Group Affiliation and Social Influence in Lethbridge
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OLDTIMERS, NEWCOMERS, AND SOCIAL CLASS: GROUP AFFILIATION AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE IN LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA by Chantelle Patricia Marlor B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2000 © Chantelle Patricia Marlor, 2000 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of A The University of British Columbi Vancouver, Canada Abstract The results of an ethnohistorical study of Lethbridge, Alberta led to my questioning current presumptions in the Canadian social inequality literature that social class, income, educational attainment, gender and ethnicity are principal factors in shaping social inequality in Canada. The ethnographic evidence suggests that membership criteria associated with locally-defined, historically-evolved groups mark who has political influence (a specific form of social power), and where the ensuing social inequalities lie in Lethbridge. A theoretical framework describing how historical circumstances lead to the redefinition of which socially-defined characteristics become local status markers is presented as the underlying theoretical orientation of this thesis. The framework does not preclude the possibility that social groups other than those studied in this thesis use social class, occupation, income, education, gender and ethnicity as status characteristics or group membership criteria. The framework is my attempt to clarify the often-unclear relationship among social inequality concepts. A mail-out social survey (N=238) was used to empirically test the hypothesis that Lethbridge group membership is a better predictor than social class, income, educational attainment, gender and/or ethnicity of who has political influence in Lethbridge community decision-making. Data was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), bivariate correlation, and multiple regression. Mixed levels of support were found for the Lethbridge group hypotheses, with the "fits in" and "local trade/business people" receiving considerable support; North/South/West sider, and religious affiliation receiving some support; and Old-timers receiving no support. In contrast, the only social inequality hypothesis to receive more than minimal support was level of education. It is concluded that status characteristics are more fluid, local and historically negotiated than assumed in the social inequality literature. Suggested directions for future theoretical and empirical work include refinement of the relationships among social inequality variables and further empirical tests of the theoretical framework proposed here. ii Table of Contents ABSTRACT II LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES VII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VIII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: ETHNOHISTORY OF LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA 5 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 5 GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY 6 BUSINESS AND THE BIBLE 7 OLD-TIMERS AND NEWCOMERS 8 THE GREAT WAR AND NATIVISM 9 ANOTHER WAR RENEWS NATIVISM 10 AN INFLUX OF PROFESSIONALS 11 GEOGRAPHIC RE-SHUFFLING 13 OLD PATTERNS AND DISTINCTIONS 14 FITTING-IN 16 DISAPPEARING INTO THE BACKGROUND 17 THE PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL HARMONY 18 CHAPTER THREE: MACRO-, MICRO-, AND MY THEORY OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN CANADA 20 CANADIAN SOCIAL INEQUALITY THEORIES 20 Key Social Inequality Concepts 21 The relationship among concepts of social inequality 29 MICRO-THEORIES OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY: EXPECTATION STATES THEORY 32 COMPARING MY MODEL TO MACRO- AND MICRO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 34 A POSSIBLE FRAMEWORK FOR A GENERAL THEORY 36 Status Characteristics, Group Membership Criteria, and Social classification 37 Widening The Circle: Social Influence and Social Inequality 41 In Summary 44 WHERE TO GO FROM HERE? 44 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 45 WHY A SOCIAL SURVEY? 45 SAMPLING FRAME • 46 SAMPLE SIZE 47 SAMPLING METHOD 47 INCREASING THE RESPONSE RATE 48 CONFIDENTIALITY 49 OPERATIONALIZATION, HYPOTHESES, AND OTHER METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES 50 CHAPTER 5: CONCEPTS, INDICATORS, VARIABLES AND INDEXES 51 SOCIAL INEQUALITY CONCEPTS 51 Social Class 5; Education -55 iii Ethnicity : 56 LETHBRIDGE GROUPS 57 Group distinctions based on membership criteria 57 Self-identification 60 POLITICAL INFLUENCE 60 Community influence 62 Civic influence 63 Mobilization 65 Activism 67 RESPONSE RATE 70 HYPOTHESES 71 ANALYSIS OF DATA 72 CHAPTER 6: RESULTS 73 SOCIAL INEQUALITY HYPOTHESES 73 Social Class 73 Income 76 Education 78 Gender 81 Ethnicity 83 Multivariate analysis of social inequality variables 85 LETHBRIDGE GROUP HYPOTHESES 90 Fits in or does not fit in to Lethbridge 90 Old-timer/Native of Lethbridge 93 North-sider, South-sider, or West-sider 95 Religious affiliation 96 Multivariate Analysis of Lethbridge group variables 98 COMPARING SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND LETHBRIDGE GROUP VARIABLES 100 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 104 THE RESEARCH QUESTION 104 MY THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 105 THE HYPOTHESES 107 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 108 SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 108 LIMITATIONS OF MY RESEARCH : 112 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 115 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 116 REFERENCES H7 APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY COVER LETTER FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 130 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE . 