Search

One of the ubiquitous trends in social behavior is the formation of comprehensive systems of interaction known as communities. Everywhere in the world and throughout man's existence on earth, the formation of communities has been evident, from the primitive tribe to the contemporary nation-state. Among the exciting developments within the more complex communities of mankind, such as cities and nations, is the emergence of subcommunity forms which both complement and contest the arrangements of the larger society. Status communities and ethnic communities of many sorts belong among the contemporary sub-communities. It is instructive to apply this concept of sub-community formation to areas of behavior such as the worlds of art and jazz, when that behavior can be shown to approach closure and completeness with respect to a distinctive way of life. This paper deals with two major tasks: (1) the development of a special theory of the jazz community as an unique form of status community, and (2) a judgment as to the validity of referring to the social world of the jazz musician as a community. It should be mentioned that while this formulation is conceived in terms of the jazz subculture, it also has widespread application elsewhere in the area of social deviance. Since the concept of status group has its roots in the general theory of community, we shall briefly outline that concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most influential single postwar study on community power (both positively and negatively) has unquestionably been Hunter's Community Power Structure, published in 1953. Hunter concluded that Regional City (Atlanta, Georgia) was dominated to a large degree by a small number of business leaders who could be said to constitute a power elite. Although the reception of Hunter's work among social scientists could hardly be described as one of uncritical acclaim, it was not until 1961, with the publication of Who Governs? by Robert Dahl that there appeared in the literature a fully developed theoretical interpretation alternative to that of Hunter along with the supporting intellectual ballast of a carefully executed empirical study. Dahl's central thesis was that a "pluralistic" conception of community power—one where several competing groups vie with one another for control of community resources in various areas—is more useful than the power elite model Who Governs? is the most incisive and challenging community power study of recent years. The works of Hunter and Dahl have tended to serve as opposite poles in the rather vigorous discussions on community power which have been largely stimulated by their influential contributions. Much of the initial exchange has tended to be uncompromising in character and acrimonious in tone; with time, however, the intensity of the cross fire seems to be diminishing. This paper is based on the assumption that enough of the smoke has cleared to attempt a survey of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]