Social status in the veterans' community at the University of Arizona

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Pobrislo, Joseph Frank, 1923-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 05/10/2021 14:17:57

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553891 SOCIAL STATUS IN THE VETERANS* COMMUNITY

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA by

Joseph Pobrislo

A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Department of Sociology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS in the Graduate College, University of Arizona

1956

Approved: / f Date This thesis has been submitted in partial ful­ filment of requirements for an advanced degree at the

University of Arizona and is deposited in the Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the

Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allow­ able without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head

of the major department or the dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material Is

in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: / ^

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research, like any other, is a social product to which many minds. In some way, have contributed. Foot­ note acknowledgments in the text indicate this student’s awareness of numerous references which have helped his thinking. These citations, however, do not indicate all — or the most important contributions. Influences, of course, came from teachers, to whom we have acquired lasting obligations. Their ideas, while not immediately recognizable, nevertheless left their marks on the writer’s thinking.

For continuous guidance, encouragement, and Infinite patience as advisor during the study, the writer wishes to express special appreciation to Dr. Raymond A. Mulligan.

With his wise counsel, the unexpected and seemingly in­ surmountable obstacles confronted during the research were logically resolved.

ill TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......

I. RANKING CONSISTENCY AND SOCIAL STATUS .

Introduction...... Definitions #*#**»» Assumptions ......

II. RELATED STUDIES...... Otto Sender ...... Ralph Splelman . . . . Gerhard Lenski and William Kenkel . Pitirim Sorokin . • . . • Emile Benolt-Smullyan . . . . Harold Kaufman, ejb al . . . . Stuart Adams...... Other Studies ......

III. GENERAL SETTING, HISTORY, AND METHOD OF STUDY OF THE COMMUNITY . . . Polo Village...... Common Factors Among the Residents • The Village as a Community for Testing the Hypothesis. . . . . Method of Study ......

IV. FINDINGS

High Status Families in the Informal Organization of the Community . Intermediate Status Families in the Informal Organization of the Community . . . . . Chapter Page Sender's Soclometric Diagram. . . 84 The Impracticability of Sender's Soclometric Diagram For Use in a Larger Community ...... 87 High Status Families in the Socio- metric Diagram . . . . . 91 High Status Families: Relationship of Past Formal Status to the Community Situation • • • . . . 91 Past Status from Parentage • . . 93 Past Status from Earlier Life • • 101

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 108

APPENDIX A ...... 118

APPENDIX B . 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 184

LIST OF TABLES

Number

I. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN IN THE VILLAGE . 48

II. AGES OF VILLAGE ADULT POPULATION . . 49

III.. NUMBER OF VILLAGERS WORKING FULL- OR PART-TIME...... 50

IV. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE VILLAGE . . 51

V. MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY OF VILLAGERS . . 52

VI. LENGTH OF TIME IN THE ARMED FORCES . . 53

VII. FAMILIES MENTIONED AS "BEST KNOWN" IN THE VILLAGE ...... 62

VIII. FAMILIES MENTIONED AS "BEST ALL AROUND LEADERS" IN THE VILLAGE .... 63

IX. FAMILIES MENTIONED AS MOST ACTIVE IN­ FORMALLY IN POLO VILLAGE GOVERNMENT AND A F F A I R S ...... 64

v Number Page

X. FAMILIES MENTIONED AS BEST INFORMED ABOUT POLO VILLAGE POLITICS. . . . 66

XI. FAMILIES IN THE VILLAGE WHOSE ADVICE WOULD BE TAKEN IN THE SELECTION OF A BOOK OR M O V I E ...... 69

XII. VILLAGE FAMILIES HAVING BEST DECORATED APARTMENT AND MOST ATTRACTIVE YARD . . 71

XIII. COMBINATION OF RESPONSES TO THE LEADERSHIP DETERMINING QUESTIONS INTO RAW LEADERSHIP STATUS SCORES ...... 74

XIV. RAW AND WEIGHTED LEADERSHIP SCORES . . 78

XV. FOREIGN AND NATIVE BIRTH FOR ALL PARENTS OF RESIDENTS AT THE VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS ...... 93 XVI. URBAN AND RURAL BIRTH FOR ALL PARENTS OF RESIDENTS AT VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS . . 95

XVII. EDUCATION OF FATHERS OF MEN AT VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS ...... 96

XVIII. PERCENTAGE OF FATHERS OF FAMILY HEADS IN EACH VILLAGE STATUS CATEGORY REACHING VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL LEVELS .... 97

XIX. OCCUPATION OF FATHERS OF MEN AT EACH STATUS LEVEL ...... 98

XX. PERCENTAGES OF FATHERS OF MEN IN VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS AMONG THE VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS...... 99

XXI. FATHERS OF FAMILY HEADS OWNING THEIR OWN HOMES BY VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS . . . 100

XXII. PERCENTAGE OF URBAN AND RURAL BIRTHPLACE OF ALL VILLAGE RESIDENTS BY VILLAGE STATUS L E V E L S ...... 102

XXIII. PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN OF THE VILLAGE WHO HAVE ENGAGED- IN VARIOUS KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT BY VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS. . 103

vi Number Page o XXIV. PERCENTAGES OP ARMED FORCES OFFICERS AND ENLISTED MEN BY VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS## # # * » # # e 104 : ;■ ' ' • • 4 .* * * XXV. PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN OF UNIVERSITY VILLAGE - , ' WHO HAVE REACHED VARIOUS EDUCATION LEVELS, BY VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS . 105 # - '

FIGURES

POLO VILLAGE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ...... 38

II.POLO VILLAGE, EAST SECTION . # 39

III. POLO VILLAGE, EAST SECTION, RESIDENCE DIAGRAM ...... 39 IV. POLO VILLAGE, EAST SECTION (VIEW TOWARD NORTHEAST). . . 40

V. POLO VILLAGE, EAST SECTION (VIEW TOWARD SOUTH)...... 40

VI. QUONSET HUT, CLOSE-UP # 41

VII. “FLAT-TOP,tt CLOSE-UP...... # 41

VIII. POLO FIELD ...... 42 IX. POLO VILLAGE, AERIA VIEW, LOOKING SOUTHEAST ...... 42 X.“BEST FRIENDS” AS REPORTED BY RESIDENTS OF BONDER^S COMMUNITY .... ,po6icet

XI. “BEST FRIENDS” AS REPORTED BY RESIDENTS 9 (a OF THE VILLAGE...... pocket

vii CHAPTER I

RANKING CONSISTENCY AND SOCIAL STATUS

Introduction

Today the study of social stratification is of major sociological interest in the United States. In the past twenty years a number of studies have been made in

this field. Many of these studies have approached the problem of social stratification from such concepts as

life-chances, social mobility, elites, and life-styles.

Unfortunately, the publication of new research findings has proceeded much more rapidly than efforts to work out

adequate theoretical formulations. The present study lays

no claims to theoretical originality; it is one of replica­

tion only. Some recent approaches to the study of social

stratification have been those of the interrelationship of

statuses. They have been labeled as "status consistency,"

"status congruency," or "status crystallization."

In most societies, an individual's statuses are

consistent. His occupation, social status, and kinship

affiliation all dovetail neatly. According to Green, even 2

in modern America, statuses tend to be congruent.^ However, at the same time there are many individuals in our society whose statuses are somewhat inconsistent, because the area of competition is wide and intensive. A political figure who was born and reared in a poor family might never attain a social position equal to his achieved political status.

In the light of these status inconsistencies, which migfct be more widespread than is realized, Cuber and Kenkel discard the idea that the ranking of individuals can best be studied in terms of their relative positions in a single vertical hierarchy.2 They point out that an individual has a position in each of several hierarchies, not a position In one hier­ archy only.5

An interesting point of analysis then becomes the investigation of how these various positions or statuses are interrelated. A variation of the same general problem is the consistency of the status of an individual In the same hierarchy in two social situations.~ Some thought has 2*41

1. Arnold Wilfred Green, Sociology: An Analysis of Life in Modern Society, (New York: McGraw-HilT”Book Co., 1952), p. 42. 2. John F. Cuber and William F. Kenkel, Social Stratiflcation in the United States, (New York: Appleton- Century Crofts,Tnc., 1954), pp. 25-28 and 150.

5. Loc. cit. 4. Of. p. 4, post, for the hypothesis of the present study 3

been given to this aspect of the problem by sociologists

in the past and has resulted in two diverse points of view:

(1) social status is constant, and (2) social status is not

constant,5

Proponents of the former point of view point out that

the individual acquires his first social position by virtue

of birth into a particular family group; that his social

status is largely fixed by kinship associations; and, that he becomes habituated to acting in accordance with what he has been led to consider as his status, i.e., he will carry with him, wherever he goes, deeply ingrained habits of action in this connection. This view implies that the

individual or family group can do little to change their habitual ways of behaving, social status-wise.

Adherents to the point of view that social status

is not constant deny the importance upon the individual’s

early placement in a given position in the social hierarchy.

This view does not overlook the entrance of new interests,

such as education, e.g., into an individual’s life. It

does not overlook individual and/or family adaptability to

new situations, nor does it underemphasize the point that

an individual is not the sole determiner of his rank.

5. See Appendix B for an extended discussion of social status, especially pp. 176-181 for a thumbnail picture of status constancy and inconstancy views. 4

Ranking, this school of thought points out, is a function of the group, and since individuals composing groups vary, one may reasonably argue further that the Individual does not show an all-determining tendency to carry over his old position intact to a new social situation.

"Is there a general tendency for individuals and family groups to retain or to develop the same relative social status after being removed from one status-conferr- R ing community to another?" This question concerning status constancy serves to limit its broad nature and to introduce the problem to be investigated herein. It was mentioned above that the present study will attempt to parallel

(replicate) that of an earlier investigator, who formulated his hypothesis thusly:

Informal family status within a status- conferring community with a conanonT*economic and educational level is largely determined tjy factors indigenous Tx^Xthe community situation.6 7

Definitions

In striving for clarity, and for consistency with the study being replicated, definitions of concepts and

6. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., Social Status in a University Veterans1 Community; A Sociological StuHy (unpublished Master’sthesis,Department of Sociology, Bucknell University, 1949), p. 39.

7. Ibid., p. 47. 5 terms contained in the hypothesis will next be set forth.®

Since the present study is replicative in nature, the definitions will necessarily correspond to those of the original study.

General tendency. The present paper will attempt to discover only a general tendency. w...the science of sociology at its present stage of development is not able to postulate laws explaining all aspects of social Inter­ action.*® Hence, care is used to avoid generalizations which extend beyond the bounds of the community that will be studied.

Individuals and family groups. Interest will be centered in a "general tendency" as it operates with regard to individuals and family groups. A step toward the definition of social status as used in the original study is introduced here since it will be investigated as both a family and as an Individual matter. Individuals 4*23

8. Redundance is not intended; these definitions are presented in the interest of a more accurate understand­ ing by the reader. Much "communication failure" exists today..."It is.Ironic that we should waste so much energy fighting phantoms created by words..." Some of these phantoms Stuart Chase lists as the (1) confusion of words with things, (2) failure to check abstract terms with concrete events, (3) confusing facts with inferences with value judgments. (4) failure to assemble the main facts before passing judg­ ment, and (5) the wholesale application of two-valued logic. Stuart Chase,.Power of Words, (New York: Harcourt. Brace and Company, 1954)T™pp7 %0-T5;—

9. Otto Louis. Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 40. 6

considered as entities are objects of the ranking process; the newborn is also granted family status by reason of family membership. Whether a royal or a gangster family, it brings its own type of status. Further explanation lies in such phenomena as an infant’s helplessness or the anonymity characterizing the Individual in modern urban society.

Retain and develop. In these two words, the obvious implication is that status may change. It was implied earlier that there are alternative courses when one enters a new community setting. These are: an individual’s former position (the one to which he is acquainted, or in which his former associates have placed him) may be carried over intact; he may develop the same position, or, he may develop an appreciably different position. Since one’s position is ultimately a result of what those around him consider it to be, "it is bound to vary somewhat, especially 11 if one’s circle of associates is wide and diversified."

Social status. This will be the most Important concept used in this paper. In his definition. Sender first calls attention to the Interchangabillty of the 1110

10. Ibid., p. 41.

11. Ibid., p. 42. 7

terms position, rank, and status, and to the general agree­

ment among many sociologists that status means Hthe position in which one is held in a society.*12 implicit here, of

course, is the idea that some hold positions higher or

lower than othersj that the various ranks are organized

into a hierarchy. If one accepts the concept of status

as conveying the idea of "ranking or standing" and includes within the meaning the "special behavior" by which individ­

uals denote their recognition of ranks, then much of the

confusion evidenced in a number of sociological writings is eliminated.13

The term "relative* as used in the question to

modify social status means that the "measures* which will

be applied must be approximatej exact measures in the

social sciences are still a matter for argument outside

the scope of this research.^ 141213

12. Loc. clt. See also Appendix B.

13. William F. Ogburn and Meyer F. Nimkoff, Sociology, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1946), pp. «506-307. Also of. Linton’s definition of “roles,"pp. "146-147, post.

14. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 42. Sender’s definition of social status appears to parallel that of Oscar Wesley and Alfred MeClung Lee: "a position in a social group...relative position, rank, or standing... assignment of statuses and the definition of their duties and rewards are crystallized in and sanctioned by the folkways and mores..." Oscar Wesley and Alfred MeClung Lee, "Social Status," in Henry Pratt Fairchild (ed.). Dictionary S£ Sociology, (Ames, Iowa: Littlefield, Adams and Company, T3557, p. 293. 8

Status conferring communities* The meaning of the term community by itself means any social group living in physical proximity and showing a degree of original social life.15 Addition of the qualifying words, status conferring, indicates the recognition of the collective factor inherent in a number of combined ratings of any given person or family. Qualifications such as "the whole equals more than the sum of its parts" in this connection are excluded.1®

Formal and informal status. These two generel categories appear to be founded upon the many positions which combined to produce what Linton called the status.^ In the original study it is explained that17 1615

15. William F. Ogburn and Meyer F. Nlmkoff, op. cit.t p. 395.

16. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. clt., p. 43.

17. Of. p. 146, post. 9

• • .we may think of A, with whom we are not personally acquainted, as a leader within our city. His name heads the board of directors of this public institution or that charity. He is often honorary chairman for city-wide events. We recognize A ’s formal status. A ’s friends, on the other hand, may see in him a man with little power of personal attraction, utterly lacking all qualities of leadership. They understand that A Is sought to head charities and events because people remember his father who was a leader in the popular sense of the word and from whom A inherited his wealth. They recognize his Informal status.

By way of further explanation, scholastic record, athletic prowess, or fraternity affiliation may be under­ stood as possibly giving one a higher formal status; but what one's fellow students think of him as a social entity would be termed Informal status. The social aspect of social status, as it will be used in the present study, will be comprised of these informal aspects

Common educational and economic level. In an earlier discussion, it was stated that social status would be conceived of as a family matter, and another sub-heading dealt with the status conferring community. This brings one to the dual limitation of common educational and economic level posited by Bonder as "allowing us to take cognizance of the distinctly social aspects in operation 1918

18. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., 0£. clt., p. 48.

19. Ibid., p. 48-49. 10

In status-conferring.”20 2221 In other words, an atypical situation such as, e.g., a family of great wealth moving into the community and springing into a position of leader­ ship by sole virtue of the obvious criterion, will not be encountered. As for occupations, even non-research observa­ tion shows that many occupations naturally carry high or 21 low status in themselves. Other factors which would exercise a disproportionate weight in sometimes assigning high or Ibw status to newcomers, are the type of housing accomodations and age. The points touched upon in this discussion are largely controlled in a university veterans' housing

community composed of a sizeable proportion of families who have moved from other communities, but who have been

in residence in the new setting for a long enough time to have received a social position.^2 Thus, one finds that

20. Ibid., p. 50.

21. National Opinion Research Center, Opinion News, (September 1, 1947). It is recognized in the original study that occupation may carry formal status as opposed to the informal status of leadership in certain social situations. Albeit, a physician would, of course, move into a new community with a higher status than would, say, a cotton picker.

22. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., o£. cit., p. 49. The original investigator contends that the amount of time required for a social position to be assigned need not Influence the choice of a study location. Individual differences and differing circumstances make the time factor vary. This will be taken into consideration later. 11 this is the ideal community for a study of the situational aspect of social status, l.e., the original investigator's ad hoc hypothesis. An attempt shall be made to compare the informal situational status with the formal status of resi­ dents before they entered the community, after the study reaches a conclusive pointj this, expectantly, will shed more light on status constancy as considered herein.

Assumptions

It has been implied in this chapter that status- connected thinking in a community can be discovered. The justification that it can be discovered by means of the interview method will be discussed in another chapter.^3

Another assumption is that a family group holds high in formal status when it is recognized by an appreciable number of residents to be a leader in several fields of in­ formal activity (e.g., recreation). A further assumption is that three general categories of informal social status may be developed in this w a y s ^ 2423

23. _Cf. ppi; 54.-58, post.

24. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. clt., p. 52. A clique is defined as a group of three or more families who ^mutually agreed.•.that as a general rule they engaged in social activities together.” (1) Relatively high status in the community shall be designated hy agreed leadership.

(2) Intermediate status shall be designated by clique connection with leadership families.

(3) Lower status shall be designated by absence of leadership recognition and absence of clique connection with leadership families.

These three divisions, chosen on the basis of convenience, avoid the problem of exact measurement by explaining observed behavior "in terms of the acceptance or rejection of families by substantial segments of the community.

This "attraction-rejection" aspect also appears to clarify further the social status definition being used herein.

It is expected that most residents in' a small community are able to reveal in some way those they regard as local leaders. If families are placed in a position of leadership by their fellows, then they hold a high place

in the general thinking of the community. Other contentions of the original investigator are

25. Ibid., p. 53. that if families travel about in clique along with the leaders, then those families hold a position somewhat enviable in the eyes of the rest of the community. They are lifted by association with the holders of high status. The remainder of the community’s residents are dumped into the category which we have called lower status. This does not brand them as anti-social or in any way stigmatize them. We could probably continue to sub­ divide the lower status group into those who belong to non-leadership cliques, those who belong to associations outside the community, and so forth almost ad infinitum, but such categorizing would add nothing to our study because the classes would finally contain only one or two families. We are interested only in tendencies which are statistically significant.26

In order to justify further the approaches of the original and the present study to the problem of social status, a partial investigation was made into the maze of Interpretations that exist in the literature. It is believed that this exercise helps to illumine the exist­ ing disagreements concerning social status, and related 27 concepts, in the general field of social stratification.

26. Tbid., p • 54.

27. See Appendix B CHAPTER II

RELATED STUDIES

The present Investigator was able to locate a number of studies that to some degree encompassed the problem of constancy of status. Only a few, however, seemed to treat this subject directly. The remainder generally included only a brief tangential discussion often treating status constancy in a somewhat oblique fashion without reference to "constancy* or its related terms. This chapter will be panoramic in presenting the most significant aspects of a number of these studies.

Otto Sender

Bonder's investigation is, logically, the major related study to be considered since it is, as far as possible, the study herein being replicated.^ Within his work, one does not find a "related studies" chapter or a collation of status constancy studies as such. He does, however, make an examination of sociological writings; and it is the subsequent discoveries of (1) "weaknesses"* 1

; ’ , , 1. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., Social Status in a University Veterans' Community: A Sociological STucEy, %un- publlshed Master*s thesis, Department of Sociology, Bucknell University, 1949), 222 pp. 15

in meanings of the term social status as well as (2) a number of implications that status once acquired tends 2 to "stick” which gave rise to his hypothesis.

Choosing a university veterans’ community. In which certain variables could be controlled, he established, through the use of data discovered in interviews, a hier­ archy of informal statuses, i.e., positions within the community’s informal organization. Leadership was utilized as the key in this development. Widely recognized leader­ ship was used in the formulation of a ’’Weighted Leadership Status Score” system. Family groups who received high scores were placed near the top of the hierarchy (high status). Those who, through the establishment of clique- relationships, were found to interact habitually in informal social situations with the leaders, were placed next in the hierarchy (intermediate status). All others were placed at the bottom (low status)

To test his hypothesis, Bonder sought three essentials.

First, he attempted to discover existing statuses. Second, 2

2. Ibid., p. 47.

3. Ibid Chapter II 16

he searched for factors which would serve to Indicate that

Informal social status was relative to the community he was studying. The differences In favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward the “Village Government Association* was the only factor discovered in this regard (expressed by three status categories during the interviews). His final task was to determine what relationship existed between informal status within the community and past formal status; he found no significant relationship. He concludes that these findings “tend to uphold the hypothesis,*^ that, even though past formal status may be retained, a social situation in a new community will result in the development of a new position (social status) when status-connected thinking is divided into the subtypes formal and informal.

Thus, the informal aspect of social status is situational.

Hew statuses develop in a new situation whether one strives for a higher status or not.^

Ralph Spielman

This is a study of the degree of consistency among 4

4. Ibid.. p. 205.

. Ibid., p. 207.5 17

Indicators of socio-economic status and of certain correlates of this degree of consistency. The variation in the use of this term from the "constancy" use of Bonder is apparent.

Since the original work was not available, the abstract which follows will be given verbatim. It took place

...in an area sample of the urban population of the continental United States in 1949-1950. Each of the 2,292 spending units of the sample — defined as groups of persons living in the same dwelling and related by blood, marriage, or by adoption, who pool their incomes for their major items of expense — was assigned one of three rank positions (high. Intermediate, and low) in each of three rank systems pertaining to education, income and occupation. The spending units of the sample were thus sorted in twenty-seven status profile groups. Spending units with equivalent rank positions in the three rank systems were regarded as having consistent social status profiles, while those holding different rank positions in the three rank systems were regarded as having inconsistent social status profiles. Differential degrees of status inconsistency were discerned.

