Search

This paper seeks to assess the utility of the transactional model of individual stress. According to the logic of the model, whether persons manifest stress is a multiplicative function of both situational and individual characteristics. The paper briefly discusses possible advantages of the perspective over other frames of reference. Then it describes a pilot study designed to determine whether hypotheses based on the transactional model could be supported empirically. Utilizing interview data from a small probability sample of all adults in the state of Missouri, scales were constructed by an improved method of item analysis for use as indicators of variations in stress and the situational and individual factors. Comparing stress scores by situational and individual variables produced results indicative of a multiplicative relationship and thus supportive of theories derived from the transactional perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research and theory relative to the lower class adolescent male peer group has focused largely on the culture and behavior of group members. Further, the focus has been on the different types of behavior characteristic of different groups. While this analysis has been quite fruitful, it has led us away from attempting to place all such groups on any single continuum which might involve structure as well as culture. Specifically, the concept of "gang" has either been used loosely to include all groups of lower class male adolescents or has been omitted altogether. This paper maintains that the concept of gang still has considerable utility as a category for research. This paper will be presented in five parts: (1) an analysis of the concept as used in the past into a set of empirical variables; (2) a description of a method used to get data on these variables; (3) a presentation of data relative to these variables; (4) an analysis of the correlation of these variables; and (5) an attempt to place gangs on continue representing variables found in small groups in other contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Culture and Social Character, several authors have written essays primarily devoted to a criticism of The Lonely Crowd. An unfortunate aspect of the former book is that it is most difficult to ascertain whether the total impact of the criticism is to destroy the concepts of inner- and other-directedness or whether the analysis has enhanced their meaningfulness by correcting flaws in methodology and emphasis. Also, if the latter is true, there is the further problem of a consistent use of the Riesman topology. In the first part of this paper I will bring together various statements from Culture and Social Character that put the question of the validity of the concepts in better perspective, define the terms inner- and other-directedness more rigorously, and show the usefulness of the concepts in their sociological context as action (behavior) patterns coming about in response to differing structural settings. The first section of the paper will in a sense establish benchmark of meaning for the concepts by solidifying the argument for their use in describing particular types of action patterns. In later sections I will speculate as to the psychological and historical bases of the Riesman topology relying on work that has been published after The Lonely Crowd. Since my discussion will range over several areas, it seems appropriate to offer first a rather lengthy sketch of my entire argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collective behavior has been a long standing focal point of sociological interest. From its earliest use by Robert E. Park, the concept has been an expression of the sociologist's concern with various dramatic processes of social control, especially those manifesting rapid social change. While the work of specialists in collective behavior has emphasized the study of very specific and delimited events such as crowds, fashions, and fads, the subject matter of collective behavior has come to include the most crucial society-wide movements and upheavals. Moreover, empirical work in this field has reflected a sophisticated understanding of the difficulties of observing and recording complex aspects of social reality which envelop the observer and resist simplified coding and data-reduction techniques. By contrast, the theoretical relevance of the collective behavior framework has been problematic until recently and open to extensive debate. In fact, there was a period of time, after the initial contributions by Robert E. Park, in which the theoretical disputations about the nature of collective behavior appeared to divert creative energies. As a specialized orientation collective behavior became encapsulated and immune to the theoretical developments in other aspects of sociological thinking. In recent years, say the last five years, there has been a renewed interest in the collective behavior approach. The following papers by Neil Smelser and Ralph Turner, which provided the basis for an American Sociological Association panel, give expression to the search for a new balance between theory and empirical enterprise. These papers and the immediate discussion they provoked indicate that some sociologists are using the rubric to focus on crucial substantive issues of contemporary social change. In part, the dramatic events of the civil rights movement in the United States and the equally dramatic transformation of social structure in the new nations have contributed to this renaissance. In part, the response is defensive against the persistent criticism from outside disciplines concerning the excessive expenditure of intellectual energies on trivial processes of social control. What is important in any case is that collective behavior, although strictly sociological in its approach, supplies a link to the interests of political scientists and historians who have long been concerned with revolutions and mass movements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper written by Professor Delbert Miller about the future direction of industrial sociology is critiqued. Miller addressed the related two related themes which are the need for sociology departments to remodel offerings to compete for students in the educational marketplace and the importance of sharpening the discipline's identity as a specialization directed at business and industry. As a result of the proposed changes in the discipline, students would become viable candidates for personnel, human resources and industrial relations positions. Miller was not suggesting that sociology departments or industrial sociologists have absolutely avoided applications. Rather, neither has sufficiently developed such programs to brake the loss of sociology majors to university units that promise more marketable training.

