Individualized Biography. Combining Individual and Structural Perspective

Understanding factors, mechanisms and processes of upward and downward mobility in different countries remains an important scientific task of sociology around the world. The dominant approach to social inequality analysis is the structural approach, which places mobility in the context of social structures’ ability to reproduce or overcome unequal opportunities (Sorensen, 1996). Yet, despite prejudice to social mobility in scientific discourse, the reality of modem society emphasizes the role of personal decisions and individual turning points. The theory of individualization, which addresses individual and structural factors together while not contradicting them, has received a great resonance (Evans, 2002; Cote, 2002). According to this theory, the importance of structural factors and universal stratification characteristics that determine human life is increasingly weakening in the individual’s biography (Beck, 2002). Stable economic growth, the advancement of the education and social security system, instability in labour markets and increased flows of transnational migration have weakened class boundaries and increased the diversity of life opportunities and transitions, as well as the role of individual in the creation of own biography and the importance of personal choices, forcing a reconsideration of approaches and methods in studies of social mobility (Cheng et al., 2019). The integration of the individual into social mobility research is an important methodological task, which solution is closely linked to the development of a life-course approach to mobility. This approach can be broadly defined as consolidating research on biographies and life-stories of individuals, families, and generations using both quantitative and qualitative methods (Heinz et al., 2001). In the biographical approach (Christodolou et al., 2017), a person’s life is understood as a result of the reciprocal effects of structural forces and individual actions and can be defined as a series of milestones in life-events defined by the social order, at each one of which an individual chooses certain social roles and statuses (Elder, 1985). Biographical choices depend also on individual habitus - stable patterns of thinking, perception, and evaluation embedded in the body (Bourdieu, 1990). However, the “ideologically ambiguous” concept of individualization suggests “the disintegration of previously existing social forms” and the increasing fragility of “traditionally important parameters of industrial society such as class culture and self-consciousness, race and ethnicity, gender roles and family” (Pollock, 1997: 56; Evans, 2007: 92; Beck et al., 2009: 14). Thus, “life-choices” within the individualized society should be understood as indication of how individuals respond to life’s challenges and how they use the opportunities presented to them under structural constraints (Heinz & Krüger 2001). Numerous theorists (Hayes, 1994; Dunn, 1997; Furlong et al., 1997; Rudd et al., 1998; Raffo et al., 2000; Cockerham 2005) have argued over the decades about the erroneous assumption of a strict dualism between agency and structure (Hitlin et al., 2007a: 172). Therefore, this paper aims to identify main trends in the theory of individualization and organize the results of empirical studies in order to answer the following research question: how individuals make personal choices and decisions, and to what extent their biographical actions depend on structural constraints? For this purpose, paper is organized as follows: the first paragraph summarizes the main theses of the theory of individualization. The transition to empirical research will be made in the second paragraph, where the results of works dealing with individual biographies will be discussed. They provide an insight into what the individual factors are in terms of mobility, how they interact with structural factors, and what role do they play. The next area of research is the study of individualization in the context of generational biographies. Thus, the third paragraph examines the studies that consider how the processes of individualization that take place on an individual level, form new trends in the biographical trajectories of contemporary generations and to what extent these new patterns change the face of socio-economic inequality. The fourth paragraph discusses the place of new structures - modem labour markets and social security systems - and how they relate to individual factors, on the one hand, and traditional social structures of family, class and gender, on the other, in the processes of individualization. Finally, the main conclusions of the research paper are summarized.

1. Features and processes of individualization through the theoretical viewpoint

The term of individualization marks the “internal structuring principle of modem societies”, according to which identity is no longer a given, but belongs to a person who is able to create himself and his own destiny (Beck, 2007: 682). The concept of individualization is not new and has been discussed as a key feature of liberal modem society (Lukes, 1973; Halman, 1996), the effect of post-industrial economics (Kumar, 1995; Lindbladh at al., 1998), but also used in the sociology of youth to describe the transition to adulthood (Baethge, 1985; Liefbroer, 1995; Pollock, 1997). Today it is associated best with the works of Beck (1994, 2002, 2007), Bauman (2000,2001,2007) and Giddens (1991,2003). Theorists of individualization inherit the postmodernist thesis that technology’s advancement and market development have exposed people to a range of new “viable “others” in the building of self’ and thus complicated the identification processes (Cerulo, 1997: 399; Zaman et al., 2010; Schroer, 2010). Unlike postmodernists, they don’t mention the total identity construction, but rather emphasize the ability of modem people to “produce, stage and cobble together their biographies themselves” (Beck, 1994: 13).