A pronounced tendency toward status consistency was found to exist in the sample. The pro­ portion of spending units with consistent status profiles was found to be more than 500 percent of the figure expected if spending units were randomly distributed over the twenty-seven status profiles, i.e., if positions in the three rank systems were independent of one another. Two-thirds of the spending units were found to show some degree of status Inconsistency. Thus, partially crystallized status strata were discerned. 18

The spending units were further sorted in a hierarchy of three status levels, each contain­ ing a group of consistent and a group of in­ consistent status profiles. The hypothesis that to different positions in the status hierarchy correspond different levels of par­ ticipation in the life of the society was tested by correlating a number of behavioral variables with the status hierarchy. Among these are liquid assets held, net worth, face value of life insurance policies, life insurance premiums as percent of Income, and year model of automobile. Interviewees* attitudinal responses to two questions per­ taining to the well-being of the country and to the respondents* feelings regarding their own financial security also were found to correlate with the hierarchy of social status. The Influence of education, occupation, and income separately on this variation and the influence that these three factors have in their combinations were Investigated and tested by the method of analysis of variance. It was shown that status, conceived as a combination of rank positions in education. Income, and occupation, can be used to Improve explanations of behavior variations obtained by correlating them with the three factors separately.

It was demonstrated that behavioral variations Indicating different levels of participation in the benefits derived by individuals from the social organization of their efforts in this society correspond to different positions in the partially crystallized status structure. The imperfect crystallization of the status groups appears to be connected with structural changes that this society is undergoing at the present time. On the basis of the evidence produced by this study, future increases in the degree of this crystallization do not appear improbable.®6

6. Ralph Spielman, (University of Michigan), nA Study of Stratification in the United States," Dissertation Abstracts. Vol. 13 (1953), No. 5, p. 906. 19

Gerhard Lenskl and William Kenkel

Gerhard Lenskl views status crystallization or consistency as an interrelationship of statuses and calls it a “non-vertical dimension of social status•” His first study is an analysis of social status in terms of positions on a series of related vertical hierarchies rather than a single position on one vertical hierarchy. It measures the consistency of individuals’ statuses on four hierarchies, viz., income, occupation, ethnic, and education, and relates such consistency, or “status crystallization," to voting behavior in the 1948 and 1952 presidential elections and the 1950 Michigan gubernatorial election. He used a random sample of 613 Detroit residents. The income and education hierarchies were formed directly from the raw data; occupa­ tions were assigned a numerical score (North-Hatt scale).

Ethnic groups were ranked by 195 student judges. A pro­ cedure, involving frequency distributions and percentiles, was presented for establishing common-interval scales for the four status hierarchies. The degree of status crystal­ lization was determined by computing the deviation from the mean for each individual’s score on each status hierarchy. 7

7. Gerhard E. Lenskl, "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status," American Socio­ logical Review; 19:405-413 (August, 1954). 20

The sample was then divided into "high crystallization" and

"low crystallization" on the basis of "something roughly Q approximating a natural breaking point" in the scores.0

Lenski found that in each of the three elections the

Democratic preference was substantially more frequent in the

low than in the high crystallization category. A further test involving the relationship between status crystalliza­

tion and political attitudes also gave consistent results;

an association was discovered between low status crystalliza­

tion and political liberalism.8 9 10

Kenkel replicated the foregoing study, to some 10 degree, on a sample of 300 residents from Columbus, Ohio.

He believes his findings are "directly opposed" to those of

Lenski. The latter, however, contends that the less basic

combination of status-variables Kenkel was forced to use,

viz., occupation, education, rental value of dwelling,

and dwelling area prestige, do not have "consequences of

8. Ibid., p. 408.

9. Ibid., p. 413.

10. William F. Kenkel, "The Relationship between Status Consistency and Politico-Economic Attitudes," American Sociological Review; 21:365-368 (June, 1956). 21

the same magnitude.** Moreover, Lenski’s use of the term

**natural break** may have been confusing since Kenkel arbitrarily divided his * array** into halves, instead of into "most crystallized1* and the "least crystallized** categories.^ Lenski further contends that there are noteworthy similarities to his own study in spite of the replicative shortcomings in Kenkel*s design. For example, the direction of differences in the two consistency categories of the latter’s study, while not statistically significant, nevertheless were the same as in the original 15 study. Lenski*s analysis seems to warrant a delay in rejection of the hypothesis linking status inconsistency with political liberalism.

In another paper, Lenski increases the significance

of his "status crystallization" concept by constructing and

testing three hypotheses to demonstrate that persons whose

status is poorly crystallized "constitute a social category peculiarly vulnerable to rebuffs, embarrassments, and12 1311

11. Gerhard E. Lenski, "Comment on Henkel’s Communications," American Sociological Review; 21:368-369 (June, 1956).

12. Ibid., p. 368.

13. Ibid., p. 369. 22

disappointments.He conjectures that the individual with a poorly crystallized status is a particular type of

"marginal man," subjected to pressures by the social order

"which are not felt by individuals with a more highly crystallized status.""*-®

A forthcoming paper by this writer will be of interest since it involves the relationship between status crystallization and vertical mobility.^16 1514

14. Gerhard E. Lenski, "Social Participation and Status Crystallization," American Sociological Review; 21:459 (August, 1956). ”

15. Loc. cit• It is of interest to note that while StonequTsT, in his classic work on the marginal man, does not discuss status constancy per se, this problem is implied in several passages. For example, in statements such as "The doubtful social status of the second generation gives rise to a concern for status" (p. 98), and in dealing with the life-cycle of the marginal man, "the ways in which the individual responds to his situation: the adjustments he makes or attempts to make" (p. 125). Everett V. Stonequist, The Marginal Man (New York: Scribner, 1937), passim.

16. Gerhard E. Lenski, "Social Participation and Status Crystallization," p. 464. 25

Pitlrlm Sorokin

In 1927, aspects of status Inconstancy were touched upon by Pitlrlm Sorokin when he wrote, £•£•, that "The

Intensiveness and the generality of the vertical mobility — the economic, the political and the occupatlonal-fluctuate 17 In the same society at different times" and “A Common result of dissimilarity between fathers and children Is the discrepancy between the social position of Individuals and their Inner and acquired qualities, necessary for a successful performance of the functions of the position. Much food for thought. In connection with the present paper, lies in his discussion of the factors of vertical circulation, some of which he condenses in the following statement: 1817

17. Pitlrlm A. Sorokin, Social Mobility (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927) p. 1421 Xn" excellent summarization by way of assessing the relative importance of various insti­ tutions as channels of vertical social mobility may be found in Pitlrlm A. Sorokin, "Los Canales de la Circulacion Vertical," Revlsta Mexicans de Soclologla; 16:485-500 (Septemb e r -De cemb'er^ 1954).

18. Ibid., p. 564. 24

...through preventive sifting of unsuitable individuals by the machinery of social selection, through repressive shifting after failure under the influence of social pressure, and through personal efforts of improperly placed individuals, the factors of dissimilarity between parents and children causes a permanent stream of the vertical circulation, and does not permit all children to hold the position of their parents or that in which they are born.19

And throughout his chapter on "Social Testing** several pertinent and interesting status constancy-wise discussions

are offered, the general theme of them being: uneducated people sometimes attain high position, but in general, high on education and high position go together. Twenty years later Sorokin viewed social stratifica­

tion as having many forms: **(1) official and unofficial

organized real strata, 'as i f organized strata, and nominal,

statistical pseudo strata; (2) Intragroup and intergroup

stratification; and (3) unibonded and multibonded stratifica­

tion." Each of the unibonded and multibonded strata he 1920

19. Ibid., p. 366. From another sociological focus, a recent study shows that when status is not constant within the family, when the children are upwardly mobile, the family integration declines and its subculture is disrupted. E. E. lamasters, "Social Class Mobility and Family Integration," Marriage and Family Living; 16:226-232 (August,-1954).

20. Pitirim A. Sorokin, o£. clt., pp. 188-192. 25

subclassifled into open (nonhereditary), closed (hereditary), and intermediary. The multibonded strata he would classify according to the number of the stratifying bonds, into double, triple, quadruple, etc. And further they should be classified as "(a) innerly solidary, or affine; (b) antagonistic, or disaffine; and (c) neutral.*21

Of special interest to the present study is the

"affine* and "disaffine" classifications. These terms are comparable to crystallized and uncrystallized. By the

disaffine, multibonded stratum is meant that made up of the mutually contradictory, un­ congenial bonds-values that make the social position of its members innerly contradictory. The members of such an Innerly contradictory stratum are urged by the mutually uncongenial or contradictory bonds to the self-contra­ dictory behavior and mentality. Likewise, such a disaffine stratum appears as a self­ contradictory stratum to the outsiders who are in contact with it. 2

The innerly solidary or affine multibonded stratum is that in which the compounded stratify­ ing bonds are mutually congenial, and urge its members to the same behavior and mentality.,• the innerly neutral multibonded stratum is that in which there is no mutual antagonism among the compounded bonds and no mutual solidarity as well.23 212223

21. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture, and Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19477, p. 276.

22. Ibid., p. 289.

23. Loc. cit 26

By means of such a social taxonomy and stratigraphy, the social scientist can "analyze precisely the social differ­ entiation and stratification of any given population..•M as well as "...the position of every individual in the complex 04 sociocultural world."

Emile Benolt-Smullyan

Emile Benolt-Smullyan unavoidably encompasses the problem of status constancy when he grapples with the varieties and interrelations of social status and the 25 distinctions between them. Since "social position" has a meaning so broad as to make definition virtually im­ possible, he distinguishes the main varieties by "locus"

(socially defined function in an organized group), "situs"

(membership in a social group), and "status" (relative position in a hierarchy). The three types of statuses are:

economic, political, and prestige. They are not identical;

an individual’s standing with respect to any of these depends

on his relative rank in the particular concrete hierarchies 2524

24. Ibid., pp. 289-294.

25. Emile Benolt-Smullyan, "Status, Status Types, and Status Interrelations," American Sociological Review; 9:151-161 (April, 1944). 27

26 which the society thinks important. There is a tendency for different statuses to "reach a common level" by "status conversion" processes, but "status equilibrium" is limited by "social status." The latter term would exist only if the "equilibrating process were to be completed and if a perfect equilibrium status structure were present.

Harold Kaufman, et al.

In this report we are reminded of recent challenges

to the community point of view (using the small community

as a social unit in stratification studies) by those who

maintain that the mass society is the chief determinant

of stratification.^ This, obviously, is of great interest

in the light of an attempt to measure status constancy.

The basic assumptions of the community position are

that rank is unitary and that the loealistic value system is

dominant. This may have been approximated in relatively

isolated and stable rural communities of yesterday, but mass

communication has broken down the isolation of rural people.27 2826

26. Ibid., p. 155.

27. Ibid., pp. 160-161.

28. Harold P. Kaufman, et al, "Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of SociaT"Stratification in Rural Society," Rural Sociology; 18:12-24 (March, 1953). 28

and community bonds have been weakened by the rise of special-interest groups. In fact, the mass society might be characterized as an agglomerate of special-interest groups or publics, each having its own status hierarchy.

The basis of evaluation is determined largely by secondary systems of economic and political power and by the mass media of communication.

The crux of this report is the authors* contention that an individual*s community rank probably depends on his organizational statuses and the prevailing local rating of his personal qualities and achievements, as well as on evaluations originating in the mass society. Each community might be expected to have to a greater or lesser degree its own unique system of evaluations, conditioned, at least in part, by its niche in the division of labor in the society.

It is impossible to equate the localistic ratings of one community with those of another; this can be done only by a frame of reference common to both, the evaluations of 29 the mass society. 30 In an earlier article, Kaufman reminds us of the expectation for all of the statuses and characteristics of29 30

29. Ibid., pp. 20-24.

30. Harold F. Kaufman, nAn Approach to the Study of Urban Stratification,w American Sociological Review; 17:430-437 (August, 1952). 29

an individual to be similar in value and be consistent or

Mcongruousn with each other with respect to rank. He terms this as "status equilibrium” and contends that it is much more likely to be realized in the primary community than in a complex social world of high mobility. On the other hand,

one's statuses are said to be incongruous, when there is great disparity as to value. Kaufman gives as an example

of this the scion of the "best family" who is proficient

in his profession but who is highly deviant in his political *zo and economic beliefs and with respect to his sex behavior.

Stuart Adams

Stuart Adams defines status congruency as consistency

among the status hierarchies within a bomber crew’s social 33 structure. This concept is used as a central variable in

studying variations in the performances of bomber crews. 333132

31. Of. Emile Benoit-Smullyan, p.27, ante.

32. Harold P. Kaufman, op. cit., p. 436.

33. Stuart Adams, "Status Congruency as a Variable in Small Group Performance," Social Forces; 32:16-22 (October, 1953). 30

"Perfect group congruency is the condition in which individ­ uals within the group stand in exactly the same rank order in all effective status hierarchies In the group... Perfect individual status congruency exists when an Individual's rank in one status hierarchy coincides exactly with his rank in all other significant status hierarchies."54 He hypothesized that status congruency would be positively correlated with performance rates. Nine major prestige hierarchies by which crew members evaluated one another were discovered. Group status congruency was negatively related to technical per­ formance, and positively related to social performance. As group congruency increased, the crew tended to see itself as

"more intimate, and as less sharply divided by status differ­ entiation."55 Individual congruency was found to be negative­ ly related to technical performance, and positively related to social performance; "the technical performance distributions tend to vary randomly and non-significantly around linearity."55 *3435

34. Ibid., p. 17.

35. Ibid., p. 19.

36 Ibid., p. 20 31

The data of this study indicate that attention to status

congruency is desirable from the standpoint of group pro­ ductivity and interpersonal relationships alike.

Other Studies

A number of other recent studies reveal that to some

degree — at least by implication — they are concerned with

aspects of status constancy. Gordon reveals this when he

proposes a conceptual scheme to distinguish between economic

factors, politico-community power, status structure, occupation- al pre-emption, cultural attributes, and group life. Social

mobility studies involve status constancy, as, 'Mulligan's

study of social mobility through higher education as a 38 function of socio-economic background, or the investigations 39 of class culture and value systems as factors in mobility.

Discussions of social class shifts in old age have interesting 373839

37. Milton M. Gordon, "A System of Social Class Analysis,” The Drew Unlversity Bulletin; 2:1-19 (August, 1951).

38. Raymond A. Mulligan, “Social Mobility and Higher Education,tt Journal of Educatlonal Sociology; 25:476-487 (April, 1952"7» See also Raymond A. Mulligan, “Socio-Economic Background and College Enrollment,” American Sociological Review; 16:188-196 (April, 1951). ------

39. Raymond A. Mulligan, “Social Characteristics of College Students,” American Sociological Review; 18:305-310 (June, 1953); Herbert Hyman, "The Value Systems of Differ­ ent Classes,” in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953)pp. 426-442. 32

40 status constancy ramifications, as do those of mobility 41 to or within metropolitan areas. McGuire conments that

"change of status" is a neglected dimension of otherwise 42 brilliant analyses. When Reisman speaks of the "cult of effortlessness" he invariably implies status rigidlfication or constancy.Northway and Thomson note that there is some evidence that the consistency of status in children’s 44 groups increases with age.

40. Ruth Albrecht, "Social Class in Old Age," Social Forces; 29:400-405 (May, 1951).

41. Richard Scudder and C. Arnold Anderson, "Migration and Vertical Occupational Mobility," American Sociological Review; 19:329-334 (June, 1954); Seymour Martin Llpset, "Social Mobility and Urbanization," Rural Sociology; 20:220-228 (September-December, 1955).

42. Carson McGuire, "Social Stratification and Mobility Patterns," American Sociological Review; 15:195-204 (April, 1950).

43. David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950) p . 322•

44. Mary L. Northway, "Appraisal of the Social Development of Children at a Summer Camp," University of Toronto Studies, Psychology Series, Vol. V (1940), No."-!; Mary Thomson, wAn Analysis of the Sociometric Ratings of Groups of Children from Three to Eight Years of Age," unpublished M. A. thesis. University of Toronto, 1948; cited by Mary L. Northway, A Primer of Soclometry (Canada: University of Toronto Press"7 1§52), p. l6 (Original sources not available). 33

And many, many more studies Involve, to a greater or lesser degree, status "constancy,** "consistency,**

"congruency," "crystallization," "stability," "equllibra- 45 tlon," or ’’affinity," and their opposite counterparts.

45. Only a few of these studies are the following: Leila Calhoun Deasy, "An Index of Social Mobility," Rural Sociology; 20:149-151 (June, 1955); Stanislaw Andrzejewski, "Vertical Mobility and Technical Progress," Social Forces; 29:48-51 (October, 1950); Seymouth Martin Lipset and Natalie Rogoff, "Class and Opportunity in Europe and the U.S.," Commentary; 18:562-568 (December, 1954); Donald R. Matthews^ "United States Senators and the Class Structure," Public Opinion Quarterly; 18:5-22 (Spring, 1954); Seymour Martin Lipset and Relnhard Bendlx, "Social Mobility and Occupational Career Patterns: Stability of Jobholding," American Journal of Sociology; 57:366-374 (January, 1952); Stuart Adams, "Regional Differences in Vertical Mobility in a High-Status Occupation," American Sociological Review; 15:228-235 (April, 1950); Patricia Salter West, "Social Mobility Among College Graduates," in Relnhard Bendlx and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power, op. clt., pp. 465-480; Thomas Ely iasswell, ^Status and Strati­ fication in a Selected Community," University of Southern California: Abstracts of Dissertations, 1953, pp. 261-264; Gregory P. Stone and William H. Form, "Instabilities in Status: The Problem of Hierarchy in the Community Study of Status Arrangements," American Sociological Review; 18:149-162 (April, 1953); Paul K. Hatt and Virginia Ktsanes, "Patterns of American Stratification as Reflected in Selected Social Science Literature," American Sociological Review; 17:670-679 (December, 1952); Gresham M ’Cready Sykes (Northwestern), "Social Mobility and Social Par­ ticipation," Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 14 (1954), No. 10, pp. 1835-1836; Harry Palmer Sharp. "Migration and Social Participation in the Detroit Area," Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 15 (1955), No. 4, p. 642; Floyd Dotson, nDismlnucion de la Poblacion Mexicana en Los Estados Unidos de Acuerdo con el Censo de 1950," Revlsta Mexicana de Soclologla; 17:151-169 (January-Aprll, 1955). 34

46 Some take place outside the continental United States.

Others reveal a lack of agreement on "crystallization11 or 47 "non-crystallization" of American society as a whole. 4647

46. M. Roshwald, "Social Class Structure in a Fluctuating Community,^ British Journal of Sociology; 6:61-70 (March, 1955);.Alvin Et. Scai'f, "Social Stratlfica- tion and the Rehabilitation of Ex-Huks in the Philippines," Research Studies of the State College of Washington; 23:83-91 (June, 1935); Alex fnkeles, ""Social Stratification and Mobility in the Soviet Union," American Sociological Review; 15:465-479 (August, 1950); Howard Becker, "changes in the Social Stratification of Contemporary Germany," American Sociological Review; 15:333-342 (June, 1950).

47. A few of those who take the stand that American society is becoming "crystallized" are: John W. Bennett and Melvin M. Tumin, Social Life: Structure and Function (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948) p. 473; Walter Goldschmidt, "Social Class in America: A Critical Review," Amerlean Anthropologist; 52:483-498 (October-December, 1§50); William F. dgburn and Meyer F. Nlmkoff, Sociology (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1946) pp. 335-336; W. Lloyd Warner, e_t al. Who Shall be Educated? (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944) pp. 45-48.

Asserting the opposite view are: Seymour Martin Lipset and Relnhard Bendix, "Social Mobility and Occupation Career Patterns: Social Mobility," American Journal of Sociology; 57:366-374 (January, 195^)'; Gideon Sjoberg, "Are Social Classes in America Becoming More Rigid?" American Sociological Review; 16:775-783 (December, 1951)• CHAPTER III

GENERAL SETTING, HISTORY, AND METHOD OP STUDY

OF THE COMMUNITY

Polo Village

At the end of World War II, the University of

Arizona, like most other universities, had a tremendous

increase in its student enrollment. A large part of this

increase was made up of returning servicemen, many of whom were married and had children.^ The housing shortage in

the area at the time was particularly acute and the places

that were available rented at figures above the means of

the great majority of these married veteran students. To

meet this need, the Federal Public Housing Authority pro- g vlded the University with 248 housing units. These were

originally scheduled to be ready for occupancy by the

beginning of the 1946-1947 school year; however, scarcity

of plumbing equipment and other necessary items caused a *2

!• Tucson Daily Citizen, January 3, 1946, p. 1; January 12, 1 9 4 6 , pp. 1 and 12 (editorial); January 16, 1946, p. 1; January 19, 1946, p. 1.

2. Two contracts with the Federal Public Housing Authority were executed, one on February 16, 1946, and the other four months later on June 17th. Each contract was for 124 units. Arizona Alumnus, February, 1946 (Tucson, Arizona; University of Arizona), p. 3. 36

delay in the completion of the units until the following year.3 They are located less than a mile northeast of the campus, occupying the site of the old polo field.* At the request of the veteran students living there, the area was named Polo Village. Figures I and XX illustrate the setting and arrangement of the quonsets and temporary dwelling units.

