Social mobility

Possibility to rise and decline in status.

Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.

That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ (cf. Marshall, Eighteenth Century, 32) - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of the aristocracy. This, however, was a long-term project, and sometimes, the integration of new families into the elite could take two or three generations (cf. Mc Cahill, 601). Anyway, one may still speak of a kind of “open elite” to some extent (McCahill, 601). Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, Eighteenth Century, 34). A comment in The World from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor (cf. Marshall, Eighteenth Century, 34).

In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” (Bermingham 365). Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, for property was often used in order to measure one’s social status (cf. Marshall, People, 42). It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, Eighteenth Century, 29-30).

Sources:

Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for Plebes. Consumption and Social Identity in Early Eighteenth-Century England.” The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. 362-382.

Marshall, Dorothy. Eighteenth Century England. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.

Marshall, Dorothy. English people in the Eighteenth Century. London: Longmans, 1962.

McCahill, Michael W. “Open Elites: Recruitment to the French Noblesse and the English Aristocracy in the Eighteenth Century.” Albion. A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 30 (1998): 599-629.