Search

This article explores the question: can the variation that have been observed in class mobility rates in England, France and Sweden be in fact attributed entirely to differences in the evolution of the class structures of these societies - or in other factors affecting the demand and supply conditions attending mobility; or is it rather the case that there are, in addition to such structural sources of variation, differences also among the three societies in the pattern of what we would term their social fluidity or, in other words, in mobility considered independently of structural influences? To use the conceptual language that has been conventional in mobility research- but from which we would wish to depart -- the issue could then be alternatively posed as that of whether the cross-national variation that we have demonstrated is confined simply to structural mobility, or whether it extends to exchange mobility as well. The source of mobility data in England, France and Sweden have been fully described in previous paper of these authors. Here it will be sufficient to say that the data derive from nationally-based sample survey inquiries undertaken in the three countries during the early 1970s.

The article presents a comparative study of the development and influence of large urban populations on social structure and politics in Birmingham, England and Lyons, France. Birmingham and Lyons were two of the most important towns in Europe in the period between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Revolutions of 1848. Before discussing the obvious differences, it is important to stress three points which the towns had in common: Neither town was distinguished by big enterprises. The second point that the towns had in common has been less frequently-stressed. The workers in Birmingham and Lyons were relatively well off--when in employments-compared with workers in other parts of England and France. The voice of the Birmingham and Lyons working classes was more than the voice of hunger. It was frequently, however, the voice of unemployment. The important difference between the social structure of Birmingham and Lyons should be stressed. While the social structure of Birmingham made for middle-class cooperation with the working clashes, the social structure of Lyons made for social antagonism and conflict. While the tendency in Birmingham was to try to build up political organizations based on cooperation between the classes, the tendency in Lyons was for fabricants, chefs d'ateliers and compagnons to meet and organize separately.