The east and west sections are divided by the polo field turf and the University’s poultry farm; other sides of the community are bounded by a residential area. Later, the focus of this study will be centered on the east section only.3 45

Each quonset in this community is a double apart­ ment building. Each apartment is 23 % 20 feet in size, and contains a living room, kitchen, bath, and two bedrooms.

All apartments are provided with an air cooler, kitchen range, heating stove, hot water heater, a kitchen work table, sink, and shower. The quonsets are Insulated, masonite lined, and have wooden flooring.

The temporary dwelling units, known as TDU’s, or

3. Ibid., February, 1947, p. 18.

4. This field was used by the University’s polo team when the R.O.T.C. cavalry unit was a part of the institution prior to the war. It is now seldom used, except as a ball field or play area — see Figure VIII.

5. See Figures H and III. 37

Q M flat ops,11 house twenty families in the east section.

Each unit is subdivided into four apartments

Between 750 and 800 persons comprise the population of this community of veterans and their families.® In

1948, 300 veterans were registered on the Polo Village

^waiting list."9 Although no vacancies have ever existed for assignment to these quarters, the close of the 1952-

1953 college year saw only a dozen names on the waiting

list.’*-9 The return of the Korean veterans at about this

time affected a reversal in the trend and today there are

over 200 qualified veterans waiting for assignment. This constitutes an average delay of one and one-half years to reach the top of the listDue to the relatively high

cost of living in this general area, a high level of demand for space in Polo Village may be expected to persist for

some time to come. 11109867

6. See Figure VII.

7. These Mflatopsw are numbers 55, 55A, 55B, 550, 56, 56A, 56B, 560, 73, 73A, 73B, 730, 74, 74A, 74B, 740, 75, 75A, 75B, and 750 In Figure III. 8. Arizona Wildcat (Tucson, Arizona: university of Arizona), March 1, 1950, p. 3. 9. Arizona Alumnus, op. cit., May, 1948, p. 1.

10. Annual Report of the Dean of Men, 1952-1953 (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arlzonajy p. 13.

11. Ibid., 1955-1956, p. 9. ", f!?»t '•"ty I I b h r *1 SSSfeteJe VIL :Vi4i

■ t o - # # 1 - • : >

R E T %Sd’ „»'r,!imE5» 5i.jE°9 ^ ■ 1 «&s laei

v t 6 in"

5 #"'

3W ## i a # . 6 ft*!

'- ?

|>. W g h & - •- ,\ & w ! s jj!Jli|!l|i -.7 v . 53

•i#f« i: ' /

lixrf? Figure I. Polo Village |ft.- an^ the University of 3 L Arizona. 39

Figure II. Polo Village, east section.

gj lillilliillillilSiiilSS 1 iliiiil iiilllliliiilli

(toQ [5Q gQ WAMimiA HE) @] mu @3 M*\0\C\ [c\6\A \S$ [50 1^0 @0 [50

^ 1691AI from fTyRl f^Rl HDDEBcaHHBHgnr^ , j i i i i WARRe/S/ /4 ve. H U TS a t THkU H9 /ft WEST SECT/OH 7 ) ^ P o l o V/l l a g , EAST SECT/ON

Figure III. Polo Village, east section, residence diagram. ko

Figure IV. Polo Village, east section (view toward northeast).

■ ■ 1

Figure V. Polo Village, east section (view toward south). Figure VT. Quonset hut, close-up.

Figure VII. "Flat-top", close-up. k2

Figure VIII. Polo field.

Figure IX Polo Village, aerial view, looking southeast. 43

With approximately 800 people living In an area of about four square blocks — somewhat like "peas In a pod1* — some sort of governing body became necessary. This need gave rise to the Polo Village Council. The Village charter made provision for a mayor and a council to be elected each fall by the residents. Under the charter, the council has the authority to establish certain laws and to recommend penalties for violations. In settling controversial matters, the council has the backing of the faculty committee.

Many projects and improvements have been accomplished through the council’s efforts, some of which are: the installation of gas ranges; painting of outside of huts; procurement of coolers; organization of a cooperative grocery store 1312

12. The faculty committee was established to help the veterans and their families toward making living conditions better. It functions as a link between the Villagers and the University administration. Through it residents have a means of expressing their needs and making suggestions. Arizona Alumnus, op. clt., July, 1948, p. 7; Annual Report of the Dean of Men, op. clt., 1955-1956, p. "91

13. The "Co-op" was started in 1947, when 200 resi­ dents bought shares of ten dollars each. Non-interest loans were given the Villagers by the University Bookstore and the American Legion. The store was operated successfully for two or three years. Eventually, supermarkets opened in nearby . areas, cutting into the co-op’s business to such an extent that by 1955, when it was forced to close, it was $3300 "in the red;" Arizona Wildcat, op. cit., October 10, 1947, pp. 1 and 3; November 14, 1947,p.i; September 30, 1949, p. 2; March 1, 1950, p. 3; and. Minutes of the Polo Village Committee, October 27, 1955 (Tucson Arizona: University of Arizona). 44 additional clothes lines; construction of a laundry building and installation of six automatic washersbarricades at crucial places .(for reasons of safety); installation of proper driveway at west entrance of east section; placement of traffic signs and installation of speed traps in several places for safety of children; drainage of low areas during rainy season; "Quonset Quotes,n the village newspaper; directive maps at entrances to the Village; playground and activities for the children, as well as a kindergarten and nursery school; recreational activities, such as Village picnics, dances, and sports activities.

Until the summer of 1955, the University rented the units to veterans for a sum as low as possible, gauged by the costs of operation and maintenance. The units rented for $18 per month for an unfurnished quonset, $22 for a furnished one-bedroom unit and $24 for a furnished two-bedroom quonset. All utilities are included in the rents. According to an official of the Veterans Administra­ tion, these were the cheapest rentals of any federal housing units on any campus in the country.^15 14

14. Arizona Wildcat, op. cit., October 26. 1949. p. 2.

15. Arizona Alumnus, op. cit., May, 1948, p. 1. 45

Due to the type of construction materials used in

Polo Village, maintenance costs reached a point by 1955 16 where the entire unit was no longer self-supporting.

As a result, it became necessary to raise the rents for an unfurnished quonset to $22 per month, for a furnished one- bedroom unit to $27, and for a furnished two bedroom quonset

to $29. In July, 1956, rents for these units went up to

$28, $30, and $35, respectively.

Another factor which seems to have contributed to

the higher rents stems from the fact that more and more Polo

Villagers have their own furniture.The University is

not receiving the maximum amount of rent which it would

receive if at least one-half of the quonsets were rented 1 A on a furnished basis. Since maintenance costs continue

to climb, another increase in rents may be necessary in 19 the future.19 161718

16. Annual Report of the Dean of Men, op. cit., 1955-1956, v.-T. ---

17. During the summer of 1955, eighty-five families in the east section of Polo Village stated that they had their own furniture.

18. Veterans may, as they are assigned to the Village, choose either a furnished or an unfurnished unit. The University owns enough furniture to equip one-half of the 248 apartments. Minutes of the Polo Village Committee, op. cit., July 5, 195(j7

19. Loc. cit 46

Figures I through IX -should clarify the description of Polo Village considerably. They may also be used to study existing spatial-ecological patterns. This matter will be of interest later in the study.

Common Factors Among the Residents

From the foregoing discussion, it has become evident that one common factor among all Polo Villagers is the type of housing accomodations. And, although the community is not physically isolated in any way ( it is encompassed by a residential area on all sides), the

Investigator could find no appreciable social interaction on the part of Polo Villagers in the east section with families outside the village who were residentially pro- pinquitous, l.e., families who "lived across the street

This seeming "social isolation," while of definite socio­ logical interest, will not be considered further since it is outside the limited scope of this study.

Of primary concern, hereafter, will be the east 20

20. At the time of this study, one family mentioned having paid a visit to the home of a neighb'or "across the street." 47

section of Polo Village proper. Throughout the remainder

of the present study, this east section will be referred to

as the Village. The 169 families there will constitute the

situation with which this replicative study will be con­

cerned.21 22 Number of children and adults. During the summer

of 1955, when this study was made, the 169 families accounted

for a total population of 514 individuals. Of these, 176 were children; 102 girls and 74 boys. Fifty-three of the

families were childless couples, 70 had one child, 33 had

two, 12 had three, and one had four children. For a clearer

comparison, it may be said that 31 percent of the families

consisted of spouses alone, 41 percent had one child, 20 percent had two, 7 percent had three, and less than one

percent had four. Of the total population, 66 percent were

21. While some families did have friends in the west section — the men having met one another in classes at the University, or in village activities, etc. — by and large, the sociometric choices remained within the east section. "The pattern and number of contacts among particular people will depend upon physical and functional distance...a strik­ ing relationship is revealed between ecological factors and sociometric choice." Leon Festlnger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p . 5&7

22. j3f» p . 4 , ante. 48

adults. Girls comprised 60 percent of the total non-adult population. Table I gives a more lucid picture of the age distribution and sex ratio of the children.

TABLE I

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN

IN THE VILLAGE

Age Girls Boys Under 1 year 26 15 1 year ■bo 1 year. 11 months 23 15 2 years to 2 years , U months 16 15 5 m m 3 * 11 * 9 10 4 n M 4 11 11 M 6 4 5 MM 5 11 11 11 3 6 6 n M 6 n 11 11 4 4 7 w n 7 n 11 * 5 8 M M 8 w 11 11 4 2 9 it M 9 n 11 11 3 2 10 ti 11 10 n 11 11 1 11 MM 11 M 11 n 1 12 n 11 12 M 11 n 2 TS2 -73

Adult age structure of the community. It is not surprising that only seven of the men fall within what is generally considered the "college ages" — eighteen through twenty-two. Forty of the women are found in this age group.

The clearest picture of the spread and grouping of the

Village adult age structure is shown in Table II.

The average age for men is 25.5 yearsj for women it is 23.4 years. Whereas the range of ages in Bonder's community was only 13 years, the Village range of 26 is almost double. 49

The average ages for men and women in the original study 23 are comparable with the Village.

TABLE II

AGES OF VILLAGE ADULT POPULATICH

MEN WOMEN Age Frequency Age Frequency 18 18 2 19 19 4 20 20 6 21 1 21 12 22 6 22 16 23 15 23 22 24 29 24 20 25 34 25 26 26 16 26 9 27 12 27 14 28 15 28 9 29 7 29 8 30 10 30 5 31 6 31 3 32 4 32 1 33 7 33 4 34 2 34 2 35 35 2 36 2 36 1 37 1 37 38 38 1 39 1 39 40 1 40 2

Income of residents of the community. A feature that will have an important bearing on the findings of this study concerns the number of residents who hold full- or 23

23. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., Social Status in a University Veterans♦ Community: A Sociological Study (un- published Master1s thesis, Department of Sociology, Buckne11 University, 1949), p. 69. 50

part-time jobs within the Tucson perimeter. As one might expect, and as Table III shows, more men held part-time jobs than full-time, while the reverse was true for the women.

TABLE III

NUMBER OP VILLAGERS WORKING PULL- OR PART-TIME

Employed Men Women Number Percent Number Percent

Full-time 32 35 78 88

Part-time 59 65 11 12

One-hundred and twenty-five families received allot- 24 ments from the federal government. A few of the older residents, whose "GI Bill" benefits had expired, and who were not able to find or to accept employment, drew on

their savings in order to complete their studies.

Temporary nature of residence In the community.

To live in the Village, or to be eligible for the "waiting

list," the student must be a married veteran carrying at

least ten units in residence at the University. There is

no permanent aspect about living there. The average length

of residence at the end of August, 1955, was slightly over 24

24. It is of interest to note that the Veterans Administration’s GI Training Program ended as of July 25, 1956. This program benefited 7,800,000 former servlcement at a cost of about 14^ billion dollars. Today, only 56,000 are still receiving benefits. Associated Press Dispatch, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), July 22, 1956, p. 2. 51 fifteen months; the modal length of residence was one year, as shown by Table IV. Forty-one of the families had been living in the Village three months or less which indicates that approximately this number of vacancies arose at the 25 end of the 1954-1955 school year.

TABLE IV

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE VILLAGE

Length of Residence Number of Families

1 month 18 2 months 15 3 9 8 6 « 16 1 year 54 1& years 11 23 5 3 « 11 3* " 1 4 M 6 5 R 1

Men of the community; all students. A final common factor among the residents lies in the fact that all of the male adults were students. While all were not studying the same courses, all were students in the same institution of over 7,000 students. There was 25

25. Some members of the community, who have no' definite plans after graduation, tend to remain through the summer months, leaving a week or two before the fall semester begins. 52

one freshman, 38 sophomores, 49 juniors, 41 seniors and

40 graduate students.26 Table V lists the responses of the veterans when inquiry was made as to their major field of study.

TABLE V

MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY OF VILLAGERS Major field Number of Major field (ccnbti) Number ot Majors Majors

Electrical Eng. 22 Physical Education 2 Law 19 Political Science 2 Mechanical Eng. 16 Pre-Dental 2 Bus. Adm. . 15 Psychology 2 Education 12 Range Management 2 Pharmacy 10 Sociology 2 Accounting 8 Agronomy 1 Civil Eng. 8 Bacteriology 1 Anthropology 7 Drama 1 Geological Eng. 7 Economics 1 Geology 5 Foreign Trade 1 Mining Eng. 5 History 1 Chemistry ' 4 Journalism 1 English 4 Mathematics 1 Agriculture 3 Metallurgy 1 Animal Husbandry 2 Zoology 1

Inasmuch as all of the men were veterans. a comment may be made here on this aspect. Sixty-nine were in the

Army, 45 in the Navy, 38 in the Air Force, 16 in the Marine

Corps, and one wasi in the Coast Guard. There are 115 Korean veterans, 39 World War II veterans, and 15 were in both campaigns. One-hundred twenty-five saw duty “overseas.”

26. The one and one-half year waiting period, of. P •37, ante., accounts for the lone freshman and a smaller number of sophomores. Had there been no waiting list the distribution would undoubtedly be skewed in favor of the freshmen. 53

Twenty-four were commissioned officers. . Table VI shows the various Intervals that male Villagers spent in the military.

TABLE VI

LENGTH OF TIME IN THE ARMED FORCES

Length of Time (years) Number of Men

13 15 53 37 37 5 3 4 1 1

The Village as a Community

for Testing the Hypothesis

This chapter has presented data which serves to show that the Village is a suitable community for the testing of 27 the hypothesis. It is apparent that this housing develop­ ment represents a "community" according to the definition of 28 that term. Moreover, it represents a new community into which residents have come from other and older social settings.

The theoretical framework of the present study is of such nature that the common factors discussed in this chapter may be termed as controls. Clearly, they operate in combination to remove numerous features which have been held to be the27 28

27. Cf. p.4 , ante.

28. _Cf. p.8 , ante. 54

Rchief determinants of social status."29

Method of the Study

Use of the interview method. The method of this study is dependent upon the Interview method. Two classes of information are needed about each of the families: the relative position of the members of each given family group within the Village social structure; and, sufficient data about the background of all adults in order to define the relative formal positions they held in their respective pre-Village communities. This information must be obtained circuitously. Yet, the number of questions contained in the interview must be kept to a minimum: the desire to cooperate is more easily aroused in the informant when he feels that "too much time" is not involved, and that the questions to be asked of him will not be highly personal,

Moreno tells us that the individual in an experiment must be "caught by an emotional interest for a certain practical end he wishes to realize and upon his knowledge that the 30 tester has the authority to put this into practice."

In other words, he must be motivated by promise of reward — of emotional satisfaction, in this case. The Informants of 3029

29. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. cit., p. 74.

30. J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive? (Washington D.C.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, 1934 p. 14. 55 the Village could be promised nothing of this nature.

Meeting the limitations. Expected reluctance of an :

Individual to give status-connected Information about either himself or his neighbors was attacked by following the rule of securing relatively Impersonal Information at the outset and subsequently alternating personal with Impersonal questions. Different types of questions were used as checks within the Interview.

Other limitations were circumvented by establishing rapport as early as possible. The Interviewer would Intro­ duce himself (as a fellow Villager), explain the purpose of his visit, and tactfully ask to, _e._g., “bother** the potential

Interviewee for a few moments “sometime when he (or she) had time.** In less than a dozen cases was the Interview delayed to another "more convenient** time.

All respondents were told that a survey was being made of every family In the Polo Village east section. They were told that this was a study similar to one conducted a few years ago in another part of the country, and since, before long, communities such as Polo Village would no

longer be, it was believed to be a worthwhile project. The goals of the survey were revealed as having to do with the ways people become acquainted when they move into a community

such as the Village, the amount of time people have for

visiting each other, etc. This purposive vagueness was 56

resorted to, necessarily, in order to keep the respondents'

thinking away from the "social status" objective of the study.

Each respondent was also told that a few "personal

questions" would come up in the questionnaire — questions

concerning his (or her) age, religious preference, etc. — but that replies to these would be used in the spirit and with the safeguards of a bona fide surveys confidences would be respected, anonymity was assured. In other words,

each family was made to feel that the interviewer was the

only person who would have access to the results which in

the end would, by and large, be treated statistically. This

approach "broke the ice;" the families generally smiled and

candidly replied that they had no qualms about who knew how

old they were, or where or how often they went to church.

Whether or not this was true is not our concern; it did

indicate that a state of rapport was easily being established.

No Inhibitions about the interview seemed to exist; the in­

formants were eager to begin answering questions. It

appeared to the investigator that this rapport concerning

the"survey" eventually grew into a state of overall Village

rapprochement, for as the interviews progressed, many families

expected and welcomed him. Obviously, word of the interviews

had spread and had served as a kind of "open sesame" for the 57

interviewer.

The Interviewer worked during both day and evening hours, weekdays and weekends, in order to complete the

interviews in the shortest possible time.^ Appointments were made to interview those families who had recently moved

from the village but who were still living in the city. All

of the interviews were conducted in the families’ homes.

The time spent with the respondents — light conversation

and the interview — ranged from forty-five minute to one

hour.

From the beginning, the interviewer found all but

one of the 169 Village families cooperative. In the one

instance, much time and effort was required to establish

sufficient rapport. It was felt that this case was un­

usual: much personal insecurity on the part of the respondent

(male) was observed as the barrier to a successful interview. 'Z'Z As it turned out, the respondent was a social nisolate.”00 *3233

51. It Is a sociological fact that a community’s informal structure serves as an intricate but effective communication network.

32. The interviews were begun during the middle of August, 1955, and were completed one month later just before the beginning of the fall semester. This coincides with the time of the year that the interviews took place in the original study. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. cit., p. 101. —

33. It Is understood that in sociological literature the unchosen and underchosen are often called isolates. 58

Each Interview was ended In a casual and friendly manner. Appreciation was expressed and the interviewer "passed the time of day" for a few moments with "small talk." Some of the success for conducting the interviews is probably due to the fact that the interviewer was a

"fellow member" of the communityj however, it must be remembered, that there is no substitute for tact, cheer­ fulness, courtesy — common sense — in dealing with people. CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

This chapter Is an attempt to differentiate the

social statuses of the community (Polo Village, east

section) in accordance with the method used in the

original study. A combination leadership-prestige index

of high status, operationally differentiated 30 families

as being in this category. The determination of inter­ mediate status by means of clique connections with holders

of high status was not successful. The suggested sociogram which was used as the instrument to locate and determine

cliques was impracticable because of (1) unwieldiness and

(2) distortion of results.

High Status Families in the Informal Organization of the

Community

Leadership and prestige. In Polo Village, one

segment of the population seemed to hold relatively more

prestige than the others. Since leadership in Informal

social situations is to be operationally considered as an

index of high status, a consideration of the link between

leadership and prestige is in order.^

1. Otto Louis Sender, Social Status in a Unlversity Veterans1 Community: A Sociological Study (unpublished Master’s thesis, Bucknell University, 1949), pp. 91-93. 60

LaPiere and Farnsworth hold that "Leadership is behavior that affects the behavior of other people more than their behavior affects that of the leader."2 Even though these authors were thinking in terms of highly institutionalized formal settings, it will be held here that the essentials of leadership sure equally observable in a more informal setting and that no incongruity results from calling holders of prestige leaders. Leadership is a two-directional observable process: behavior is directed toward the leader as well as received from him. This process, however is not equal; leaders affect the behavior of others more than they themselves are affected. In status-connected terms, this would hold that people are interested in the leader to a greater extent than he is in them, that there is an effort to identify with him. To argue that this identification is the cause or effect of higher status for the leader is untenable in view of the operational framework of this study, therefore, an inter­ mediate course is followed, granting elements of probability to both stands, but at the same time insisting that manlfesta tions of higher status are studied after it is conferred. 2

2. Richard T. LaPiere and Paul R. Farnsworth, Social Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1$49), p • 257. and that leadership is the most convenient term for this 5 manifested phenomenon. Determination of leadership. ’’Who in the Village 4 would you say was best known by everyone else?” is con­

sidered to be one of the most important of the questions designed to reveal leadership. Twenty-one (12%) of the resident families could cite no one who in their minds . '.'Y ' / stood out as best known. The 148 responses received are

divided among 34 families in the manner shown in Table VII

It is evident that of the 34 families (20% of the

Village total), one, the mayor of the village (22A), was

the recipient of an entirely disproportionate number of

responses in relation to the others. The mayor at this

time was editor of Quonset Quotes, the village newspaper.

Moreover, he was a journalism major and had a number of

bylines in the University newspaper, the Wildcat. These

two factors, according to the replies to the question

herein considered, are largely responsible for his receiv­

ing 5Q% of the total responses. This same overwhelmingly

disproportionate response tendency in his direction will

also be apparent in Tables VIII, IX, and X. 34

3. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., 0£. cit., pp. 106-109.

