Search

This paper examines the validity of the propositions that tile growth of political democracy has reduced social inequality, and that political democracy mediates much of the effect of the level of economic development on social equality. Social equality is defined empirically in terms of three variables: a measure of experience with social insurance programs; a measure of income inequality; and a social welfare index. The analysis of a cross-section of sixty western and third-world countries (1960) indicates that the effect of the level of economic development on each dependent variable is positive and curvilinear, but that the bivariate effects of political democracy on the latter are quite spurious, once the level of economic development is taken into account. Political democracy exerts no significant effects (additive or non-additive,) on social equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two main definitions of democracy have been used in the analysis of union politics; either as leadership responsiveness to membership opinion, or as the institutionalization of opposition. This paper rejects both definitions, instead defining democracy as the survival of faction. The survival of faction is explained by the pressures which prevent union Executives from destroying it. These pressures fall into twelve categories: political culture; government attitudes and behaviour; membership distribution; industrial setting; economic environment; technology; source of union bargaining power; membership characteristics; membership beliefs; opposition expertise and resources; leadership beliefs; and union structure. The contrasting political histories of the A.E.U. and the N.U.R. are explained by contrasting patterns of constraints. The paper concludes with a formal statement of the characteristics associated with union democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Spanish-American republics are by and large fairly democratic on paper; for their constitutions call for representative forms of government in which the citizens are supposed to have an effective control of their own destiny. But in fact the countries of Spanish America are governed by techniques which are the very opposite of democratic, and which veil more or less successfully variants of class dictatorship. Evidences showed that in Mexico, elections have little to do with the selection of the chief magistrate, and in Mexico he has much more power than he has in the United States. The reason for this condition of affairs are many and complex, however, the factor that has been selected for discussion in this article is the Spanish character. The truth is that neither letters nor the ways of peace nor the ways of industry ever really competed successfully with the forces of war which determined the national character and molded the values of the Spaniard. Nor has the Spaniard altogether outgrown even yet the heroic values of a feudal society.

This article presents various papers related to the North American demography, which were published in different journals. The paper "Migration, Location and Remuneration of Medical Personnel: Physicians and Dentists," by L. Benham, A. Maurizi and M.W. Reder was published in the August 1958 issue of the journal "The Review of Economics and Statistics." The article "The Political Theory of Pluralistic Democracy," by C.J. Burtenshaw was published in the December 1968 issue of the journal "The Western Political Quarterly." This article analyzes the theory of pluralistic democracy as it emerges from empirical study of two communities, New Haven, Connecticut and Oberlin, Ohio and contrary to their position claims that even in the American political system the purposes of the state are the ambitions or aspirations of the successful group. The paper "Migration, Politics, and Welfare," by R.A. Cloward and F. Fox Piven was published in the November 16, 1968 issue of the journal "Saturday Review."

This paper explores the social causation underlying the ideology of racialism. Racialism can be defined as the belief in deep, innate and unalterable differences of appearance, mentality and value, between human groups. But the mere existence of races in a physical sense is no proof of the truth of racialism. The greatest example of a religious justification of racialism is offered by Hinduism. Between the different castes are more or less high barriers to prevent intermarriage and social intercourse. There are certain differences in the attitude of the various Christian churches towards racialism. When the first World War broke out many defenders of German imperialism represented the struggle as one waged by the noble Teutonic race against its ignoble adversaries. The growth of racialism is conditioned by many factors. Its background is always a state of social inequality which is in conflict with certain moral ideas and therefore needs a defence. War has also led to the accentuation of social differences within the victorious nations. Like war, democracy has influenced racialism in very different ways. But the deeds of democracy have not always been consistent with its principles. Nationalism is by far the most powerful social factor and very few people are able to escape its poisonous influence altogether, though most of them are not aware of their own infection.

Presents a correction to the article "Democracy and Working-Class Authoritarianism," previously published in the vol. 24, August 1959 issue of the journal "American Sociological Review."

This paper aims to point to some results of a lack of sharing cultural values and some possibilities of sharing cultural values. If one may define democracy as "shared experiences and conclusions democratically arrived at," it is not clear that merely being tolerant of the presence of various cultural groups in American life is not sharing cultural experiences. If present culture is in a growing rather than a finished state, then the future American culture will be rich in so far as Americans now develop an atmosphere in which members of all these groups can share with each other the best of their social values, customs, and folkways. It is obvious that such a condition does not now prevail. The effect of an assumed superiority attitude on the part of the so-called dominant-group members is no less tragic. The term "cultural democracy" well describes this process, a thinking, feeling, and acting together, on a basis of equality. One need to be taking thought as to what some of these values are. There is need for intensive thought and. experimentation on how to share these differences.

