Search

Students of the recent outbreaks in America's cities have with few exceptions attempted no social structural analysis of riot behavior. By structure, we mean relating the individual's place within a set of community status locations. Such a failure has significance in light of two aspects of the ghetto uprisings: (1) participation in rioting was limited to a relatively small portion of the eligible "riot" population; and (2) economic deprivation per se has not characterized rioters as individuals. Caplan and Paige (1968) report that 39 percent of rioters and 30 percent of nonrioters had incomes under $5,000 in Detroit compared to 33 percent and 29 percent in Newark. In Detroit, 30 percent of the rioters reported they were unemployed, while this figure was 32 percent for nonrioters. In Newark, the figures were 30 percent and 19 percent respectively. Both of these facts raise questions about the lack of participation among groups which are available for such action and the mobilization of persons who might otherwise be considered less likely to feel "outside the system," "alienated," etc. The present analysis of post-riot survey data in Detroit applies a model of status modality for income and educational levels using the local neighborhood as a reference point. By differentiating persons whose level of income or education falls significantly above or below the neighborhood mode, differences in riot participation were examined. Within age, income, education, and employment categories, neighborhood status modality proved to be an important predictive variable in regard to riot participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature concerned with social mobility is quite extensive. This body of material has to a great extent taken a societal or institutional perspective, with a large proportion of mobility studies focusing on such questions, among others, as: what are the social origins of a particular occupational stratum; what rates and trends can be found over time and place; and, are class boundaries becoming more rigid? Emphasis on such questions is certainly pertinent for the understanding of stratification. Yet, there has been a relative neglect of what should prove to be an intriguing aspect of social mobility—the social and psychological consequences of such mobility for the individuals involved. A basic question to ask is: do individuals who have experienced mobility exhibit variations in their behavioral patterns when compared to individuals who are socially stable? To find and study possible variations in the behavior of individuals who have had different mobility experiences seems an important area of investigation. Several decades ago it was postulated that social mobility resulted in social isolation through its disruption of participation in primary and secondary group structures (cf. Durkheim, 1951:252-254; Sorokin, 1927); mobility was seen as detrimental for interpersonal relations because of its effect on ties within these groups. However, the theoretical and empirical work since these early statements has not shown that such a simple relationship between mobility and participation exists; mobility does not seem always to lead to social isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