In this paper we propose a macro level model for analyzing the creation of deviance rules. We begin by placing the phenomenon within the context of the social factist and social definitionist sociological traditions, identifying the insights and difficulties the social problems literature presents for explaining deviance rule creation. We suggest that the theoretical difficulties can be resolved by placing the process within a sociology of knowledge framework. The consequent dialectical model of deviance designation is based on the assumption that society is composed of a number of general interests in varying degrees of conflict with prevailing definitions of deviance representing outcomes of previous contests. This balance or accommodation becomes vulnerable with the introduction or increase in strain which is a potential resource for interest groups desiring a new definition. The outcome of the ensuing conflict is seen as dependent on the ability of the combatants to employ resources in the battle. We conclude by identifying the advantages the model has for studying the deviance rule creation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper empirically examines the claim that many theories of deviance only have utility for explaining deviance committed by males because their conceptual development was tainted with inattention to females. Five variables representing the essence of major theories of deviant behavior are measured for a self-report sample of 1993 cases. Each variable is tested to determine how well it can account for deviance among females compared to males. In volume of deviance more males than females were classified as deviant but the underlying processes which the five theoretical variables address operated equally for members of both sexes. These findings support the position that the processes by which females come to commit deviance is similar to the processes for males. The findings suggest that exclusive focus on females is unlikely to yield more adequate explanations of female deviance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important contributions of recent social problems theory is the insight that social problems are inherently political phenomena. Existing scholarship on this characteristic has not dealt systematically with (1) the degree of overt politicality of social issues, or (2) the dynamic element of this politicality. This paper first reviews recent literature in the "medicalization of deviant behavior," and suggests that this literature illustrates how the political element of social problem phenomena can be suppressed and replaced with a seemingly apolitical and technical perspective. Then it is proposed that interpretive social problems theory might deal more adequately with this pattern by incorporating a continuum ranging from "open" to "closed" social problems and analyzing the dynamics of social problem "enclosure," and that certain sorts of claims—cognitive as opposed to normative—are especially conducive to the depoliticization and enclosure of social problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper makes an initial statement on the importance of the concept of the other in sociology and social psychology and then examines the place this concept plays in the essential thought of Alfred Schutz, G. H. Mead, and C. H. Cooley. It is argued that the concept is not a fundamental part of the thought of Schutz, that it is used merely as a convenient loophole at various strategic moments in the argument, whereas in the work of Mead and Cooley it is conceived as an active and embodied entity that plays a crucial role in their respective theories of socialization and human conduct. The work of the labeling theorists is then taken to illustrate the value of the concept as used by Mead and Cooley, with some changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper first reviews the descriptions and structural explanations for variations, in urban population densities in the United States over several decades. The research reviewed focuses on shifts in the technology and economics of travel as being the major influences on urban density distributions. These variables appear to be somewhat less adequate as explanations of the process in recent decades. After reviewing these findings and suggesting several research questions, we attempt to assess the evidence relating variations in population density to several other aspects of human behavior. A review of the research relating high population densities to various "social pathologies" indicates that little of the variance in rates of these pathologies can be attributed to density independently of other social structural variables. Some important consequences of population density have been reported, however, and possible research directions are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is not offered, even by implication, as an explanation for urban riots and confrontations. It is an exposition of a point of view, a methodology, and a body of evidence which hopefully may shed some light on this complex and pressing social problem. Within the social sciences several levels of analysis exist, each appropriate to the study of a certain type of problem (Devereaux, 1963; Bendix, 1963). Experimental approaches to social psychology have been particularly valuable in the analysis of individual