Gender, Family Background and Occupational Choice: An Intersectional Sociological Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68219/hff78x12Keywords:
Occupational Choice, Intersectionality, Youth Sociology, Social Stratification, Educational CapitalAbstract
Occupational choices among young people are determined not only by individual aspirations and abilities but also by broader social structures that shape opportunities and impose constraints. This research examines how the intersection of gender, socio-economic status, caste, rural-urban residency and educational capital all impact young people's decisions on where to work through the lens of intersectionality theory. In contrast to traditional approaches that look at gender or class as separate effects on employment choices, we develop a framework for understanding how these outcomes are determined by multiple and intersecting social identities and structural disadvantages. Through use of both intersectional sociology and social reproduction theory, we will explore how family background serves as an important mechanism for shaping young people's aspirations and access to education resources, perception of appropriate career paths, and expectation of social mobility. Analysis of the data indicates that the majority of young people from privileged socio-economic backgrounds have higher levels of educational capital, more extensive exposure to potential career opportunities and higher levels of autonomy in their decision-making, whereas young people from underprivileged backgrounds generally experience a cumulative barrier to career selection based on their intersecting disadvantages. The article also addresses the interplay between caste, location and gender on the experience of young people as it relates to opportunity. Young people in rural areas typically have less access to education and job information than do their counterparts in urban places, who have access to greater amounts of institutional support and social networks. Gender norms continue to shape career choice by influencing expectations of women for household duties/participation in the economy, and career prestige. In summary, the findings show that making career decisions cannot simply be interpreted as individual choices; rather, they must be viewed in the context of broader systems of social inequality. In order to increase the opportunities available to youth, the authors recommend implementation of inclusive educational policy, equitable career guidance systems and interventions aimed at removing structural barriers to low income and/or marginalised youth pursuing and obtaining occupational opportunities.
Downloads
References
1. Archer, L., Hutchings, M., & Ross, A. (2003). Higher education and social class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion. RoutledgeFalmer.
2. Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. Wiley.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
4. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). Sage.
5. Charles, M., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of women and men. Stanford University Press.
6. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
7. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
8. Deshpande, A. (2011). The grammar of caste: Economic discrimination in contemporary India. Oxford University Press.
9. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210361475
10. Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2017). Sociology (8th ed.). Polity Press.
11. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2016). Social mobility and class structure in modern Britain (2nd ed.). Routledge.
12. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford University Press.
13. Jeffrey, C., Jeffery, R., & Jeffery, P. (2008). Degrees without freedom? Education, masculinities, and unemployment in North India. Stanford University Press.
14. Kerckhoff, A. C. (2001). Education and social stratification processes in comparative perspective. Sociology of Education, 74(Extra Issue), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673250
15. Massey, D. S. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. Russell Sage Foundation.
16. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
17. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
18. Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early occupational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092789
19. Thorat, S., & Newman, K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Blocked by caste: Economic discrimination in modern India. Oxford University Press.
20. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
