The main originality of this thesis is to extend the social stratification and Marxist class-analysis framework with a life course perspective. This section is dedicated to introducing the life course perspective and show how it is applied to the social stratification framework to build the main theoretical framing of this thesis.
Accordingly, I will first give a general definition of the life course, define its main components in light of a multidisciplinary view on the life course, sketch out the main principles of life course analysis and discuss the main issues that have been studied in this field (2.2.1). The second section (2.2.2) discusses how the life course perspective is an integral part of gerontological research and notably, how and which main areas it has influenced the latter. The third section (2.2.3) then brings forward one of the most significant and ongoing debates in life course research, namely the debate on de-standardization and de-institutionalization of the life course. Section 2.2.4 then transitions towards a more applied description of the life course – how it can be useful for the study of the construction of inequalities. This is done by focusing on the two main bodies of literature that link social stratification and the life course together.
Finally, section 2.2.5 summarizes this part.
2.2.1 What is the life course?
A general definition of the life course
In one sentence, the life course can be defined as „a sequence of age-graded events and social roles that are embedded in the social structure and historical change“ (Elder., 2001, p. 8817) Thus, it is made up by three main components: First, analyzing the life course means looking at a sequence of age-graded events and social roles. This is probably the most significant element and fundamentally distinguishes the life course perspective from traditional sociological analyses. Traditionally, a person is observed at a given moment in time t. At this moment it is considered as possessing a number of characteristics and traits: Social position, education, marital status, employment status, etc. Usually, these information are then used in order to determine the relationship between such characteristics. In doing so, the characteristics a person possesses are considered as being static. However, most characteristics that people can have are anything but static. They are dynamic and change throughout a person's life. This dynamic perspective, the inclusion of all transitions and changes regarding a certain life domain is what this first life course postulate is about. A typical example might be a person's professional status. At a given time t, a person might be unemployed. Two years previously, this person might have still been in school, then gotten out of school a year later and finally, become unemployed. A traditional analysis would only consider the current professional status of being unemployed. In doing so, the sequence of statuses leading to the current situation is neglected (the sequence here being education-employment- unemployment). Obviously, this postulate concerns multiple areas of life such as work, family life or educational-trajectory. Furthermore, Elder cites both roles and events. This specification results from the fact that a researcher can typically focus on either the evolution of a person's role or status over his or her life, or on the occurrence of certain events. Naturally, in most cases a change of status coincides with a certain event: The birth of a child (event) signifies the transition into parenthood (status), the event of a marriage (event) changes the marital status into „married“
(status).
The second aspect that Elder brings forward is that of a socio-structural (one might also call this socio-cultural) embedding of the life course. This refers to the fact that a person is always situated in a specific cultural and social context which might have important influence on his or her life and thus on the sequence of events and roles. An example would be the migratory trajectory and thus the sequence of locations a person lives over the course of his or her life. In a country such as Switzerland where rural and peri-urban regions are relatively well-connected and offer plenty of work-opportunities, a person might be much more likely to only change locations in a rural area (leading towards a migration sequence in the form of rural-rural-rural, etc.). In a different cultural context, notably in countries with a very high degree of urbanization such as Japan, the likelihood of such a predominantly rural migratory sequence is very small.
Thirdly, the same is true for historical periods. The most-cited example therefore is the period of the large economic upswing in the post-war era. In this time, the chances for a
work-trajectory that was characterized by full-employment whereas a person who was born at the turn of the century and who experienced the periods of the great depression might find its professional-trajectory, the sequence of work-statuses or work-events, to be much different.
The life course perspective has since become an important tool in social sciences and has tremendously grown in importance. It has, also seen a significant process towards its institutionalization; there are dedicated journals, research institutions and professorships dedicated to this field. Moreover, this perspective has had a significant impact in many research areas, such as public-health or poverty research, just to name two more prominent examples. Some authors consider the introduction of a dynamic, life course based perspective for the analysis of social phenomena as one of the most significant social science developments of the last quarter century (Settersten, 2006).
Components of the life course
If this were a mono-disciplinary thesis in sociology, the general definition given the previous paragraph might be sufficient. However, given that it features a fundamentally interdisciplinary approach and studies objects as diverse as poverty, functional health and depression,it is necessary to deepen the definition of this framework by defining each of the composing elements of the life course more specifically. This has to be done since similar terms are used differently in different disciplines. In this regard, I follow the framework for the interdisciplinary study of the life course outlined by Levy and the PAVIE team (2005). Accordingly, there are four main elements that need to be specified:
Trajectory, stage, transition and event. In the following list, each of the composing elements is discussed.
