Horizontal mobility and possibilities of its actualization

Full Text

Introduction
In the work "Social Mobility" the ideas about vertical and horizontal parameters of social space are sometimes blurred. When describing the specifics of vertical characteristics, P. Sorokin uses examples of different positions (worker and director) within one social group (Sorokin 2005). They are at different heights of social space, but at the same time they are located on the same horizontal level. The situation is different with representatives of distinct social groups. If we are talking about an ordinary soldier and a general, they are at the same horizontal level. If we compare a soldier and an office worker, we can say with confidence that they are defined differently in the horizontal plane. In those cases where we are sure that there are no noticeable vertical movements in the changes that have occurred, then they are in the horizontal area. Before describing "horizontal mobility" in detail, it is necessary to show how Sorokin initially imagined horizontal mobility and its varieties. 
In the System of Sociology, Sorokin uses the concept of social regroupings to designate mainly elements of horizontal mobility (Sorokin 2008). They are divided into three types. The first includes the movements of individuals between groups that do not lead to any structural changes, but only to an increase or decrease in the volume of these groups. The second includes the disappearance of groups and the emergence of new groups that are homogeneous in their structure or cumulatively assembled from them. The third also includes the disappearance of groups, which, however, leads to replacement by new, architecturally more complex, heterogeneous, previously non-existent groups. It is noteworthy when describing social groupings of natural characteristics (race, gender, age), Sorokin defends the principle that socio-psychological differences are formed, among other things, under the influence of biological differences, which means that natural inequality is partially reproduced in social inequality. From this, the conclusion is made that ""horizontal" differentiation inevitably results in "vertical" differentiation."

Social stratification and its causation
Before describing what social mobility is and its varieties, P. Sorokin tries to explain why social stratification – the division of people into classes – is an integral feature of any society (Sorokin 1937). The main prerequisite for the emergence of differentiation is inequality itself and, as a consequence, the uneven distribution of goods, values and rights. Inequality can be expressed in several forms. If we are talking about the difference in income, standard of living, this can be considered as economic stratification. It is not possible to say that society is moving towards flattening economic inequality. According to Sorokin, there are global cycles within which we can talk about some economic trends. Society is subject to fluctuations, and if some abnormal deviations in economic stratification occur, it stabilizes and enters the usual state of dynamic equilibrium.
Within one group, to have greater or lesser prestige, to have a high or low rank, or, using the vocabulary of P. Bourdieu, to occupy a different position with respect to “symbolic capital,” means to be in a politically differentiated group (Bourdieu 2004). Just as with the economic side, political stratification cannot be defined unambiguously. There is no way to say exactly which types of political systems will arise more often and which less often, or to assign a certain type of stratification to a certain type of political organization. However, it can be said with certainty that the political structure is subject to the same fluctuations, and sometimes strives for greater differentiation and stratification, and sometimes for equalization and averaging. If in a society that is divided into different groups according to the type of their activity, some jobs are valued higher than others or are considered more prestigious, we are talking about professional stratification (Lenski, Gerhard 1954). Sorokin's increase in the level of professional mobility is mainly associated with an increase in the requirements for intellectual capabilities in the position held and the need to control others in it. Each professional group is divided into three layers: entrepreneurs (owners), managers, and hired workers. The former are considered to be free from restrictions, whose decisions are intellectual work, and they completely determine the behavior of other workers. The height of stratification for the same position of positions held (manager) between different organizations may differ if the level of rights and freedoms provided is incomparable. The height of the position is affected by the type and nature of the organization, and the very limitation of opportunities in the same position held can be considered as a decrease in professional stratification. 
In general, stratification can manifest itself in different ways, but all this diversity usually comes down to these three forms. At the same time, these forms are closely intertwined. If a person is economically successful, then most likely he will also have a high political and / or professional position. However, this should not be regarded as a rule. If society were viewed only through the perspective of social stratification, it would appear as a rigid hierarchical structure that would reproduce itself in an unchanging manner. Although Sorokin reports that it is impossible to determine the behavior of stratification, it is certain that it is subject to fluctuations. These fluctuations owe their existence, among other things, to the movements of individuals in the social structure of society – 
social mobility.

