Roberto Cavarra and Piera Rella*

POLITICAL ORIENTATION AND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS; RESULTS OF A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF A SAMPLE OF ROMANS

1.  Introduction -

The processes of globalization are redefining the structure of society. The working environment in particular is undergoing far-reaching changes, among which are the definition of new hierarchies along with new social divisions and inequalities. Daily life is changing as are political values and orientations. Since the risks inherent in these new conditions represent both opportunity and danger, and the flexibility offered presents not only new possibilities but also uncertainties, the situation of the subjects is deeply ambivalent.

This investigation of social mobility in Rome is an attempt to analyze processes of change, both past and present, by looking both at objective conditions and at the political values and points of view of the subjects under study.

The group of people interviewed consisted of approximately 400[1] men and women between 16 and 70 years of age, concentrated principally in the middle of this range (70% were between 25 and 54 years old) in order to better fit the needs of the research design. Some people begin working at 16 and work until they are 70, but the highest concentration of people in the labor market is in the central part of the age range.

The results obtained should not be seen as an exact picture of the situation in Rome, but they do seem indicative of some ongoing tendencies, especially as regards reciprocal influences between attitudes concerning values and politics on one hand and work conditions on the other.[2]

2.  Composition of the sample and differences between state and private employees and the self-employed

We shall begin by identifying the people who make up the sample, looking at who they are and what they do with a view of highlighting how this sample differs from the general population of the city.

First of all, it should be noted that there is a slight gender imbalance, with women representing only 41.9% of the sample. The age distribution also does not correspond exactly with the Roman population since, as previously noted, it was considered important to concentrate on subjects actually present in the labor market and thus more likely to be in the middle section of the age range. As a result, only 10.8% of the sample are under 25, while 32% fall between the ages of 25 and 34, and 37.1% are between 35 and 54. People between 55 and 65 make up 15.7% of the sample, and seniors over 65 represent only 4.4%.

Three quarters of the sample is composed of people with a medium to high level of education, with 26.1% having a university degree and 51.8% a high school diploma (including 4.1% with a professional qualification), while those who have not gone beyond middle school represent only 21%. The level of education is thus considerably above that of the general population, partly but not entirely because of the particular age structure of the sample[3].

With regard to occupational status, 64.2% of the people interviewed are gainfully employed, while the unemployed, including people looking for their first job, represent 13.4%. Another 22.4% of the sample is composed of people who are not looking for work. This group is in part made up of students, but the percentage of housewives and pensioners is considerably below the city average as a result of the concentration of the sample in the middle age range.[4]

The interviewees are thus characterized by a middle to high level of education, they belong for the most part to a young to middle age group, somewhat more of them are male than female, and the great majority are members of the labor force.

Concerning occupational categories represented in the sample, the largest group are state employees, followed by business people, freelance professionals (especially doctors, architects and engineers) hereafter referred to as “self-employed”, technicians (particularly computer experts), laborers, sales clerks etc. who will hereafter be referred to as “privately employed” or “private employees”[5].

Below we shall compare the answers given by people in these three occupational status groups to questions regarding some of their values and attitudes, with a view of verifying the extent to which factors of structural differentiation influence social, cultural and political orientation.

Among the subjects presently employed, 44% are state employees, 35% are privately employed and 21% are self-employed[6].

The most predominantly male group is that of self-employed professionals: women represent 24% of this group, as opposed to 43.5% of the privately employed and 36% of the state employees. The levels of education are higher than those of the entire sample and not greatly differentiated[7].

To anticipate a point we shall return to later, 52.1% of the employed interviewees state that they are to the left or center-left politically, outnumbering those who consider themselves oriented to the right or center-right (28.9%). 12% are not able (or perhaps not willing) to position themselves politically, while 7% declare that they are non-participants in electoral politics. (cfr. Tab. 1).

This orientation is most evident among state employees, although fully 26% are unable (or unwilling) to declare their own political leanings. The self-employed group expresses a tendency which is somewhat

more to the right (44.7%), while the privately employed group evidences a decidedly left or center-left orientation (55%).

Tab.1 Political orientation by occupational status

State Privately Self-

Employees Employed Employed Total

Left / 34.1 / 30.4 / 26.3 / 29.3
Center-left / 21.2 / 24.6 / 18.4 / 22.8
Center-right / 16.5 / 15.9 / 39.5 / 21.9
Right / 2.4 / 13.0 / 5.2 / 7.0
Not able to place myself / 15.3 / 10.1 / 10.5 / 12.1
Do not vote / 10.6 / 5.8 / - / 6.9

(N° of Respondents.) (85) (69) (38) (215)

3. What is most important in life? Values in transition from modern to postmodern

Capturing value orientations is not an easy task. While there is no doubt that value systems represent basic structures not readily subject to change, the degree of attachment expressed regarding any particular value may be conditioned by the existential or biographical conditions experienced by a subject at the time of the interview. There is also the risk of seeing as fixed what is actually an ongoing process; this is especially problematical in a society which is undergoing rapid change and is at the same time dominated by the mass media which interfere with any strong stabilization of values. No less important is the fact that in an extensive study of this type the part concerning values is necessarily reduced. For these reasons, then, the proposed analyses of the formulated answers should be seen merely as useful indicators.

The subjects were asked to rate the importance they attribute to 12 selected aspects of their lives (cfr. Tab. 2) on a scale from 1 (“of no importance”) to 4 (“very important”).

Arranging the averages of the answers given for each of the domains in descending order, a general hierarchy of values emerges in which the family is in first place followed by friendship and then love. These first three values represent aspects of life that belong essentially to the private sphere of intimacy or affection. The category “work” also holds a strong position, occupying fourth place with an average of 3.76, which is very close to the first three, and holds first place, as we shall see, for the self-employed.