• Trajectory: As outlined by Levy and colleagues (2005), a trajectory can be defined as „model of stability and long term changes“(Levy, 2005, p. 11) or
„sequence of profiles of insertion“ (Levy, 2005, p. 11). In that regard, the term trajectory is used to describe the movements and developments that occurred and characterize the whole span of life. On a more formal level, trajectories are made up by a sequence of transitions (signifying changes in the life course) and stages (signifying times of stability). As Levy (2005) explains further, in theory a person's global life trajectory contains all the elements that can occur over a lifetime as they influence each other. Additionally, this „global model“ of the life course would also consider historical, institutional and geographical contexts. Finally, a trajectory is also dependent on other people's trajectories, following the linked lives principle. In its pure theoretical formulation, a life course has to be studied holistically including all of the elements and dynamics that influence it as one unit. However, for reasons of practicality and feasibility, most researchers prefer to distinguish specific trajectories such as marital, professional, health or residential trajectories (Ritschard & Oris, 2005).
• Stage: There is a general consensus among disciplines regarding the meaning of stage. A life stage refers to a period in a person's life that is characterized by
relative stability. In a more dynamic view, stages can also be seen as „the stable state between two transitions“ (Levy, 2005, p. 13)Other terms that mean the same concept are: Episode, state, phase.
• Transition: As was the case for the previous concept, there is once again general agreement in terms of meaning of the concept transition. Transition, clearly, refers to the idea of change: „Change from one state or situation to another, from one life period to another, from one status or role to another. [...]we might define a transition as the (short) period of change relating consecutive stages.
[...] Examples of transitions are [...] from single life to marriage, from adolescence to adulthood, from the status of an employee to that of a manager“
(Levy, 2005, p. 15). One aspect which will be important for this thesis is that there are different concepts, different interpretations regarding the nature of transitions based on different disciplines. They can generally be divided into two groups: A first one refers to transitions as relatively normative and neutral events. Opposed to this, a second group considers them as non-normative and thus potentially disruptive critical life-events (Vandecasteele, 2010).
The first group refers to events which bring a change of situation but with little or no significant implications. These events are usually experienced by a majority of a birth cohort as well as at a certain “normative” age. As an illustration, one might think of a couple who is already living together in the same household and that already has a child together getting married. This transition can be considered as a transition into a new status while being highly „regular“. The event of marriage does with a very high likelihood not signify major changes for the life trajectories of these two people but rather it is a transition that happens in absolute coherence with their previous life trajectories.
In the second group, there are events that are non-normative and possibly disruptive.
Here, one can place the sociological concept of „turning point“ which refers to a transition that brings on a change of direction. A turning point is not „just a mere confirmation of this trajectory by a transition that fits into a general pattern“ (Levy, 2005, p. 15). An example hereof would be to lose a partner by death. This is an event which is most likely not expected, which does not harmoniously fit into a life trajectory and therefore might possess great potential to create specific new life-dynamics, negative or positive (Perrig-Chiello, Spahni, Höpflinger, & Carr, In Press).
• Events: The last element is given by events. Obviously, this concept is heavily related to the previously described concept of transitions since it is generally (but not necessarily) events that signify transitions. Levy (2005)defines them as
„what happens at a given time in a given place“ (Levy, 2005, p. 15). but notes that this definition is ambiguous. The reason for this ambiguity is that some events are expected and regular, whereas others are singular and unexpected.
The differing nature of transitions (which are usually brought on by certain events) has been outlined in the previous point on transitions. As in the previous discussion on transitions, this distinction is once again highly interesting to note. This different nature of events is operationalized and considered to highly
varying degrees in different disciplines. In sociology, being mainly focused on social structures rather than individual behavior, scholars generally insist on the expectedness of events. In complete contrast to this, cognitive psychology conceptualizes events as a certain stimulus which can trigger a certain amount of stress, depending on the unexpectedness of it. Social demography, as Levy claims, lies somewhere in between the two and generally uses statistical regularity to classify events.
The distinction in terms of the nature of occurring events and transitions is highly relevant for this thesis given that it focuses on the construction of inequalities. Naturally, unexpected non-normative events do by far not have the same meaning in this regard than expected, normative ones. This aspect will feature as a key component in the analysis of inequalities in the empirical part of this thesis.
The following section will put forward how this newly defined object of research has been analyzed based on six main principles.
Principles of the life course perspective
The piece of research which is considered as the defining work for the life course perspective is Glen Elders „Children of the Great Depression“ (Elder, 1999). First published in 1974, it studies a birth-cohort starting in the United States from their childhood all through their lives up until adulthood and old-age. The publication earns its title based on the fact that the studied cohorts have indeed lived through the period of the Great Depression.
Elder himself did not initially conceive his book to define a new sociological paradigm and thus, in its first publication it was more about the results in themselves rather than generalizing ways of conceptualizing different aspects and dynamics of the life course.
In consequent republications and with the growth of the life course paradigm a number of general principles, based on the initial results, have been formulated. The following list describes them as they are presented in (Shanahan & Macmillan, 2008, pp. 57–58)It is to note that some of these principles are at the same time specific mechanisms, capturing specific life-course dynamics:
• Principle 1, Time and Place: This first principle refers to the historical and spatial embedding of people's life course. Specific historical as well as geographical settings provide people with different life-chances or constraints, respectively. People with comparable profiles (sex, age, socioeconomic status, etc.) that are studied at different historical times or in different geographical contexts might have experienced different outcomes and different life-course patterns.
