Beliefs about social permeability, not objective structure, shape whether people pursue mobility or change

Evidence

Other social and behavioral continua are associated with the interpersonal-intergroup continuum. One of them may serve to summarize a quasi-ideological dimension of attitudes, values, and beliefs that may be plausibly hypothesized to play a causal role in relation to it. This dimension will also be characterized by its two extremes, which we shall refer to as “social mobility” and “social change.” These terms are not used here in their sociological sense. They refer instead to individuals’ belief systems about the nature and the structure of the relations between social groups in their society. The belief system of “social mobility” is based on the general assumption that the society in which the individuals live is a flexible and permeable one, so that if they are not satisfied, for whatever reason, with the conditions imposed upon their lives by membership in social groups or social categories to which they belong, it is possible for them (be it through talent, hard work, good luck, or whatever other means) to move individually into another group that suits them better. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2680

Categorization

• XREF: Maps directly onto the reader’s question of whether fixed/essentialist identity can be held strategically — Tajfel’s distinction between social-mobility and social-change belief systems parallels the individual vs collective availability of ironic identity performance. Also connects to Hirschman’s exit/voice framework invoked here. — connects to: The social mobility belief system assumes society is permeable enough for individual escape; Believing in individual mobility makes low-status people deny their own victimization — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 934; Divergent beliefs about poverty’s cause coexist with identical mobility. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 138 (+11 more)
• SEED: The social-mobility vs social-change belief system distinction could frame an essay on why strategic essentialism is available only collectively — because individual ‘exit’ from a stigmatized identity is the mobility belief, whereas strategic essentialism requires the collective social-change belief.

Broader Connections

• A social-mobility belief system assumes individuals can exit their group through personal effort. #corroborates (0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2680
• The social mobility belief system assumes society is permeable enough for individual escape #corroborates (0.82)
• Subjective status marginality, not objective SES, drives ethnocentrism #corroborates (0.80) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 638
• Believing in individual mobility makes low-status people deny their own victimization #expands (0.78) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 934
• Belief in individual mobility suppresses victims’ perception of discrimination. #expands (0.78)
• Attributing success to traits rather than position blocks social mobility #qualifies (0.75)
• Easy individual mobility weakens subordinate-group solidarity and collective action #expands (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2747
• Guaranteed equal opportunity converts social mobility into perceived competition #expands (0.75)
• Divergent beliefs about poverty’s cause coexist with identical mobility. #exemplifies (0.72) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 138
• Upward mobility can breed prejudice, not just downward mobility #complicates (0.72)