4. Question No. 4, Interview Outline-Schedule, see Appendix A. 62

TABLE VII

FAMILIES MENTIONED AS "BEST KNOWN"

IN THE VILLAGE

Question No. 4$ "Who would you say was best known by everyone else in the Village?"

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

5A 6 15 15A 17A 18A 19A 22A 23A 26A 28A 32 33A 34 35 38 38A 40A 41 42A 44A 47A 48A 50A 52 57A 61A 67 A 68A 74 A 75 77 77A 78 63

TABLE VIII

FAMILIES MENTIONED AS "BEST ALL AROUND

LEADERS" IN THE VILLAGE

Question No. 18: "Whom do you personally consider the best all around leader in the Village?"

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

15 2 15A 2 19A 2 21A 1 22A 37 26A 1 28A 1 31A 1 33A 1 34 4 38A 1 41A 1 47A 4 49 1 50A 1 55A 1 57A 1 58 2 58A 1 ’ 61A 1 72 1 75 3 75A 1 76A 2

Another "leadership" question asked each family to

agree upon the one they considered as the "best all around

leader in the Village."^ Twenty-four families (14$)

received 73 responses, with the mayor (22A) receiving over

5. Question No. 18, Interview Outline-Schedule, see Appendix A. 64

50% of the responses. Ninety-six families answered that they did not know of anyone. This distribution is shown

in Table VIII.

TABLE IX

FAMILIES MENTIONED AS MOST ACTIVE INFORMALLY IN POLO VILLAGE

GOVERNMENT AND AFFAIRS

Question No. 6: "Who seems to be most active in Village government and affairs?”

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

5A 2 15 4 15A 15 19A 5 22A 54 28A 16 58 3 38A 1 44 1 47A 5 48A 1 50A 4 56 1 57 A 12 65A 4 75 4 75A 3 75C 1 78 3

Next in the hierarchy among leadership status

questions, is the one which asked: "Who seems to be the

most active in Village government and affairs?"® When

6. Question No. 6, Interview Outline-Schedule, see Appendix A. 65 this question was asked, stress was put upon the Informal aspects of government and affairs. Nineteen families (12%) received 159 responses, with 50 Informants not answering.

Table IX, In this connection, while consistently showing a considerable proportion of the responses In the mayor’s direction (59$), also shows three other families as receiv­ ing more than 10 responses. 66

TABLE X

FAMILIES MENTIONED AS BEST INFORMED ABOUT

POLO VILLAGE POLITICS

Question No. 11; "Who seems to know the most about Village politics?1*

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

1 1 5 1 5A 4 6A 1 15 3 ISA 11 16 1 19A 11 22A 33 25A 1 26A 1 28A 9 31 1 35 1 36 1 38 4 42A 6 44 1 47 A 7 48A 2 50A 7 56 1 57 A 10 58 1 61A 1 63A 2 66A 1 71A 1 75 4 75 A 2 77 1 77A 1 78 5 67

The next question — very similar to last one — was included to “counter to some degree the evident bias of that question (No. 6) as well as to act as check upon 7 memory.M It asked, “Who seems to know the most about

Village politics?”7 8 9 Of the 138 responses (82^) in Table X, a less disproportionate distribution divided among 33 families is evident. Again three families received at least 10 responses, with the mayor receiving this time only 24$ of the total responses. The two remaining questions designed to reveal holders of leadership status are considered the least important both because of their nature and the paucity of responses that they elicited. Table XI reveals that the first of these questions drew 100 responses (60$) for 72 families. This question asked whose advice would be taken in the reading of a book or selection of a 9 movie.

The last question asked each informant family about

the Village quonset which they considered as the best

7. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. cit., p. 117.

8. Question No. 11, Interview Outline-Schedule, see Appendix A.

9. Question No. 8, ibid. 68

decorated and/or who had the most attractive yard.^

Seventy-eight (46$) of the families received 221 responses which are tabulated in Table XII. 10

10. Question No. 5, ibid 69

TABLE XI

FAMILIES IN THE VILLAGE WHOSE ADVICE WOULD BE TAKEN IN THE SELECTION OF A BOOK OR MOVIE

Question No. 8; "On the advice of what particular person in the Village would you make a special effort to read a book or see a movie?"

Family Case Number Times Mentioned* 1711856324263132

1 1 3 1 3A 1 5 ' 1 6 1 6A 1 8 1 10 3 10A 1 11 2 12A 2 15 2 15A 4 16 1 16A 1 17 1 17A 6 18A 2 19A 3 20A 1 21A 1 22A 1 23A 1 24 1 24A 1 25A 2 26 1 28 1 28A 1 30 1 30A 1 31 1 3 LA 1 32 4 32A 1 35 1 36 1 38 1 38A 1 70

TABLE XI (coat'd)

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

41 1 41A 1 42 1 42A 1 43A 1 44 1 45 1 47 A 1 48A 3 49A 1 50A 2 53 1 55B 1 56A 3 57 1 58A 1 61 1 61A 2 64 1 65 2 66 1 67 1 69A 1 70 1 730 1 74B 1 75 1 75A 2 750 1 76A 1 78 1 79 1 80A 1

Leadership status scores» In order to bring clarity

to the overall picture of leadership statuses, it is

necessary to combine the responses from the six tables

so as to produce totals (scores) for each of the mentioned families. 71

TABLE XII

VILLAGE FAMILIES HAVING BEST DECORATED APARTMENT AND MOST ATTRACTIVE YARD

Question No. 5: "Who has the Village apartment which you consider the best decorated or who has the most attractive yard?"

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

1 1 4A 1 5 1 5A 1 6A 6 7A 1 8 1 8A 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 15 1 14 5 15 13 15A 3 16 2 17 A 1 19 1 21A 1 22A 1 23 1. 23A 3 24 10 24A 7 25A 4 26A 1 27 1 28 2 31 3 31A 3 32 2 34 6 35 2 36A 1 37 2 38 1 38A 2 40 3 40A 30 41A 1 42 2 72

TABLE XII (coat'd)

Family Case Number Times Mentioned

44 1 44A 4 45 2 45A 10 46A 1 47 2 47A 7 48 4 48A 2 50 1 51A 1 52 5 53 4 56A 1 560 1 57 1 57 A 2 58 2 58A 2 59 1 61 2 61A 1 62 1 66A 9 67A 1 68 2 68A 3 71A 2 72 2 73A 4 730 1 75A 1 76A 2 77 1 77A 1 78 2 79A 1

Table XIII presents the combination of all tables through simple addition. The result of the addition is

called the Raw Leadership Status Score for each family which received any mention on the "Leadership1* questions. 73

Table XIII reveals that 117 {10% of the total) were mentioned In some way as responses to the six leadership determining questions. But even within this wide range, number 22A (the mayor) accounts for 26$ of all responses shown in the combined table. Eighteen families were able to accumulate Raw Leadership Scores of 10 or more. Forty families — over one-third — had scores of only one.

It has been mentioned that some of the questions on which the scores are based are more important than others; however, it is evident that the raw score fails to recognize any differences in the questions. Therefore, as in the original study, herein being used as a paradigm, certain of the questions used will be weighted according to their importance. The questions tabulated in Tables

VII and VIII are viewed as being the most important and

are weighted in the ratio of 3 to 1 — the combined individ­

ual raw scores for these two tables are multiplied by 3 to produce the weighted score for this first part. The second group of two questions, those reported in Tables IX and X,

are weighted in the ratio of 2 to 1, since these two

questions were considered of intermediate importance.

The third group, making up the last two questions, as

tabulated in Tables XI and XII, are the least important,

so the weighting ratio for them is 1 to 1. The sums of the 74 weighted scores produce the final Weighted Leadership Status

Score as shown in the last column in Table XIV.

TABLE XIII

COMBINATION OF RESPONSES TO THE LEADERSHIP DETERMINING QUESTIONS

INTO RAW LEADERSHIP STATUS SCORES

Family Case Responses for Tables Raw Scores Number VII VIII IX X XI XII

1 1 1 1 3 : 3 3 3 3A 1 1 4A 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 5A 3 2 4 1 10 6 1 1 2 6A 1 1 6 8 7A 1 1 8 1 1 2 8A 1 1 9 1 1 10 5 1 4 10A 1 1 11 2 1 3 12A 2 2 13 1 1 14 5 5 15 2 2 4 3 2 13 26 15A 1 2 15 11 4 3 36 16 1 1 2 4 16A 1 1 17 1 1 17 A 1 - 6 1 8 18A 1 1 19 1 1 19A 1 2 5 11 3 22 20A 1 1 21A 1 1 22A 85 37 54 33 1 1 211 23 , 1 1 23A 2 1 3 6 24 1 10 11 24A< 1 7 8 25A 2 4 6 26 1 1 75

TABLE XIII (cont’d)

Family Responses for Tables Raw Case Score Number VII ‘ VIII IX X XI XII •

26A 6 1 1 1 9 27 1 1 28 1 2 3 28A 2 1 16 9 28 50 1 1 30A 1 1 31 1 1 3 5 31A 1 1 3 5 32 2 4 2 8 32A 1 1 33A 2 1 3 34 2 4 6 12 35 1 1 1 2 5 36 1 1 2 36A 1 1 37 2 2 38 5 3 4 1 1 14 38A 1 1 1 1 2 6 40 3 3 40A 1 30 31 41 1 1 2 41A 1 1 1 3 42 1 2 3 42A 1 6 1 8 43A 1 1 44 1 1 1 1 4 44A 1 4 5 45 1 2 3 45A 10 10 46A 1 1 47 2 2 47 A 2 4 5 7 1 7 26 48 4 4 48A 2 1 2 3 2 10 49 1 1 49A 1 1 50 1 1 50A 2 1 4 7 2 16 51A 1 1 52 1 5 6 53 1 4 5 55A 1 1 55B 1 1 56 1 1 2 56A 3 1 4 560 1 1 76

TABLE XIII (cont *d)

Family Responses for Tables Case Raw Number VII VIII IX X XI XII Scores

57 1 1 2 57 A 5 1 12 10 2 30 58 2 1 2 5 58A 1 1 2 4 59 1 1 61 1 2 3 61A 1 1 1 2 1 6 62 1 1 65A 4 2 6 64 1 1 65 2 2 66 1 1 66A 1 9 10 67 1 1 67A 1 1 2 68 2 2 68A 2 3 5 69A 1 1 70 1 1 71A 1 2 3 72 1 2 3 75A 4 4 730 1 1 2 74A 4 4 74B 1 1 75 2 3 4 4 1 14 75A 1 3 2 2 1 9 750 1 1 2 76A 2 1 3 77 1 1 1 3 77A 3 1 1 5 78 1 3 5 1 2 12 79 1 1 79A 1 1 80A 1 1

An even greater disproportion in scores is evident

In the final column of Table XIV. One finds 38 cases with scores of one, only two less than resulted from the 77

application of raw scores. At the other extreme the score of 542 (Family Case Number 22A) is at least eight times larger than any other score in the column, and, of course, considerably higher than its own Raw Score of 211. Since all 117 of the families (over two-thirds of the Village) cannot be considered as leaders, some arbitrary point below which scores will be disregarded must be established. This point or score is 10, chosen because more than a single mention among several of the three weighting categories

(columns 2, 5, 4 of Table XIV) is necessary to result in a

Weight Score of 10. Also, it seems unlikely that a given family by chance alone will receive several mentions among the categories. Thus, any family with a Score of 10 or higher qualifies as a holder of a leadership position and high status within the Village. An asterisk, in Table XIV, indicates the 30 families who received Weighted Leadership Scores of 10 or higher.

They form 18$ of the entire Village. Looking back on

Table XIII, and applying the same arbitrary point of 10 to the Raw Scores, one finds only 18 families with scores of

10 or higher. Thus only 11$ of the community would be regarded as holders of high status. Table XIV shows that the high status group with which the present paper is concerned are Family Case Numbers 5A, 15, 15A, 17A, 19A,

22A, 24, 26", 28A, 32, 34, 35, 38, 38A, 40A, 42A, 45A, 47A, 4BA', 50A, 57A, 58, 61A, 63A, 66A, 74A, 75, 75A, 77A, and 78. 78

TABLE XIV

RAW AND WEIGHTED LEADERSHIP SCORES

Family Combined Mentions Weighited Mentions Final " Case From Tables From Tables Weighted Number VII&VIII IX&X XI&XII VII&VIII IX&X XI&XII Score (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3A 1 1 1 4A 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 4 *5A 3 6 1 9 12 1 22 6 1 1 3 1 4 6A 1 7 2 7 9 7A 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 3 8A 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 10 4 4 4 10A 1 1 1 11 3 3 3 12A 2 2 2 13 1 1 1 14 5 5 5 *15 4 7 15 12 14 15 41 *15A 3 26 7 9 52 7 68 16 1 3 2 3 5 16A 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 *17 A 1 7 3 7 10 18A 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 #19A 3 16 3 9 32 3 44 20A 1 1 1 21A 1 1 1 *2 2A 122 87 2 366 174 2 542 23 1 1 1 23A 2 1 6 1 7 *24 11 11 11 24A 8 8 8 25A 6 6 6 26 1 1 1 *26A 7 1 1 14 2 1 17 27 1 1 1 28 3 3 3 *28A 3 25 9 50 59 30 1 1 1 79

TABLE XIV (cont*d)

Family Combined, Mentions Weighted Mentions Final Case From Tables From Tables Weighted Number VII&VIII IX&X XI&XII VII&VIII IX&X XI&XII Score (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (?) ... (8) SOA 1 1 1 31 1 4 2 4 6 31A 1 4 3 4 7 *32 2 6 6 6 12 32A 1 1 1 33A 3 9 9 *34 6 6 18 6 24 *35 1 1 3 3 4 3 10 36 1 1 2 1 3 36A 1 1 1 37 2 2 2 *38 5 7 2 10 14 2 26 *3 8 A 2 1 3 6 2 3 11 40 3 3 3 *40A 1 30 3 30 33 41 1 1 3 1 4 41A 1 2 3 2 5 42 3 3 3 *4 2 A 1 6 1 3 12 1 16 43A 1 1 1 44 2 2 4 2 6 44A 1 4 3 4 7 45 3 3 3 *4 5A 10 10 10 46A 1 1 1 47 2 2 2 *47A 6 12 8 18 24 8 50 48 4 4 4 *48A 2 3 5 6 6 5 17 49 1 3 3 49A 1 1 1 50 1 1 1 *50A 3 11 2 9 22 2 33 51A 1 1 1 52 1 5 3 5 8 53 5 5 5 55A 1 3 3 55B 1 3 3 56 2 4 4 56A 4 4 4 56C 1 1 1 57 2 2 2 80

TABLE XIV (cont'd)

Family Combined Mentions ^Weighted Mentions Final Case Prom Tables From Tables Weighted Number VII&VIII IX&X XI&XII VII&VIII IX&X XI&XII Score (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) *57 A 6 22 4 18 44 2 64 *58 2 1 2 6 2 2 10 58A 1 3 3 3 9 59 1 1 1 61 3 3 3 *61A 2 1 3 6 2 3 11 62 1 1 1 *6 3 A 6 12 12 64 1 1 1 65 2 2 2 66 1 1 1 *6 6 A 1 9 2 9 11 67 1 1 1 67A 1 1 3 1 4 68 2 2 2 68A 2 3 6 3 9 69A 1 1 1 70 1 1 1 71A 2 2 4 2 6 72 1 2 3 2 5 73A • 4 4 4 730 2 2 2 *7 4 A 4 12 12 74B 1 1 1 *75 5 8 1 15 16 1 32 *7 5 A 1 5 3 3 10 3 16 750 1 1 2 1 3 76 A 2 3 6 3 9 77 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 *7 7 A 3 1 1 9 2 1 12 *78 1 8 3 3 16 3 22 79 1 1 1 79A 1 1 1 80A 1 1 1 81

Intermediate Status Families in the Informal Organization of the Community

The first part of this chapter has been devoted to

the discovery of the highest status group within the community

through the explanation of the concept of leadership as it has been defined. Logically, the location of intermediate

status holders comes next. It may be recalled that inter­ mediate status was defined in terms of clique connections

with holders of high statusj therefore, the next task is to

discover all of the cliques operative in the village. Those

that boast leaders as members are to be considered as holders

of intermediate positions.

"Clique” has been defined as a group of three or

more families who mutually agreed that they shared common

interaction with regard to social activities. A single

exception to the rule of reciprocal agreements among any

three given families otherwise held together within a

three-way relationship was allowed. This was done in

order to provide for "brief memory failures" which might

occur during the interviews.H

It must also be mentioned that the procedure in

reporting the results of the clique-determining questions 11

11. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., ojD. clt., p. 133. 82

Is somewhat different from that which was followed earlier in determining leaders. There, each question produced a number of prestige holding individuals, depending upon the nature of the question. The results of all questions were combined in proportion to the importance assigned the question.

Consideration of cliques, however, may be expected to yield about the same clique members irrespective of method so long as it is accurate. This assumption rests upon the definition that cliques are habitually interacting families and as such "will participate in many joint activities.

There is no matter of combinations of ideas because we are dealing with facts.The purpose in the reporting of cliques is to check those revealed by one question against those revealed by the others.

In order to avoid numerous difficulties in the presentation of data, the sociometric method is used. A tabular collection of responses to the clique questions, or the assigning and listing on cards of various responses

in the formation of cliques, while helpful to a degree,

cannot be used in this study. The first method, though it reduces the data to meaningful terms, in itself is 12

12. Ibid., pp. 136-137 83 meaningless. The other, ultimately, shows only a small part of the community’s intersectional pattern, and the single exception to the rule of reciprocals which is to be allowed in the study cannot be symbolized in any satis­ factory manner.13 Moreover, with 169 cards, the tendency to err would be natural. Accordingly, limitations on other methods force the use of the sociogram in an effort to discover the cliques in the community.

It is understood that the kind of sociogram one may use is limited only by his needs and Imagination. The model used in the present study will, of course, be the one suggested by Sender. By adhering to the method and procedure of the original study, in this way alone can a repeat study be truly replicative.

To facilitate the recognition of cliques, solid black lines are used to designate reciprocal relationships in every case. Broken black lines headed by directional arrows designate one-way mentions, and three-or-more-way relationships which fit the clique definition are indicated

in red and green. In the original study, the use of more than two colored lines (red and black) was refrained from since it nwould produce the very confusion we sought to13

13. Ibid., pp. 132—135. 84 eliminate.M It became necessary to resort to three colors

(red, green, and black) in the present study in order to

"eliminate confusion" and to illustrate an important — though unexpected — consolidation process. This will become evident shortly.

Bonder's Soclometrlc Diagram

Interpretation of the sociogram, however, even in

Bonder's relatively small (46 families) community, becomes difficult. Figure X, from the original study, illustrates this. It is a sociogram constructed to depict the results to the most Important of the clique-relevant questions.

This question asked each informant family to mention its best friends. Each was urged to continue until several families had been mentioned. In this case the clique families are not exceptionally difficult for the investigator to locate and dasIgnate by the appropriate red lines. But, for the reader to locate, say, which families belong to the 16 “extended clique" comprising Family Case Numbers 8, 10,1614 15

14. Ibid., p. 136.

15. Question No. 7, Interview Outline-Schedule, see Appendix A.

16. An extended clique is defined as one composed of more than three families. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. cit., p. 139. FIGURE X BEST FRIENDS" AS REPORTED BY ------\ •....-— RESIDENTS OF BONDERS COMMUNITY QUESTION 7 : WHOM DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR BEST FRIENDS IN THE V ILLA G E

13 FIGURE XT. BEST FRIENDS' AS REPORTED BY RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE QUESTION 7:'WHOM DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR BEST I ENDS IN THE VILLAGE f

t

-r '-/i

/ h ' f \7 /

-- f - ^

' i \

V \ / I

// rv / V x X \ / v

Z. / /I ! '

/ / / v \ \ W \ /X. /

- L . > /A X / X

/ / \/*,

» ! 1

'l 7 y /// / / 1 ^ ^

/ V // 87

11, 16, 42, and 45, may not be easy. Differentiation is hampered "by the connecting lines of minimum cliques 4-9-12 and 13-15-18.1? The remaining three cliques, composed of cases 19-20-21, 25-26-27, and 33-36-40, are readily apparent in this diagram.

The Impracticability of Sender’s Sociometric Diagram For Use

in a Larger Community

Figure XI at once reveals that the application of the ’’sociometric diagram” to the Village, encompassing well 18 over three times as many families as Bonder's community, presents one with little more than an unwieldy, labyrinthine cobwebbing of lines.

An unremitting attempt to locate ”best friend” cliques^® produces a phantasmagoric concoction that is almost fruitless. Among the patterns of seemingly inter­ minable lines, one may laboriously ferret out what 20 initially appears to be eight cliques:

No. 1: 7A-8A-41A-42-42A-43-43A-44A

No. 2: 9-10-11-12A 20171819

17. Cliques will be shown connected by a hyphen (-) in order to avoid confusion with individually considered cases.

18. Both figures X and XI depict the results to the same question. 19. Cf. p.ll, ante, for the definition of ’’clique.” 20. Designated by red lines in figure XI. 88

No. 3: 15-15A-16-16A-17-17A-18-19A-20A-21-82A-23A- 28A-29-29A-30-31-32-33A-35-36-37A-38A-57- 57A-58-58A-59A-62A-63-63A-64-64A-65-66A- 68A-71-71A-72-75-75A

No. 4: 24-24A-25 No. 5i 34-41-47A-48-48A-49A-50-51-52-53-54A-76- 76A-77-77A-78-78A

No. 6: 55B-74-74C

No. 7: 56-56A-72A-73B-73C

No. 8: 75B-75C-79A Sven an uncritical examination, however, leaves little doubt but that something has either gone awry, or that one has come upon an unusual phenomenon in the size of cliques.