The article informs that the School of Education of New York University has made a notable contribution to the solution of the problem of education in human relations. During the quarter century of its existence, the principles of democracy, particularly in its relation to inter-culture and interfaith, have been basic in the philosophy of the School, in its program, and in the life of the institution. In the opinion of many, the most significant achievement of the School is the contribution it made to an understanding of Jewish and Christian cultures and the places of these cultures in the democratic life of the American people. To appreciate and evaluate properly this aspect of the work of the New York University School of Education, we should pause to examine the state of democracy generally on both the national and the international scenes. It will be well to remember at the outset of this paper that people generally do not follow their ideals in unadulterated form. They live by stereotypes and patterns. Liberal or conservative is a label attached to one who follows a complex of beliefs and opinions held by a given group or social set, with elements which frequently defy logic and consistency.

The function of this article is to present hypotheses about the relationships of formal and informal societal groups in shop and union life. The ideas discussed have been developed out of some fifteen years Of contact by the authors with hundreds of locals and dozens of international unions. Conversations with union officers, shop stewards, and rank-and-file members, and extensive perusal of union publications have provided the basis for the observations and ideas presented. The article constitutes a synthesis of cumulated experience, rather than an analysis based on selected case studies and the application of statistical controls and techniques. Where specific unions are mentioned as examples, it is only for purposes of illustrating a situation which the authors believe to be generally true. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the October 1952 issue of the Review, the authors of this article discussed the factors influencing membership participation in the local union, Here they examine the functions and problems of the local union meeting, particularly its effectiveness as a device for democratic participation in and control of the affairs of the union by the rank-and-file members. The material presented here constitutes part of a study of human relations problems in local unions supported by the Grant Foundation and under the general direction of Professor William F. Whyte of the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the operation of democracy inside trade unions in the U.S. It seeks to explore the need for authority over the membership with the democratic rights of workers. It quantifies that authority vis-a-vis the need to protect individual workers against the arbitrary exercise of a union official's power. There are various means to test the democratic conduct of leaders and members, but two should be mentioned, the forces for and against union democracy. Democratic ideals inside the union can also be examined with respect to admissions, disciplinary actions and the formulation of policies.

Presents a letter to the editor on misstatements of sociologist A.E. Wood regarding democracy, published in the August 1944 issue of the periodical "American Sociological Review."

The view is widely held amongst sociologists and political scientists and also expressed in the mass media that Great Britain is a very effective, stable, liberal democracy. It has long been blessed by a high degree of political integration, of which the broad consensus on the Constitution and on policies, is only the most remarkable instance. The theme around which their interpretations turn is the identification of what is thought to be the mixture of attitudes and orientations that characterises British political culture. Whilst all the studies mentioned, can be faulted in varying degrees on methodological grounds' as well as on substantive points of interpretation, their analyses have gained widespread support, and even acclaim, amongst academics. Indeed, the view of British life that they present has until recently remained virtually unchallenged. More recently, an alternative interpretation of the data presented in these and other studies has been suggested: This heterodox account contends that the political stability of liberal democracies is not underpinned by normative consensus as was previously assumed, but rather that it rests upon the pragmatic acceptance by the lower class of existing arrangements.

This section presents the author's reflections on liberty. Not a day passes that I do not reflect most gratefully on the blessings of liberty and most anxiously on the perils to which it is exposed. It means both freedom from and freedom for certain things. The three main branches of the stately tree of liberty--national, political, spiritual--are all of equal value. Long before nationalism took shape as an articulate creed in the era of the French Revolution, a deep-rooted instinct resented an alien yoke as a supreme indignity. In my own lifetime I have witnessed nothing of more epoch-making significance than the awakening of Asia, for I am old enough to remember the beginnings of the Congress Party in India and the Boxer rebellion in China. It is one of the distressing paradoxes of history that communities which have demanded and won their national liberty are often just as ready to deny it to others as if they despised and rejected the principle itself. The struggle for liberty has to be waged against foes within, no less than foes without. Political liberty, which means the sharing of power and responsibility among the whole body of citizens, first appears in the mediæval Swiss cantons. It is the glory of England to have invented the principle of representation in the thirteenth century, and to have shown that a parliament could take a hand in government.