133 APPENDIX C: REMINDER CARD 146 APPENDIX D: UNADDRESSED COPY OF LETTER TO DRAW WINNERS 148 iv List of Tables TABLE 5.1: OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF DECISION-MAKING, USED IN CONSTRUCTING THE CLASS TYPOLOGY.. TABLE 5.2: OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY, USED IN CONSTRUCTING THE CLASS TYPOLOGY TABLE 5.3: OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF AUTONOMY, USED IN CONSTRUCTING THE CLASS TYPOLOGY TABLE 5.4: OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF MANAGERIAL LOCATION, USED IN CONSTRUCTING THE CLASS TYPOLOGY 53 TABLE 5.5: OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE CLASS TYPOLOGY 53 TABLE 5.6: DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL CLASS FOR SAMPLE RESPONDENTS 54 TABLE 5.7: DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL CLASS FOR SAMPLE RESPONDENTS, INCLUDING ESTIMATES FOR THOSE WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION 55 TABLE 5.8: ETHNICITY OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS 57 TABLE 5.9: LETHBRIDGE GROUPS, INDICATORS USED AS GROUP MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA, AND CORRESPONDING SURVEY QUESTION NUMBER 59 TABLE 5.10: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIVIC INFLUENCE INDEX ITEMS 64 TABLE 5.11: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOBILIZATION INDEX ITEMS 66 TABLE 5.12: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTIVISM INDEX ITEMS 69 TABLE 5.13: HYPOTHESES TESTED IN DATA ANALYSIS .71 TABLE 6.1: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY SOCIAL CLASS 75 TABLE 6.2: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME 76 TABLE 6.3: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION 79 TABLE 6.4: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY GENDER 81 TABLE 6.5: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY ETHNICITY (SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY) 84 TABLE 6.6: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR SOCIAL INEQUALITY MODEL PREDICTING COMMUNITY INFLUENCE 86 TABLE 6.7: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR SOCIAL INEQUALITY MODEL PREDICTING CIVIC INFLUENCE 88 TABLE 6.8: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR SOCIAL INEQUALITY MODEL PREDICTING MOBILIZATION .....89 TABLE 6.9: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY FITS IN/DOES NOT FIT IN TO LETHBRIDGE 91 TABLE 6.10: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY SELF-IDENTIFICATION AS LETHBRIDGIAN OR NEWCOMER 93 TABLE 6.11: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS AN OLD-TIMER (OR NATIVE OF LETHBRIDGE) .94 TABLE 6.12: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY NORTH SIDER, SOUTH SIDER OR WEST SIDER OF LETHBRIDGE 95 TABLE 6.13: COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION OF RESPONDENTS BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION 97 TABLE 6.14: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR LETHBRIDGE GROUPS MODEL PREDICTING COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION 99 TABLE 6.15: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR MIXED MODEL PREDICTING COMMUNITY INFLUENCE, CIVIC INFLUENCE AND MOBILIZATION 102 TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF SUPPORTED HYPOTHESES BY FORM OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS 109 vi List of Figures FIGURE 3.1: STATUS CHARACTERISTICS, EXPECTATION STATES AND BEHAVIOR .33 FIGURE 3.2: THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG STATUS CHARACTERISTICS, EXPECTATION STATES AND THE EXERCISE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE 41 FIGURE 3.3: THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS, SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY UNDER CHANGING EXTERNAL CONDITIONS 43 FIGURE 5.1: A MODEL OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ELITE'S STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS, COMMUNITY DECISION-MAKING IN LETHBRIDGE, AND THE RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF THESE STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS 61 FIGURE 5.1: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS' COMMUNITY INFLUENCE INDEX SCORES 63 FIGURE 5.2: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY CIVIC INFLUENCE INDEX SCORE 65 FIGURE 5.3: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MOBILIZATION INDEX SCORES 67 FIGURE 5.4: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MOBILIZATION