be dealt with on a sociological level of analysis. An adequate classification of norms should generate terms that are useful to social system analysis in particular and delineate relevant factors in the social stimulus setting in which individuals function. With this position before us, we shall posit a classification of norms which consists of the following terms: group norm, organizational norm, collective norm, intergroup norm, interorganizational norm, intercollective norm, inter group-organizational norm, inter group-collective norm, and inter organizational-collective norm. Each of these terms is tied to a sociological referent, that is, to a set of individuals that can be differentiated in sociocultural terms. Nisbet (1966:6) has recently defined and discussed the history of five unit-ideas which he considers to be central to the sociological tradition: community, authority, status, the sacred, and alienation. Another unitidea central to the sociological tradition which might appropriately be added to this list is that of social norm. Most sociologists considering the concept of social norm in this light would agree that it is fundamental to the analysis of social structure, to the social-psychological study of human behavior, and that it would fit Nisbet's criteria for a unit-idea. Definitions of norm abound in the literature. Numerous and various criteria have been employed as bases for proposing classifications of norms. Yet, while most authors in the area recognize, explicitly or implicitly, the theoretical relevance of the concept to the analysis of social structure, no classificatory scheme has sought systematically to differentiate kinds of norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the political attitudes of one social category— college professors. The intent was to ascertain the influence of particular variables (singly and in interaction) upon the political attitudes of this category. Since the focus was on the variables which affect political attitudes and not upon the distribution of such attitudes in the total population of college professors, a factorial sampling design was used (Rossi, 1959:45). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The view of Mead (1934) that the self has its origin in the process of social interaction is fundamental to all sociologically-oriented social psychologists. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that so little attention has been given to analysis of the nature of this "social process." Mead himself assumes, as Glaser and Strauss (1964) have pointed out, that the encounter of the person with others occurs in what these authors have called an "open awareness context" in which "each interactant is aware of the other's true identity and his own identity in the eyes of the other." Mead goes further to argue that, not only are persons thus aware of their identities in others' eyes, but that they see their own identities as they perceive these others to see them: The individual experiences himself as such, not directly, but only indirectly, from the particular standpoints of other individual members of the same social group, or from the generalized standpoint of the social group as a whole to which he belongs. For he enters his own experience as a self or individual, not directly or immediately, not by becoming a subject to himself, but only insofar as he first becomes an object to himself just as other individuals are objects to him or in his experience; and he becomes an object to himself only by taking the attitudes of other individuals toward himself within a social environment or context of experience and behavior in which both he and they are involved (Mead, 1934:138). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spoken interpersonal naming practices, or the substantives of direct address and third person reference in speech, may provide important natural ethnographic clues to the structure and functioning of social units. This analysis explores how such practices may indicate socially structured strain and ambivalence. The bounded residential institution studied receives "deviant" adolescents from home communities, holds them, and putatively changes them. The setting investigated probably creates severe strains owing to the wide differences in power between adolescent "inmate-clients" and adult "staff," the high rate of interaction between them, and the low rate of interaction with outside groups. The pure case of Scheler's ressentiment may be approached with its "Diffuse feelings of hate, envy and hostility; … a sense of being powerless to express these feelings actively against the person or social stratum evoking them; and … a continual re-experiencing of this impotent hostility." However, high rates of interaction with the evocators may modify these feelings, and differentiated relations with them are likely to be associated with differential focusing of negative affect on them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three procedures are generally used for the identification of community leaders. Leaders may be assessed by criteria of position, by criteria of participation, and by criteria of reputation. Most researchers have relied on the latter two procedures and have made assessments exclusively on the basis of participation or on the basis of reputation. In the few studies in which both procedures have been used together, they have appeared to yield listings of community leaders of varying degrees of similarity. D'Antonio and Form, for example, report in their El Paso study that 71 to 93 per cent of the key decision-makers in one or more of the six issues they studied were also reputed leaders. In contrast, Freeman and his associates in their Syracuse study report only a 39 per cent overlap in two independently derived lists of the leading participants and the most frequently nominated leaders. To be sure, the methodologies of the El Paso and Syracuse reports are not directly comparable. However, this is equally true of all of the leadership study comparisons. The problem of establishing empirically meaningful criteria for such comparisons is unresolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Cooley did not initiate the use of the term, the primary group, undoubtedly he was the first sociologist to put meaning and content into it and to set it forth as a valuable concept in sociological literature. Ever since the publication of his monumental work, Social Organization, in 1909, the concept has gained rapid acceptance and has appeared in all General Sociology textbooks serving as a basis for the classification of human groups. Owing to its popularity and prominence, however, discussions on its nature and validity have also become fashionable and widespread. In these discussions, some sociologists attempted to read their own ideas into Cooley's characterization; others interpreted it in such a manner as to suit their own conceptual framework; still others went so far as to challenge the validity of the phrase itself and suggested that "primary" be replaced with a different epithet. Recently the view has been expressed that the primary group concept, so confusing and ambiguous for a developing sociology, has not carried its weight although some merits of the concept are still recognized, such as its "rich connotation" and its "formulation of some fundamental aspects of human experience." Nevertheless, the dissatisfaction with it seems great and the doubt of its validity and usefulness is growing. A verdict is just around the comer: The baby must go out with the bath. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the controversy surrounding the term "reference group" in sociological research. The author attempts an exploration of the "idea of the other" in the symbolic interaction orientation as a context for the consideration of the "idea of the reference group." A summary on the role of the other in the symbolic interactionist orientation is presented. The historical background on the reference group concept as well the factors contributing to its persisting popularity is also given. The reference group concept states that an actor's view of himself is gained only through the image he imagines the other to have of him. Many sociologists share the same idea that meaning, thought, and the self arise alike in the relationships between the actor and his alters. The author concludes that there are serious discontinuities between the symbolic interaction orientation and the reference group concept.

