The Prospects for Social Mobility in the Caribbean

Social mobility of blacks and non-whites in the Caribbean surged in the middle to late eighties and this was true particularly in the islands of Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica. This moment saw blacks and non- whites elevate from blue collar to white collar jobs, and a movement from public sector employment to the private sector. This moment was deemed unlikely by the likes of Braithwaite and Bess et al. as their theories on Caribbean societies were pessimistic about prosperity and prominence of black and non-white people.

Theories that offered little hope of transcending our plantation past. What these eminent thinkers did not foresee was the value and the role education would play in facilitating social mobility within the anglophone Caribbean. Social mobility began with the shifting political tide especially in Trinidad. This movement resulted in radical social change, but most noteworthy was the introduction of a meritocracy school system, education was free and accessible. I would argue that education is the main contributing factor which enabled many Caribbean people to elevate their social status.

While education has elevated many, there are still mitigating factors to social ascent, gender and race to name a few. The Caribbean social stratification is complex due to its heterogeneous nature and this plurality can also be a factor that bars upward mobility.

The Caribbean’s societal stratification was established and embedded during the watershed moment of the plantation era. The unequal relations between the slaves and plantation owners characterized the structure, with the Africans, proletariat and the colonialists, bourgeoise.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified

Proficient in: Social Stratification

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It was a closed and rigid society which meant there was no ability to manoeuvre within the class divide and this system continued well after emancipation due in part to the apprenticeship laws throughout the region which ensured continued servitude. This closed plantation society did not stop intimate relationships between the gentry and the slaves which often resulted in procreation and from this union emerged the coloured race. This created another social divide, between blacks and coloured slaves. Plantation owners showed coloured-slaves (often their children) preference by having them work in the house, doing less arduous work as opposed to the blacks that worked long hours in the fields. The hierarchy of skin colour still persists today and has been the cause of division among black communities from then to now.

Both Marx and Weber would be theoretically correct and their perspectives applicable during the plantation slavery era and soon thereafter. Marxism would account for the struggle between classes, the disproportionate access to resources, and the conflicts that would result in the revolts of Jamaica, Haiti, Grenada and Barbados. Weber believed that power, wealth and prestige determined your social location, which predisposed your relationship with the means to produce. The growing unrest of the slave population and the abolition movement in England ushered in the end of the slave trade in 1807, however slavery itself didn’t end until 1834. The Caribbean continued to be under colonial rule well into the 20th century. After the apprenticeship ended circumstances began to improve for the freed slaves.

The plantation economy soon dwindled, and the ex-slaves found new ways to make a living. They formed villages and planted their own food which they sold at markets. Rural villages consisting of free black slaves began to emerge, the allure of village life drew many black labourers away from the plantations to form their own communities. The income earned from selling their crops enabled them to build more elaborate homes and villages grew to include churches and schools, and this would be the springboard to launch black and coloured people forward and upward. Education played a major role in the rise of freed slaves to the elevated status of teachers and ministers, and little by little the quality of life for the freed slaves began to improve. These free villages went on to form corporations that bought bankrupt plantations.

Indentured workers from East India were brought to the Caribbean to fill the void left by emancipation. In India there was a strict caste system indicative of their very closed society. The lowest caste members were unable to own anything and so many of them came to the West Indies hoping to improve their station. Their arrival added a layer of complexity to the established social structure, there was now another race added to the social divide. East Indians were not the only migrants trying to improve their status. Indentured labour also came from Europe and the Americas. The difference is that indentures from Europe and the Americas were treated differently. The Ideology that oppressed blacks and non-whites was contrary to the ideology for white labour. While the former had no hope of upward mobility the latter was assured that regardless of their labouring status, “that any white worker, no matter how poor, illiterate and unskilled he might be, could by his own efforts achieve middle – class and big capitalist status” . (Girvan; 1991, pp9-10; in Green, ibid.)

Due to similar culture and ethnicity white indentured labourers were welcomed by the ruling class “typically through the route of commercial and matrimonial activity” ” (Girvan;18)

Fast forward to Caribbean democracy and independence, and the effect this had on the social class structure. By this time the Caribbean social classes became more heterogenous and pluralised creating subdivisions within the classes. It was Margaret Stacey, a proponent of Weber’s theory on heterogeneity who identified the following categories among the working class as the respectable working class, the ordinary working class and the rough working class. In Trinidad agricultural exports advanced blacks, Indians and Chinese to the ranks of the middle class. Economic opportunities and an expanded, available education system gave rise and upward mobility to the non- European and coloured Caribbean citizenry. The role education played and continues to play in the social mobility of Caribbean people cannot be overstated. As Guyanese political activist and historian Walter Rodney wrote, ‘The rise of the middle class can only be effectively chronicled and analysed in relationship to the schools… The position of headmaster of a primary school must be viewed as constituting the cornerstone of the black and brown middle class.’ (Sandra W. Meditz and Dennis M. Hanratty, editors. Caribbean Islands: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987)