For example, ^clique No. 3U could not possibly fulfill the basic requirements of the clique definition: a group of three or more families who mutually agreed that they shared common interaction with regard to social activities. T o explain why all of the 42 families of this "clique" cannot possibly know each other in this situation would, of course, be nothing short of ridiculous.

The same applies to No. 5, and possibly No. 1. Yet, in accordance with the clique designation of reciprocal 21

21. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., 0|). cit., p. 132 89 relationships, the pattern in Figure XI is the inevitable result. What seems enigmatic here — in the use of the sociogramic model suggested by Sender — has resulted from the proportionate Increase in the number of relationships

(lines) in the diagram, which in turn cancelled various real cliques and resulted in several conspicuously ab­ normal, “extended cliques•“

By way of exemplification, let us consider how an 22 aberrant extended clique comes about. First, assume 23 that there has been an oversight — that Family 27 is part of Clique No. 4, since it reciprocates with 25A, and mentions 24. Family 27 also connects reciprocally with 4A;

4A mentions 47; 47 reciprocates with 26A; 26A reciprocates with 32. Families 4A, 47, and 26A, however, cannot yet be included in Clique No. 4, although later this clique will disappear by coalescing with Clique Nos. 3 and 7.

The first step in the amalgamation comes with the first reciprocal connection between Clique Nos. 4 and 3: 26A*s reciprocal connection with 32. Searching further one finds

that 24 reciprocates with 25; 25 reciprocates with 26;23 22

22. To more easily follow this expansion and co­ alescing in Figure XI, the color green is introduced at this point.

23. In the interest of brevity (and clarity), Family Case Numbers will be referred to in this discussion simply as, “Family 27“ or by the Arabic numeral alone. 90

26 mentions 27. Thus, Clique No. 4 now includes 24, 24A,

25, 25A, 26, and 27. And Family 26,s mention of 30 may be noted as another link between Clique Nos. 4 and 3. An augury to Clique No. 7 and 4 1 fusion is the reciprocal connection between 26A and 56A; and, 56A*s reciprocation with 25A. Clique No. 7 joins No. 3 through 56*s mention of 57A; and 73B,s reciprocation with 27 completes the amalgamation by threading Clique No. 7 to 4. Clique Nos.

3, 4, and 7 are now one huge tt ext ended11 clique. Hence, the discovery of one oversight (27*3 mention of 24) in this diagram has resulted in the transformation of three cliques into oneJ It is plainly manifest that Figure XI has not revealed the true cliques, and that use of Bonder's

"sociometric diagram" technique is ineffectual in a community as large as the Village. In such wise, further use will not be made of it in delineating the responses 24 to other clique-determining questions. As designed,

it does not produce true Intermediate status families because of its failure to denote true cliques. Moreover,

it is an obviously cumbersome tool by which to manipulate

the network of relations common to the Village. It goes without saying that additional "sociometric diagrams" such 24

24. Questions No. 1, 13, 15, 16, and 19, Interview Outline-Schedule, see Appendix A. 91 as Figure XI would be beyond the scope of this study.

Finally, it is evident that the construction of five additional diagrams would necessitate a prohibitive amount of fruitless labor.

High Status Families in the Sociometric Diagram

In an effort to glean something from the diagram, 25 a word may be said about the 30 high status families, as they reveal themselves in the maze of lines in Figure XI.

All but four received at least two one-way non-reciprocal responses. Of these high status families, seven received three one-way non-reciprocal responses, eight received four, and one received six. If one accepts the assumption that such one-way mentions, occurring as they do, represent evidences of striving, then it may be said that the pattern revealed with regard to 26 of the high status families tends to verify that they do hold such status.

High Status Families: Relationship of Fast Formal Status

to the Community Situation

The chi-square test will be relied upon in order to test the differences between actual, observed factors 25

25. Cf• pp.77-80, ante. 92

connected with past formal status and the responses which would have been obtained if pure chance had been operative.

As for the characteristics of informal statuses, the value of treating them statistically is questionable. The re­ search instrument used has permitted the discovery of only the high status group; the intermediate and lower statuses must be amorphously lumped together. It is assumed that one can readily infer from the data in Tables VII through

XIV that informal status is relative to the community situation — insofar as at least one element may be con­ cerned.2®

Is past or present formal status exercising in­ fluence on the resident’s present Informal status? This

is the logical question which remains and which will be dealt with in this section. Past formal status, it has been implied, is largely the result of the status of the P7 family of an individual within the home community.*

Parental status, then, will be considered first.27 26

26. In this regard, the original investigator states that "If we can find a statistically significant relation­ ship with regard to any (italics mine) of the ’present characteristics’ of Village residents, we shall have shown informal status to be relative to the community situation...” Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 163.

27. Of. p . 9 , ante, and p.148, post. 93

Past Status from Parentage

Foreign birth of parents. As a general rule, it may be observed that the foreign-born occupy a lower

social position in most communities. Table XV presents

the number of foreign-born parents found among the resi­

dents who had been placed in each of the status groups. The actual number found is shown in black and the number

to be expected on a purely chance basis is designated in

red (this procedure will be followed through the remainder

of the reporting of chi-square results).

TABLE XV

FOREIGN AND NATIVE BIRTH FOR ALL PARENTS OF RESIDENTS AT THE VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

Status Intermediate Ethnic"s-\^ High and Lower Totals Origin

Foreign- (20) (92) born 19 93 112

Native- (100) (464) born 101 463 564

Totals 120 556 676

Chi-square ■. .073; not significant at the .05 level

Only a cursory glance at Table XV is needed to 94 understand that chi-square is not significant, in fact, the observed and expected results approximate each other so closely that chi-square is barely significant at the

.80 level.28 ♦ • An attempt to examine this data in the form of percentages (significance of difference) of foreign-born parents within each of the status categories would be use­

less due to a negligible differences the high status category has 15.8 percent of the foreign-born parents, while the remaining foreign-born category contains 16.7 percent.

Rural and urban birth of parents. It is assumed

that, in general, the rural-born and rural-bred occupy a

somev/hat lower position in the United States than do the urban-born and bred.^S Table XVI presents the information received on this subject, and again, chi-square is not

significant. As in Table XV, no attempt will be made to

test the significance of the difference in percentages

since 50.8 percent of the parents of high status families were rural-born, and 51.6 percent in the remaining category were also rural-born.

28. Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology and Education (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 10So), pp. 254, 428.

Occupations: (September 1, 1947). This survey ana its findings may also be found in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.) Class, Status and Power (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. 19537, pp. 411-4^6. 95

TABLE XVI

URBAN AND RURAL BIRTH FOR ALL PARENTS OF RESIDENTS AT

VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

Status Intermediate Birth­ High and Lower Totals place

Urban (5 8 )(270) 59 269 328

Rural (6 2 ) (286) 348 61 287

Totals 120 556 676

Chi-square = .041; not significant at the • 05 level

Thus, following the logic of the original investigator, it may be said at this point that any status which resulted from parental birthplace was common to both status categories, and because it was common to all it cannot be regarded as being carried over into the Village or redeveloped there.

Education of fathers of Village men. The remaining

"past status" questions will be concerned with only the father of the family head (this is in keeping with the mode of procedure of the original Investigator). The assumption is made that the social status an individual first receives comes from his family, and usually from the father of the family since a wife generally takes the status of her husband. 96

TABLE XVII

EDUCATION OF FATHERS OF MEN AT VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

Status High Intermediate Totals Education and Lower

Elementary (14) (65) school 15 62 77

High (i d (49) school 10 50 60

College (3 ) (17) 4 16 20

Grad, or Professional (2 ) (10) Education 1 11 12

Totals 30 139 169

Chi-square = •891; not significant at the •05 level

Table XVII shows the data for parental education on

the part of the fathers of Village men. Some arbitrary

handling of this data was necessary In order to avoid a

large number of small cells. For example, placed in the

"elementary school" column were all responses which

indicated that a parent had stopped school at some point

between grades one and eight; high school, between nine and twelve, etc. 97

One needs to only glance at the expected and observed responses In Table XVII to know that the result­ ing chi-squares would be considerably smaller than the

7.815 necessary for establishing education of fathers and

Village social status.

TABLE XVIII

PERCENTAGE OF FATHERS OF FAMILY HEADS IN EACH VILLAGE STATUS

CATEGORY REACHING VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL LEVELS

Status Intermediate Educat ion High and Lower

Elementary school 50.00 44.60

High school 35.55 35.97

College 15.55 11.51

Grad, or Professional 3.35 7.92 Education ; ......

Table XVIII reveals a difference of 5.4 percent between

the two categories in the "elementary school" row. This,

the largest difference in percentages among the four rows,

is not significant (the SE of difference of 14.55 percent

gives a CR of .587 which is far short of the 1.96 necessary

for a .05 level)• 98

From the foregoing testing It may be concluded that the education of fathers of residents, as a factor In past social status, has not been carried over Into the Village status hierarchy.

Occupations of fathers of Village men. Occupation is. In the eyes of a number of Investigators, one of the most Important factors In any study of social status.

Table XIX will again reveal some arbitrary divisions; however, as In the original study, this was done to avoid the multiplicity of cells.

TABLE XIX

OCCUPATION OF FATHERS OF MEN AT EACH STATUS LEVEL

^^s^Status Intermediate 0CCUr>^^^ High and Lower Total patlons

Wage (16) (77) workers 14 79 93

Clerical (2) (7) 3 6 9

Farmers (2) (ID 4 9 13

Self Employed (5) (23) 6 22 28 1 Professional (5) (21) 3 23 26

Total 30 139 169

Chi-square = 2.714; not significant at the .05 level 99

Following the non-significant chi-square with the percentage data (Table XX) again shows that there is little variation among the different percentages. The significance of difference has not been calculated for any of the cells because of the obvious non-significant character of the relationships.

Thus, once again it must be concluded that there is no relationship of a significant character between parental

occupation and social status within the Village

TABLE XX

PERCENTAGES OF FATHERS OF MEN IN VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS AMONG THE VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

Status Occu^— High Intermediate pations^"^^ and Lower

Wage workers 46.67 56.82

Clerical 10.00 4.32

Farmers 13.33 6.47

Self Employed 20.00 15.83

Professional 10.00 16.55

Parental home ownership. Table XXI gives the data

for parental home ownership in the same way that the pre-

mij. o? ftiioMi UbMify 100

ceding tables have divided phenomena among the status levels.

TABLE XXI

FATHERS OF FAMILY HEADS OWNING THEIR OWN HOMES BY VILLAGE

STATUS LEVELS

^ - ^ S t at us Intermediate Totals Ownership^^ High and Lower

Own (2 3 )(106) 24 105 129

Do not own (7 ) (33) 6 34 40

Totals 30 139 169

Chi-square = .226; not significant at the .05 level

Similarity of past status characteristics among the

two status categories is also evidenced in a percentage­

wise breakdown. For example, 80 percent of the MhIghH

status and 76 percent of the 11 intermediate and lower”

status categories are owners of homes. This, obviously,

would not test significant by the method of differences

of percentages. One must conclude that there is no sig­

nificant relationship between home ownership of parents

and the present status of their sons. 101

All of the foregoing teats In this section have shown that there Is no significant relationship between any disproportion In the responses and the normally expected responses to the "parental status" questions. Therefore,

it cannot be said that past status has manifested Itself within the hierarchy of the Village.

Fast Status from Earlier Life

Before concluding this discussion of the relation­

ship of past formal status to the community situation, it is

believed that an investigation Into some of the personal

status factors of Villagers is in order. All of them are

married adults, veterans, and had had statuses apart from

those of their parents and in their own right before enter­

ing the Village.

Place of birth. Like that of the parents of the

Villagers, it may be conjectured that birth into an urban

setting would bring, generally, a higher status than birth

into a rural setting. Table XXII, which shows the percent­

ages derived from this question, also reveals that there is

no general trend in this direction; proof is found in the

application of the test of the significance of differences

which gives a critical ratio of 1.182 (far short of the

1.96 necessary for a .05 level of confidence). 102

TABLE XXII

PERCENTAGE OF URBAN AND RURAL BIRTHPLACE OF ALL VILLAGE

RESIDENTS BY VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

^ ^ x^Status Intermediate Birthplace^^ High and Lower

Urban 68.33 76.98

Rural 31.67 23.02

Occupations and military service* Since most of

the men had spent the greater part of their time since

leaving school in military.service or in part-time, non­

career jobs, it is assumed that, by and large, their

occupations prior to enrollment in the University were

not status-relevant and, therefore, they will not be

considered in detail. On the other hand, the employment

of wives should be noted because those who have gone into

professional fields may be expected to be leaders (high

status) in the community in an appreciable number of cases, if there is a "carry-over" of formal status into the present

situation. It is possible that many of them were securing

the necessary training for a particular profession while 30 their husbands were in the armed forces. 30

30. In this connection, it may be recalled that out of the 89 wives who worked, 78 worked "full-time"_ some as teachers, nurses, etc. Of. p. 5 0 , ante. 103

Table XIII presents the data on employment of the wives in the Village.

TABLE XXIII

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN OF THE VILLAGE WHO HAVE ENGAGED IN VARIOUS

KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT BY VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

Occupation High Intermediate Status and Lower

Clerical and merchandising 58.96 74.56

Factory 3.44 1.75

Professional 27.60 23.69

Even as a cursory study of the data in Table XXIII reveals, the test of the difference of percentages fell short of the .05 level of confidence. It is, however, interesting to note that the critical ratio of 1.393, obtained for the 58.96 and 74.56 percentages in the "clerical and merchandising" row, is thus far the nearest approach to significance encountered in the testing, being significant at the .20 level.

Another line for conjecturing lies in the military service of the men. All who have served in the armed forces 104 know of the officer-enlisted man "caste* -— ca va sans dire.

Since all men were veterans, would status result.In any significant degree from having been an officer? Table XXIV gives the percentages in this matter.

TABLE XXIV

PERCENTAGES OP ARMED FORCES OFFICERS AND ENLISTED MEN BY

. VILLAGE STATUS LEVELS

^ x\ > Status Intermediate Rank High and Lower

Officer 23.33 | 13.67

Enlisted man 76.67 86.33

In a test of the reliability of the difference between the two percentages in the "officer* row the critical ratio is only .246 (1.96 necessary for the .05 level of confidence). From this information it must be concluded that no causal connection exists between military rank and later social position in the Village.

Education of women. A final matter remains to be tested. Whether any connection exists between Village status and the education of the women in the families should be determined. Table XXV presents the percentage data in 105 this regard and, again, none of the relationships show up significant when tested by the method of the significance of differences between two percentages. At first glance one may feel that there Is a possibility for "significance* In the "high school* and "college, 2 years" rows; however, the

critical ratios turn out to be 1.159 and 1.591, respectively, which is again far short of the 1.96 necessary for a .05

level of confidence. Thus, it must be concluded that no

connection exists between the education of wives and the

social position of their families in the Village.

TABLE XXV

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN OF UNIVERSITY VILLAGE WHO HAVE REACHED

VARIOUS EDUCATION LEVELS, BY VILLAGE STATUS

LEVELS

Status Intermediate . High Educ a 11 and lower

Elementary school 0.00 5.60

High school 16.67 45.20 i College, 2 years 56.66 15.10

College 26.67 19.40

Business school; nursing; etc. 20.00 18.70 106

As in the preceding section, which dealt with past status from parentage, tests of the differences between observed factors connected with past formal status and the responses which would have been operative if pure chance had been operative are not significant. In no case was a difference discovered that could not be explained by the operation of chance. Hence, from this statistical mode of procedure, it must be concluded that past formal status was not found to "carry-over" into the informal structure of statuses current in the Village.

It may be recalled that the first essential in the testing of the hypothesis of the present study was the discovery of the existing Informal statuses. Since it was possible to discover only the high status group by parallel­ ing the method used in the original study, the present in­ vestigator was forced to lump the remaining statuses into one group. This use of two categories, of course, places an obvious limitation thereafter on much that can be said or Inferred about subsequent findings. With this limitation in mind, it can be said, however, that the findings tend to uphold the hypothesis insofar as the high status families are concerned. Yet, viewing the situation from another perspective, had it been possible to discover three statuses

Instead of only one, would the findings still uphold the hypothesis? One may at this point only speculate that they would. On the other hand, keeping In mind at least three of the critical ratios obtained in the present study, there is a possibility that, with three categories instead of two, one may have found a significant relationship in some factor of past formal status and informal Village status. What may be concluded from this is considered in

the following chapter.31

31. Clf. pp. 103 and 1% for critical ratios of 1.393, 1.391, and 1.159. It is believed that while these ratios are "far from" the 1.96 figure insisted upon for a .05 level of confidence, they may at the same time, be "near to" it. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The final consideration of this study will embrace a further critical examination of the sociogram (Figure XI) and of Sender's modus operand!. It has been established that Sender's conceptual scheme did not take adequately into account the incompatibility of his sociometric diagram with a larger community. This unanticipated, anomalous direction of the research — "the discovery through chance... of...findings which were not sought for" — borders the serendipity pattern described by

Merton. Although the scope of the present research does not include the development of new or additional theory, the previous chapter yields the fortuitous by­ product that the sociogram as developed by one researcher tends to be ad hoc. Its use is certainly limited to a

community much smaller than the Village.

In a situation where it can successfully be used,1

1. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The ^ree Press, 1949), pp. 98-1(51, 376. 109

the major advantage of the aociogrsun Ilea In Its presenta­ tion of results In context -- cela va sans dire. The given relations that exist for the entire group are presented at once rather than being abstracted Into a number of Indices or scores. Had not the largeness of the population rendered

Figure XI untenable, this particular sociogram would have been an Ideal Instrument for this study. A sociogram’s most Important asset lies In the summarizing of group re­

lations In terms of a series of graphic conventions that

appear directly understandable and Interesting. For small groups (or communities) the difficulty of constructing a

sociogram Is slight, but the labor Involved In an analytic

technique for a larger population Is something else, which will be considered later in this chapter.

At first It may appear that In a larger community.

Sender’s sociogram gives rise to a situation In which the

larger clique (as, e.g.. Clique Ho. 5, Initially over­

sized and unreal), with Its many "feelers," l.e.,

reciprocal and one-way mentions, tends to Impart a

drawing or amalgamating force to the overall situation (the entire 169 units). Careful Inspection reveals that

this overall coalescing tendency prevails whether cliques

are either Mextended” or ’’minimal,” In fact, it is the

smaller cliques, by their own quasi-magnetic fusion with 110

each other, that initially produce the unreal, extended clique. A close scrutiny of Figure XI brings to light the very definition of clique that is used herein, as being one of the patent Frankensteinlan factors contributing toward the abnormal, chain reaction-like growth of the extended clique. Even removal of the "one exception to the rule”^ of reciprocal choices in the definition would not result in a delineation of true extended cliques in this sociogram.

The most severe objection the present writer has to Sender’s modus operand! lies in his method of interview­ ing "informants as families." In order to avoid the complication that would result from obtaining data from each individual man and wife in the community, interview­ ing informants as families is understandable and desirable.

However, in over 30^ of the-cases, Sender talked with only 3 one member of the family. In other words, whoever was interviewed, man or wife, was considered as giving the

"family" point of view to the questions asked about the community and its members. Use of this approach with a 2

2. Of. pp. 81-82, ante.

3. Wives were interviewed alone in 8 cases; husbands alone in 6 cases. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., Social Ill

large community Is understandable — various exigencies may necessitate its use (as In the present study). More­ over, in the Village, this mode of procedure was utilized since no warning was given toward interviewing only one, or the other, or both.^ The investigator talked to whom­ ever happened to be home and was willing to be interviewed at the time.

Now as one ponders over the dilemma of Figure XI, and brings in the facts of Table III, an interesting, but anomalous situation reveals itself. Over half of the men and their wives have jobs. It may also be stated here that an additional 13 wives are attending school. The men, by and large, work during the evenings, many of them on the

Mswing” or the "graveyard” shift at either the Hughes or

Douglas Aircraft plant. Most of the wives who work have positions as stenographers, teachers, etc. and work during 5 the day. This "working” factor, without a doubt, affects the choices registered in the sociogram. Many families

fall to interact to any appreciable extent with their

neighbors because of lack of time. Homemaking duties consume the evening hours of the working wives; studying5 4

4. Fifty-seven men and 59 wives were interviewed alone; the rest were interviewed together.

5. A few of the wives were Registered Nurses and were either working or intended to work when the fall semester began. Their hours, of course, are somewhat irregular. 112

and sleeping leaves little time for a substantial number of the men to socialize with neighbors. These circumstances also make It nearly Impossible to Interview both members of all 169 families. The Important point to all of this lies

In its effect on the Interrelations among the members of the community. What sort of overall changes would result in the sociogram if only wives had been interviewed? or only husbands? or only the family member who had "more time on his (or her) hands" for social intercourse?

From this discussion it is evident that some of the family members who were Interviewed, alone chose, or failed to choose as "best friends," families that would, or would g not have been chosen by the spouse of the interviewee.

