Search

of a dismal future state in which all human activities are viewed continuously and reient]essly by an all-seeing eye. The basic weakness in this picture is precisely this assumption of the existence of robot-like creatures who, alone, could perform such a function, plus the fact that millions of them would be required to keep the population under complete control. The concentration camp material supports this criticism. Many of the flaws in the efficiency of the concentration camp system were due to the venality of the SS personnel, some of them appeared because of the persistence of humane considerations, and vanity often played into the hands of the inmates. There is another important factor that contributes to the impossibility of instituting perfect social controls that is demonstrated by the concentration camp experience. This also pertains to the human rather than the material aspects of organization. To achieve their ends, the concentration camp personnel had to employ the services of their prisoners. Need for special skills made some of the jailors dependent upon some of the prisoners, a fact that gave these unforeseen opportunities to counteract administrative measures to the advantage of large numbers of inmates. Work requirements, for example, employment outside of the camps, often put prisoners in a position to thwart the controls imposed upon them. The ingenuity of the strategems used by concentration inmates makes for some of the brighter pictures in the otherwise monotonously gruesome record. Any ruling personnel is similarly dependent upon its subject population in one way or another and this dependence insures that control can never be complete. This fact should be of interest to students of bureaucracy, especially to those who draw a lugubrious picture of the consequences of the extension of bureaucratic control in our society. These analysts seem to have overlooked the corrective factors present in any organization by virtue of the fact that what is organized are human beings and not robots. In conclusion we might point out that all of the special topics of the sociology of the concentration camp system can be focused upon one basic issue, namely, the problem of survival in concentration camps. The material abundantly shows that only in rare instances was survival a purely individual achievement. In most cases survival was due to the operation of social factors some of which I have mentioned in the preceding discussion. If evidence is needed in support of a truism, this material clearly sustains the basis upon which sociology itself is founded, namely, the fact that for man, society is a means of survival for the individuals in whom it is manifest, and also, that richness of individual life depends upon the richness of the human relations available and the variety and complexity of social arrangements.

The possible role of ethical systems in accounting for the wide economic and social gap betweeri developed and underdeveloped countries is examined in the light of the Weberian thesis on the relationship between the Protestant Ethic, capitalism and economic development. Materials from various cultures seem to support Weber, but suggest that the crucial factor in economic development is not necessarily THE PROTESTANT ETHIC, but any ethical system which produces the following results: rational attitudes toward experiences, personal responsibility, a disciplined work force, and worldly asceticism. An ethic which encourages underconsumption and deferred gratification and which creates social motivations and legitimization for worldly work and economic enterprise seems to facilitate economic development in the takeoff period.

Sociologists have made discoveries which have considerable significance for marketing. The author, a sociologist, tells in this article what some of these discoveries are. Specifically, findings significant for marketing have been produced by sociologists in population, collective behavior, motivation, stratification, methodology, research designs, measurement, prediction, human ecology, and the family. Much of this knowledge, of course, remains a potential rather than a realized source of information.

Scientists who seek a general theory of community are handicapped by lack of comparability of community studies and by the great complexity of their subject matter. This study attempts to deal with the first problem by applying a single mathematical model to quantitative variables operationally defined and to data gathered at one period of time from 88 community systems. It seeks to reduce complexity by a search for a few factors or fundamental unities in terms of which variations between community systems can be explained. Factor analysis extracted, from the great complexity presented by 82 variables, seven orthogonal factors that account for most of the variations in the systems analyzed. ONE fundamental difficulty with community theory is the great complexity of the phenomena which it seeks to describe. Physical scientists have faced and solved problems of complexity. Chemists, for example, have achieved tremendous control of the material world by discovering that the vast multitude of objects can be described in terms of less than a hundred elements. Is it possible to achieve the same kind of scientific parsimony in community analysis? Do the vast number of possible community variables form independent clusters or functional unities of highly interrelated components? If so, how many are there, what is their nature, and what is the relationship between clusters? This research sought to simplify the complex structure of community interrelationships and variables and to determine if they could be reduced to a relatively small number of factors that would explain all the others and account for differences between community systems. There is no dearth of theories as to the relationships between community components, but these have developed over a long period of time, and grown by the contributions of diverse investigators using different

TEBER'S essay,' The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, has *T continued to interest social scientists in the last decades, probably because it touches on some fundamental problems concerning the economic, religious, and political life of Western societies, and probably because it established so clearly a relationship between religion and other aspects of our cultural pattern. The thesis that Protestantism, and especially the English version of Calvinism, Puritanism, was the parent of modern capitalism has been much discussed. Writers on religion and capitalism following Weber have been much indebted to him in their analyses.2 Weber's thesis has been supported by the authority of such writers as Troeltsch, SchulzeGaevernitz, and Cunningham.3 It has been criticized by Tawney4 and Brentano.5 Furthermore, its subject matter places it in the very center of focus of those problems which are the main concern of intellectual interest today, namely, the relationship of ideas and