The article discusses various issues related to communism and the psychology of economics. Some semblance of the freedom of the individual may have been gained in the nineteenth century among democratic nations, but to-day democracy moves towards a kind of socialism in which the individual is continually subject to control because communications, public services, education, medicine, and similar products of modern science are so elaborate that nobody can live under their influence and look after himself. If people think of war, they must admit that modern war is a produce of modern civilization, just as former wars were produced by civilizations of the past. The kind of control necessitated by modern warfare is indeed an example of the autocracies of the twentieth century. People may ask where the autocracies of modern banking, civil administration, of medicine, drainage, education, railways, and the like show a change in motivation from those of medieval Europe, of China, India, Africa, and in ancient and prehistoric times. They are all products of the attempts of mankind to solve the conflicts between two tendencies that he exhibits in his behavior, namely, the striving for mastery on the one hand and for security, on the other. In modern autocracies, totalitarianism excepted, people see a persistent effort to consider the individual, but this often enough ends in that unfortunate person being more effectively mastered than when he was considered less.

This article focuses on the influence of the social phenomenon called propaganda on the political evolution of society and of the laws and customs which limit the action of propaganda even in a democratic state. The political propaganda in democratic States is usually of somewhat the same pattern. The freedom of the individual who is approach, the attempt to obtain his consent, his voluntary contribution, these are the distinctive features of propaganda. In the field of education, the methods employed and the purpose for which they are employed bear some similarity to those which characterize propaganda. Thus it is obvious that the first and immediate result of propaganda is the influence it has on a certain number of individuals, and the change it brings about in their behaviour. The socialist propaganda in the nineteenth century has largely contributed to the destruction amongst industrial workers of a hierarchy of values and beliefs based upon the idea that the present social and economic organization was absolute and unchangeable. Generally, the aggressive anti-democratic propaganda is linked with terroristic methods, physical attacks against adversaries, dreadful punishment of betrayers, destruction of the party centres, placards, and newspapers of the opponents.

This article examines the possibility of preserving civil and economic liberties in a free democracy under capitalistic monopoly in the U.S. One example of political pluralism in the U.S. is the three-fold division of power into the legislative, executive and judiciary, whereby an exact system of checks and balances is brought to the aid of just administration. The division between U.S. parties has always been drawn on broad economic lines. The programs and platforms of the major parties have remained generally consistent. Thus at first glance there would appear to be a clash of economic interests between the two parties: the rich represented by the Federalist-Whig-Republicans, and their apologists including such men as Hamilton, Webster and Seward; and the poor represented by the Republican-Democrats, and their apologists. Given the adverse conditions arising from capitalistic monopoly in a free democracy, to determine whether the preservation of civil and economic liberalism is possible. The advent of the class struggle in the U.S. need not destroy liberal democracy, provided the basis of civil liberties: freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, be changed from one individualistic liberalism to one social liberalism.

A formal structural-procedural theory of effectiveness of opposition, or corn petition, for high union office is offered. The basic notion is that close elections are most apt to result from competition among contenders of equal status and power, resolved by an electorate subdivided into regions or other units of equal electoral strength, under procedures which ameliorate rather than exaggerate any structurally-produced inequalities. More specifically, the question of relative equality must be considered with respect to the hierarchy of officials (particularly full-time), regional and industrial substructures, local autonomy and the distribution of powers, and the voting systems. A number of propositions are derived from the general notion, and others are included for completeness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses modernization and communism. Sociologist Seymour M. Lypset's argument asserts a positive relation between degree of modernization and political democracy. He suggests that while democracy increases with increasing modernization, Comminism decreases. Lipset emphasizes that the main Source of radicalism is not poverty per se but rather the relative deprivation arising from large inequalities in income and status where the poor are aware of a better life. That is, at the lowest levels of modernization, the lower classes are less aware of alternatives and hence less apt to feel deprived. Therefore, they are less attracted to the Communist party. According to this hypothesis, the Communist parties should be strongest in societies in the lower middle range of economic development, where relative deprivation is most acute. Lipset qualifies this hypothesis with reference to rapidity of industrialization, the size of non-Communist reform parties, and regional variations. First, "Whenever industrialization occurred rapidly, introducing sharp discontinuities between the pre-industrial and industrial situation, more rather than less extremist working class movements emerged."