The general precondition for the individualization of biographies is the detraditionalization of social life. It is understood as a break-down of moral presumptions, a shift from a church or state monopoly to a truth and morality monopoly (Heelas et al., 1996), the spread of liberal ideology, and the emergence of “institutional individualism” - a regime of public relations in which the individualistic identity, rather than the collective one, is both de jure and de facto entrusted with the right to make decisions and take responsibility for them (Agassi, 1987). Detraditionalization erases past patterns of class or gender mobility trajectories and allows individuals shaping the biographies of “choice” rather than live a “normal” life set by conventional standards (MacDonald et al., 2013: 3), as it was in a highly stratified society in the early capitalism, independent of the limits placed by socio-economic stratification (Beck et al., 1992; Giddens, 1991).

By questioning the role of social institutions in biography, the theory of individualization is a subject for debate. Some criticize it on formal grounds and blame the authors for the absence of an empirical basis (Brannen et al., 2005; Atkinson, 2007; Beck, 2007) and an abundance of internal contradictions. It is irrational to refer to individualization as a system macroeconomic factor and immediately deny other factors such as class and gender (Brannen et al., 2005). Others emphasize “methodological nationalism”, cultural insensitivity to a theory that exaggerates the importance of individualization as a phenomenon that only takes place within the developed world (Jamieson, 2011; Dawson, 2012). It is further argued that, because of its supposed universality, the theory of individualization may even be risky: it is convenient as an argument for a neoliberal ideology that easily denies the contribution of structural defects to “private misfortune - the do-it-yourself biography can swiftly become the breakdown biography” (Beck et al., 2009; Brannen et al., 2005; Field, 2012).

2. Individualization and role of individual factors in mobility

The theory of individualization indicates that creation of individual’s biography is becoming a “more dynamic, less standardized and more-directed” process (Heinz et al., 2001: 29). That is why studying the processes of individualization implies first of all attention to the individual factors determining a person’s ability to make choices and decisions as well as to perform actions. The concept of agency or “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act”, often remains outside the scope of analysis because of its difficulty in adapting for empirical research (Ahearn, 2001:112). In terms of a biographical approach, human agency entails what Clausen called “planful competence” enabling individuals to produce favorable outcomes relevant to planned elements of the life-course, including education, family, work and retirement (Clausen, 1991; Shanahan et al., 1997: 54), which must be reflected in the biographical transitions associated with “individual’s consequential positional change within a field” (Levy et al., 2016). One of the central analytical categories within the life-course framework is the Giddens’ paradigm of critical biographical transition as fateful moments, which individuals perceive as determining for their further life and self-identity (Giddens, 1991: 143). Here, it is necessary to distinguish between fateful moments, which rely on a theoretical construct, and critical moments, derived from the narrative (Thomson et al., 2002: 339). Such highly effective in narrative life history research “turning points” (McAdams et al., 2001) can unpredictably occur at any stage of life and be highly traumatic, for example, job loss (Ibarra, 2005; Garrett-Peters, 2009; Ahn et al., 2017), forced retirement (Vickerstaff, 2006; Jones, 2010; Radi, 2012), change in family status and health (Meadows et al., 2008), loss of a loved one (Pearlin et al., 1990; Keyes et al., 2014), violence and abuse (Werner et al., 2001), early pregnancy and drug use (Barcelos et al., 2014), or relocation (Humke et al., 1995; Thomson et al., 2015). However, such negative events may turn into “individual ability to cope with, adapt to and bounce back from adversity” leading to surprising “adaptations” and “self-righting” trajectories through the life course (Henderson et al., 2015: 356). This implies the concept of self-resilience, which is essential within the agency approach for the “capacity for internal recovery” and a conscious belief in one’s own ability to make decisions and achieve long-term life’s goals (Katz, 2020: 53). This definition of biographical action is linked to the concept of planning competence (Clausen, 1991), i.e. the ability to choose between alternative ways of life in a way that reflects personal preferences and talents (Heinz, 2001). Such competence consists of several interrelated qualities - awareness, self-confidence and reliability. Other researchers emphasize goal setting, planning, internal control in the effectiveness of their actions as the agency’s main dimensions (Bandura, 2018). What these definitions have in common is that biographic ability is understood as a set of personal qualities and subjective perceptions that may or may not correspond to the actual ability to make and adhere to the right long-term decisions to achieve goals. However, the presence of subjective ideas helps a person not to pass over difficulties, including objective, structural ones, to persevere in achieving goals, and to cope with emerging problems (Hitlin et el., 2007b).

The metaphor of the wave or „surfing” turns out to be a popular way to comprehend modem biographic strategies. Comparing the professional orientations of parents and children in the UK, Predelli and Cebulla (2011) highlighted three approaches for labour market entries: The “planners” have clear long-term plans, focus on personal growth and actively build themselves; the “safe-players” are unambitious, prefer safest options, not trying to change the circumstances, and are more focused on a steady income than on self­fulfillment; and finally the “surfers” are experimenting, looking for themselves without goals, indiscriminately exploiting the opportunities they face here and now. If anything characterizes the younger generation, it is “a diversity that occasionally paired with rootlessness” (Predelli et al., 2011: 36). The spread of surfing as a type of biography suggests that the possibilities of a standard biography based on institutional movement have become a thing of the past, creating a gap that can only be filled by those who can use personal resources to actively individualize life (Evans et al., 1994).

