Search

The recent increase in American divorce rates has aroused a great deal of media publicity, popular discussion, and social science research. Several recent works have begun to reexamine the origins, trends, and implications of divorce in American history. This paper presents systematic data concerning the extent of divorce in three North Central states for the 1810-60 period. The findings establish the incidence of mass divorce for a considerable period prior to official divorce statistics. Major patterns are analyzed and compared to late 19th-century data from the first governmental studies of divorce for the 1870-1900 decades. While some urban-rural differences are found, changing laws and norms played the principal role in the increase in divorce rates during the 1800s. The final part of the paper discusses the implications of these findings for understanding marital disruption in social-historical perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing upon insights from the social movement literature as well as leadership experience in a successful social movement organization, this paper suggests aspects of a framework for integrating traditional and contemporary approaches. The case history of JUST (Johnstowners United to Stop another Tragedy) is used to illustrate the interaction of grievances and structures in the career of a social movement organization. In addition to helping fill a lacuna in the literature on the internal dynamics of such organizations, this analysis also demonstrates the importance of the nature of the grievance as well as the target group's structural entrenchment. The paper focuses upon a relatively anomalous case for U.S. social movement organizations: an SMO which was successful despite displacement goals. The final section of the paper includes a summary diagram of the factors involved in JUSTs successful protest effort as well as broader generalizations suggesting the conditions under which grievances or infrastructures are more salient in explaining social movement phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The relative deprivation perspective was widely employed in the social movement literature :of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In spite of the growing popularity of some newer approaches which criticize the relative deprivation perspective (resource mobilization or resource management perspectives), there have been no attempts to analyze 'and evaluate the relative deprivation perspective in any systematic fashion. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the "classic" relative deprivation literature in order to critically assess the perspective on the basis of its theoretical coherence and clarity and its empirical validity. The general conclusion reached is that while the relative deprivation perspective was an advance over earlier approaches which viewed social movements as resulting from the expression of irrational impulses, the relative deprivation perspective is itself affected by too many serious conceptual, theoretical, and empirical weaknesses to be useful in accounting for the emergence and development of social movements. [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]

The rationality that guides the sociological community has generated principles to evaluate members' work. Under the sway of these principles, Georg Simmel surfaces either as a peripheral member of the community or as an outright failure. His critics have argued that his work is "fragmented," that he begins without having formulated "guiding statements," that he is "unsystematic" and "undisciplined." Yet we can discover in Simmel's writings a distinct rationality that upsets this criticism by its transcendence of it. Had these particular critics read his work more carefully they might have discovered that Simmel had anticipated their criticism and had carefully reevaluated its source of authority. In this paper 1 address the problems of discipline and systematic unity in sociological writing in order to unmask the rationality held within the sociological community and to formulate Simmel's unique contribution as a member of that community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]