The Limits of ‘Opportunity’: Is There a Clear Labour or Conservative View of Social Mobility?

Joseph Maslen
{"title":"The Limits of ‘Opportunity’: Is There a Clear Labour or Conservative View of Social Mobility?","authors":"Joseph Maslen","doi":"10.1111/1467-923x.13368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the relationship between views of social mobility in British politics, identifying four competing views in government statements, political news stories and opinion pieces. The two established views are the Blairite liberal view, which seeks to widen entry into the ‘playing field’ of educational ‘opportunity’, and its companion bourgeois view, protecting the acclaim given to elite educational experiences. Against these established views are two insurgent views: a (politically ignored) socialist view and a ‘postliberal’ view introduced into the Social Mobility Commission under the chairship of the loosely Conservative‐aligned Katharine Birbalsingh. On the right, the postliberal and bourgeois views explicitly clash. On the left, with the socialist view dormant, the postliberal view is assimilated by Labour almost as a socialism substitute, appearing in turn with the Blairite liberal view in Labour rhetoric. The result is, respectively on right and left, disharmony and incoherence in the meaning of social mobility.","PeriodicalId":504210,"journal":{"name":"The Political Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Political Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.13368","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article considers the relationship between views of social mobility in British politics, identifying four competing views in government statements, political news stories and opinion pieces. The two established views are the Blairite liberal view, which seeks to widen entry into the ‘playing field’ of educational ‘opportunity’, and its companion bourgeois view, protecting the acclaim given to elite educational experiences. Against these established views are two insurgent views: a (politically ignored) socialist view and a ‘postliberal’ view introduced into the Social Mobility Commission under the chairship of the loosely Conservative‐aligned Katharine Birbalsingh. On the right, the postliberal and bourgeois views explicitly clash. On the left, with the socialist view dormant, the postliberal view is assimilated by Labour almost as a socialism substitute, appearing in turn with the Blairite liberal view in Labour rhetoric. The result is, respectively on right and left, disharmony and incoherence in the meaning of social mobility.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机会 "的局限性:工党或保守党对社会流动性有明确的看法吗?
本文探讨了英国政治中社会流动性观点之间的关系,从政府声明、政治新闻报道和舆论文章中找出了四种相互竞争的观点。两种既定观点是布莱尔自由主义观点和资产阶级观点,前者旨在扩大教育 "机会 "的 "竞争范围",后者旨在保护精英教育经历所获得的赞誉。与这些既定观点相对应的是两种起义观点:一种是(在政治上被忽视的)社会主义观点,另一种是在与保守党松散结盟的凯瑟琳-伯巴辛(Katharine Birbalsingh)主持下被引入社会流动性委员会的 "后自由主义 "观点。在右边,后自由主义观点和资产阶级观点明显冲突。在左翼,由于社会主义观点处于休眠状态,后自由主义观点几乎作为社会主义的替代品被工党吸收,并与布莱尔自由主义观点一起出现在工党的言论中。其结果是,左右两派在社会流动性的意义上分别出现了不和谐和不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Scrutiny of Police Institutions and the Spectre of Culture The language of imperial violence Liz Truss between dogma and ideology Were recent constitutional reforms desirable? From Estimating to Explaining and Eliminating Ethnic Disproportionality in Stop and Search
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1