• Principle 2, Situational Imperatives: The second principle refers to specific social demands and can also be regarded as a mechanism of life course dynamics. To a certain extent it is the consequence of the first principle.
According to such specific settings social dynamics may be different.
• Principle 3, Linked Lives: The third principle regards the influence of relationships that a person maintains on his or her life course: With friends, a partner, family, etc. This principle is also an important mechanism for life course dynamics and can be tested in empirical analyses.
• Principle 4, Agency: The fourth principle concerns an individual's personal motivation, ambition and values. This might be responsible for different outcomes even if people that are studied are situated in the same geographical, historical and social context. As will be explained further on, there is an ongoing debate on whether it is agency that is the key determinant of people's life-course (a position which is usually attributed to scholars with a more psychological approach) or whether it is social structures (this position is more often attributed to sociologists, notably European sociologists). Furthermore, a number of scholars have started to acknowledge that it is impossible to determine which is more crucial and that more holistic approaches are required accounting for both forces. Most prominently, “agency within structures” has become an approach which takes both into consideration. Even though this principle is also regarded as a mechanism, as a life course dynamic, it is in most cases not easy to disentangle agency from social stratification effects (see (Marshall & Clarke, 2010; Settersten & Gannon, 2005).
• Principle 5, Life-Stage: The fifth principle posits that social phenomena across the life course have to be studied in function of the particular life-stage at which they occur. Similar events have different effects and implications for specific life-stages. The loss of a parent, for example, can have a different impact. This is also a life-course mechanism.
• Principle 6, Accentuation: The sixth and final life course principle is also a life course mechanism. I claim it can be regarded as a combined result from all the previous principles: A specific historical and geographical setting (principle 1) creates a specific social environment (principle 2) which, in function of a person's social resources (principle 3), personal motivation (principle 4), and age (principle 5) can be regarded as a certain pressure that accentuates a certain response, behavior and outcome of the studied person.
As Shanahan and MacMillan (2008) conclude, the life course is obviously a construct with these six principles as possible factors or angles of influence. None is hierarchically superior to any of the others. For the analysis of inequalities in old-age the first, fourth and fifth principles are primordial: The historical (cohort effects), geographical (cantonal differences) and social embedding (social structures and social stratification) of people's trajectories, individual agency and the focus on different life-stages and their influence on inequalities in old-age. The second and sixth principle are applied to a certain extent as different historical and geographical settings might influence the occurrence of specific events that are looked at in this thesis. The third, linked lives, cannot be regarded due to the lack of such data.
Up to this point, this part has introduced the life course framework and its main working components as well as its principles of analysis. In the following parts, we move on to
life course theory. In the following section I briefly outline the different traditions in life course theory, the North American perspective and the European one. Following this, there is an overview of the classical issues of this framework.
Origins of life course theory: North American and European contributions
As is usually the case with the formation of social theory, there are numerous contributors that can be associated with a certain body of literature. They may range from scholars who explicitly invested themselves in the process of theory building in a certain discipline or topic to scholars who have (often unconsciously) only contributed indirectly but whose work has significantly influenced the formation and development of a perspective or theory (Szacki, 1979). The life course perspective is no exception to this rule.
As has been discussed so far, it might seem that the life course perspective has grown out of an North American tradition. And there is indeed a very rich history of life course research that has been done by American scholars: In a review on the origins of life course theory, Marshall and Mueller (2003) cite numerous North American key influences starting from early contributors such as C.W. Mills (2000) and Leonard Cain (2009), to the important groundwork laid out in the 1970s by Mathilda White Riley (1979) and Berenice Neugarten (1970) to, of course, Glen Elder who produced the largest contribution for the formalization of what Marshall and Mueller call the North American life course tradition11. However, the life course perspective has also been cultivated in Europe, most notably by the Bremen school but also elsewhere. The contribution of these authors and this tradition as a whole should not be neglected.
While there are numerous similarities and mutual influences between the two traditions, Marshall and Mueller (2003) conclude that the main differences can be found in the fact that “Bremen and other European life-course researchers have paid more attention than North American researchers to macro-level social structure, and especially concerning the role of the state” (Marshall & Mueller, 2003, p. 23). In other words, the institutionalization of the life course has been an important emphasis for the European tradition of life course scholars. Accordingly, Marshall and Mueller identify some differences between the two approaches with regards to following specific topics (see Marshall & Mueller, 2003, pp. 18-22)12.
• Social time: This concept is used by life course theorists across the globe to refer to the order of life-course events, and the fulfillment of social roles in function of age, social expectations and sanctions. In the north American
11 These authors are just some of the numerous contributors that are identified by Marshall and Mueller. Not mentioned are authors to which the cited scholars refer themselves - such as Linton (1940, 1942) and
11 These authors are just some of the numerous contributors that are identified by Marshall and Mueller. Not mentioned are authors to which the cited scholars refer themselves - such as Linton (1940, 1942) and