognition is seen as belonging to "ethics" as opposed to "morality," that is, as promoting substantive ends of self-realization and the good life, as opposed to the "rightness" of procedural justice (Frazer, 2003). The vitality of recognition can be best understood through acknowledging the the consequences of its lack might result in, for instance, Charles Taylor argues that "nonrecognition or misrecognition can be a form of oppression, it imprisons someone in a false, distorted, reduced mode of being. Beyond simple lack of respect, it can inflict a grievous wound, saddling people with crippling self-hatred. Due recognition is not just a courtesy but in fact a vital human need (Taylor, 1994)." A few ways one is denied of their due recognition are (i) cultural domination (being subjected to patterns of interpretation and communication that are associated with another culture and are alien and/or hostile to one's own); (ii) nonrecognition (being rendered invisible via the authoritative representational, communicative, and interpretative practices of one's own culture); and (iii) disrespect (being routinely maligned or disparaged in stereotypic public cultural representations and/or in everyday life interactions) (Frazer, 2003). According to Honneth, "we owe our integrity to the receipt of approval or recognition from other persons. Denial of recognition is injurious because it impairs persons’ positive understanding of self which is acquired by intersubjective means (Honneth, 1992)." Recognition is the most basic and highest form of acknowledgement, wherein the differences and diversities are embraced but it’s lack is the most gruesome form of oppression, for instance, if we take the example of ‘Pariah’ (the downtrodden) and Pervenu (the hero, or the social climber) as Zygmunt Bauman terms these two categories in his ‘Post-Modernity and its Discontents’ where these terms were used for the rehabilitation of Jews and their social integrattion after the second world war, it was alleged that many people belonging to the community started to feel a sense of hatred towards themselves because such was the attitude towards them in surrounding majority community and the only way to be socially mobile was to de-judice one’s self, this is true for any sort of assimilation wherein a particular community is targeted, the purview of assimilation is not just limited to the social and political but instead its manifestations are evident in the economic life as well. Such violations of recognition, where identity politics becomes a divisive tool to distract the populace from organizing and collectively demonstrating towards redistribution.

• Redistribution

The quest for redistribution is a rampant and pressing concern of social justice, which is often dismissed and criticized as being mere material solutions or the tools at the hand of dominant powers in the neoliberal economy which partially release wealth at the time of crisis to subvert it in immediacy instead of changing the larger structural questions which lead to such problems in the first place. The issue of redistribution exists across all political ideologies and power structures, wherein,there is certain consensus over wealth of the world need to be redistributed but there is schism over which authority would ought to undertake this because the liberals demand that the private enterprise should be enabled to practice laissez faire (wherein there is minimum or no intervention from the state) and that private enterprise themselves would undertake the responsibility of redistribution of wealth through trickle down economics, on the other hand socialists or social democrats advocate and stress for the role of state in instating justice and argue that the process of undermining injustice can only be undertaken through economic restructuring, which may involve redistributing income and/or wealth, reorganizing the division of labor, changing the structure of property ownership, democratizing the procedures by which investment decisions are made, or transforming other basic economic structures. Redistribution focus on Socio-economic injustices, such as, (i) exploitation (having the fruits of one's labor appropriated for the benefit of others); (ii) economic marginalization (being confined to undesirable or poorly-paid work or being denied access to income-generating labor altogether); and (iii) deprivation (being denied an adequate material standard of living). Various scholars insist that identity politics is a counterproductive diversion from the real economic issues, one that balkanizes groups and rejects universalist moral norms, whereas scholars such as Iris Marion Young, insist that a difference-blind politics of redistribution can reinforce injustice by falsely universalizing dominant group norms, requiring subordinate groups to assimilate to them, and misrecognizing the latter's distinctiveness. Gender is a two-dimensional social differentiation which combines a class-like dimension, which brings it within the ambit of redistribution, with a status dimension, which brings it simultaneously within the ambit of recognition, hence recognition and redistribution are normative philosophical categories, whereby most struggle for recognition are tagged along wit the challenge of redistribution as well, maintaining some scene of two-dimensionality around the process. One’s socio-economic conditions drastically impact one’s life-chances which is why the redistribution of wealth across society and how an individual climbs up the corporate/social ladder to be able better negotiate the terms of redistribution (concerning the individual themselves or the society at large). 

• Representation 

The question of representation is two-fold wherein that notion of ‘if one is able to represent one’s Self’ (pertaining to legislative representations attained through electoral mechanisms prevalent in society) and ‘how is one represented in society, nation and globe at large’ (this entails the representation of certain individuals, social class or certain community within the popular culture, visual media such as films, adverts or aural and oral narratives which are circulated by either the members of the group or the individual themselves). The challenge of political representation can be assessed through ‘affirmative’ or ‘transformative’ policies in place to ensure the inclusivity and the terms of equal participation for all members of the political community, wherein certain affirmative policies hold the potential for creating transformative changes, for instance, the Constitutional Amendment BiIl demanding reservation of seats for Women in the Lower House of Parliament (i.e. Lok Sabha) holds the potential to transform the patriarchal and supposedly ‘paternalistic’ nature of Indian state through affirmative action. Similarly, how the facets of one’s identities are being represented in various forms of media drastically impacts one’s life chances because such representation becomes an important segue into the formation of ‘social identity’, considering “identity is the human capacity- rooted in knowledge- to know ‘who’s who’ (and hence ‘what is what’). This involves knowing who we are, knowing who others are, them knowing who we are, us knowing who they think we are (Jenkins, 1996).” 

