For over 20 years now the concept of the institutionalized life course is being developed and now it became a broadly accepted and practiced theory amongst sociologists.
The development of the theoretical background for the life course research can be located already in the first half of the 20th century, with important studies of this period performed by Znaniecki, F and Thomas, W.I. (1918) who designed the model of the “Life Cycle” or “Life History” and the “Model of Generation” by Karl Mannheim (1928) . Erikson/Clausen followed in the 1940s with the theory of “Human Development” along with Eisenstadt/Parsons with their “Model of Age Differentiation” . Then, in the 1960s and 1970s the latter model was subdivided into the concept of “Age Stratification” by Riley, the concept of “Biography” by Bertaux, the concept of “Life Course” by Elder and the concept of “Cohort” by Ryder/Easterlin . In the 1980s the “Life Course” concept was developed into “The Tripartite Life Course in the Work Society” by Kohli and the “(Welfare) State” which is divided itself into “General” by Mayer/Müller and “Differentitation”. The differential life course means that life course patterns can be different, meaning that country-specific patterns of life courses are differentiated according to gender, social class and interaction.
This paper will try to provide a critical comparison of the special theses on the life course on the basis of the article “Institutialization of the Life Course: Looking back to look ahead” by Kholi (2007) and “Life Courses and Life Chances in a Comparative Perspective” by Mayer (2004).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. “Institutionalization of the Life Course: Looking back to look ahead” by Martin Kohli (2007)
3. “Life Courses and Life Chances in a Comparative Perspective” by Karl Ulrich Mayer (2004)
4. Basic assumptions and main arguments
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper aims to provide a critical comparative analysis of the theoretical theses on the institutionalized life course as presented by Martin Kohli (2007) and Karl Ulrich Mayer (2004). The research examines how individual life trajectories are shaped by social structures, welfare regimes, and historical shifts, ultimately assessing the extent to which these authors’ arguments complement one another in understanding life course outcomes.
- The institutionalization of the life course as a standardized societal pattern.
- Historical transitions from Fordist to Post-Fordist life course regimes.
- Comparative analysis of national welfare states and institutional configurations.
- The intersection of age, generation, gender, and social class as dimensions of inequality.
- The impact of labor market changes and career discontinuities on individual biographies.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
For over 20 years now the concept of the institutionalized life course is being developed and now it became a broadly accepted and practiced theory amongst sociologists.
The development of the theoretical background for the life course research can be located already in the first half of the 20th century, with important studies of this period performed by Znaniecki, F and Thomas, W.I. (1918) who designed the model of the “Life Cycle” or “Life History” and the “Model of Generation” by Karl Mannheim (1928). Erikson/Clausen followed in the 1940s with the theory of “Human Development” along with Eisenstadt/Parsons with their “Model of Age Differentiation”. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s the latter model was subdivided into the concept of “Age Stratification” by Riley, the concept of “Biography” by Bertaux, the concept of “Life Course” by Elder and the concept of “Cohort” by Ryder/Easterlin. In the 1980s the “Life Course” concept was developed into “The Tripartite Life Course in the Work Society” by Kohli and the “(Welfare) State” which is divided itself into “General” by Mayer/Müller and “Differentitation”. The differential life course means that life course patterns can be different, meaning that country-specific patterns of life courses are differentiated according to gender, social class and interaction.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the historical development of life course research and sets the goal of critically comparing the perspectives of Kohli and Mayer.
2. “Institutionalization of the Life Course: Looking back to look ahead” by Martin Kohli (2007): Discusses Kohli’s five propositions on the life course and how changing economic systems have influenced historical patterns and social differentiation.
3. “Life Courses and Life Chances in a Comparative Perspective” by Karl Ulrich Mayer (2004): Explores how life course outcomes vary across different national societies and welfare regimes, emphasizing the role of institutional rules.
4. Basic assumptions and main arguments: Synthesizes the core arguments of both authors, highlighting both their agreement on the shift to Post-Fordist models and their differing analytical focus.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings, identifying that while the authors use different approaches, they both highlight the critical intersection between employment, state policy, and individual biographical trajectories.
Keywords
Life course, institutionalization, Kohli, Mayer, Fordism, Post-Fordism, welfare regimes, social inequality, individualization, biographical perspective, comparative sociology, labor market, age norms, career trajectories, social stratification.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
This paper provides a critical comparison of two seminal works by Martin Kohli and Karl Ulrich Mayer regarding the concept of the institutionalized life course.
What are the central themes discussed in the text?
The text focuses on the transition of life course models from Fordist to Post-Fordist regimes, the role of the welfare state, and the impact of labor market structures on individual life events.
What is the main goal of the author?
The goal is to summarize both authors' assumptions, identify where their arguments complement each other, and critically evaluate the results to provide a future-oriented perspective.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative literature review and comparative analysis, contrasting the specific theoretical frameworks and empirical focuses of Kohli and Mayer.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers individual theories of the life course, the historical development of welfare states, national institutional configurations, and the resulting differences in occupational mobility and life chances.
Which keywords characterize this study?
Key terms include life course, institutionalization, welfare regimes, Fordism, and social inequality.
How does Kohli define the institutionalization of the life course?
Kohli defines it through five core propositions, including temporalization, chronologization, individualization, the tripartition of the life course, and dual dimensions of biographical perspective.
Why does Mayer advocate for a comparative perspective?
Mayer argues that life course outcomes vary systematically between societies; therefore, comparing data from different countries is essential to understanding how human lives are institutionally shaped.
What is the significance of the "Post-Fordist" model in these theories?
It represents a historical shift characterized by de-industrialization, globalization, and increased career discontinuities, which contrasts with the relative stability of the preceding Fordist era.
What conclusion is reached regarding the role of the state?
The paper concludes that life courses are strongly correlated with the political economy of a state, suggesting that institutional configurations are a primary factor in determining life chances.
- Citar trabajo
- Yevgeniya Marmer (Autor), 2013, Critical Comparison of Special Theses on Life Course on the Basis of the Articles by Kholi, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/540940
