Social Geography -> Migration -> Residential Mobility
Fischer, C. (2002) The ever-more rooted Americans, City & Community, 1(2) p. 175-193Abstract: Many scholars attribute contemporary ills to greater "rootlessness" among Americans. Residential mobility may be of some concern because local communities are disrodered and vulnerable individuals are at risk when turnover is especially rapid. However, rates of residential mobility actually declines between the 19th and 20th centuries and continued to decline between 1950 and 1999. Analysis of Current Population Surveys shows that: in the population overall, the decline in mobility rates occurred for local moves - rates of cross-county moves stayed almost constant; Americans across age, race, gender, and class experienced the decline; but certain specific groups experienced either no drop or a slight increase in mobility. The latter seem distinctive in being the most economically marginal.
Summary of main points: In this paper Fischer argues against a popular belief that contemporary society is more mobile where increasing rates of mobility have a detrimental impact on family, community, tradition and social ties. Fischer points to the data from American population surveys conducted by US Census, which clearly illustrate that the rates of residential mobility are actually decreasing over time. In fact, Fischer argues that the trends of the last 100 years - "rising rates of divorce and unwedded motherhood, earlier sexual initiation, mothers' participation in the labor force, increasing work hours (although this is debated by Robinson & Godbey), declining fertility, and so on - have coexisted with increasing residential stability.
Fischer attempts to answer two important questions:
1. Does residential mobility matter?
2. How has the pattern of residential mobility change over time?
Does residential mobility matter?
Fischer suggests that it does. However, he rejects the outright notion that residential mobility has blanket negative effects. Instead, he states that for the most part, immediate effects of residential mobility are benign or even positive, although individuals who are forced to move may experience negative side effects. Thus while mobility matters, it may not be the harbringer of all negative things to the communities it affects. In fact, growing stability of the population may have more impact on that than residential mobility.
How has the pattern of residential mobility change over time?
(1) Lifecycle strongly shapes moving patterns.
(2) Unmarried people are more likely to move than married people
(3) Renters are far more likely to move than home-owners
(4) Movers with more education are more likely to move long distance while those with less education are more likely to move locally (no high school degree vs. college degree or more).
(5) Much of American mobility is composed of repeat moves by the same people. Julie DaVanzo also pointed out that people who have just moved were more likely to move again. The longer a person remains in a place the less likely they are to move from there.
Some observations on changes in mobility patterns
(1) The general "settling in" of Americans over the last half-century is mainly the result of middle-aged and elderly Americans making fewer moves locally than did their parents and grandparents at mid-century
(2) Single-parent and extended households (these households tend to be the most vulnerable to economic changes and stresses) experienced the least decline in mobility
(3) Older people who rent, service workers and the least educated have experienced a rise in mobility, presumably because of the more frequent of loss of jobs and diminishing number of jobs available for those less educated or less able (an increase in marginality).
Relevance: Fischer rightly asks why, although the numbers he reviews are easily available through Census and are even publicized annually, the mystique of residential mobility and the myth of it's increase and horrible effects have persisted. He suggests that this maybe due to the overarching grand narrative of social decline due to modernization that persists in sociology. I would want to argue this, however, since even non-sociologists, in fact mostly non-sociologists are convinced that residential mobility is on the rise. It is the sense of popular culture, the intuition of the uninitated that we respond to here - and that intuition tells us that we work longer hours, move more residentially, are in general less healthy and, maybe, have forgotten to send holiday cards to our families once again. I am curious why the numbers show one thing and we feel another? That wrong scenario somehow feels more right to us, to me, even when I know it is wrong. What is it in our search for love and contentment, that forces us to find the same scapegoats year after year, placing blame and ambling along, claiming to having been wronged by modernity, technology, changes, even when these changes are the ones we, ourselves initiate.
Related work:
Working papers from A Century of Difference project lead by Claude Fischer.
Reference leads (other things to look up):
Fischer, Claude (1978) Why people move house New Society 25(November): 406-7
Long, Larry (1988) Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sampson, Robert J. (1988) Local friendship networks and community attachment in mass society: A multi-level systemic model. American Sociological Review 53(October): 766-79
Summary of main points: In this paper Fischer argues against a popular belief that contemporary society is more mobile where increasing rates of mobility have a detrimental impact on family, community, tradition and social ties. Fischer points to the data from American population surveys conducted by US Census, which clearly illustrate that the rates of residential mobility are actually decreasing over time. In fact, Fischer argues that the trends of the last 100 years - "rising rates of divorce and unwedded motherhood, earlier sexual initiation, mothers' participation in the labor force, increasing work hours (although this is debated by Robinson & Godbey), declining fertility, and so on - have coexisted with increasing residential stability.
Fischer attempts to answer two important questions:
1. Does residential mobility matter?
2. How has the pattern of residential mobility change over time?
Does residential mobility matter?
Fischer suggests that it does. However, he rejects the outright notion that residential mobility has blanket negative effects. Instead, he states that for the most part, immediate effects of residential mobility are benign or even positive, although individuals who are forced to move may experience negative side effects. Thus while mobility matters, it may not be the harbringer of all negative things to the communities it affects. In fact, growing stability of the population may have more impact on that than residential mobility.
How has the pattern of residential mobility change over time?
(1) Lifecycle strongly shapes moving patterns.
(2) Unmarried people are more likely to move than married people
(3) Renters are far more likely to move than home-owners
(4) Movers with more education are more likely to move long distance while those with less education are more likely to move locally (no high school degree vs. college degree or more).
(5) Much of American mobility is composed of repeat moves by the same people. Julie DaVanzo also pointed out that people who have just moved were more likely to move again. The longer a person remains in a place the less likely they are to move from there.
Some observations on changes in mobility patterns
(1) The general "settling in" of Americans over the last half-century is mainly the result of middle-aged and elderly Americans making fewer moves locally than did their parents and grandparents at mid-century
(2) Single-parent and extended households (these households tend to be the most vulnerable to economic changes and stresses) experienced the least decline in mobility
(3) Older people who rent, service workers and the least educated have experienced a rise in mobility, presumably because of the more frequent of loss of jobs and diminishing number of jobs available for those less educated or less able (an increase in marginality).
Relevance: Fischer rightly asks why, although the numbers he reviews are easily available through Census and are even publicized annually, the mystique of residential mobility and the myth of it's increase and horrible effects have persisted. He suggests that this maybe due to the overarching grand narrative of social decline due to modernization that persists in sociology. I would want to argue this, however, since even non-sociologists, in fact mostly non-sociologists are convinced that residential mobility is on the rise. It is the sense of popular culture, the intuition of the uninitated that we respond to here - and that intuition tells us that we work longer hours, move more residentially, are in general less healthy and, maybe, have forgotten to send holiday cards to our families once again. I am curious why the numbers show one thing and we feel another? That wrong scenario somehow feels more right to us, to me, even when I know it is wrong. What is it in our search for love and contentment, that forces us to find the same scapegoats year after year, placing blame and ambling along, claiming to having been wronged by modernity, technology, changes, even when these changes are the ones we, ourselves initiate.
Related work:
Working papers from A Century of Difference project lead by Claude Fischer.
Reference leads (other things to look up):
Fischer, Claude (1978) Why people move house New Society 25(November): 406-7
Long, Larry (1988) Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sampson, Robert J. (1988) Local friendship networks and community attachment in mass society: A multi-level systemic model. American Sociological Review 53(October): 766-79
posted by Q at 15:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home