On Poverty and Progress
Thernstrom, Stephan. Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. pp. 302. Paperback.
As dry as it may be, this is an example of historical sociology done well. Therstrom starts his book trying to make sense of changes in socio-economic status, as sociologists in the 1960s were raising alarm bells that social stratification was becoming more rigid than before and social mobility was becoming increasingly muted.
From this angle, Therstrom seeks to contextualize the question of whether social mobility was notably different from earlier periods in American history. At the time, the only studies of 19th century social mobility emphasized on business leaders and corporate presidents who rose to their positions from, largely, middle class backgrounds. This made social mobility seem really fluid, but Therstrom recognizes that millionaires can hardly be used as representative subjects for a study on social mobility. As a result, he turns his attention to Newburyport, a largely working-class mill town formed in the 19th century, which he examines in the period between 1850-80.
Ultimately, he argues that there was little social mobility in real numbers in mid-19th century Newburyport. Yet, what little improvements workers made felt, to them, like it was significant. They were able to modestly increase their savings, purchase property and homes, and improve their financial status without moving into the middle or upper classes. Contributing to this is the importance of immigration—many workers in Newburyport had their origins in England and Ireland, and the comparison between social mobility between the United Kingdom and the United States, although modest, was notable. To them, small increases felt like significant changes—something that I can relate to in my own experience. Moving from an income of around $22k USD per year to around $30k per year has felt like a world of change to me, and I see a bit of myself in the sense of pride the workers of Newburyport felt about improving their lot.
By the end of the book, Therstrom makes the case that rising in social class in the United States was difficult in the 1960s, but it had always been difficult. He’s cautiously optimistic here that social mobility actually seemed to become slightly more fluid in the post-war years, which tracks with my own knowledge of the period. However, social fluidity has since declined again and seems more in line today with the mid-19th century than the mid-20th century.
The book is a bit dated, but it might be worth the read for those curious.