Subjective factors narrow the structural, but not automatically. Brannen and Nilsen (2005) warn against valuing the role of the individual as a priority. In their study of the trajectories of maturation in five European countries, those respondents who formulate their life expectations in terms of personal choice simply ignore the structural circumstances that allow them to choose and delay maturation, and in the end fail to produce meaningful and realistic plans for life (Brannen et al., 2005). On the other hand, the denial of the role of personal factors is also critical. A number of studies have shown that an attempt to deny the ability of modem youth to act biographically and to adapt to structural conditions is unsound and arrogant. McInerney and Smyth (2014), studying the biographies of schoolchildren from poorer rural areas of Australia, conclude that a widespread “culture of poverty” that claims to lack the biographies, motivation and commitment of young people from poor families leads to pathologies of poverty and infringes on the rights of those children who, despite disadvantage, articulate educational priorities and are motivated to leam for social advancement.

Nevertheless, studies of individualization on the level of individual biographies indicate that, on the one hand, biographical settings are being transformed, the values of independence and purposefulness are being disseminated, and, on the other hand, the existence of these values and, more broadly, the subjective perception of one's own ways of creating a biography does not always become an objective resource for lifelong success, which continues to depend on factors beyond the subject’s control.

3. Individualization in the context of socio-economic inequalities

Studies that reveal contribution of individual factors show that biographical success depends not only on personal abilities, but also on structural conditions. If we consider individualization to be an ongoing process that doesn’t drastically but gradually change the face of societies, the question arises about the contemporary limits of individualization in the context of persistent inequality. The relationship between the individualization and traditional - socio-economic and gender - inequalities can be traced through statistical research that reveals the relationships between biographical trajectories and relevant structural factors. Considering that individualization should decrease the effect of class affiliation on life-course, Kohler (2005) examined the impact of social origin on biographic trajectories in 28 countries. He showed that the impact of social origin is weaker with higher income levels: with the growth of gross domestic product, the class inequality factor is less significant (Kohler, 2005: 248). At the same time, Kohler found no evidence that status communities were eroding in modem societies. To test this hypothesis, he measured the status crystallization -the ratio of vertical dimensions of social inequality (income, education, employment). The less homogeneous the indicators of these parameters have been (for example, high income and minimal education or low income and highly qualified work), the more complex it was to assign a person to a certain class. In his view, individualization or the de-structuring of societies happens in parallel with structurization, i.e. the reproduction of traditional patterns of inequality (Kohler, 2005: 249).

The difference in individualized life trajectories, in which the influence of social constraints coexists with individual factors, is called structured individualization (Roberts, 1995; Engel et al., 1998; Coté, 2002; Evans, 2007) and “highlights the increasing fragmentation of transitions” in life (Pollock, 1997: 59). Coté (2002) uses this concept to explain the results of a study among a class homogeneous sample of students.

Instead of nominal class affiliation, he measured the real contribution of a favorable social status, which was determined by whether parents payed for student’s education or not. It became evident that parental support can only partially explain the transition to adulthood. The men who received low parental financial support and women - high, benefited the most (Cöté, 2002: 131). At the same time, long-term results were highly dependent on the level ofbiographical competence-motivation, self-esteem, internal control, determination.

Interesting information on the gender limits of individualization is provided by studies on employment. Worts (2013) examines the working and family biographies of five generations of American women. It includes two aspects of individualization: if there is a process, we must see first, the de-standardization of biographies, which is a greater diversity between trajectories, and second, differentiation - a greater diversity of life situations within a single trajectory. However, the biographies of women in the USA have become more standardized and homogeneous, while continuous full employment regardless of marital status “emerged as the new standard” (Worts et al., 2013: 313). Research in Germany has led to the opposite results. Simonson (2011) showed that the working biographies of women from the “baby boomer” cohort have become more diverse and inhomogeneous with increase in the “discontinuous” career trajectories (Simonson et al., 2011). German reunification had a different impact on German men: people from the East Germany are more exposed to the fragmentation of employment and more likely to have “non-standard episodes in such biographies, such as unemployment and part-time work” (Simonson et al., 2015: 387). Other researchers studied the lives of women from different social backgrounds. Worts (2013) noted that benefits and risks of individualization were unequally distributed among women from wealthy and vulnerable groups. Standardization of career biographies has occurred because the wealthiest and most educated have moved to full employment, while the most vulnerable (particularly African American women) have historically been unable to afford the lives of housewives. Berger (1993) describes a similar trend, noting that in Germany only women with high levels of education were affected by the “stabilization of instabilities” (Berger et al., 1993: 57).

[...]