The aim of this book has been to look at what social mobility actually means, rather than how much of it there is. It has tried to reflect on how what success means is at the heart of social mobility, arguing that the way in which social mobility is defined must be extended beyond just progression (or lack of it) in terms of occupation or income. This present definition of social mobility based soley on income/occupation risks exacerbating the corrosive impact of materialism on economic and social life in the 21st century. An alternative way of understanding social mobility is therefore essential, in order to tackle some of the biggest issues that we face in the 21st century. This means deconstructing the idea of social mobility, and understanding better what ‘social’ and ‘mobility’ means, rather than assuming that it can be reduced to economic factors, and that mobility automatically follows when economic status changes.

This new approach is best described as a holistic one. As argued in Chapter One, it is both a method and a definition. It means extending the field of social mobility to include the full range of factors that constitute progress in life. In such a holistic definition, social mobility is made up of changes in well-being which incorporate progress across a number of domains, and what constitutes these domains should be the product of more empirical work.

A starting point in understanding the kinds of relevant domains to social mobility would be the categories that the OECD used to construct its ‘Better Life’ Initiative (see Chapter Seven). These domains are interrelated but not autocorrelated – while one may determine another, the extent of this relationship is context-specific. Occupation and/or income in particular may be drivers of the other domains, but these domains exist independently. Nor is the relationship totally one way; much evidence exists to show that those whose well-being is low due to depression or stress, for instance, are less likely to progress in the labour market and less likely to be ‘occupationally socially mobile’ (Blaug et al 2007). The centrality and importance of occupation and income in defining individual welfare and progress are not being denied here, but they are not enough – and nor should they be – to capture all that it means to be ‘successful’ in life.