Differentiating the core values of nations in terms of their relative emphases on some of the pattern-variables permits the comparative analyst to interpret the links between national institutions and the central value systems. An analysis of the relationship between political institutions and the value systems of the four largest English-speaking democracies-Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States-illustrates this general thesis. Though all are urban, industrial, stable democracies, the institutions sustaining their political structures vary greatly. The United States is egalitarian and populist, Great Britain is deferential and elitist, while Canada and Australia fall in between. Phenomena such as popular respect for the law, civil liberties, and party systems may be viewed as derivative from the value systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories of mass politics attempt to explain the sources of political extremism by characteristics of mass societies. Such theories are criticized on the grounds that they assume adherence to democratic norms under pluralist conditions even when such norms frustrate intensely held values. Mass politics theories ignore the cultural cohesion necessary to sustain democratic politics. Conditions of mass societies also provide support to democratic political norms through the consequences of mass communications, equalitarianism, and bureaucratization for national societies. Isolation from mass culture accentuates local sources of extremist response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A variety of evidence from many countries suggests that low status and low education predispose individuals to favor extremist, intolerant, and transvaluational forms of political and religious behavior. The evidence includes reports from surveys concerning differential attitudes among the various strata towards democratic values, including civil liberties for unpopular political groups, civil rights for ethnic minorities, legitimacy of opposition, and proper limits on the power of national political leaders; psychological research on the personality traits of different strata; data on the composition and appeal of chiliastic religious sects; and materials bearing on the support of authoritarian movements. The factors operating to support this predisposition are all those which make for a lack of "sophistication," a complex view of causal relations, and heightened insecurity, both objective and subjective. These findings suggest that the success of the Communist Party among those of low status in poorer nations is positively related to its authoritarian character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses cultural pluralism and national equilibrium in Switzerland. It states that the Swiss have learnt to blend their cultural heterogeneity into national unity and political stability. Ethnic linguisim of the Swiss population is stated to be an important ingredient of their cultural pluralism. Switzerland's national languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh, which are recognized equally in their Federal Constitution. The linguistic equilibrium is stated to be manifested in the multilingual principle, which is of recent historical origin. The article concludes that the country's linguistic equilibrium originated at time before language was made a symbol of rampant nationalism and that it is an integrating influence of Swiss democracy.

It is frequently assumed by leaders in the democratic society that effective organizations of the purposive sort depend on general participation by their members. Thus campus leaders urge their fellow students to take more part in "activities." Politicians urge members of the party to attend rallies, ring door bells, and watch the polls. Trade union officers are concerned about members paying dues, obeying rules, presenting a united front during a strike, rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. Scout masters emphasize the daily good deed, winning merit badges and taking part in "camporees." Clergymen stress attendance at religious services, marrying within the faith, assisting coreligionaries, and supporting denominational institutions. No matter how self-sufficient leaders may feel in making programs and decisions, giving instruction and advice, they commonly give explicit recognition to the assumption that active participation by members is essential to achievement of group ends, if not to group survival itself.

The article focuses on the place of science in democratic government. Dictatorship has shown that it can use scientific knowledge and the brains of scientists to create disaster. However, in the years those most advance nations in the sphere of government, the democracies, failed to give science its proper place in government and in society. There can be awesome demonstration of manner in which scientific knowledge can be harnassed by primitive and atavistic governments of ruthless and ignorant men to produce catastrophe. Today the Federal Government's roster of scientific specialists runs the gamut of the sciences themselves, and of their highly varied subcategories. The traditionally qualified, classically educated person of broad native intelligence, the nonspecialist, is in constant retreat before the expert. A democracy uses science in the formulation of policy. Dictatorship uses scientific means of enforcing preconceived opinions, means of acquiring power over others. Science strengthens and broadens democracy; it merely renders dictatorship more arbitrarily ruthless. Scientific personnel must achieve its rightful status within their own democratic government.