Surprisingly, even in view of the gap that separates them from the first four, the next positions in the ranking are occupied by “entertainment and free time (5th place) and by “freedom to travel” (6th), elements which, along with “sports activities” (9th) represent a recreational dimension of life involving leisure activities. This is followed by “studies and cultural interests”, “career” and, as mentioned, “sports activities”.

Finally, at the bottom of the ranking is “religion”, preceded by political commitment (including trade unionism) and by social obligation (community service). The last two categories especially (religion and politics) appear to lie outside the cultural horizon of the subjects interviewed.

This is the overall order in which values are hierarchically structured in the sample, and we shall now proceed to examine the differences among the three social/professional categories[8].

Tab.2 Ranking of values by general average and by occupational status

Values / General
Average / State
Employees / Privately
Employed / Self-
Employed / Center-
Left / Other
1° Family / 3.86 / 3.84 (1°) / 3.88 (1°) / 3.85 (3°) / 3.89 / 3.83
2° Friendship / 3.82 / 3.78 (2°) / 3.81 (3°) / 3.90 (2°) / 3.87 / 3.75
3° Love / 3.78 / 3.72 (4°) / 3.83 (2°) / 3.82 (4°) / 3.87 / 3.70
4° Work / 3.76 / 3.74 (3°) / 3.67 (4°) / 3.95 (1°) / 3.81 / 3.68
5° Leisure/Entertainment / 3.29 / 3.19 (6°) / 3.32 (6°) / 3.45 (5°) / 3.40 / 3.20
6° Travel / 3.29 / 3.17 (7°) / 3.49 (5°) / 3.19 (6°) / 3.42 / 3.19
7° Study/Cultural Interests / 3.06 / 3.23 (5°) / 2.89 (8°) / 3.00 (8°) / 3.28 / 2.76
8° Career / 2.91 / 2.76 (8°) / 3.03 (7°) / 3.02 (7°) / 2.84 / 2.97
9° Sports activities / 2.54 / 2.43 (9) / 2.56(9) / 2.75(9) / 2.59 / 2.50
10° Community Service / 2.25 / 2.41(10) / 2.04(10) / 2.24(10) / 2.43 / 2.11
11° Politics / 2.14 / 2.22(11) / 2.03(11) / 2.15(11) / 2.49 / 2.11
12° Religion / 1.97 / 2.12(12) / 1.88(12) / 1.80(12) / 1.84 / 2.20

* Numbers in parentheses indicate the position in the ranking that single values occupy

Among state and private employees the family solidly occupies first place. This is not the case, however, for the self-employed, for whom work is valued highest and the family is only in third place, preceded by friendship. Thus in spite of the widespread view that the significance of work has declined, for at least one of the social/occupational categories in the present sample it represents the most important aspect in the construction of individual as well as social identity. Another significant element that seems to differentiate these social/occupational categories is cultural interests. For state employees these occupy fifth place in the ranking, while for the others they rank only eighth, and this in spite of the fact that the difference in educational level, at least between state employees and the self-employed, is not very great.

While the main differences among the three groups are limited to these, there are many aspects they have in common. In the first place, as noted above there is an evident decline in the relevance of religion and of political commitment in people’s lives. This confirms the picture of an increasingly secularized society whose members see what they do as directed by their own choices and not by something outside themselves. Secondly, two values that have become particularly significant, entertainment for the self-employed and travel for the privately employed, may be identified as post-materialist. In other words, the subjects in question seem to represent an expression of the mass culture that has stripped away the boundaries between class groups. This consumerist culture exalts direct, immediate experience, flattening the past into a continuous present, and pursuing places, tastes and lifestyles that may easily be differentiated culturally and socially[9]. In any case, this last point suggests the need for a more thorough examination of the values of the subjects interviewed. If a hierarchical ranking shows the importance of each value in the subjects lives, a factor analysis should highlight the principal value dimensions and the similarities and differences in the value structures of the three social/occupational groups.

4. Value dimensions

It is worth noting at the outset that most of the connections that emerge from a factor analysis of the entire group of subjects (cfr Tab. 3) are the ones that were expected. Others are a bit less so, however, and these results are the most interesting. Some sort of significant link between friendship and love, for example, was to be expected, but it is surprising to find that these values are linked with the family, as we shall see, only for the privately employed group[10]. Still less expected was the connection between family and religion (factor III), and that love and friendship should be correlated in factor I, where the prevalent variables are those that define the leisure dimension.

The first factor, then, is correlated with leisure, sports activity and travel, values that recall the second of the two interpretative keys to the socio-cultural condition of the subjects mentioned above, which was derived from postmodernist theory. We have called this factor “leisure and affection”.

A second significant value dimension emerges from a positive link between study and cultural interests on one hand, and political and social commitment on the other (factor II). This we have called “civic commitment” in order to emphasize how participation in politics has been taken on as direct involvement in the form of a more or less concrete commitment.

Opposed to this is factor III, centered on religion and family, and defined as the “private/ intimate sphere”.

Lastly, it emerges that employment and career, correlated as expected, define factor IV, which has been defined as “work”.

We shall proceed to examine how these value areas are structured for each of the three social/occupational categories and the extent to which they deviate both from the general model outlined here and from each other.

In reference to factor I, the leisure dimension is present in all three categories, while the affection dimension is distributed differently. The self-employed group is the closest to the general model placing leisure and affection under the same factor, the only difference here being that love is the value that correlates most strongly with this factor, which may be defined as the emotive/expressive area. For both private and state