Opportunities are expanding...

Abstract

social mobility is an important aspect of American history. It is reflected in the early colonization and conquest of the native population and in the subsequent revolution for political independence. It appears as the ethnic mosaic of our immigrant forefathers. After the Great Depression, the steady migration of young persons from farms and small towns to the swelling cities entailed social as well as geographic mobility. Given the central place of social mobility in our historical past, it is easy to understand the vitality of our shared image of America as a land of opportunity. Perhaps because mobility is part of our national image, Americans continue to monitor the degree of opportunity in contemporary society. Interestingly, we seem more concerned that American society continue to be structured so as to permit social mobility across generations than that it contain less inequality in current social and economic standing. Americans assent to the awarding of widely different prizes to persons depending on their performance in the economic "race." But we insist that all run the race under the same set of rules so that ability and talent show themselves in a fair way; and we sometimes intervene on behalf of some who cannot start the race from the same place as most of us. Our social programs to insure equality of economic opportunity--to overcome the "handicaps" of social background--issue from this logic. Without regard to the wisdom of our comparative philosophical intolerance of inequality of opportunity as contrasted with our tolerance of inequality of socioeconomic well-being, we can address the question of whether contemporary American society continues to be permeable. For example, does it allow the offspring of lower status families to acquire the material well-being and occupational statuses of middle-class life to as great a degree as in the past? Some social commentators suggest that opportunities for socioeconomic advancement were quite extensive immediately following World War II, largely as a consequence of the war-heated economy and of the GI Bill for education. An evaluation by Patrick Owens in Newsday (June 11, 1975) puts it pointedly: