Search

The article presents a paper that has attempted to illuminate the problem of the persistence of specific organizational forms, a problem which has received some theoretical attention, but for which few operational clues exist. A notable exception is researcher Arthur L. Stinchcombe's hypothesis stating that when organizational elite structures are compatible with the interests and purposes of relevant external elites who control the resources upon which the organization depends, then the organizational form has a better chance of survival. The example analyzed in this paper was that of a city police control system that by all odds should have died a hundred years ago. The first task of this paper was to show how the Police Control Board, gradually worked out a routine police control operation that proved to be of great comfort and satisfaction to nervous elites suspicious of the city's will and ability to keep the dangerous classes in check. The second task of this paper was to analyze the social backgrounds of commissioners in order to show that they could hardly be anything but acceptable to elites since they themselves were recruited from elites and brought an elite perspective into the organization.

The article presents information on the paper titled "Prestige and Esteem As Power Components: An Experimental Analysis," by E. Gartly Jaco. This paper is appealing for a number of reasons. It is an empirical study, but one with theoretical implications and relationships which are clearly delineated. This represents research as it should be. As an empirical test of the basic concepts of prestige and esteem, the research is not an effort to stand alone, but rather to contribute to the building of a body of knowledge relating to personal power and its exercise. As such, a number of theoretical conclusions are drawn, providing the suggestion and the basis for further research. For example, the contention that prestige sets a limit on the range of esteem a person may achieve requires additional examination of the dimensions of power and the relation of those dimensions to social stratification. Jaco's suggestion that, in a static society, personal power tends to be concentrated in prestige, while in a highly mobile society it may be centered in esteem, also deserves further consideration.

The relationship between social class, authoritarianism, and foreign policy attitudes has been re-examined in the light of evidence from a national survey and other studies. These data indicate that, contrary to the suggestion of Hamilton's recent paper, lower class people are not consistently more conciliatory on foreign policy issues than are those of higher social class. The attitudes of lower class people appear to be more consistently characterized by a preference for noninvolvement in foreign affairs. Such a preference for isolation from foreigners is congruent with the ideology which has been called authoritarianism. However, the preference for conciliatory over aggressive foreign policy actions which lower class persons sometimes show is not congruent with authoritarianism. This suggests that, although lower class persons may be more authoritarian, their foreign policy attitudes are determined mainly by other factors. The data reviewed suggest also that foreign policy attitudes can be understood best not in terms of a single orientation toward conciliation versus militancy but in terms of several basic orientations. It may prove useful to characterize specific foreign policy positions in terms of their position on the dimensions of (1) involvement-noninvolvement; (2) dominance-submissiveness; and (3) friendliness-hostility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a discussion related to a paper on prestige and esteem as power components. Power has been defined as the determination of others' behavior in accordance with one's own ends. The acquisition of power by an individual is through his role as well as through his social position. That is, power attaches in actuality not merely to the status or office but also to the individual independently of his position. Power can therefore be regarded as functionally related both to roles and to social positions. Power has, however, been viewed as either a dimension of status, or as existing separately and apart from social position. Viewed in its overall as well as its fundamental function, power can perhaps most feasibly be considered as the universal social process of which social position is one particular dimension or sub-universe. Such an approach to power readily lends itself to quantitative analysis. Two scales have been offered as components of an individual's social position. One scale of rankings, termed "prestige," is made up of the invidious value attached to the status or office. The other scale of ratings, called "esteem," is the invidious value attached to any given role or combination of roles.