Within a community of 169 families (or even Bonder’s community of 46 families), this would appear to do some­ what more than distort the real picture of what Figure XI, e.g., should represent. It should also be reiterated that, even though a consistency in who was interviewed might alter their pattern, it would not change the overbalanced or abnormally large, extended cliques. 6

6. All of these members were asked to respond to the questions as a family, i.e., to speak for their spouses, also In spite of this, it was apparent to the investigator, a resi dent of the Village, that a number of the respondents did not know with whom their respective spouses frequently got to­ gether for "bull sessions," "k a f f e e k l a t s c h e s etc., and consequently may have considered as *'nest friends." 113

What la "believed to he an oversight on the part of the original Investigator raises another question. Although

Sender mentions. In the early stages of his research, that

"The amount of time required.for a position to he assigned need not Influence our choice of a study community..." and that "Individual differences and differing circumstances should make time vary...” his reporting, thereafter, does not take this factor adequately Into account. To the present Investigator It appears that the length of residence

In the community Is a very Important factor Insofar as the validity of the study Is concerned. Table IV Indicates that

33 Village families (14$) had been living in the Village for

two months or less. To what extent have these families be­

come acquainted or developed a feeling of camaraderie with

their neighbors? If one were to assume that it takes at

least three or six months for certain Individuals to "get

to know" their neighbors, would not the 41 (24$) or 57

(34$) families in this category constitute a variable cast­

ing some doubt on any test of the hypothesis?

By now it Is plain that a number of negative attributes inhere to the customary use of the sociogram. 7

7. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. cit., pp. 49, 166. 114

The following comments by Llndzey and Borgatta serve as a fitting conclusion to, and testimony for, the foregoing discussion.

The representativeness of the sociogram has depended almost completely upon the vigilance and sensitivity of the Investigator, and with few or no external checks upon the adequacy of the diagram he presents. Thus, depending upon the particular spatial conventions or groupings the investigator uses, he can create different impressions of the group being examined. This absence of external or formal checks upon the procedure has led generally to relatively low inter-judge agreement using this technique.8

No success was met with in an attempt to locate an approach, either a sociogram or sociomatrix, which would handle the Village population according to Bonder’s scheme of analyzing the data (unlimited choice under more than one criterion). Most of the methods developed tend to deal with small groups. The use of matrix multiplication seems to have the greatest potential for use with a larger group. Some believe that it will also give way to the development of techniques for the identification of structures and channels of communication. It now has the advantage that different Investigators will tend to produce8

8. Gardner Llndzey and Edgar P. Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement," in Gardner Llndzey (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology (2 v., Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), I, p. 412. 115 the same matrices from the same data. Difficulties that are evident with this technique include the following:

(1) Definitions of structures which may he isolated are restrictive. Identification of patterns of a given definition will still leave many other patterns unidentified, requiring either retreat­ ment or neglect of data.

(2) The limitation to unweighted choices or rejections may he found restrictive. (5) The matrix operations are laborious unless done on IBM equipment, and programming for this matrix procedure may be more effort than it is worth. (4) The holistic view possible with sociogram approaches is not possible.10

A particular method for matrix analysis of socio- metric data gathered in M.I.T.'s housing community v/as developed by Festinger, _et a l . ^ He sought to analyze

“more complex interrelationships*; however, his method places severe restrictions on the type of data which can 12 be handled. Beaum and Criswell present what is perhaps10 11129

9. Blaine Forsyth and Leo Katz, “A Matrix " - Approach to the Analysis of Sociometric Data,* Soclometry; 9:346 (November, 1946).

10. Gardner Llndzey and Edgar F. Borgatta, op. clt., pp. 418-419.

11. Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935), p. 133. '

12. Gardner Llndzey and Edgar G. Borgatta, op. clt., p. 418. These restrictions differentiate his method "from that of Forsyth and Katz, q.v., in Leo Katz, "On the Matrlc Analysis of Sociometric Data," Soclometry: 10:233-241 (August, 1947). 1X6 the best method for machine tabulation of sociometric data.^

It is unrestricted as to the size of the group to be con- 14 sidered. This appears to be the first real starting point as a labor saving method with large samples as long as IBM facilities are available. Reduction In time lost in clerical work and correcting errors is also an important factor.

The present study is thus concluded. The hypothesis of the original Investigator has been neither confirmed nor denied, for as the research progressed an Interesting

"denouement* prematurely presented itself• This eventually unavoidably forced the original issue outside the pale of the research. The serendipity pattern thereafter — a fortuituous by-path — yielded the major contributions the sociogram (after Sender) can only be used successfully on small groups, for it becomes far too complex for intelligi­ bility when used in a community as large as the Village.

When indices and instruments are not rigorously connected to variables contingent;to communities of various magnitudes,13 14

13. See Gorlin 0. Beaum and John H. Criswell,B Application of Machine Tabulation Methods to Sociometric Data," Soclometry; 10:227-232 (August, 1947); Joan H. Criswell, "Measurement of Reciprocation under Multiple Criteria of Choice," Soclometry; 9:126-127 (May-August, 1946).

14. The important point here is that the operation must be reduced in form to simple equations. 1X7 they tend to be ad hoc. Under these conditions they tend to be impracticable, or are only with great difficulty applicable.^ 15

15. Edward Shils, The Present State of American Sociology (The Free Press, 15487, PP« 45-47. —TT.•.method­ ological problems in community research are barely separable from the theoretical ones. The use of the comparative community or community context research models requires that we specify in theory as well as in operation the parameters of a community...if we are to avoid our current ad hoc approach to community phenomena.tt Albert J. Reiss, Jr., ’’Some Logical and Methodological Problems in Community Re­ search,” Social Forces; 53:57 (October, 1954). APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW OUTLINE-SCHEDULE

, ■ ■ ' ' ■ . Part I

1« When did you move into the Village?

2* Whom did you know in the Village at the time you moved

in?

3. With whom did you first become acquainted in the

Village?

a. Anyone else?

b. In what way were these acquaintances made?

4. Who in the Village would you say was best known by everyone else?

a. Anyone else?

be For what reasons?

5. Whose Village apartment would you consider the best

decorated?

a. Anyone else?

6. Who seems to be the most active in the Village govern­

ment and affairs (informally)?

a. Anyone else?

b. Can you give any reason?

7. Whom do you consider your best friends in the Village?

a. Anyone else? (Until four or five families have been mentioned.) 119

b. How did you happen to meet these people?

c. In what sort of activities do you engage with

these people?

8. On the advice of what particular person In the Village

would you make a special effort to read a book or see

a movie?

9. On the average, how often do you go to the movies?

10. Who visits your home most often?

a. Who do you visit most often?

11. Who seems to know the most about Village politics?

(Not as gossip — just who knows what Is going on

generally?)

18. Do you attend meetings of the Village Government

Association? a. Hold office? (Now or In the past?)

b. Has a meeting ever been held In your apartment?

c. What do you consider to be the most valuable function

of the Association? (The Interviewer will assay

attitude toward the Association.)

13. Who among your own circle of friends has the best Ideas

about recreational things to do?

a. Can you give any examples?

14. Do you have any children? (If so, age and sex will

be recorded.)

15. With whose children do your own most often play?

16. Do you have any reciprocal arrangement with other families

for tending children while parents are away? (List the 120

families.)

17. What do you think are the main problems of the Village

at the moment? (Can they best be met through the action

of the Village Government Association or through that

of the families concerned?)

18. Whom do you personally consider to be the best all-

around leader in the Village? a. Why?

19. If some personal problem arose, with whom in the Village

would you be most likely to talk it over? (From whom

would you take advice?) 20. Do you know any people in Town (mentioning the name of

the small town in which the University is located)?

(Are they students or permanent residents?)

a. If they are premanent residents, how do you think

they feel toward the Village?

21. Are there any special problems connected with the

apartment or with living in it?

22. Do you have a car? (If so, list make and model.)

23. Where do you do most of your shopping for clothing and

groceries? (Specify if shopping is done in some other

place than the Town.) 24. To what magazines do you subscribe?

a. To what newspapers?

25. How much of the year do you spend in the Village?

(Do you go home each week end, only during the longer vacations, or when?) 121

26. What are your hobbles? (Separate for husband and wife.)

Part II

27. When were you married? (List exact date If possible.)

28. Give the places In which you have lived since you were married?

HUSBAND WIFE

29. What Is your age? 30. What is your age?

31. Where were you born? 32. Where were you born?

33. What class are you In 34. How far did you go in

and what Is your major? school? (Mention

What are your ambitions any special training, for the future? (What e.g., nursing, business

work do you plan to enter?) school, etc.)

35. What have you done since 36. What jobs have you you left high school. held before and since

(What jobs have you held?) you were married?

a. When did you enter

and leave the Armed

Services? Were you

an officer?

b. Were you overseas?-

What branch?

c. When did you arrive

at the University? 122

HUSBAND (cont’d) WIFE (cont'd)

37. In what activities have 38. What are your activities?

you participated? (Campus or Village?

(Campus or Village?) e.g., the G. I. Wives

Club.)

39. What is your father's 40. What is your father's

occupation? (If deceased, occupation? (If specify.) deceased, specify.)

41. Where were your parents 42. Where were your parents

born? born?

43. How far did your 44. How far did your parents

parents go in school? go in school?

45. How many children were 46. How many children were

in your family? (If some in your family? (If

are dead, specify.) some are dead, specify.)

47. How many times did your 48. How many times did your

family move while you family move while you

were at home? (Give were at home? (Give

locations and parents' locations and parents'

present home.) present home.)

a. Do your parents own a. Do your parents

their own home? own their own home?

b. What type of house do b. What type of house

they live in? do they live in?

(Apartment or what?) (Apartment or what?) 123

HUSBAND (cont'd) WIPE (cont'd) 49. What la your religious 50. What is your

affiliation? religious affiliation?

a. Do you attend church a. Do you attend

in Town? How often? church in Town?

How often? APPENDIX B

AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL STATUS USAGES AND DEFINITIONS

This will be an Investigation of a few of the ideas expressed in sociological literature concerning status and,

in some cases, Its related concepts. Ideas and Implications will be drawn from a sample of thinkers; these, as they per­

tain to social status, will be collated and will, it is believed, demonstrate some of the vagueness that exists in

the literature today. While this investigation will be in

some places but a condensation of Bonder’s perspectives, the present writer has attempted to Implement still many more diversified points of view, gleaned from available

sources, many of which have appeared on the scene since

the time of the original study (1949).

It is understood that the Interpersonal and inter­

group relationships of men ultimately result in the kind

of thinking which attempts to subdivide organizations into

the positions, ranks, or standings, which have received

the term "social status." Use of the term has generally

followed three phases depending upon whether one hears

it from the lips of laymen, lawyers, or sociologists. 125

The layman1s use

The nman in the street” speaks of a person as having "status” and usually leaves out the "social” quali­ fication. One understands him to mean that a given person has a relatively high position within whatever organizational hierarchy he has under consideration. The layman is unable to describe or analyze the processes by which this position has attained or exactly what it constitutes.^

The lawyer1s use

For the lawyer, "status" follows closely its Latin derivation. It means a given standing, a specifically defined and legally fixed relationship of a person to others or to the state. In this relationship the law con- 2 fers special privileges or imposes special limitations.

Sender conjectures about the possible linkage between the layman’s vague usage and the stable legal definition. He believes that some might infer the layman 12

1. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., Social Status in a University Veterans1 Community: A Sociological &Eu3y — (unpublished Master * s thesis. Department of Sociology, Bucknell University, 1949), p. 2.

2. Loc clt. An historical consideration of the legal definition is given by Max Radin, "Status," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition, XIV, pp. 373-377. See also Webster1s New International Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edition. Unabridged (Springfield: G. & C. Merrlam Co., 1955), p. 2463; Arnold J. Zurcher, "Status," A Dictionary of American Politics. Edward C. Smith and Arnold””J. Zurcher, editors ("New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1944), p. 293. 126 has applied to the idea of ranking a more distinctly social determination than has the lawyer. We must recall, however,

that historically there is evidence that so far as the

origin of positions within social organizations, the reverse

of this has happened, i.e., legal codification has followed % social thinking and public opinion. Perhaps, the usage of

the layman and the lawyer is in some way conducive to illumin­

ing the interest of sociologists on the matter of positions.

The Sociologist's Use

The sociologist’s use of the term "status* leads

us to a problem in the form of a lack of clarity. While

there is an underlying element of general agreement that

the concept refers to relative "positions," the ways in

which the concept has been applied in discussions and 4 definitions have produced an overall vagueness.

To illustrate this vagueness, as well as the

connecting threads of similarity running through the usages,

let us examine a number of these definitions. 43

3. Gunnar Landtman, The Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938), Chapter I.

4. Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949), p. 12; Marion J. Levy, Jr., The Structure of Society, (Princeton University Press, 1952), pp. IsT^lSS. 127

Gumplowlczt explanation. One of the earliest treatments of social status was presented by GumplowIcz.

"Fettered to the group by ties of blood, habit, and mode of thought.. . Gumplowicz decided that "A man's behavior is determined immediately by his economic status (italics mine), which constrains him to follow a certain mode of life, and awakens the corresponding mental conditions within him." Perhaps reflecting the period in which he did his thinking, he resolved the matter of divisions and sub­ divisions within society by claiming that in all "freely organized societies" there are "three grand social circles distinguished by economic status $ the ruling class, the middle class including merchants and tradesmen, and the peasantry. They bring up their members differently by accustoming them to their respective opinions, customs, legal usages and principles and by offering them and im­ posing upon them a particular calling, compel them through self interest to continue in the path traversed by the whole circle.5

Small's explanation. Six years after Gumplowicz set forth his views, Albion W. Small proclaimed a much different view in saying that 5

5. Ludwig Gumplowicz, Outlines of Sociology, translation by Frederick W. Moore (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1899), cited by Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 4, (Original source not available)• Some indirect light is thrown on Gumplowicz thinking in this regard by Hans Kohn, "Race Conflict," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. 1st edition, XIII, p. 36j and Carl Brinkman, ^Nationalism," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition. I. p. 16S. 128

we cannot think of human associations without the category of status, although human associa­ tions are In constant movement, and status Is thus a moving equilibrium at most. Yet In actual associations certain precision of status among the members Is universal. If It should be eliminated In any ease, there would at once be confusion and danger. If not anarchy. The social end Is not abolition of status, but, first, security of status, and second, flexibility or exchangeability of status.6

Here, then, we have a basic contrast. Gumplowicz found the chief factor in status determination to be the economic.^ While in his mention of opinions and customs, he verges upon a social-interaction explanation, he con­ cludes with a fatalistic stand that there is little hope or chance to change one’s status. On the other hand Small recognized a dynamic kind of social character operating in the formation of statuses. The “certain precision11 which he also concluded was operative, was In the form of security within one’s position which is the goal and not something against which one struggles to escape.8

6 . Albion W. Small, General Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1905), p. 607.

7. Cf., p. 127 , ante.

8 . Otto Louis Sender, Jr., £g. clt., p. 5. “ ’The structural or static phase of social occurrences is a sort of mirage,’ reasoned Small, because it Is only a provisional representation of a tension of forces constantly rearranging itself and, consequently, never really static. In social change the same forces are operative.” Roscoe C. Hinkle, Jr. and Glsela J. Hinkle, The Development of Modern Sociology (New York: Doubleday andDonroanv. fric7. 1954) , p7~5: 129

Thomas' view. In 1929, W. I. Thomas advanced the

“desire for status’1 as one of his four wishes to explain motivation. He meant high status and took the time to show

that this desire revealed itself in contests for dominance

among animals, in occupational behavior among humans, and

in human efforts to obtain public approval.9 101112

Unlike Gumplowicz and Small, Thomas» concern with

“desires" or "wishes” stems from a groundwork of research

founded on personal documents.^ His works have been

viewed from both the sociological and psychological

approaches.H He did not imply — as Gumplowicz and Small 12 seemingly did — but openly threw light on motivation.

To him, people wanted to change their status regardless of

9. W. I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1923), p. bij Emory S. Bogardus, "The Sociology of William I. Thomas,” Sociology and Social Research; 43:43 (September-October, 1949).

10. Ibid., p. 37. "We are safe in saying that personal life-records, as complete as possible, constitute the perfect type of sociological material, and that is social has to use other material at all it is only because of the practical difficulty of obtaining at the moment a sufficient number of such records to cover the totality of sociological problems, and of the enormous amount of work demanded for an adequate analysis of all the personal materials necessary to characterize the life of the group.” W. I. Thomas and P. Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and American (New York: Knopf, 1§§7), p. 1832.

11. Gordon W. Allport, The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science, (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1942),ppT l9 and 36. See also the forward by Ethel S. Dummer in The Unadjusted Girl (footnote 9).

12. W. I. Thomas and F. Znaniecki, 0£. cit., pp. 21 and 2 2 1 , passim. 150

whether or not they have it within their power to do so."^

To him, this motivation was all-pervasive.^

Weber1s definition. Much of the published work of

Max Weber was contemporaneous with that of W. I. Thomas. In order to discover the former’s meaning of status, we must understand his use of the concept of class. When subjective opinions can be attributed to men in an objective class situation Weber speaks of ’’class-consciousness11; when he focuses upon problems of ’’conventions,” ’’styles of life,” of occupational attitudes, he prefers to speak of prestige or of "status groups.”^5 He begins a discussion under the subtitle Caste and Status Group by asking 151314

13. Ibid., pp. 147 and 1882.

14. Ibid., pp. 1831-1907, passim.; Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 6 .

15. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (editors). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1§46), p. 69. 131

What is a “status group” $ “Classes” are groups of people who, from the standpoint of specific Interest s, have the same economic position. Ownership or non­ ownership of material goods or of defi­ nite skills constitute the “class-situation.” “Status” is a quality of social honor or lack of it, and is in the main conditioned as well as expressed through a specific style of life. Social honor can stick directly to a class-situation, and it is also. Indeed most of the time, determined by the average class-situation of the status-group members. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Status membership, in turn. Influences the class-situation in that the style of life required by status groups makes them prefer special kinds of property or gainful pursuits and reject others. A status group can be closed (“status by descent”) or it can be open.16

In a footnote accompanying the foregoing paragraph, Weber states that

it is incorrect to think of the “occupational status group” as an alternative. The “style of life,” not the “occupation,” is always decisive. This style may require a certain profession (for Instance, military service), but the nature of the occupational service resulting from the claims of a style of life always remains decisive (for instance, military service as a knight rather than as a mercenary).17

Social stratification is explained with the suggestion that all who wish to belong to a circle of

“status honor” are expected to follow a specific “style of life.” 1617

16. Ibid., p. 405.

17. Loc. cit. “Weber frequently betrays a self- conscious hesitancy in the use of loaded words...by a profuse utilization of quotation marks.” Ibid., p. vi. 132

Linked with this explanation are restrictions on "social" intercourse (that is, intercourse which is not subservient to economic or any other of business's "functional* purposes). These restrictions may confine normal marriages to within the status circle and may lead to complete endogamous closure. As soon as there is not a mere Individually and socially ir­ relevant imitation of another style of life, but an agreed-upon communal action of this closing character, the "status" development is under way.18

Weber distinguished among three (at least) strati­ fications in a society: (1 ) the economic order ("classes");

(2 ) the power structure ("legal order"); and (3) the prestig- ial or honorific order("social order"). According to him, a given person or family would have at least these three positions at any given time. The positions may not correlate 19 with one another; moreover, they are constantly changing.

In comparing and contrasting some of his ideas with the other thinkers we have mentioned, we may note that, somewhat like Gmnplowicz, he was willing to assign a position of importance to economic factors in social ranking. Unlike him Weber saw a social factor. He also saw ranking as a developing evolutionary process, but does not tell us 1918

18. Ibid., pp. 187-188.

19. John F. Cuber and William F. Henkel, Social Stratification in the United States (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), pp. 22-23; Oliver C. Cox, "Max Weber on Social Stratification: A Critique," American Sociological Review; 15:225 (April, 1950); Harold W. Pfautz, "The Current Literature on Social Stratification Critique and Bibliography,* American Journal of Sociology; 58:392 (January, 1953). 133 whether man responds to this process Inherently. Like

Small, he saw status formation as a process necessary to modern societies.^

Even though Weber placed strictures on the use of psychology in sociology, his concern with precision in soci­

ological concepts and his careful definition of terms conati­ on tute a major contribution.

Glddlngs1 description. In each of his three editions of Principles of Sociology, Glddlngs makes what perhaps may now seem a rather obvious observation that “The results

of association are not equally shared by all individuals

In another passage, he states that “Social relations...

development is unequally accomplished in different individ­

uals, and, accordingly, a number of classes appear in the

population.*^ In his explanation he uses the organic22 232120

20. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 9.

21. George Simpson, Man in Society (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1953), pp. 52-53.

22. Franklin Henry Glddlngs, Principles of Sociology (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1896), pp. VI and 124. Subsequent editions of Principles of Sociology were published in 1899 and 1926. Bonder, o p . cTf., p. 9. erroneously refers to 1921 as the first publication date.

23. Franklin Henry Glddlngs, op. clt., p. 71. 154 analogy, much like Herbert Spencer, to shew that Inequalities

In terms of the social are just as feasible as those found in terms of nourishment, heredity, or any other biological phenomenon.24 His view is, of course, based on his socio­ logical system, the keystone of which was his doctrine of

“consciousness of kind.®24 25 2627 People are classified according to the development of consciousness of kind in them.

Park and Burgess1 explanation. In 1921, Robert

E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, in what has been called

“the most influential textbook In the history of American 27 sociology. An Introduction to The Science of Sociology, turn to the viewpoint of the individual, l.e., social status is determined by the members of the group. “The

24. Ibid., p. 124; Bernhard J. Stern, “Glddings, Ward, and Small< An Interchange of Letters," Social Forces; 10:306 (March, 1932).