behavior in a social context; emphasis has been on finding both the social determinants and the social implications of the behavior of an individual. While we believe that part of the explanation of collective phenomena, such as urban revolts, lies in the analysis of the behavior of individuals (cf. Brown, 1965), we do not advocate naive reductionism. We propose only to use data from the laboratory to form some operational definitions and hypotheses to guide further study and interpretation of collective events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small group research has dealt at some length with the phenomena of competition and cooperation. Task performance and, to a lesser extent, group structure have been examined under different conditions of competition and cooperation. The two group-types most frequently encountered in the literature are the intra-competitive group in which the members of a group compete with each other for a reward which only one of them may obtain, and the intra-cooperative, inter-competitive group in which the members are competing as a unit against another group. In the course of a recent experiment, the behaviors and attitudes of two additional group-types have also been studied. One of these types, the Intra-Aud-Inter-Competitive Group shall be the focus of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is not unusual, in fact, it is commonplace, that in the development of a body of knowledge a particular mode of thought, while responsible for the discovery and ordering of important facts, is at the same time responsible for the obstruction of equally important truths. This appears especially to be the case in the sociological study of criminal behavior. There has been the overwhelming conception of criminal behavior (and deviant behavior in general) as behavior that is produced by a variety of impersonal, deterministic forces rather than by voluntaristic, purposive action. The former perspective found in much of criminology today results from a particular conception of man and society. The object of this paper is to explore the possibility of an alternative conception of man and society for criminology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I shall set down a few ideas that I consider central in the study of collective behavior and conflict, and indicate a few similarities and differences between my views on these subjects and the views of others. I shall organize my remarks around the following questions. (1) What are the defining characteristics of collective behavior? In addressing this question I shall simultaneously be talking about what I consider to be the scope of the field. (2) What are the central problems in this field? (3) What are the ways in which these problems can be most adequately handled? Here I shall outline the "value-added" approach to explaining collective outbursts and movements. (4) To conclude, I shall focus on social movements with political aims, and ask two questions: When is a movement likely to become revolutionary? When is a revolutionary movement likely to become violent? In discussing these final questions, I shall apply some of the variables of the value-added scheme, and introduce the subject of conflict explicitly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The title of this study is that given to the review of a book in a recent issue of Commentary. It also refers to an important contemporary social movement, namely, mental illness. This is a movement that accords to irrationalism a constantly increasing respectability. An enormous increase in the kinds of conduct classified as irrational has resulted in the past few decades from the work of some of the most highly educated and intellectual students of human behavior. One corollary is a decrease in the kinds of behavior classified as rational. This has been accompanied by a violent attack upon the concepts of reason and individual responsibility, and by attempts to substitute the concepts of irresponsibility and exculpation. These attempts have been successful to a great degree. This paper will concern itself with two problems that mark this social movement. The first problem is that of definition and counting. The second is that of resolving the paradox of irrationalism. It would be tedious to summarize the studies of the past twentyfive years that show that the interest in mental illness is a social movement rather than a scientific development. One of the first, by Kingsley Davis, showed that it possesses a characteristic essential to any social movement. Its proponents conceive it to be a panacea. As a social movement it is in many respects the functional equivalent of religion in the system of traditional middle-class values. The movement is today continuing to propagate middle-class values and ethics under the guise of science. It presents the prototype of the middle-class or upper-class person as being in all important respects equivalent to that of the mentally healthy person. Thus it is not to be wondered at that when psychiatrists and other clinicians (who are professional and upper class ) interview and otherwise "examine" lower-class children, especially delinquent boys, they find that the boys are "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally ill" in some form and to some degree. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]