Individual success, collective failure?

Public dialogue about social mobility in many countries has recently been dominated by the myth of meritocracy and uses a neo-liberal vocabulary aspiration, ambition, choice, considering as an individual project self-advancement involving moving up hierarchy (Lawler & Payne, 2018; Friedman Laurison, 2020). Meritocracy suggests that whatever your position at birth, society ought to offer enough opportunity for ‘talent’, when combined with ‘effort’, ‘rise top’. This idea is one most prevalent cultural tropes our time (Littler, 2017). In this discourse, new panacea wider historic ills, answer increase classed racialised inequalities. special issue aims challenge widespread public political discourse deploying sociological perspectives asking how (upward but also downward) works, fluid contemporary societies are, what means those experiencing it, implications are ‘individual […] success cost collective failure’ (Reay, 2018). As educational sociologist academic working-class background, Diane Reay (2013) argues ‘[a]t level, no solution either inequalities or economic injustices. But level it inadequate solution, particularly us whose was driven desire “put things right” “make better” communities we came from people left behind.’ 2013, p. 674). The papers testimony theoretical stance upward cannot be seen needs understood analysed context (among others, Lawler 2020; Bukodi Goldthorpe, 2019). authors tackle topic two perspectives. first group research measure analyse processes using conventional occupation education indexes not-so-conventional ‘soft’ variables intergenerational transmission parental capital(s) on outcomes. Beyond these mainstream studies, second articles consists ‘marginal research’ 2018), small-scale investigations provide readers insights into upwardly downwardly mobile experience they have travel through spaces, leaving behind class adjusting life another.