Social mobility and its types
Social mobility is divided into vertical and horizontal. Vertical mobility includes movements that affect the position in the social structure and are accompanied by changes in social status, a transition to a new social stratum. There are two types of vertical mobility: ascending and descending (Sorokin 2008). The first can also be defined as a social rise, the second - as a social descent. A subject operates within vertical mobility not only due to individual actions, i.e., for example, climbing the career ladder or leaving work, but also due to declassing or increasing the prestige of his professional, political or other group, like during a period of increased demand for IT professions, or the creation and strengthening of a new political party. Also, the parameters of vertical mobility include its intensity (how much the rise and descent were made) and universality (what part of the population was covered by vertical shifts). Sorokin classifies horizontal mobility as the movement of an individual or social subject between social groups that are at the same level. In other words, the transition to a new social group should not be accompanied by changes in status, and should not lead to improvements or deteriorations in economic, political, or professional positions. 
Horizontal mobility can also include changes within one social group, where a social subject physically changes its position. This subtype of horizontal mobility can be considered as territorial or geographic mobility (Chekareva 2014). In addition, horizontal mobility can be subdivided into family, religious, political, or professional mobility in cases where there is no change in position vertically. Although Sorokin does not explicitly state this, these same subtypes cease to be part of horizontal mobility at the moment when they are associated with vertical shifts, and become part of vertical mobility. Accordingly, these types of social mobility cannot be considered as a category of horizontal or vertical mobility until it is determined whether they can be considered as upward or downward mobility. By means of exclusion, it is possible to distinguish a type of vertical mobility that will always be considered as its component part – economic mobility. Fluctuations associated with economic mobility are always expressed in a superior or downward form, and therefore are measured vertically.