The article focuses on the social and political condition of North America. A normal North American is still not fully aware of the definition of the word "democracy." The government in practice is not quite of, by, and for the people; the press and radio are not quite as free as we like to think; all men in our country, regardless of racial or national origin, are not always treated as though they were equal; and equality of economic opportunity is at best limited. Comparisons have been made with their closest neighbors, the South Americans, to develop the trend of democracy in the nation. In the U.S., for all the social differences to be found within it, for all the distinction between "the classes" and "the masses," between the intellectuals and the common people, there is an essential political and intellectual homogeneity. This becomes evident by contrast with countries like Mexico and Guatemala where there is a cleavage between a relatively few people who identify themselves with the nation as such, who read newspapers and magazines and listen to the radio and who partake in other ways of the civilization of the world. Of the three million-odd people of Guatemala, only a few hundred thousand have knowledge of the world in which they live. In Mexico one of the great social problems is recognized to be the "incorporation" of the masses of folk peoples into the nation.

The article discusses issues related to democracy and dictatorship in the Soviet Union. In societies of the Soviet Union where there exists classes under their definition--owners of the means of production or capitalists, operators who own nothing but their labor power and personal belongings or proletarians or wage-workers, and a middle class of the selfemployed--they hold that government represents a dictatorship of the employing class over the working class for the purpose of perpetuating its ability to "exploit" the latter. The Soviets arose, upon the overthrow of the Tsar, as a spontaneous movement toward a medium of self-government in a land where there were no constitutional processes at hand. Confident of popular support on the basis of the elections to the Congress of Soviets, the Bolsheviks ousted the Provisional Government with the aid of armed workers, sympathetic troops and the crew of the cruiser Aurora. The civil war of 1918-1920 throws a most interesting light upon the question of democracy versus dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Many social scientists have advocated the formation of a democratic, federal, supranational government after the Second World War. Scholars who have studied the subject agree that there is no insuperable administrative, technical, or economic barrier to the establishment of such a government, if enough people want it, and if Axis powers do not become too strong. It is one thing to persuade people to adopt a significant social change such as supranational Federal Union; it is another to organize affairs so they do not eventually return to the old order. The introduction of a new cultural feature of a fundamental sort will necessitate considerable readjustment of the culture as a whole, readjustment, certain social groups will be inconvenienced. These groups will join forces and insist on going back to "good old days." If they succeed, the brave new hope is written down all right in theory but not in practice. The administrative problem of institutional change then is to make a number of persons, possessing influence, satisfied with the change because they feel it protects them in keeping what they have and helps them in getting what they want.

This article has briefly directed attention to the salient character traits of three nations England, France and the U.S. in relation to democracy. To the peculiar habits of each have been attributed the differences in their democracies, but it would hardly do to rest the case there. For there is every evidence that significant character changes are taking place and beginning to manifest themselves in all three nations. These changes, moreover, appear to be very similar and so bid fair to make all more alike politically. Under the capitalistic industrial system, the common man is being regimented, organized, robbed of responsibility, denied opportunity for initiative, and made a part of a great social machine. Thus he is being forced into habits of irresponsibility, dependence, obedience, and servitude. He is being standardized too much the same pattern everywhere. In the U.S. for example, uniformity of behavior is rapidly approaching among the mass of urban dwellers. There is little pride in individuality of thought or act, but an ambition on the part of everyone to be like his neighbor. This conformity apparently has its main root in conditions of work and living, which deny opportunities of free choice and the exercise of individual judgment. Wherever such conditions prevail, there tends to develop a dependent type of man who, having little experience of it, will have little interest in political liberty as such. The idea of liberty has long since lost currency, and hence credit among them. The faith of ancestors is dead and the institution of created by their fathers has died or will die with it. The same thing to a greater or less degree is happening in France and England, and if that were the case, liberty is going to disappear, largely, from the scene.

The article presents information on the democratic element in British political arrangements . There are many ways of looking at a political system, of the greatest consequence, where the democratic criterion does not arise. A working constitution plays a part, for example, in uniting a nation; and it also may be a means of striking a balance between disparate groups-religious, racial, regional and so on-in a country. But democracy, liberal democracy is in one way much more significant than other aspects. No other quality of a political system in this view can atone for the absence of democratic methods and democratic freedoms. Democracy is held to be an arrangement whereby the people get what they want, and the political structure is held to be properly designed when it expressly enables them to fulfil their desires. The quality of a democracy is measured by the accuracy with which the opinions of the electorate are reflected in the actions of the Government. The democratic system has as a goal or object the carrying out of the "will of the people." There is, a sort of transmission of orders from the many to the controlling few, and the arrangements of a democracy should be such that these general instructions are transmitted effectively.