• Reflexivity

Robert K. Merton's theory of "self fulfilling prophecy" which he discusses in his book Social Theory and Social Structure stating that if individuals can tell themselves something like, "I'm lower class, my family has always been lower class, there's no chance I'm ever going to be well off" and although this statement had the potential to not end up being true, it became true simply because the individual believed it would be so and through his attitude and lack of self-esteem, made it their reality. If one identifies themselves to belong from a low social class and believe that they are most likely never going to be anything else, that will affect one’s life conduct in a myriad of ways, which in turn will affect their life chances. For instance, the company one keeps can lead and help one regarding networking with people that may not help them get out of a low socioeconomic environment. It can also affect one’s life conduct by making them think they are not qualified enough for anything but working class jobs. It can also affect one’s life conduct by making one think that pursuing higher education is not for someone of one’s social standing, further ensuring that they may never get above working class work. The relationship between social class, life conduct, and life chances is a strong one that often decides what a person's fate in life will be like.

End Notes

• This couplet is borrowed from Mirza Ghalib’s famous ghazal “Naqsh-e-Faryadi” as an introductory quote to this paper because ‘sina-e-shamshir’ which translates to ‘chest of the sword’ is relatable to one’s sociological location and this couplet expresses how the strength (sharpness) of the sword lies outside the chest of the sword, i.e. ``The magnitude of one’s being ascend’s where they are sociologically located.”{P.S- ‘Sword’ in Hindi-Urdu poetry is often used as a metaphor for ‘reason’.}

• In Lacan's account of individuation, the infant must respond to the loss of symbiosis with the mother by creating a symbol of this lack, in the pursuit of which the infant is constrained by the always-already present structures of a natural language, hence, mother—and the world—are now mediated through the symbolic order and the exigencies of language, therefore, the  graph of desire can be understood to connote interference and constraint because desire for the primordial object is not fulfilled except through the constraints of the signifying chain (Lacan et al., 1966). 

•  Margret S Archer uses the concept of ‘internal conversation’ (which is synonymous to terms like ‘self-talk’, ‘musements’, ‘intra-communication’, ‘ruminations’ and ‘inner dialogue’) an an underlooked and unacknowledged yet a vital condition of social life through which one’s identity and one’s relationship with the world is being perpetually negotiated (Archer, 2007).

•  Durkhein holds that the persistence of social practice is the mark of ‘general needs of social organisms’ which are the mark of teleological explanation for ‘social facts’ asserting that cause and function have a reciprocal relationship wherein the effect cannot exist without cause, analogically the existence of individuals is a necessary but not sufficient condition, so society couldn’t exist without individuals, but individuals aren’t sufficient to give us social properties (Durkheim, 1982).

•  Merit acts as the criteria that enables one to negotiate their relationship with the fellow other, it is often based on socially sanctioned accreditations such as educational attainment, participation in the labour force (i.e. work experience) and recognition of excellence in different walks of life.

•  Mobility is linked to the process of occupational and educational achievement. It is argued that job and education mobility is generated by persons' attempts to maximize their status and income. Since opportunities for better jobs will be fewer the higher the occupational achievement already attained, the rate of mobility will depend on time in the labor force (Sorenson, 1975).

•  Status attainment research is concerned for equality of opportunity addressing issues about what determines a person's status (with special emphasis on the influence of the origin), and a person's status that usually varies over time.

•  ‘Class Mobility Approach’ engages with studying the movement across class (pertaining to occupation and wealth attainment) between the progenitor and progeny (i.e. parent and child) (Vaid, 2018).

•  Social structures both empower and constrain us differentially (which are broadly along the lines of class, gender and ethnicity, although not perfectly), people are not just ‘free’ to do whatever they want, instead their freedom comes from existing structures which are dependent on global capitalism, a monetary system, and the infrastructure of media technology.

•  Immanuel Kant in his essay “What is Enlightenment” refers to “tutelage” as a form of external determination, wherein he is advocating the cause of being free from ‘self-incurred tutelage’ as the freedom from needing directions from authority regarding one’s own understanding and objective in life, by claiming that tutelage is not caused by lack of reason but rather due to lack of resolution and courage to set one’s own goal as an end (Kant, 1784).

•  Ronald Dworkin advocates that ‘equality’ is the ultimate value of all political theories, endorsing that all political theories are ‘egalitarian theories' (Kymlicka, 2002).

•  According to Hegel, self-consciousness is essentially practical insofar as it involves a desiring relation to objects, and it is essentially social insofar as that relation becomes self-consciousness only through the recognition of other subjects whose ends constrain one's own desiring activity.

•  Judith Butler and Iris Marion Young, reject distinctions between economic ordering and cultural ordering as "dichotomizing." They claim that culture and economy are so deeply interconnected, so mutually constitutive, that they cannot meaningfully be distinguished at all. They also claim that contemporary society is so monolithically systematic, this position is termed “poststructuralist anti-dualism”.