Types of horizontal mobility
Territorial mobility is an important component of horizontal mobility. The modern era, as Sorokin noted, is characterized by trends of increasing territorial mobility, increasing population movement. Although he observed this feature to a greater extent in Western societies, it can be assumed that the number of population movements has at least not decreased since then. This is facilitated not only by the development of technical capabilities for population mobility, but also by a more developed general level of globalization. These changes have affected not only Western societies, but also, in principle, many countries.
When it comes to territorial mobility, all kinds of movements can be considered as its criterion (Barkov 2019). Trips and movements within one country, travel to other countries, distances covered during movement, population migration, both internal and external, distance between place of residence and work, change of place of residence, citizenship. If there is an increase in these indicators within a country, region, or other unit, we can talk about at least an increase in territorial mobility within it. No less important types of social mobility include the circulation of material and immaterial objects (Sorokin 2005). This process can be expressed both horizontally and vertically. If the first is the movement of objects and their popularity within one class, then the second includes things transcendental to a certain class. In a horizontal perspective, this is easier and more understandable due to the fact that over time, it becomes more difficult to discover the origins of ideas or values within a class. Often, we have to talk only about the prevalence of things in general, or in terms of characteristics that are unnatural to consider vertically: time, gender, age, etc. In addition, the information space has become even less localized territorially, and emerging trends are spreading with greater force, which makes vertical assessments even less likely. On the other hand, it is possible to identify preferences and tastes among different social classes, which is what Bourdieu devoted his works to (Bourdieu 2004).
As in the case of territorial mobility, social things and values also become more mobile (Sorokin 2005). This is especially noticeable in modern times, when information plays a key role in their circulation. An indicator of the mobility of objects can be: the number of letters (including electronic ones), telephone conversations, news, comments on events, messages, import and export statistics, as well as the level and pace of dissemination of various values, ideas, fashion, trends, ideologies, events. The flow of information and its comprehensiveness can be considered as evidence of a more dynamic mobility of social objects. distribution of values.
Intra-professional mobility also refers to types of horizontal mobility until it leads to noticeable vertical shifts (Kovaleva 2018). Despite the fact that this judgment seems obvious, the real situation of moving to a new job is accompanied by many obvious and latent factors that can affect the vertical position of an individual. If the new job is not related to economic factors, then a change in geographic location, finding a family, a change in political, religious or other status may be the reasons that, in the opinion of the individual, will ensure some kind of vertical advancement. It is important to know how to assess such cases: as vertical changes that are not noticeable enough to be classified as vertical mobility and considered in horizontal categories, or as vertical mobility, since any vertical changes are vertical mobility under any circumstances. The main conclusions from studies of intra-professional mobility that Sorokin identified: among highly qualified workers, mobility is lower than among unskilled workers, mobility in companies with poor labor organization is higher than with good ones, in states of economic prosperity and social recovery, mobility is higher than in economic crisis and recession, mobility among men is higher than among women (Sorokin 2005). It can be measured by counting the number of representatives of professions, statistics of dismissals and hiring. The horizontal side of professional mobility also includes: professional stratification of society, the number of existing professions, the emergence of new ones and the disappearance of old ones (Radaev, Shkaratan 1996). Modern studies of horizontal professional mobility are associated with the study of the labor market, education and factors of technological development as processes that shape the current picture of employment (Kovaleva 2012; Ilyin 2015; Popova 2018)
Other types of horizontal mobility include: family, religious, political and civil (Pavlova 2016). The dynamics of each of these components of horizontal mobility carries information that can be used to predict the behavior of various macrostructures of society (Sorokin 1937). Family mobility statistics reflect the structure and types of families, how often they last, in which societies they last longer, the number of family members, etc. Even though religion may not be as important in people's lives as it was in the past, it still remains part of a person's worldview. The spread of atheism, scientism, and the emergence of trends that, while transforming, have not yet acquired a clear form are processes that reflect religious mobility on the one hand, and show the structure and metamorphoses of the institution of religion on the other (Kamaltdinov 2022). 
The emergence of new political parties, the increase in their number, the absorption of some parties by others or the formation of one from several, as well as the withering of short-lived and outdated parties lead to the fact that the electorate's voting preferences may change. On the other hand, party membership, the number of adherents, as well as those who changed parties are of interest. How often or rarely this happens can indicate the development or stagnation of this society, about the elements of its political structure (Sorokin 2005). Also, the frequency of citizenship changes among the population can indicate this and cultural features. In addition, observing various established migration trends will help to identify latent global processes.