The article focuses on differences between democratic and bureaucratic processes in trade unions in Great Britain. It is concerned with the changing role of the trade union branch, and the effect on union democracy and on the attitudes of branch members. National wage negotiation has necessitated the transference of the power formerly possessed by local members and its being placed in the hands of the representatives who are entrusted to negotiate on their behalf. The branch finds that wages are negotiated by national officers of the union, meeting the representatives of some employers' association. As the trade union movement has sought over the years to obtain uniformity of treatment for its members, so it has striven to obtain national wage agreements. It has worked through the process of national wage negotiations to obtain nationally agreed wage rates for all workers. While several hundred wage agreements may be made in a year on a national and area basis, with numerous agreements for individual factories, about half of Britain's 21 million wage and salary earners are covered by a dozen agreements.

The article concerns the ways and means by which private capital defends itself from being harnessed and regulated. It has been argued that private decisions are incompatible with a democracy. This argument leads to the assertion that to be fully or more fully democratic, electorates must assume control of private economic enterprises or a major part of them. This article focuses on the argument that a peaceful transition to this stage of affairs can or will be rendered difficult or even impossible by the political power which private capital wields. There is in short no political power of private capital as such. The principal political advantages of private capital seem to be five. The purpose of this article is to explore, in respect to contemporary Great Britain, in what the political power of private capital consists and by what means it is exercised. There is in short no political power of private capital as such. There is the political power of British businessmen, during, a particular period and in particular circumstances.

The article discusses possible solutions on the paradox of democracy and provides commentary on the theory of democracy advanced by Richard Wollheim as well that of other distinguished theorists. It unfolds how Wollheim presents the paradigm of his theory of democracy particularly in policy and voting preferences. The author notes that what Wollheim claim to be the paradox of democracy is merely an inherent stage in political process. Further, the author criticizes the solutions provided by the other writers and advances his own solutions on the paradox of democracy.

The article discusses the situational determinants which determine the form of leadership which will arise and accepted in a group. Information on the development of a conceptual model is presented. Characteristics of authoritarian and democratic leadership are presented. The influence of stress, the tolerance for ambiguity, and goal clarity are the dynamic characteristics of the conceptual model. The patterns of change in leadership are the natural shifts, the high stress shift from democratic to authoritarian leadership, and the unnatural shifts.

Studies of community power and decision-making are losing their distinctiveness. Community studies have too often assumed the community to be a closed system. Until the mid-1960s, most studies of community power and decision-making were case studies of single towns. During the same period that most case studies of community decision-making implicitly assumed that communities were basically alike, other researchers were refining methods of differentiating between communities. The introduction of values as distinct and important independent variables helps to resolve several theoretical problems, which remained implicit in many earlier studies. Work emerging from traditions like the economic theory of democracy suggests fruitful ways of dealing with the questions of value in theoretical terms as the title of scholar Anthony Downs' popular book indicates, but it stems from a corpus of ideas developed for analysis of the private sector in a market economy. The basic model includes the rational voter qua consumer, and the rational aspirant to political office qua producer of campaign promises, ideology and specific policies.

This article discusses the crisis of culture in the context of social pre-conditions mass democracies and autarchies. It focuses on the systematic study of the fundamental social factors in the bearing on culture. Any discussion of the social conditions on which the existence of culture hinges must be split up into two main sections. For the social element penetrates into the sphere of culture in two diverse forms. Firstly, in the form of social organization and secondly, the effect of the social element can also be studied where, through its spontaneous movements, non-organized social life reacts upon spiritual and cultural life. Dictatorship does not imply planning, a real and effective planning of culture would plan everything. It would have to provide places where fruitful self-criticisms and the experiences of those who are affected by planning can gather and find open expression. On the other hand, there is also the grave contingency that in a large society the experiences that accumulate at different points in the course of its evolution may in the long run be passed over unheeded. It must not be forgotten that in the cultural sphere there was never an absolute liberalism in the sense that the free sway of social forces was not accompanied by any form of planning.

