Typologies of Middle Class Mobility

Abstract

The social consequences of geographical mobility are usually conceptualized in terms of unidimensional dichotomies, such as those of Merton (`locals' and `cosmopolitans'), Stacey (`traditionalists' and `non-traditionalists'), and Watson (`burgesses' and `spiralists'). Despite their different meanings and limited generality, these typologies are applied and misused by current writers such as Bell, Frankenberg and Pahl. Typologies, even correctly applied, do not adequately cover the complexity of the processes involved in changes of place of residence. An alternative approach is suggested which rejects typologies and reduces both migration and orientation to local social milieux to their component factors.