Conclusion
In and of themselves, separate statistics on each element of horizontal mobility usually do not carry epistemological value. At the very least, to talk about high or low horizontal mobility, a multifactorial approach is needed. Even if, according to some indicators, mobility still remains high since the studies that Sorokin wrote about, the situation has changed for others, especially in the current time (Semenova 2019). He writes about this himself and is basically sure that social mobility is also subject to fluctuations. In addition, the hopes that the simple statistics on such quantitatively difficult to measure topics will be able to fully describe social reality seem unrealistic.
Despite the fact that many of the things that Sorokin wrote about are valuable in themselves, the assumptions about the state of horizontal mobility of at least social objects - the variability of the world, the rapid change of ideas and values, increasing uncertainty due to the speed of change, the dynamic flow of identities, as well as the increase in the amount of information produced - resonate with the ideas of modern theories of globalization, modernism and postmodernism (Rusakova, Rusakov 2016). The state of affairs that Sorokin identified when analyzing the social mobility of societies turned out to be the starting points of theoretical works by such authors as Z. Bauman (interpretation of mobility as continuous movement and increasing uncertainty (Bauman 2008) ), P. Bourdieu (starts from the ideas of social inequality and transforms types of social mobility into fields along which the actor's position is hierarchically built (Bourdieu 2005)), M. Castells (dynamics of information in the media space (Castells 2000)), J. Baudrillard (constant rapid movement of material and immaterial objects leads to the creation of myths) and others. 
The fact that vertical mobility was more popular among researchers than horizontal mobility should change (Hjellbrekke 2022). Research on horizontal mobility can be just as useful as on vertical mobility. The study of horizontal mobility provides information that is perceived not only as the usual movement of living and nonliving objects. Understanding the aspects of horizontal mobility can provide insights into the universal processes of society as a whole, give a general picture of social reality, and not only within the boundaries of movements between classes (Sheller 2016). This multidimensional information can be used to study some specific issues, and as an opportunity to develop the theoretical apparatus as a whole.
The embodiment of the transformation of social mobility was the "mobility turn" or the emergence of J. Urry's mobile sociology. This theory mixes the paradigms of globalism, network society and postmodernism, but at the same time, horizontal mobility is the means of expressing the trend of the modern world. It reflects the dynamics of global processes, as well as the essential transformation of the elements of mobility themselves. An important role is given not only to people as the main actors, but also to various material and immaterial objects. Streams, networks of meanings and symbols are formed, where various structures of the social world become active producers (Urry 2000b). At this stage, simple statistics on the phenomena of horizontal mobility are insufficient. They are inseparably linked with social actors, with the very structure of society. This leads to the fact that the quantitative measure of things does not allow us to identify the essence of the “interpenetration and connection of these numerous movements” (Tysyachnyuk 2004, p. 201).
The author's position on horizontal mobility is in many ways similar to the previously presented opinions on the concept. However, there are a number of positions that should be further outlined:
•    Horizontal mobility as a discourse in the context of postmodernism. Initially, horizontal mobility was expressed through quantitative characteristics and was a measure of the movement of various structures of society. These ideas about horizontal mobility reflect the methodological approach of sociology, which can now be considered the ideal of classical science. At the same time, the increasing rates of mobility identified by Sorokin foreshadowed a new stage in the perception of the fluidity of not only social individuals, but also any things in principle. Thus, ideas about horizontal mobility have become an independent metadiscourse on the variability of theoretical sociology. At this stage, horizontal mobility is largely associated with symbols, text, and various social categories that surround an individual (gender, class, family, norms). At the same time, the research field is also focused on such categories, and not on the individual in its pure form. In this case, horizontal mobility can be considered as a translator of modern paradigms in science, or as a text about text.
•    Horizontal mobility of social things and values as a comprehensive category of the concept, and information as the main indicator. If we proceed from the previous position, any direction of horizontal mobility research falls into the area of social objects. In addition, the semantic isolation of subspecies is rather a disadvantage, since in the current situation the delineation into areas becomes nominal, and interdisciplinarity is perceived as something necessary.
•    Horizontal and vertical mobility are considered as separate areas of research. At this stage, when the concept of horizontal mobility has transformed and become closer to the paradigms of postmodernism, globalism, network societies, and vertical mobility is a representation of social structure, stratification, epistemologically both directions are becoming less and less connected with each other. The difficulties in relating the subtypes of social mobility to each of these types, which arise every time it is necessary to determine whether any significant changes in status have occurred or not, greatly limited the possibilities of horizontal mobility. This also influenced the fact that vertical mobility was more preferable among researchers. The possibility of combining types of social mobility is seen in the synthesized representation of this space by Bourdieu. With such a paradigm of action, individuals are not under the prism of only vertical or only horizontal mobility. Movement in this case implies the possibility of a simultaneous combination of mobility, and a combination of its various types. In this form, mobility will have a more heterogeneous and complex structure, which it usually contains in real life.
It seems that the last part of the article is devoted to how Sorokin's classical ideas about horizontal mobility are now of no importance to the researcher. However, in reality, Sorokin laid the foundation for such a vast topic as mobility. Even if the methods previously applied to study this may now seem naive, Sorokin's research intuition was in the right direction. His conclusions and assumptions allowed the topic of horizontal mobility to be developed further and deeper, and for it to acquire a new corresponding to the present time, eclectic form.

About the authors

Denis N. Briket

Federal Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: unsade@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0001-6256-6670

junior researcher

Russian Federation, 24/35, building 5, Krzhizhanovskogo str., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files