Search

Tins paper is intended as an effort at taking-stock of the reference group concept after nearly three decades of use, the latter two of which have been marked by its more than ample employment. Its popularity indeed has so frequently led to its serving as an all-purpose post hoc explanation of behavior that it has led to the wry definition, "Your reference group is a group that you behave like and you behave like them because they're your reference group" (Cohen, 1962: 104). The inconsistencies, lack of clarity, but also areas of agreement which have marked the varied formulations of the concept, will be apparent from the following review and commentary. The Final discussion indicates some of the matters still to be considered in the use of thin important but perhaps overworked concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the community situation of shipyard workers on Tyneside, certain aspects of their orientations to work and general social perspectives, and the relationship of these to each other and to the structure of social relations at work. In terms of their community situation shipyard workers would seem to come close to Lockwood's traditional proletarian type of worker. There is evidence to suggest, however, that these workers' social perspectives are not at all clearly traditional proletarian. The explanation for this is found, at least m part, m the much greater complexity of social relations at work than are accounted for in the model of traditional proletarianism. The paper suggests that existing typologies of the orientations and social perspectives of workers need to be refined by more detailed studies of the structural and relational aspects of both work and community situations. The paper concludes with a brief examination of changes in both industry and community and the likely effect of these on the social perspectives of shipbuilding workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IN A RECENT paper Mr. Runciman concludes by inviting replies to his argument that it is logically and conceptually useful to employ the tripartite distinction between `class' `status' and `power' in the analysis of social stratification. Mr. Runciman does not, of course, deny the existence of links between these three dimensions, but suggests that such links must be seen contingent empirical relationships and not necessary logical ones. I hope that the following paper will provide such a reply. It must be clear that the following criticism is directed, in the main, to those parts of the paper in which Mr. Runciman is concerned with the logical and conceptual problem. The essay in question also contains a clear and valuable assessment of the problems encountered in any attempt to measure the three types of inequality. In the first part of the paper I propose to give a critical assessment of certain central aspects of Mr. Runciman's argument and, in the second part, I will put forward a very brief formulation of what I consider to be a more meaningful alternative view of the relationships between class, status, and power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The late 1960s saw the emergence of a few "super gangs" whose political and economic activities attracted much attention. More recently, gangs apparently similar to those of the 1950s have become newsworthy again in several major cities. This paper surveys these developments against the background of a variety of macro- and microsociological processes. Research conducted in Chicago and elsewhere during the late 1950s and early 60s suggests that delinquent gangs were rather "innocent" participants in the broad social trends of the times and that most gang members were relatively unaffected by the ideological currents associated with them. The primary effect on gangs was indirect, by changing the perceptions and attitudes of others toward gangs, and their behavior in relation to them. Gang life for most members of most gangs, individually and collectively, appears to have changed little in recent years. The prospects for channeling the energies of gangs into socially constructive programs seem bleak, because of the operation of group processes, and the limited experiences and social abilities of most gang members. Basic structural limitations on opportunities for the poor and the powerless to achieve economic and political power provide the framework within which these processes operate today as in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Utilizing replies from a selected sample of contributors to the literature of symbolic interactionism, this paper examines the nature and extent of institutional ties among respondents holding similar views as to appropriate methodology in sociology. The specific institutional ties examined are those as: (1) fellow graduate students, (2) teachers and students, and (3) departmental colleagues. The methodological differences between the Chicago and Iowa schools, described in other studies, manifest themselves in the present sample, as do other views not neatly classifiable within either of these schools of symbolic interactionism. The more unconventional the conception of methodology held by a respondent, the more likely is the respondent to have been a fellow graduate student, a departmental colleague, and/or involved in a teacher-student relationship with other symbolic interactionists favoring the same conception. Respondents preferring the more orthodox methodological stances in modern sociology are less likely to have shared in such institutional flea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the first of a series of investigations we are attempting on this topic. Because games are social in nature, we assume that they mediate and shape the mutual socialization which is occurring in peer groups. Hence the type, frequency, and social context in which games are played may be important for understanding differential socialization outcomes. Given that there are important differences in the socialization process within racial groupings, it was decided to ask whether similar differences occur with regard to games. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The instrumental-expressive differentiation, employed extensively by Talcott Parsons, has been applied to the field of voluntary associations by several writers. Thus, Lundberg, Komarovsky, and McInery wrote of instrumental, mixed, and leisure associations in an early study, and Rose concerned himself with two types of associations, the social influence group and the expressive group. This means of classifying voluntary associations has appeared recently in at least one introductory sociology textbook. A recent impetus to the use of the instrumental-expressive categorization in this field was the publication by Gordon and Babchuk of a typology of associations utilizing this concept. They define the ideal type of instrumental association as differing from the ideal type of expressive association in the following three ways. (1) The member of the expressive association achieves immediate and continuing gratification from taking part in the organization's activities. The instrumental association member may even find the group's activities distasteful, but he will get satisfaction from the knowledge that they help to accomplish certain long-range goals. In other words, personal gratification is more remote (in terms of time) from participation in the group's activities for the member of the instrumental group than the member of the expressive group. (2) The activities of the instrumental association tend to be externally oriented, whereas those of the expressive association are focused inward. Expressive organizations "perform a function primarily for the individual participants through activities confined and self-contained within the organization itself…. In contrast, the major function and orientation of the instrumental organization are related to activities which take place outside the organization." (3) The activities of members of expressive associations represent ends in themselves, while, for instrumental association members, participation in the group's activities is seen as a means of accomplishing external, long-range goals. The major questions raised in this paper are whether members of instrumental associations differ predictably from members of expressive associations regarding (1) the manner in which persons become members of associations and (2) their involvement in primary group situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]