Those slender gateways
An industry still dominated by a class elite
It’s been 12 months since Jon Snow, delivering the annual MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh International TV Festival, challenged the industry to open themselves up to the “unconventional, the different, the diverse.” However at this year’s festival we heard from Sam Friedman of the London School of Economics that the major broadcasters were still dominated by a class elite. Social mobility is firmly centre stage in the televisual industry.
Social mobility has been described as:
“…an individual’s ability to build a good life for themselves, regardless of their background. The more social mobility there is, the less someone’s destination in life depends on where they start out…Social mobility is about fairness at every level of society; it is about whether your background holds you back, whatever your social position. Too often seen as being about only a minority in our country, social mobility is an issue for the majority .” (1)
There has been much discussion of the hidden barriers to the advance of social mobility in UK society and, more recently, within the televisual industry. For example Friedman describes the impact of a “studied informality” of self-presentation and cultural references that leads to a fit - or not - and therefore acceptance and progression. This sense of mis-fit can be felt and experienced throughout one’s career with constant triggers to an imposter state, a visceral not one-of-us feeling. This felt, outsider state can be present in the context of any contact with an insider; where in apparent harmonious dialogue about something the overt message is inclusive but the covert message is you don’t belong.
Other barriers to entering and progressing within the industry include gatekeeping opportunities through patronage and access to connections; unpaid internships and shadowing, and the succession of low paid roles and assignments that are difficult to sustain, especially within London. The lack of awareness of the variety of opportunities in the industry and limited guidance on navigating through different career pathways can mean a spark fading, a potential unfulfilled. Plus of course there is unashamed nepotism – eloquently illustrated by Jack Whitehall and Kirsty Young on Desert Island Discs. Paradoxically Kirsty sets up the show by suggesting that Jack’s social class is a disadvantage he has overcome but Jack describes how he used nepotism to get in front of the casting director, in their own home, for the role of Harry Potter. Had he actually read the book you wonder if he would have got the role.
Intervening through education
Perhaps this industry condition isn’t so surprising given that the level of social mobility in the UK - regardless of much economic and social change in the past decade - has remained remarkably stable and shockingly low. (2) (3) The focus of government, rightly so, has been on the role of education yet during this period of education expansion, there appears to have been little change.
Sociologists often describe the role of education in social mobility in terms of an ‘OED triangle’: a triangle of associations between Origins, Education, and Destinations.
When education is placed at the fulcrum, then interventions are designed to weaken the Origin - Education (OE) association through expansion and equality of education opportunities and attainment. Meritocratic selection should happen at the same time based on formal educational qualifications, thereby strengthening the Education – Destination (ED) relationship. As a consequence a meritocracy means the direct association between Origins and Destinations, when not mediated via Education, weakens.
We can see the OE dynamic in practice through, for example, the widening participation and outreach activities carried out by universities and the award winning Social Mobility Business Programme (SMBP). An initiative by Deloitte to contextualise academic achievement in recruitment processes shows an attempt to strengthen the ED relationship.
Research does show “that inequalities in educational attainment related to class origins have narrowed, even if only slightly and mainly at lower educational levels.” (3) However there is evidence that the ED relationship does not strengthen but tends to weaken also. (3) This may be accounted for by factors such as the application of other - reasonable or spurious - selection criteria, especially with the increased supply of graduates. Moreover from a meritocratic stance if someone gets an opportunity, someone else doesn’t and it becomes a competitive race. Those with a more advantaged class position will access resources and networks to keep their competitive place. Programmes such as the SMBP and the work of The Sutton Trust seek to maintain a level playing field.
In many ways the modern televisual industry (along with the music industry) disrupts these assumptions of social mobility interventions. Content can be created, produced, disseminated and sold without needing to gain access to an organisation, a profession or employer. Validation can come from other sources than an organisational gatekeeper. Access to formal Higher Education does not have to be the mediator for social mobility; it is one path amongst many. So if meritocracy is flawed in terms of social mobility perhaps we should consider a more democratic approach to tackle social mobility within the sector.
