Social mobility and meritocracy are related but distinct concepts. Meritocracy refers to a social system in which individuals have equal opportunities to ascend the social hierarchy based on their abilities and efforts. A meritocratic system ideally eliminates the influence of background origins on social status positions, suggesting a complete equality of opportunity. In contrast, social mobility refers to the actual movement within the social hierarchy, which can occur despite meritocratic ideals if systemic factors, such as education, profession, and family background, play significant roles. Real-world societies often fall somewhere between these two extremes, reflecting various degrees of equal opportunity and actual mobility.

The primary factors contributing to social mobility include the individual's profession, which is the most used indicator of social status, the level of education (often certified by diplomas), and family background, particularly the positions of parents. Additionally, societal institutions such as schools and the family act as either facilitators of mobility or agents of social reproduction. Economic changes, political affiliations, and demographic factors like age and sex also influence mobility. Moreover, cultural capital—knowledge, skills, education, and any advantages a person has—which provides higher status in society can play a significant role.

"Fluidité sociale," or social fluidity, refers to the ease or difficulty with which individuals can move within the social hierarchy, independent of their family background. It is a measure of the degree to which societal structures allow for movement based on merit rather than inherited status. Social fluidity is relevant in understanding social mobility as it highlights the potential barriers or facilitators present in a society. High social fluidity would indicate that many barriers to mobility are absent, promoting equality of opportunity, whereas low fluidity suggests the presence of significant obstacles that maintain social stratification across generations.

Societal institutions like schools and families influence social mobility significantly by either facilitating or hindering the process. Schools can provide the necessary education and skills required for upward mobility, potentially breaking the cycle of social reproduction by offering youth from various backgrounds opportunities to achieve higher statuses. Families contribute by providing resources, values, and networks that either support or limit individual aspirations and achievements. These institutions can perpetuate existing social structures by replicating inequalities or acting as pathways for individuals to achieve higher social standings and break away from the status they inherit.

Gerhard Lenski's concept of "crystallization" of status refers to the degree of consistency across different dimensions of social status, such as economic wealth, education, and social networks. High crystallization implies that an individual's status in one domain is consistent with their status in others, often leading to stable social positions. Low crystallization suggests discrepancies between different areas, allowing potential mobility as individuals can leverage advantages in one dimension to improve others. This concept affects social mobility by indicating how tightly or loosely bound status factors are, influencing the ease with which individuals might achieve upward or downward social movement.

Achieving perfect social mobility and "égalité des chances," or equality of opportunity, is challenging due to entrenched systemic factors. These include economic disparities, unequal access to quality education, social networks, and cultural capital. Additionally, societal biases, such as those related to race, gender, and ethnicity, influence opportunities unevenly distributed across populations. Barriers arising from inherited wealth and status further perpetuate privileges that hinder genuine equality. These multifaceted challenges compound to restrict true mobility, as individuals are often constrained by factors beyond merit and personal ability.

Pierre Bourdieu's concept of the "structure" of "capitaux," or capitals, refers to the various resources individuals can accumulate which influence their social status. These include economic capital (wealth), cultural capital (education, skills, knowledge), and social capital (networks of influence). Bourdieu emphasizes that the possession and combination of these capitals determine an individual's position in social hierarchies. This concept underlines how the availability and integration of different types of capital can facilitate or hinder social mobility, demonstrating the complex, multi-dimensional nature of social status.

In caste-based societies, social mobility is severely restricted because social positions are predetermined by birth, remaining largely static across generations. Individuals are assigned to a caste that dictates their roles, marriages, and livelihoods, resulting in minimal mobility. In contrast, meritocratic societies aim to provide equal opportunities, allowing individuals to change their social positions based on personal efforts, skills, and abilities. Meritocratic systems support fluidity in social hierarchies, enabling individuals to ascend or descend based on performance rather than hereditary factors. However, meritocracies often face challenges achieving perfect equality of opportunity due to residual systemic inequalities.

Economic, professional, and political domains significantly define the scope of social mobility. Economic mobility refers to changes in wealth or income status, affecting material living conditions. Professional mobility involves shifts in occupational roles and hierarchies, impacting career progression and social esteem. Political mobility relates to changes in influence and rights within political systems, such as gaining electoral representation or leadership positions. Each domain interacts with others, collectively determining the breadth and depth of an individual's mobility within the social framework. These domains underscore the multi-dimensionality of social mobility.

Using profession as an indicator of social status is problematic for measuring social mobility for women because it may not fully capture the complexities of women's experiences in the labor market and their social status. Factors such as unpaid domestic labor, part-time work, gender pay gaps, and career disruptions due to family responsibilities can obscure the true nature of women's social mobility. These factors are not adequately reflected in professional status alone, making it a limited measure, especially in societies where gender roles heavily influence career opportunities and outcomes.