Search

The present paper began with an attempt to formalize the Davis-Moore functional theory of social stratification. It was found that the theory could be represented by a static model consisting of two algebraic equations with appropriate constraints on the functions. Then the tools of path analysis were used to evaluate the empirical adequacy of the Davis-Moore and Parsonian functional theories of social stratification as representations of cultural beliefs about stratification. Because of the likely presence of measurement and sampling errors, it was impossible to reject definitely either of the models. However, the estimated path coefficients were more consistent with the Parsonian theory than the Davis-Moore theory. This led to an inquiry into the conditions under which one model would be a better representation than the other. It was argued that the Davis-Moore scheme would provide a more accurate representation of cultural beliefs under conditions of high organizational interdependence whereas the Parsonian framework would give a better representation under conditions of low interdependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between size and structure is a general problem in the study of social organization. Organization can be seen as a system of relationships among differentiated activities performed by units of a population. Viewed as arising out of the exchange relations among these units, the structural characteristics of organizations should be affected by population size. As specific expressions of this general concern, size has been included in every taxonomy of group properties and has been related to goals, effectiveness, succession, and job satisfaction in studies of formal organizations (Merton, 1957:310-326; Berelson and Steiner, 1964:364-367; Tannenbaum, 1961; Meltzer and Salter, 1962; Simpson and Gulley, 1962; and Grusky, 1961). But perhaps the greatest amount of theoretical and research attention has focused on the relationship between size and the administrative component as one structural aspect of formal organizations (Melman, 1951; Terrien and Mills, 1955; Tsouderos, 1955; Bendix, 1956:221-223; Haire, 1959:287-296; Anderson and Warkov, 1961; Lindenfeld, 1961; Haas et al., 1963; Hawley et al., 1965; Starbuck, 1965:495-502; Rushing, 1966; Raphael, 1967; Hall et al., 1967). The findings produced by this research along with other inquiries into the effects of size on structural characteristics have been inconclusive. This has led some to conclude that "… size may be irrelevant in determining organizational structure" (Hall et al., 1967:912). Such a conclusion, however, may be premature. It is clear from both our own work and that of others that the effects of size may vary by type of organization (Akers and Campbell, 1968). Further, a clearer understanding of the size factor, especially as related to the administrative segment, requires a systematic investigation into other structural features of organization. In particular, Blau and Scott (1962:227) have suggested that complexity, as a second structural characteristic, may be an intervening variable between size and the administrative component, as well as being itself directly affected by organizational size. While other studies have treated complexity in a variety of ways, none has attempted systematically to explore the interrelationships among size, complexity, and the administrative component in a relatively large number of voluntary organizations. It is the purpose of this paper to examine these interrelationships for one kind of organization. Specifically, we want to consider: 1. the relationship between organizational size and the administrative component, controlling for complexity. 2. the relationship between size and complexity controlling for the relative size of the administrative component. 3. the relationship between complexity and the size of the administrative component controlling for organizational size. [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]

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]

There has been a great amount of criticism of structural-functional theory, particularly with respect to its supposed inability to deal with social change. Should structural-functional theory be unable to account for the sources of social change, then it is indeed guilty of an implicit ideological commitment to the status quo. If it can be shown that this theory is capable of dealing with social change, then we can accept Merton's statement: … it is the evaluations which permit the pouring of ideological content into the bottles of functionalism. The bottles themselves are neutral to their contents, and may serve equally well as containers for ideological poison or for ideological nectar. The position taken here is that Merton's statement is correct, provided that an important accommodation is made. This accommodation consists in the explicit incorporation of the dialectical process into structural-functional theory. The dialectical process implies a conflict model of society; it is in the tradition of Marx, who argued that without conflict there can be no progress. It adopts the proposition that conflict is empirically both a normal and an essential element in the social structure. In the simplest terms, the dialectic tells us something about the sources of a particular kind of social change. We are not content, as is Dahrendorf, with advocating a conflict model of society as an alternative to functionalism. The goal is nothing less than to reconcile the two approaches. Dahrendorf has himself recognized that the conflict model cannot provide all the answers since society is "Janusheaded." It is extremely difficult to talk about the prediction of empirical outcomes when one is required to look first at an integration model and then turn to the conflict model. It is necessary to construct one model which will qualify the integration model of society so as to give weight (the exact amount is an empirical question) to the disruptive elements in society. A considerable portion of this paper will be devoted to disengaging the dialectic from its ideological moorings and making it trim for sociological analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been almost twenty years since Davis and Moore published their famed theory of stratification. During this period, the discussions which it has engendered have been numerous and highly instructive. It is now time to address ourselves to problems which concern the testability of the theory and its experimental validity. This paper reports the results of an empirical study of one of the basic issues raised by Davis and Moore. A major proposition of their theory argues that in the final analysis, social stratification arises in a society because of differential rewards for performance in the social positions therein. These rewards can be of several types. For our purposes, two are of major importance: symbolic and economic rewards, hereafter referred to as "prestige" and "reward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The general theory of symbolic interaction, specifically self theory, is focused upon the importance of language as an instrument of definition and communication. People are seen as responding not directly to a resistant outer reality but to meanings of objects which are defined within a cultural system and social organization. G. H. Mead, in his discussion of the way persons develop self concepts and the accompanying ability to take roles effectively, speaks of the degree to which persons develop a "general other." This general other is an organized structure of attitudes believed to be common to all and is defined in terms of a universe of discourse growing out of the symbolic interaction of a community of individuals. Replies to the Twenty Statements Test, described by Kuhn and McPartland, display this quality. Self-identifying statements which people make fall along a rough spectrum of reference which can be broken up in various ways. The distinction which Kuhn and McPartland have reported is between what they call consensual and nonconsensual statements. Consensual statements are defined as those statements which would be generally understood by persons in the larger society without explanation. Nonconsensual statements are defined as those requiring interpretation before their social relevance can be assessed. The consensual statement is language behavior directed to the general other, while the nonconsensual statement is language directed to a more limited audience. H. S. Sullivan's contribution in developing the notion of the "significant other" consists in accounting for the fact that persons often do not seem to internalize standards and norms from the whole society but from segments of it on some selective basis. In this paper, the number of consensual statements made in response to the Twenty Statements Test will be called the locus score. Respondents are assigned to "high" and "low" locus categories as they make more or less than the median number of consensual statements. Expanding upon this frame of reference, it seems reasonable to propose that the locus quality found in self-conceptions of a given person is also characteristic of his conceptions of other objects. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that the self is the core of a set of interrelated attitudes, and that the level of reference employed by the respondent in his attitudes toward the self would therefore be applicable to other attitudes as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]