Nowhere was this emerging black and non-white middle class more apparent than in the political arena. Political autonomy in the Caribbean gave rise to three phenomenal Caribbean leaders, the Right Honorable Norman Washington Manley, of Jamaica, Dr. Eric Williams, Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago and the Right Honorable Sir Grantley Adams of Barbados, Prime Minister of the British West Indian Federation. These men did much to uplift their communities, countries and the region. They were regionalists and guided the three territories through its federation period of 1957-1962. “They brought West Indians together across the often, harsh divides of class, colour and/or ethnicity and made our islands better places in which to live.” (Gabriel J. Christian, Esq. – Friday, October 30th, 2015) These men represented hope for Caribbean people as they were shining examples of upward mobility of the black and non-white races. They were intent on creating an open, free society in their respective islands. Eric Williams was determined to rise his country out of colonial oppression. He placed importance on nationalism for he believed it would transcend the racial divide. While he was not opposed to one having an ethnic identity, he certainly would not have entertained the solution of subsystems segregation offered by Dr. M. G. Smith, instead he believed in a national identity.

Trinidad is one of the most culturally diverse of the Caribbean Islands and it was Dr Williams’ ambition to create a society free of racial and class discrimination. When his political party was founded it “gave institutional expression to his vision of a non-racial nationalism for his country” (Dr. Palmer A. Colin 2011) The party’s ideology stressed “political liberty, social equality, and racial fraternity.” This sentiment also reflected in the Trinidad and Tobago national anthem “ here, every creed and race find an equal place” There was almost a socialist tone to Dr, Williams’ ideals, however his hopes of national unity were never quite realised. I believe it was his hope that the Trinidad society he left behind would bear little resemblance to that explained by Lloyd Bess’ Plantation theory. Trinidad remains sharply divided both racially and politically. Nevertheless, Dr Williams created a path for upward mobility through the meritocracy school system, for many black, coloured and east Indian citizens. Selwyn Ryan contends that “the ascriptive and particularistic value system that informed the pre-independence era gave way to meritocracy in the post-independence era.”

Today’s complex social stratification happens among and between races and classes and can be explained less by the Functionalist theory while the Weberian theory continues to be somewhat relevant. Parson’s emphasis on a shared value system to determine rank within the society wouldn’t be suited to the heterogenic, anglophone Caribbean. Values are at variance within the society and so consensus of criteria of achieving rank, would not be possible. Weber would speak directly to the social structure of the region. He opined that people are in their classification because of their economic position and the division is between the haves and haves not. Weber’s theory accounts for the complexity of the Caribbean social hierarchy, this point further supported by Margret Stacy as she identified further sub-grouping among the classes. Marxism would explain our economic system as well as the role institutions play in supporting capitalism in the region, however capitalism for all its faults has provided possibility and prosperity in the modern Caribbean diaspora.

The likes of Braithwaite, Bess et al have lost their relevance to a certain extent in explaining the socioeconomic realities of today. The Plantation theory does not mirror contemporary Caribbean societies and the east Indian population in Trinidad has increased and theirs was a race not taken into account by Braithwaite. However, they were not entirely wrong, we cannot examine social mobility without acknowledging its relationship with race. Lloyd Braithwaite described Trinidad’s society as “caste like with little chance of upward mobility” while I don’t believe this to be an absolute truth, “whiteness” is still the yard stick used to measure social esteem. This view of the white elite is pervasive and reveals an unpleasant, inherent trait held over from our colonial past. This colourism can be a barrier to upward mobility for those that ascribe to this point of view.

In recent times there have been natural disasters, decreases in tourism and a significant drop in energy prices all of which has had a negative effect on the collective Caribbean economies. These and other factors have led to the downward movement for some within the social structure. However, there are those whom fortune has favoured, and they ascend the social ladder through education, marriage or economic success. Based on this we can acknowledge that upward movement is also possible within the contemporary Caribbean social structure but there is a caveat. This upward mobility often is within limits as heights achieved, or not, are influenced by the aforementioned factors of ethnicity, gender etc. The more important question though is, what does upward mobility mean to the individual actor? What then is the criteria of “having arrived” is it having the means to produce, having access to converted goods and services or is it being embraced by and welcomed into the social elite? I would dare say that both the accrual of wealth and social capital are equally important.