From discussion to action
i. A more democratic approach
We should see organisations not as an entity with solid boundaries to break through but as a part of a much wider self-managing, living, adaptive system that continuously re-organises itself in unexpected ways. Individuals such as contractors; small, specialist collectives and larger corporates can form into alliances, projects and communities of practice to produce brilliant work. Fledgling talent can be supported to be partners - on their terms - in an industry where business models can change month by month. Perhaps the televisual industry needs to simply get out of their way and get behind them rather than focusing only on enabling access to the gilded cage.
ii. Tackling the impact of origins
If we shift towards a more democratic approach we still have to recognise and tackle some of the demons that can get in the way of social inclusivity. Talent has to begin somewhere. They still have to put themselves out there for comment, for judgement. They still need to have goals; be resilient; work with others; sell and hustle with the right types of people to progress and gain wider exposure and opportunity. And this is one area in which the industry can directly support through creating regional clusters for finding talent, inducting them into the sector, building skills and personal strengths, and most crucially, creating democratic access to insider networks such as the virtual coaching scheme designed and managed by the SMBP.
iii. Filling in the gap in careers guidance
Effective careers guidance and work experience can have a significant impact on a young person’s future. It is especially significant in terms of improving social mobility. (4) Yet a survey by Kings College found some significant gaps in access to and the quality of careers guidance according to family background. Moreover there is evidence that disadvantaged young people are least likely to have the networks to access work experience and therefore the Social Mobility Commission concludes:
“If the Government is serious about raising its social mobility aspirations, it needs to prioritise the wider experiences and advice that can help to place children from all backgrounds on a level footing.” (1)
But progress can only be made with the support and investment of employers and industry leaders.
There is another profound and practical impact that the televisual industry can make. Academic and writer Vincent Deary (5) describes what we draw on when managing personal transition and change. He shows how cultural ready-made ways help us deal with the “blood, sweat and tears of change.” Such ways include becoming ‘like’ something so as to have the “validation stamp of precedent” and “cultural jelly moulds”, a form that you and others will recognise as being like the thing you want to become. Having the form readily available “makes the journey and the recognition that much easier”. We can also fix oneself in a tribe that we can belong to, as well as finding a way to crystallise a felt urgency and give it shape. This is why it is so important that social mobility programmes are owned by the industry, with people sharing experiences and showing what they do and who they are. Young people can be shown the breadth of opportunities from creative to technical and business roles. They can see what is possible: how their urgency, their ambitions can be taken forward, in their own way.
Can we do more?
In his MacTaggart Lecture Jon Snow called upon the industry to broaden its perspective:
“Everyone needs to ask, ‘can we do more? Can we expand these slender gateways?’”
Not just because we all have a duty to create a decent, prosperous, just and wise society; but also because there is limitless return on investment. It’s what the industry does. The “unconventional, the different, the diverse” have always driven creativity. Moreover the purpose of the industry is to connect and it can only do so by reflecting its audience. Decision makers and influencers in the industry can be bold and experimental in taking a more systemic, democratic approach to producing great work and in investing in proven social mobility programmes that expand those existing slender gateways.
Ian Roberts
Co-Founder
Towards People
www.towardspeople.co.uk
(1) Social Mobility Commission (2016) State of the Nation 2016: Social Mobility in Great Britain.
(2) Goldthorpe, J.H. (2016) ‘Social class mobility in modern Britain: changing structure, constant process’, Journal of the British Academy, 4, 89–111.
(3) Rolfe, H. (2017) ‘Inequality, Social Mobility and the New Economy: Introduction’, National Institute Economic Review, Volume 240 Issue 1.
(4) Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2014) ‘Cracking the code: how schools can improve social mobility’
(5) Deary, V. (2015) How We Are, Penguin Books.
