Search

Studies of community power, influence, and leadership have rapidly increased in popularity and in number during the decade since Hunter's epochal study of Regional City in 1954. Foci of the various studies since then have ranged from the delineation of traits of leaders or power figures to conceptualizations of types of community power structures. Some few studies have been concerned with the relationship between attributes and actions of community leaders and community social structure. Outside the field of sociometric research the distribution of influence and the effect of community social structure upon this distribution has received little more than passing attention. The usual leadership research is concerned with the study of ways in which leadership affects the social structure of the community. This study will attempt to take the reverse orientation, that of how social structure affects leadership. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the distribution of influence and community social structure. More specifically, this study is concerned with the relationship between consensus on leadership and community homogeneity. Homogeneity of community socioeconomic characteristics is assumed to be a basis for the shared values, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and interests which serve as the basis for community consensus which may be manifested in agreement on nominations (choices) of community influentials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To discuss the merits of this last hypothesis is beyond the scope of this paper, which has the much more limited aim of examining the empirical support for Lipset and Bendix's original argument. How firmly can we rely on their empirical generalization that the overall pattern of social mobility appears to be much the same in industrial societies? To answer this requires a reanalysis of their data. Although a complete assessment of this generalization would require the examination of all the available material, I have made here no attempt to incorporate more recent findings than they consider. Needless to say, this review is not meant to be negative but, rather, reopens an issue which may have been prematurely closed. Indeed it may even be that readers of Lipset and Bendix have imbued their findings with greater finality than was indicated, since in their original monograph they stress the tentative nature of their interpretation. As an interpretation their study remains masterful, and this critique should be seen in this context. One final qualification is that since the chapter in which this analysis appears was in fact written by Lipset and Zetterberg, it may be more proper to refer to this thesis as the Lipset-Zetterberg thesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While a variety of social structural factors do influence all youth, it is critical to note that American youth are not a monolithic entity. Obviously, differences in age, race, sex, and socioeconomic status will play a part in what youth think, feel, and believe. Still, as this review of youth-oriented research indicates, the empirical focus, for the most part, has been upon white, middle-class, college students. One result of this research bias has been a tendency to generalize for all youth from data collected from a relatively small, select, youth population. A second obvious outcome is that sociologists have largely ignored the study of poor youth; non-students; blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, American Indians; youth in the work world; youth in the military; and females. Generally, this review of the social science research suggests that there is consensus among students of youth behavior as to the factors which influence the attitudes and behavior of contemporary youth. At the same time, it must be noted that much of what is pronounced is based on little in the way of empirical research and derived primarily from observations of a limited segment of American youth. Finally, this review of the literature would certainly support the observation that social scientists have provided little in the way of knowledge that would be of value to policy planners, program developers, or those involved in the day to day business of youth socialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We are primarily concerned with exploring the dynamics of symbol strategy as a device for conceptualization of social structure. We have tried to indicate their relevance for social relationships in three divergent contexts. Much systematic conceptual and empirical analysis remains before the value of this approach can be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]