The present undertaking began by trying to specify what there is about a group that makes it a distinctive kind of collectivity and to delineate those major attributes which it is necessary to refer to in speaking of groups. Some of the principal assumptions underlying the effort are these: (1) A restrictive definition is desirable if progress toward a rigorous scientific concept is to be achieved. Many sets of persons now loosely referred to as groups would not qualify under such a definition. (2) It is useful to view a social group as an emergent which takes form or crystallizes over time as the result of certain interactional processes. At some point the interaction becomes systematic enough and certain attributes become stable enough to say a group exists. (3) The developmental patterns of different groups are similar enough so that general processes can be identified. (4) Groups are real, and the reality of groups is attested by the distinctive effects they have on the behavior of participants and the collective character of the products of such groups. It appears to be economical and illuminating to view the selected group characteristics and their posited relationships in terms of a descriptive developmental model. In the process of specifying the elements of the model, clarity seems to result from setting forth the model graphically in a diagram (Figure 1). As the diagram indicates, the model posits two preconditions, establishes nine major group attributes, classified as "rudimentary," "emergent," and "mature"; portrays the main linkages among the attributes; and refers to two closely related terms—member satisfactions and group products. The meaning intended for each of the elements will be discussed briefly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

White-collar workers are generally recognized as occupying an intermediate position in the American status hierarchy, below the managerial class but above the industrial worker. Indeed, the white-collar group is often regarded as the most representative in our society, the most typically middle class. It is another significant part of the white-collar stereotype that the white-collarite is upwardly oriented and that he tends to be identified more closely with the managerial than the laboring class. The managerial class, according to this stereotype, serves as his reference group; he tends to adopt the management point of view, presumably in hopes of some day rising to membership in that status group. However, working conditions have changed in recent times in a way that might suggest that a significant change may be under way in white-collar attitudes. The industrialization process, with its rationalization of business and industry, its emphasis upon specialization and mechanization, has some tendency to freeze workers at their occupational levels. It has made it increasingly difficult for the whitecollar worker to advance to a management position. At the same time, the routinization of many white-collar jobs, plus substantial improvements in blue-collar working conditions, have tended to blur some of the traditional distinctions between these two groups. Hence, it is not illogical to suspect that a change in orientation may be in process, one in which the white-collar worker is increasingly alienated from management and drawn more closely toward the laborer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the interacting group influence on interaction profiles. Research in the area of group size has the important advantage of being replicable and cumulative. Groups tend on the average to devote a certain proportion of their interaction to each of the interaction process categories. Groups vary in the proportion of interaction devoted to each of the categories--there is considerable variation from the average profile. The data for the investigation were twenty-seven interaction profiles, each of which was the average of the amount of interaction of the individuals in several groups of a given size. A matrix of correlation coefficients for the twelve interaction categories and group size was calculated and then factor analyzed using the principal axis method and an oblimax rotation. No factors were importantly related to group size. As group size increases, the tendency for the group to become divided into centralized factions increases. The tendency is for interaction to become more objective and less subjective as group size increases.

The article focuses on rural-urban differences and the family. A considerable body of theory has arisen dealing with rural-urban differences in the family. The assertion in many cases, and the inference in others, is that the extended family is most important in rural areas and that The nuclear or conjugal family stands as a relatively independent unit in urban localities. There are many researchers who have held that the disintegration of the extended family has proceeded farther in the city than in the country. These and other students of the family in their comparison of rural and urban life also suggest that people are so individualized in the city that they have little or no time to spend with members of their immediate families, and that in urban settings as contrasted with the rural settings there are few if any intrafamilial co-operative activities. This particular hypothesis of the disintegration of the family in urban areas is but one of a number of related hypotheses which collectively and in their simplest form hold that urban areas are strongholds of secondary groups and inimical to primary groups.

Survey data from Gävle, Sweden, are examined to determine whether the three Swedish occupational groups reflect actual social classes. Analyses reveal that (a) occupational status is heavily influenced by educational attainment; (b) education and amount and source of income all differ significantly among the three social groups; (c) upward generational occupational mobility is largely restricted to the top two groups; (d) Sweden is generally perceived as having three social classes; (e) most persons in all three groups identify with Group II; and (f) Swedes in all social groups desire to increase economic and social equality. The argument is made that Sweden may indeed contain a threeclass structure based primarily on occupation, but many Swedes view this class structure largely in economic terms. Recent marked rises in income across all social classes in Sweden have therefore left most people relatively satisfied with their society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]