Search

This paper describes a procedure for facilitating the generation of theory useful to family sociologists. This procedure is based upon a linguistic model, and it utilizes the metaphor of literary genre as a guide. A distinction is made between the construction and the generation of sociological theory. The suggestion is made that the generation perspective may enhance the ability of theorists to find subtle interconnections among phenomena and thereby to extend fields of sociological knowledge along novel paths. The procedure itself depends first upon the construction of a binary lexicon. One such lexicon consists of one matrix of concepts describing social structure from the perspective of stabilization of social relations and a complementary matrix describing structure from the perspective of destabilization. From these matrices, one concept is chosen as a metonym or as a metaphor to act as a basis for deriving connections among the other concepts in the matrices. The manipulation of concepts from both matrices permits the development of propositions suggesting ironies and contradictions in social relations. Examples of the use of this procedure are presented, and some unresolved problems are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology has fractured into a number of schools, each claiming to be distinct from the others and to have its own theory. The trouble with the theories is that most of them fail to make their general propositions explicit. Were they made explicit, all the theories would turn out to contain at least the general propositions of behavioral psychology, and the intellectual unification of sociology could begin. The paper discusses the reasons why many sociologists are reluctant to accept this argument. It also discusses other claimants to the status of theory, including "pattern" theories, functional theories (one of which is really behavioral), and the difficulties created by some uses of the concept, social structure. [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]