The article focuses on democracy and civilization. The question of the survival of civilization which month by month becomes more doubtful and more urgent, does not depend on political institutions alone. Fundamentally it is a question of the available amount of moral wisdom in mankind, and it is precisely the deficit in this amount that is the main ground of anxiety. When peoples that have known law and liberty give themselves over deliberately to the alternatives of violence and despotism the outlook is dark, and when the resources of science continually add to the means of destruction the lack of moral control constitutes a standing danger of ruin on an ever increasing scale. One can look for safety to no mere improvement of political machinery. The change must be spiritual and widespread, such as a new religion might bring. Nevertheless the spiritual change must in public affairs take effect through political institutions, and the working of democratic institutions in particular does provide some measure of the sum of moral wisdom available to control the common life.

This article describes the U.S. in 1912 from that eyes of an immigrant traveler. America is not a nation; it is a state of mind. That is the only comprehensive text on which a book in the U.S. of today can be written. Until he reaches that conclusion, a traveller stumbles in the dark. It has been characteristic of Americans to define their society in a set of political dogmas. The schoolboy is taught that the U.S., being a Republic, is a free country, that she is a pure democracy, that she offers perfect equality to her citizens, that she knows no distinctions of rank or class, that, giving votes to all, she is governed by all. All this is false today, if it ever was true. The U.S. has never been a political democracy; it has never been less a free democracy than it is today. The liberty of the subject has far less surely safeguarded than in Western Europe; there is far less free speech and writing, both in books and newspapers. Class distinctions, so far from being absent, are becoming as marked as they are in Europe, though somewhat different in form, being based on distinctions of wealth, nationality and color rather than of rank and breeding. And the belief that country enjoys self-government is the thinnest of fictions.

The article focuses on issues related to democracy. The importance of trying to understand democracy at the present time is very apparent. In some sense or other, it is more and more coming to be recognised as the dominant tendency in all those countries that are commonly described as civilized. And, indeed, in nearly all parts of the world the various countries seem to be approximating to a common civilization, which is largely based on principles of a democratic type. It is perhaps in some of the smaller countries, such as Switzerland, and in some of the younger colonies, such as Australia and New Zealand, that these democratic tendencies can be studied in their least diluted form. In Great Britain, notwithstanding the strong tendency that it has to cling to the traditions of the past, it can hardly be questioned that the influence of democratic ideals is constantly increasing. This influence is not confined to the sphere of imperial or local politics, but permeates whole life of the British.

This article focuses on the presents tendencies of class differentiation in England. The class structure of English society has, within the past hundred years, undergone considerable alteration. The clearly marked lines of demarcation between the different classes have disappeared. The divine grading of society into super imposed stations of life, the division between gentle and common blood, the legal regulation of dress and social customs, and the attitude of respect to one's betters-all these views and rules have been profoundly modified. In the main, the changes have been produced by two factors: the economic development of society and the movement of the society towards democracy. Some results of economic development that should be noticed in connection with social change are: the large number and varied nature of occupations which have been occasioned; the scope for development and rise in position within a single occupation; and the formation of large towns. The second factor has also some noticeable results such as the change in the conception of the state; the development of the sense of corporate responsibility; and the development of an elaborate system of education.

In this article, the author observes that it is not possible to confine the boundaries of the process of education. A brief on the literature of the period between 1946 to 1948 has been provided. What also provides details about the cold war period are various principles and recommendations that educational psychologists have given to study the education process. A major focus of the Educational Foundations project at Teacher's College, Columbia University has been the peculiar features of a democratic personality. The most important research on this democratic education process has been by the University of Miami, Florida. It has been explained in detail.

This article discusses the research about the interrelationships of education and democracy. As a basis of this studies, the researchers made the following pattern. This includes conceptual analyses, experimental reports, and educational applications. The discussion in the conceptual analyses show that the democratic idea in under going steady expansions and increasing specification. In addition, the democratic conceptions are far from adequately operative in such fields such as race relations, labor policies, and international ties. The use of experimental techniques in connection with the study of democratic behavior have been discussed under the experimental reports. And the material centering about the theme of "democracy in education" is primarily focused under the educational application.

The article focuses on the significance of Project I, the Inter-University Experimental Program financed by the Ford Foundation, as an integrated approach to the foundations of education in the U.S. The article presents views and insights of the author on the teacher-scholar. The author discusses the context of democracy in teacher education programs. Significantly, the preparation of teacher-scholars incorporates the basic aspects of the educational foundations. The author contends that the Project I teacher preparation program represents an attempt to create an integrated professional program based on certain assumptions about education in a plural democratic society.