25. Bernhard J. Stern, "Franklin Henry Glddings,“ Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition, VI,

26. He later reformulates this and calls it "pluralistic behavior." Roucek quotes him as defining sociology in a single sentence, viz.. "Pluralistic behavior is the subject matter of the psychology of society, other­ wise called Sociology, a science statistical in method, which attempts, first, to factorize pluralistic behavior, and, second, to explain its genesis, integration, differ­ entiation, and functioning of them in terms of the variables (1 ) stimulation, and (2 ) the resemblance (more or less) to one another of reacting mechanisms." Joseph S. Roucek and Roland L. Warren, Sociology, An Introduction (Ames, Iowa: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1953), p. 219. An extensive discussion of this concept may be found in Franklin Henry Glddings, The Scientific Study of Human Society (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, I$24), p. 50. 27. Howard Becker and Harry Elmer Barnes, Social Thought from Lore to Science (Washington, D.C.: Barren Press, 1952), II, p. 982. 135 status and social position of any individual inside any social group is determined by his relation to all other members of that group and eventually of all other groups.**®

Sender believes that this definition is "something like an operational definition," and holds that their "equation of status and social position" removes any mystical element on from their concept.

Sorokin's conception. Six years later Pitirim A.

Sorokin conceived of social position by demonstrating the difference between "social and geometrical" spaceIn this operational definition, and in considerable detail,

Sorokin points out that in order to discover a man’s social position, we must know his various statusesThis position 28293031

28. Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Intro­ duction to the Science of Sociology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1921), pp. 36 and 55. "William James, Baldwin, Cooley, and Mead through Paris, Park and Burgess (italics mine), and Kimball Young...the thesis central to this group was that the self arises out of social inter­ action...it is seen as predominantly, if not exclusively, social." Theodore R. Sarbln, "Role Theory" in Gardner Lindzey, Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), p. 238. In this connection. Park and Burgess, op. clt., p. 116, regard role as the unit of socialization.

29. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 10.

30. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social Mobility (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927), p. 3.

31. Ibid., Chapters I and IIj Pitirim A. Sorokin, "What Is A Social Class," Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, (1947), pp. 21-68; citecTby Reinbard_Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset, Class, Status and Power, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1653), pp. 21-28. is a composite of statuses since

(1 ) social space is the universe of the human population; (2 ) man’s social position is the totality of his relations toward all groups of a population and, within each of them, toward its members; (3) location of man’s position in this social universe is obtained by ascertaining these relations; (4) the totality of such groups and the totality of the positions within each of them compose a system of social coordinates which permits us to define the social position of any man.32 -

Bogardus * definition. Much like Park and 33 Burgess, Bogardus’ thinking reveals that

when the individual is recognized a somebody in his groups he acquires standing or status and becomes a person. It is by this group- conferred status that the group makes or mars persons. One’s status is continually shifting up and down. Moreover, it is rarely the same In two different social groups. A person will fight to maintain or to Increase his status and hence he is especially subject to group in­ fluence. ^ 323334

32. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social Mobility, p. 6 .

33. Cf», p.135 , ante.

34. Emory S. Bogardus, Sociology (New Yorks The MacMillan Company, 1934), pp. 12 and 13. See also Emory S. Bogardus, Contemporary Sociology, (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1931), p. 192. 137

In a discussion of psycho-social factors,

Bogardus Includes W. I. Thomas* "four wishes" which he 35 renames the "basic urges." One of these, the "urge for

recognition," has as its goal, status.,.to obtain social

standing, rank, wealth, and power. Status is unscientific­

ally awarded. It is based on feelings and opinions, and on

values little analyzed or scrutinized. Therefore, Bogardus *

definition includes the thought that a person is continually

in a dilemmas "he wants to develop a well-rounded person­

ality and yet his urge for recognition may pull him in 35

35. "W. I. Thomas *...wishes have been criticized because they are easily confused with the ‘Freudian wish.*" Bogardus believes, however, that Thomas * classification has elements of "fundamental worth"; therefore, gives them the title "basic urges." Emory S. Bogardus, Sociology, p, 57. 138

untoward directions and distort his personality.u36

Chapin's measurement. We may consider next F.

Stuart Chapin's widely used Social Status Scale which was first developed in 1928,^ revised in 1933, and again in 3736

36. Ibid., p. 58. An outgrowth of Bogardus» thinking that sheds more light on his social status concept is his social distance or acceptability scale, developed in 1925, q.v. in Emory S. Bogardus, "Measuring Social Distance," Journal of Applied Sociology; 9:299-308; cited by Bert F. 'Green," "TEtTtude Measurement1’ in Gardner Lindzey, op. cit., p. 353 (Original source not available.) He used a set of seven items denoting varying degrees of social acceptability. "The acceptability, or social distance, of a nationality group was ascertained by noting which of the items were endorsed by a respondent. The items include admission to this country as a visitor only, admission to citizenship, to equal employment, admission as neighbors, as personal chums, and as relatives by marriage. Anyone willing to admit members of the group as neighbors would almost certainly be willing to indicate acceptance of items earlier on the list." Loo, cit. A aidelight in this connection is that the Journal of Applied Sociology became Sociology and Social ftesearchTTn 1927. Some writers are, therefore^ Tn error in their documentation. A. Q. Sartain and Harold V. Bell, Jr., "An Evaluation of the Bogardus Scale of Social Distance by the Method of Equal-Appearing Intervals." Journal of Social Psychology; 29:85-91 (February, 1949), refer "on p. 85to the "Journal of Applied Sociology, 1933, 17, 265- 271." Another error, p. 9l of this same article documents two or Dr. Bogardus' contributions as appearing in the Journal of Applied Psychology instead of the Journal of Applied Sociology and Sociology and Social Hesearch. Prior to 1921, five sporadic issues were named StudiesTn Sociology. See p. 2633 of Winifred Gregory's, Union List of Serials in Libraries of the united States and Canada^ ("Now York: The M. W. Wilson Company, 1943). See also Emory S. Bogardus, Introduction to Social Research, (Los Angeles: Suttonhouse, 1936), pp. 90^T03; cited by Quentin F. Schenk and A. Kimball Romney, Sociology and Social Research; 35:38-49, (September- October, 1950) (Original source not available.) 37. F. Stuart Chapin. "A Quantitative Scale for Rating the Home and Social Environment of Middle Class Families in an Urban Community: A Measurement of Socio-Economic Status," Journal of Educational Psychology: 19:99-111 (January, 1928). 139

1 9 3 6 . Chapin observed that people occupied different social positions In society as well as different spatial positions In a given region. %In order to define social status It Is necessary to measure selected attributes abstracted from the totality of attributes characteristic of the persons studied... We describe social position as social status. But we further observe that different people have different degrees of the attribute, social status."39

In his original definition of socio-economic status, he describes what it constitutes: His hypothesis is that socio-economic status is "the position an individual or a family occupies with reference to the prevailing average standards of cultural possessions, effective income, material possessions, and participation in the group activities of 3938

38. F. Stuart Chapin, The Measurement of Social Status by the Use of the Social ITEatus Scale "19337 (Minneapolis": University of Minnesota 'Press, 1933), 16 pp.j cited by George A. Lundberg, Social Research (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 19427, pp. 288-292, and Pauline V. Young, Scientific Social Surveys and Research, (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1$49),pp. 366-3V0. (Original source not available.) See also Louis Guttman, "A Revision of Chapin's Social Status Scale," American Sociological Review; 7:362-369 (June, 1942).

39. F. Stuart Chapin, "Measurement in Sociology," American Journal of Sociology; 40:476 (January, 1935). 140 the community.n The ccanponent concepts of this definition are then each quantitatively described and summarized In a single Index of social status referred to as the "Living

Room Scale."41 The use of this scale assumes that the

complex structure of attitudes giving persons their status varies with their material possessions. In the year 1933 modification of the scale consisted of material possessions

In tide living room, as well as the condition of the possessions — these were the Indices used to differentiate 42 families in terms of socio-economic status.

Since these scales attempted to measure that a

given status was by Its "concrete manifestations," Sender

calls this "our sample’s first representation of operation- alism in action."4343 424140

40. P. Stuart Chapin, "A Quantitative Scale for Rating the Home and Social Environment of Middle Class Families in an Urban Community: A Measurement of Socio- Economic Status," p. 99.

41. Ibid., pp. 108-109. Chapin found after several InvestigatIons that the totals of the statistical weights given to living room equipment were found to correlate so highly with the combined weights of the four Indices, con­ tained in his definition, that the equipment of the living room could be taken as a fair Index of socio-economic status. Pauline V. Young, op. cit., p. 369.

42. Ibid., p. 370.

43. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. cit., p. 13. 141

Young13 view. Like Park and Burgess,44 454647 Kimball

Young recognizes the large part that Income plays in determining social status in our capitalistic society, with the reservation that "social rank is not entirely a matter of income."4® Role and status are closely tied up with each other, but there is a difference: role is

"what you do or do not do" and status is the "resultant

place on the prestige scale."4® Around both of these one

develops specific habits, traits of character, attitudes, 47 and values. .

Young views economic status as being traced

directly to wealth, income, and functionj but social

status is a complex of all of these and many other factors.

44. Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, op. clt., p. 55.

45. Kimball Young, John Lewis Gillln, and Calvert L. Dedrick, The Madison Community (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1054), p. 43.

46. Kimball Young, An Introductory Sociology (New York: American Book Company, 1^34), p.

47. Kimball Young, Social Psychology. (P. S. Crofts and Company, Inc., 1944), p. 4. In this connection, see also Pitlrim A. Sorokin, Social Mobility, p. 322 for a discussion of the effect of occupation as it is related to the sociological phenomena of group life. 142

In general It (social status) may be thought of as the standing or position of a person in a community. More than economic status, it is conditioned by such association- al factors as religious affiliation, racial grouping, education, language, and nationality. A man may buy economic status, but he acquires social status through his interaction with individuals in non-economlc as well as economic social groups. Its acquisition is dependent upon the power which he wields with­ in groups and the prestige which these groups have in the wider society.48

A person, then, may have high status in one group and low status in another. We assume the position which others give us since attitudes of others are reflected back to us.49 •

Sutherland * s use. Edwin H. Sutherland has been recognized as a sociologist who viewed the phenomena of crime and criminal behavior from the standpoint of social processes and the impact of social organization and the 50 cultural heritage. In his application of the concept 504849

48. Kimball Young, John Lewis Gillln, and Calvert L. Dedrick, op. cit., pp. 43-44. See also Kimball Young, Social Psychology, pp. 226-227•

49. Kimball Young, An Introductory Sociology, p. 89. Like other role theorists — William James, Baldwin, Cooley, Mead, Paris, Park and Burgess — Young used the conception of the self as an intervening variable. nThe self arises out of social interaction.” In the theory of selfhood advanced by Young and others in this group, we may see the core of Cooley's idea: Each to each a looking-glass reflects the other that doth pass.” Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory” in Gardner Lindzey, Handbook of Social Psychology, p. 238. 50. George B. Void, "Edwin Hardin Sutherland: Sociological Criminologist," American Sociological Review; 16:3 (February, 1951). 145 of status to criminals, he states that Injurious insti­ tutions may be located in the neighborhood without desire on the part of the members of that neighborhood.51

These, of course, may give rise to standards which the youth of the district can hardly resist. Hence, the presence of such institutions lowers the status of the people to a level where they have little to lose if convicted of a crime.Also, parent-child relation­ ships depend upon the parents' status in the community, for "the social status of the parents in comparison with

other persons with whom the child is acquainted, may destroy the prestige of the parents and give the child a

conception that he is able to determine his own behavior better than are his parents.*53 Further, desire to gain

status may be a motive for some crimes. Punishment some­

times gives the offender status. Many persons find the 515253

51. Houses of prostitution, pool-rooms, etc., that may be "hang-outs* for criminals or near-criminals. Edwin H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology (Chicagoi J. B. Lippincott Company, 1947), pp. 148-149.

52. Ibid., p. 149.

53. Ibid., p. 154. 144 thing that Is dangerous to be especially thrilling, and gain social status because of their courage or skill.54

Moreover, among criminal groups, status Is based upon

"technical skill, financial standing, connections, power, dress, manners, and wide knowledge" and Is seen In the

attitudes of not only other criminals, but the police,

the court officials, newspapers and others.®®

Sender believes that Sutherland's concept of

status within different criminal or non-criminal groups

(one may have low status In one, but high status in

another) goes back to the conflict school of Gumplowlez,5556

54. Ibid., p. 363.

55. Ibid., pp. 4, 45, 170, 214, 215; Chic Conwell, The Professional Thidf, annotated and interpreted by Edwin H. Sutherland (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), pp. 200-211. Adding to our understanding of status, Sutherland brings to our attention the fact that thieves "possess a body of commonly shared (con­ sensus) feelings, sentiments, and behavior patterns, including a code of honor, consciousness of kind and esprit de corps. A certain necessary aloofness from ordinary people Is maintained (differential association), and "personal association Is limited by barriers which are maintained principally by the thieves themselves."

56. "The core of his (Gumplowlcz) system was the doctrine that social &nd cultural evolution was wholly a product of the struggle of social groups. Inter-group war being the social analogue of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest." Howard. Becker and Harry Elmer Barnes, op. clt., p. 713. 145 and Bogardus' stand that "one may have as many ratings as one has friends."5^

Linton1a definition. A much-cited thinker in the social sciences attempted to throw some light on the usages of the concept of status. In 1956 Ralph Linton saw society as "an organized aggregation of persons” and culture as "an organized aggregation of ideas and attitudes.*58 Functioning of.societies depends upon the presence of patterns for reciprocal behavior between57 58

57. Cf., p.136 , ante. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. cit., p. l"E7 58. "We may sum up the relation of culture to society if we say that culture insures the existence and continuity of society by providing the society’s members with adequate techniques for group living and for the satisfaction of their individual wants...the society as a whole Interacts with the culture as a whole, the two being coexistent continua. "Like society and culture, (the individual) is a continuum, but one persisting over a relatively short time interval. The social-cultural continuum extends in both directions far beyond the brief period of his par­ ticipation in it. In the course of his life he moves through a series of positions (or statuses or offices) (italics mine) within the formal structure of his society. Most of these...from the moment of his birth are pre­ destined by circumstances over which he has no control." Ralph Linton, "Culture, Society, and the Individual," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology? 33:451-435 (October, 1938). See also Theodore R. Sarbln, "Role Theory" in Gardner Lindzey, Handbook of Social Psychology, p. 224. : . 146

individuals; the polar positions in these patterns he calls statuses. H e maintains that

the term status, like the term culture, has come to heused with a double significance. A status, in the abstract, is a position in a particular pattern. It is thus quite correct to speak of each individual as having many statuses, since each Individual participates in the expression of a number of patterns. However, the status of any individual means the sum total of all the statuses which he occupies. It represents his position with relation to the total society...a status, as distinct from the individual who may occupy it, is simply a collection of rights and duties...these rights and duties can find expression 60 only through the medium of Individuals...

Here Linton introduces another concept similar to that of status — integral part of the social patterns which he calls role. He uses it to designate the sum of the culture patterns associated with a particular status. 5960

59. Ralph Linton, The Study of Man, (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company," 193^), p.“Tl3. In his last work, Linton uses the terms "social rank" and "social status" interchangeably. "The innovator who Id of high social rank has a great initial advantage..." Two para­ graphs later he recapitulates..."The Importance of the innovator’s social status in determining a society's acceptance or rejection of new things has already been mentioned." Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955), pp. 43-44.

60. Ralph Linton, The Study of Man, p. 113. 147

A role represents the dynamic aspect of a status. The Individual is socially assigned to a status and occupies it with relation to other statuses, ^hen he puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect, he is performing a role. Role and status are quite inseparable, and the distinction between them is of only academic interest. There are no roles without statuses or statuses without roles. Just as In the case of status, the term role is used with a double significance. Every individual has a : series of roles deriving from the various patterns in which he participates and at the same time a role, general, which represents the sum total of these roles and determines what hfe does for his society and what he can expect from it.61

Since a normal individual can be trained to perform almost any role some difficulties are implied in this concept. 61

61. Ibid., p. 114; Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality, (New York: D. Appletbn-Century Company, 19?5), p. 77. Seeking greater precision in sociological terminology. Pierce considers the question of redefining these two terms, since, on one hand, there is a distinction without a difference: "role as currently defined is a redundant concept in that there already exist concepts which denote...behavior which corresponds to the rights and duties of the individual as they are defined by the group — i.e., conformity or deviance or conformal or nonconformal behavior.11 On the other hand, in noting that there is a difference without a distinction he means that status as ncurrently formally defined falls to apprise use of the exact part played by the individual and the exact part played by the group in the relationship of the latter to the former.” Without this distinction, Pierce questions the purpose of these concepts. Furthermore, he reasons that if role and status are but two ways of perceiving the same thing, then certain descriptive terms should be equally appropriate in"application to both of them. The terms "higher status" and "lower status" find frequent usage but one seldom if ever finds the terms "higher role" and "lower role.® For a complete discussion see Albert Pierce, "On the Concepts of Role and Status," Soclologus, Vol. 6 , Mo. 1, pp. 29-34. See also Marlon J. Levy, Jr., op. cit., pp. 157-162 for a discussion on re­ definition of these concepts. 148

Linton states that societies have met the dilemma by- developing two types of statuses, the ascribed and the achieved. The ascribed (or assigned) statuses come

largely by reason of one's birth into a particular

societal position. The achieved statuses are, as the

term implies, achieved by the person as a result of some

attributes or choices or accomplishments which pertain

to4- him. 63 '

Linton believed the ascribed statuses to be the most important; they compose the Tbulk of all social

systems" — all societies rely mainly on these to take

care of day-to-day living.62 6364

Further elaboration dealing with status-linked response configurations brought about status personality, which he believed to be of "utmost importance to the

successful functioning of society," since, on the basis

of cues alone, it made it possible for society's members

62. Williams calls this..,"caste, a system in which an individual's rank and its accompanying rights and obligations is ascribed on the basis of birth into a particular group." Robin M. Williams, Jr., American Society: A Sociological Interpretation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), p. 39.

63. Ralph Linton, The Study of Man, p. 115; John F. Cuber and William F. Kenkel, op* oil:., p. 4 .

64. Ralph Linton, The Study of Man, p. 128. 149 to Interact successfully. This term does not correspond to the basic, or "total personality,n though it is super­ imposed upon and thoroughly integrated with it. The status personality is a social phenomenon;

every society has its own basic personality type and Its own series of status personalities (italics mine) differing in some respects from those of any society. Practically all societies tacitly recognize this fact, and many of them have explanations for it. Our own society has based its explanation, until recent times, on biological factors. Differ­ ences in basic personality type have been regarded as due to some linkage between race and personality.65

Sender notes that while research implications may be drawn from Linton (and others in his group, he is not strictly a "researcher.8 It is Sender’s contention that these ”non-researchers” are Involved in following Weber’s sociology of understanding, viz., if people are "concerned with thinking about status, then the researcher (probably philosophically) must tap that thought.” He also reminds us of a similarity between Weber’s ideal types as research aids and Linton’s thinking that "societies set up ideal manifestations of personalities in terms of the basic statuses which are recognized."^6 6566

65. Ibid.. pp. 476-477; Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality, p. 131.

6 6 . Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. clt., p. 18. It may be of interest to note that while TanfSH”did try to collect and unify thinking with regard to the status concept, he had a disinclination to provide documentary references. His magnum opus, The Study of Man, contains only one footnote, and that incompletely cited. let his "photographic memory" was no doubt a factor in his amazing ability to synthesize current ideas into something new. See John Gillen, "Ralph Linton.” American Anthropologist; 56:274-281 (April, 1954). ------150

The definition of Maclver. This sociologist uses the concept of status as a basic ingredient of social class.

Wherever social Intercourse is limited by considerations of status, by distinctions between "higher* and "lower,® there social class exists. A social class, then, is any portion of a community marked off from the rest by social status. A system or structure of social classes Involves, first, a hier­ archy of status groups, second, the recog­ nition of the superior-inferior stratification, and finally, some degree of permanency of the structure.67

The graded order of horizontal strata reflect the principle of social class, whereas vertical divisions may be only occupational categories not in relation to one another in a social structure. Hence,

...social differentiation arising out of language, locality, function, or specializa­ tion are (regarded) as significant class phenomena only when they become closely associated with a status hierarchy. The subjective factor of social status, a manifestation of group attitudes, is always related to such objective differences in the society as income levels, occupational distinctions, distinctions of birth, race, education...But these objective differences, apart from a recognized order of superiority and Inferiority, do not establish cohesive groups.68

Maclver1s point of view, then, is that it is the

"sense of status® which gives cohesion to each class and68 67

67. R. M. Maclver and Charles H. Page, Society: An Introductory Analysis (Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1949) pp• 348-349.

6 8 . Ibid., p. 349 151 stratifies society. It Is “sustained by economic, political, or ecclesiastical power, and by distinctive modes of life 69 and cultural expressions corresponding to them." Usage has sanctioned the application of the term "social class" *70 to status-determined groups. To that which Bonder calls

"vagueness" In this defInition7"1- we may find Maclver's answer In The Web of Government, where he tells us that

"confusion arises only when we identify social class with economic class or political class or any other category 7 0 defined by some other criterion than status." We are apt to be misleading if we attempt to equate function with social class, since status, unlike function, "is a subjective variable, and must be sought in the attitudes groups hold one to another."75 7371727069

69. Loc♦ cit.; R. M. MacTver, The Web of Government (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1947), p. 114. 70. Ibid., p. 115.

71. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., ojd. clt., p. 19.

72. R. M. Maclver, op. cit., p. 115.

73. R. M. Maclver and Charles H. Page, op. cit., p. 551. 158

Pollard's use. The criterion of class is combined with status (or prestige, esteem, ranking, etc.,) by John 74 Pollard. The working tool in his research for Caste and

Class in a Southern Town is adopted from the views of

Warner and is conceived of as ^social division by class.**^®

He conceives of class as the "largest group of people whose members have intimate social access to one another.9 ^ 6

The individuals included in a class have equal status

(italics mine) in the sense that they may visit one 77 another, may intermarry, etc.

On reading Pollard's writings, one comes to under­ stand that his definition of class is primarily in terms of participation or association group which appear to be structured along "status or prestige or esteem lines.77 78747576

74. John Pollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town (New Havens Yale University Press, iS3777 PP* 6^-67.

75. Ibid., p. 62.

76. Allison Pavis and John Pollard, Children o f Bondage s The Personality Development of Negro Youth in TKe Urban South, (Washington, D. C.s The American Council"on Education, 1940), p. 13.

77. Loc. cit.

78. According to Centers, others in this school are W. Lloyd Warner, Paul S. hunt, Allison Pavis, and the Gardners. Richard Centers, op. cit., p. 226. 153

For Do Ha r d "The arrangement of social classes Is not an accidental or Irrelevant phenomenon"; later, making refer­ ence to this statement, he tells us that "To seek high social 79 status Is no Idle quest."

Goldhamer and Shills explanation. One finds another attempt by Herbert Goldhamer and Edward A. Shlls to bring together the usages of the concept. From their point of view

men. evaluate the objects, acts, and human attributes with which they come into contact. These evaluations may become systematized into a hierarchy of values. The individual makes judgments of others and ranks them on the basis of his hier­ archy of values and his knowledge concern­ ing what characteristics these other persons possess. Such a judgment of rank made about either the total person or relatively stable segments of the person constitutes the social status of that person (for the individual making ^iie judgment). Societies and individuals use different gestures to express degrees of deference which they accord to varying ranks of social status.80

Later on we are told that

79. John Dollard and Neal E. Miller, Social Learning and Imitation (New Haven: Yale University i^ress. 1941), p.TSal

80. Herbert Goldhamer and Edward A. ShiIs, "Types of Power and Status," Ameglean Journal of Sociology; 45:179 (September, 1939). ------154

the status accorded to a person depends on the value hierarchy held by the Individual making the status judgment and the individual’s knowledge of the char­ acteristics of the person judged. A status judgment that a person makes of another is true if based on an accurate knowledge of the characteristics of the person judged, and false if based on an Incorrect knowledge of the characteristics of the person judged. Thus if a person ranks wealth very high in his hier­ archy of values and if he believes another person to be very wealthy, he will rank the latter high in the status scale...If persons have different value hier­ archies and all have approximately the same correct knowledge of the characteristics of the individual being judged, the various different status judgments will all be true status judgments.81 81

81. Ibid., p. 181. In this formulation, one may speculate as to the influence of Karl Mannheim. For example, in his treatment of a chapter entitled "The Sociology of Knowledge" we may note that "behind every definite question and answer is implicitly or explicitly to be -found a model of how fruitful thinking can be carried on. If one were to trace in detail...the origin and the radius of diffusion of a certain thought-model, one would discover the peculiar affinity it has to the social position of given groups and their manner of interpreting the world. By these groups we mean not merely classes...but also status groups, Sects, occu­ pational groups, schools, etc. Unless careful attention is paid to highly differentiated social groupings of this sort and to the corresponding differentiations in concepts, categories, and thought-models, i.e., unless the problem of the relation between super- and sub-structure is refined, it would be impossible to demonstrate that corresponding to the wealth of types of knowledge and perspectives which have appeared in the course of history there are similar differ­ entiations in the substructure of society...class stratifica­ tion (referred to above) is the most significant grouping, since in the final analysis all the other social groups arise from and are transformed as parts of the more basic conditions of production and domination. None the less the Investigator who, in the face of the variety of types of thought, attempts to lace them correctly can no longer be content with the un­ differentiated class concept, but must reckon with the exist­ ing social units and factors that condition social position, aside from those of class." Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, translated from the German by Louis Wirth and Edward Shi Is, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936), pp. 247- 248; Karl Mannheim, Man and Society, translated from the German by Edward A. Shlls (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, Ltd., 1940), pp. 20 and 308. 155

We may gather by now that statuses are "natural In societies.” Going one step further, and following Sender’s lead, this paper will not be concerned with the ”origin of status thoughts within the Individual.” It will be con­ cerned, rather, with the manifestations of this thinking, 82 i.e., with the ranks, hierarchies, etc., which It produces.

Zeleny's definition. In the definition of Leslie Day" Zeleny one encounters what Sender calls the "perfect 83 example of the operational approach.” Sociometric response is used to measure social status -- Zeleny was perhaps the first to propose a specific sociometric index under this lable. He defines social status as "the degree of accept­ ance of a person by his associates in a particular group.” 85 This definition is not unlike that of Park and Burgess.

Zeleny maintains that the aforementioned acceptance exists in different amounts for different persons, and can be

82. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 21.

83. Loc. clt.

84. Gardner Lindzey and Edgar F. Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement,” in Gardner Lindzey, op. clt., p. 427. — —

85 # Cf • $ p * 135 f Sint#® # 156 measured. In this connection, he developed a mathematic­ al formula for measuring a subject’s social-status ratio in which (N) the number of acceptances received by a person from the other members of a particular group be multiplied by (I) the average intensity of these accept­ ances; this product is then divided by (T) the total 87 possible number of acceptances which might be received.

Parson’s definition. In 1940, Talcott Parsons stated — in a generalized approach to the theory of social stratification -- that social stratification is the

86. Leslie Day Zeleny, ”Measurement of Social Status,” American Journal of Sociology; 45:576 (January, 1940) and-’"’Status and ftole-Among Fifth-Grade School Children,” Sociology and Social Research; 35:425 (July- August, 1951). "The status of a person in a community might be the average of his statuses in all the groups of which he belongs.” Leslie Day Zeleny, ’’Measurement of Sociation,” American Sociological Review; 6:179 (April, 1941) . '

87. Loc. cit. In a rejoinder to two critiques dealing with his operational measurement of social status, Zeleny feels that the trouble with this technique is that it is difficult to obtain reliable rejections and different intensities of rejections. ”0n paper this looks easy; in experimental work it is very difficult.” Leslie Day Zeleny, "Rejoinder,” American Journal of Sociology; 45:775 (March, 1940). Sender notes that a '’fault here, as in many other . cases of the operational approach, is the attempt to apply specific mathematical treatments to data which are necessarily quite relative unless they are the result of research within an extremely limited sphere.” Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. cit., p. 22. 157

“differential ranking of the human individuals who compose a given social system and their treatment as superior and

Inferior relative to one another in certain socially OO Important respects." Thirteen years later essentially this same view is found in another paper — social strati­ fication is the ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority-inferiority-equality, according to some 89 commonly accepted basis of valuation# Stratification

is analyzed in terms of birth (or more broadly, member­

ship in kinship unit), possessions, personal qualities, QO personal achievement, authority and power.*'

In defining "class-status," Parsons states that

88. Talcott Parsons, "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification," American Journal of Sociology; 45:841 (May, 1940). Cf., Maclver’s view, p. 156. ante. .

89. Talcott Parsons, "A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification," Class, Status and Power, Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Llpset, editors (Glencoe, Illinoiss Tie Free Press, 1953), p . 93.

90. Talcott Parsons, "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification," pp. 848-849; and "A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory, of Social Stratification," p. 118. 158

there has to be a broad correlation "between direct evaluation of occupational roles. Income derived from those roles, and status of the families of the incumbents as collect­ ivities in the scale of stratification. It is essentially this broad correlation to which we would like to apply the term “class-status," so far as it describes American conditions. Somewhat more broadly we may repeat the definition of class status given in the earlier paper as that component of status shared by the members of the most effective kinship unit. In this respect the distinctive features of the American system are the con­ stitution of the typical kinship unit, the isolated conjugal family, and the fact that one of its members occupies a status-determin­ ing occupational role.91

Class stratus, as thus defined by Parsons, is a loosely correlated complex (one of the most notable features of American stratification). It is what Cuber and Kenkel call the “multidimensional" approach as against the "uni- dimensional.*93

91. Ibid., p. 120. See also Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied (Glencoe, Illinois: #ie Pree Press, 1 9 4 9 pp. l73-r/4.

92. Loc. clt.

93. "Writers with a strong statistical bent sometimes approach their task with either a tacit or expressed assumption that stratification * is1 a hier- archial arrangement of persons measured or manifested by a difference — attitudes, style of life, differential power, prestige, economic role, or what not. In contrast stand a few sociologists...who have been influenced.♦.by Max Weber." John F. Cuber and William F. Kenkel, op. clt., pp• 22—23. Cf., pp. 130—133 , ante. 159

Parsons’ systematic approach has been compared and.contrasted with that of Warner.Roscoe Hinkle, believing that Interests In social stratification have been committed to the American tradition of Individualism

In the Interpretation of social behavior, writes that

though the positions In Warner’s positional system are alleged to be functionally Inter­ dependent as Is the social system Itself, the positions actually represent recurrent contact-situations of Individuals as units. In any case, the empirical establishment of social class and the allocation of Individuals to those classes depend on evaluative participa­ tion which presupposes the presence of personal­ ized Interaction of specific personalities. Parsons’ conception of social stratification as well as his ’’structural-functional” social system are deduced from the notion of human nature Implied In the action frame of reference. The functional prerequisites, the nature of role, the functional differentiation of . Institutions, and esteem are all presumed In the modes of motivational orientation of any actor.95

By Inference, we may note that to Parsons status

does not exist separately from class (here, again, Maclver’s

94. Rosco Conkllng Hinkle, Jr., “Theories of Social Stratification In Recent American Sociology,” Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations: University of Wisconsin, (1951-195277 pp. 2Q1-2GT.

95. Loc. clt. Cf., pp. 161-165, post. 160 point of view comes to mind).®® Bonder believes that as

Linton held role to be a function within status, so Parsons holds status to be within class.®7 Albeit this may be true; however. Parsons’ primary definitions of status and go role are tantamount to those of Linton. In short, the following Illumines Parsons’ position: "...a ranking

system in terms of esteem is what we may call the system

of stratification of society.8®® Status, In our society,

is determined very largely on the basis of achievement within the occupational system.

96. Of. p. 150 , ante.

97. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 23.

98. "Any patterned definition of who and what a person Is, constitutes a description of a status... role Is the dynamic aspect of status, the behavior counter­ part of the ideal or expected position defined by status." Talcott Parsons, Essays In Sociological Theory Pure and Applied, p. 43. rtEach ascribed status involves expectations of per?ormanee, and the achievement and maintenance of other statuses are of performance. If a system of such evaluation is to be integrated, it involves ranking of individuals," p. 49.

99. Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951), p. 132. 161

Warner's use. W. Lloyd Warner contends that he has revealed the nature of the American social class system — that Is to say, he believes that the six classes which he "found* are not a product of his conceptual scheme, or of his research methods. However, the lack of an explicit definition of class and status has brought upon him and his associates excessive criticism. His definition of class at one point is: "...two or more orders of people who are believed to be, and are accordingly ranked by the members of the community, in socially superior and Inferior positions.His criterion of "social status* Is defined for us by Flschoff as being "computed on the basis of the relative extension of the individual's relationships In the

city's social system, through such social structures as associations, and on the basis of the relative superiority

or inferiority of an individual's relationships in friend- TOP ships, clique, or family." We are told by Centers that he combines a "class" criterion "with status, prestige,

esteem, ranking, etc."^^ Mills takes him to task for

100. Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendlx, "Social Status and Social Structure: A Re-Examination of Data and Interpretations," British Journal of Sociology; 2:152 (June, 1951).

101. W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale Univeraity Press. 1931), p. TEH Ephraim Flschoff ustment in Yankee City^& Social Research; 103. Richard Centers, op. cit., p. 226. 162

confusing Mclass with status...and class with status-

awareness Brooks states that *although as defined,

status is included in the conceptual formulation of class;

in other contexts status is synonymously with class."^05

The latter criticism, and others, are directed at passages

such as the following from Social Life of a Modern Community which states that from what was known of a man's “education,

occupation, wealth, Income, family, intimate friends, clubs,

and fraternities, as well as his manner, speech and general

outward behavior, it was not difficult for his fellow citizens

to give a fairly exact estimate of his status.

104. “Class* as defined and as used throughout the book indiscriminately absorbs at least three items which, when considering “stratifications,“ it is very important to separate analytically. (1) The word swallows up the sheerly economic in all its gradations and in all its sources (renter, salaried, wage-earner, et a l ) *(2) Warner's “class” also points at the distribution of “prestige," “deference," “esteem," "honor," in general, status. On the whole Warner's "class" may be taken to mean the distribution of power, l.e., who can be expected to obey whom in what situations...Prom the insistence upon merely one vertical dimension and the consequent absorbing of these three analytically separable dimensions into the one sponge word "class" flow the chief confusions of Interpretation and the empirical inadequacies which characterize this study. C. Wright Mills, "Book Review," American Sociological Review; 7:264-269 (April, 1942).

105. Maxwell R. Brooks, “American Class and Caste: An Appraisal," Social Forces; 25:209 (December, 1946).

106. W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, op. cit., p. 85. --- ms

In the beginning pages of Social Claaa in America, published in 1949, may be found Warner’s rebuttal to his critics $

Although v/ell aware of social class, social scientists have been more concerned with their theories and with quarreling among themselves about what social class is than with studying its realities in the daily lives of the people. Until recently, they have lagged behind the novelists in investigating what our classes are, how they operate in our social life, and what effect they have on our Individual lives.107

Yet, the following year Pfautz and Duncan deliver a critical evaluation of his work in which, with regard to class and status, they foel that

a confusion enters in when the protagonists of the prestige class define their concept on the basis of such criteria as intimate association, culture, family, way of life, etc. and then, because they fail to find group closure and intimate participation on the national level, conclude that power classes just do not exist — or, as in the case of Warner, assume that the • study of prestige classes encompasses the whole field...At times his (Warner’s) classes are considered real entities; at other times they become simply heuristic constructs; other times they seem to be regarded as a continuum...There is some question as to whether his "social classes" represent the community’s or the analyst’s evaluations.108 *

107. W. Lloyd Warner, Marchla Meeker, and Kenneth Eels, Social Class in America; A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status (Chicago; Science Research Associates, 194977 p. 6.

108. Harold W. Pfautz and Otis D. Duncan, 11A Critical Evaluation of Warner’s Work in Community Strati­ fication," American Sociological Review; 15:211 (April, 1950). 164

In conclusion. It may be said that Warner’s contribution from the point of view of this study lies In his connection of status with cliques — the Intimate groups with which one associates• He found that, although comparative wealth did contribute greatly to an Individual’s rank status In the community, other factors (Italics mine) not directly correlated with wealth were also Important. He saw ranking as a natural process in the United States — ’’every individual, whether he wishes or not, has a place in the class system;

this place summarizes all his other positions and consti­

tutes a shorthand expression of the community’s final 111 opinion of him." His fundamental focus on the position­

al structure of a community (with class position as the

central key to this structure) and his examination of the various aspects of this structure as related to class —

in short, his highly systematic original analysis —111 *

109. W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, op. clt., pp. 110, 353, 355.

110. W. Loyd Warner, et al, ’’Methods of Determin­ ing Social Status," Adolescent "GEaracter and Personality, Robert J. Havighurst and Hilda Taba, editors (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949), p. 227.

111. Kingsley Davis, "Book Review," American Journal of Sociology; 48:511 (January, 1943). 165 provides many valuable methodological suggestions for social scientists.

Lundberg*s view. A vigorous defendant of the

"operationalist" position in sociology, designates status as vertical social distance.George A Lundbergh views all societal behavior as "status-fixing behavior." Words such as "rank," "position," "class," "caste," etc., merely designate status (societal position). One’s status is the

"static aspect of his behavior (function) in a situation, or especially, the "group’s appraisal of that function according to the standards which are accepted by that group."ll^

He conceives ranking of status as "an evaluation of a given aspect of behavior, i.e., a complex serial set of responses according to whatever standard (habit-system)

112. Ibid., p. 512. "...the Warner scale, of all those yet devised, seems best to meet the criteria of clear definition, selection of one stratification variable, and construction and validation of the scale on the basis of a test population stratified by the defining quality which the scale is designed to measure." Milton M. Gordon, "The Logic of Socio-Economic Status Scales," Sociometry; 15:552 (August-November, 1952).

115. Ibid., p. 550; George A. Lundberg, Found­ ations of Sociology, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), p. 499.

114. Ibid., p. 3L2. 166

115 the person or group doing the ranking may be operating."

This position — statuses are relative to various societies — 116 117 is the stand taken by Park and Burgess and Linton among others.

Lundberg views behavior as being observable; he tells us that "the statement that socio-economic status is what a scale for measuring socio-economic status measures, has therefore the same validity as to say that the conditions and the behaviors which any group calls high socio-economic status _is high socio-economic status for that group." ^ 8

Moreover to Lundberg any theory that cannot be 119 specifically defined and tested remains a hypothesis.

To this end, it is

115. Loc. cit.

116. Cf. p. 135, ante.

117. Cf. pp. 145-149, ante. 118. George A. Lundberg, "The Measurement of Socioeconomic Status," American Sociological Review; 5:36 (February, 1940); and Social Research, pp. 30&-304. Lundberg accepts.Chapin's definition of socio-economic status, q.v., in Social Research, p. 288. Also cf. p. 139. ante.

119. George A. Lundberg and Pearl Friedman, "A Comparison of Three Measures of Socioeconomic Status," Rural Sociology; 8:235 (September, 1943). 167

not a matter of arriving at a single "true" definition of such words as "status," "prestige," "class," etc., but a matter of inventing instruments of whatever number of gradations are necessary meaningfully to discriminate with objectivity and precision the phenomena and the relationships we talk about in our theorizing. The development of scales and tests for the measurement of abilities, personality traits, attitudes, and other personal characteristics has greatly advanced psychology and sociology in the last two decades.

In short, the important thing is not what _is_ to

Lundberg, but what it does. People will behave toward a person (he will be accorded status) "according to their estimate of the probability that he will achieve the max­ imum goals of socio-economic striving": .this is what

■lO "I socio-economic status is and what it measures. And, this is why he takes the stand for quantitative scales and instruments — he states that only when we have them can we "give an explicit account of what we are measuring."^22

Other recent sociological views. Stuart C. Dodd’s volume entitled Dimensions of Society is a companion volume to Lundberg1s Foundations of Sociology; both attempt to outline a theoretical framework and specific technics by 122121120

120. Ibid., pp. 255-236.

121. George A. Lundberg, Social Research, p. 306 122. Loc. cit. 168

which sociology may he established as a natural science.^83

Naturally, concord In their definitions Is to be expected.

As Sender puts It, Dodd seems to follow Lundberg "very logically when he defines the concept In this ways

“Vertical social distance, or relative status. Is a dis­ persion on a valued Index...w

In a discussion of the complexity of status Emile

Beno11-Smullyan deplores the lack of a preliminary analysis of status. Ultimately, she defines status as a relative position within a hierarchy and sets forth three types of status she believes to be fundamental: economic, political, and prestige statuses.^ 6 To her, social status would be the limiting term of a status equilibrating process, i.e.,126 124125123

123. Donald W. Calhoun, "With the Operatlonalists," Social Forces; 20:498 (May, 1942); Stuart Carter Dodd, “A System of Operationally Defined Concepts for Sociology,“ American Sociological Review; 4:619 (October, 1939).

124. Stuart Carter Dodd, Dimensions of Society, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942), p. cited by Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 26. (Original source not available.)

125. Emile Benolt-Smullyan, “Status, Status Types, and Status Interrelations," American Sociological Review; 9:151 (April, 1944).

126. Of. Weber’s approach, p. 132 , ante. 169

"the status which would exist If the equilibrating process were to be completed and If a perfect equilibrium status structure were present. At about this same time,, Evaratt C. Hughes, suggest­ ing that among the phenomena should be Included the question of the common solutions of status conflict in the evolution of the relations between the sexes, the races, and the ethnic groups of our society. He spoke of status as a defined social position for whose members rights and duties are defined and limited.^8

Gerhart Saenger describes social status in con­ junction with political behavior;.the latter is a function of the former. The voting trend depends on factors such as religion and income and "is a function of status or group affiliation.In commenting on this position. 128129*

,127. As a result of status conversion processes which are normally at work in every society, there exists a real tendency for the different types of status to reach a common level, l.e., for a man's position in the economic hierarchy to match his position in the political hierarchy and for the latter to accord with his position in the hierarchy of prestige, etc.* This condition the author calls "status equilibration.® Emile Beno11-Smullyan, op. cit., p. 160.

128. Everett Cherrington Hughes, "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status,® American Journal of Sociology; 50:355, 359 (March, 1954).

129. Gerhart H. Saenger, "Social Status and Political Behavior," American Journal of Sociology; 51:103, 113 (September, 1945)1------170

Sender views it as defining one kind of behavior and then on the basis of theory explaining the operation and/or origin of related activities.*30

Paul B. Foreman, conceiving type constructs to be located at the extremes and as Internal reference points in social space, speaks of status as ultimately acquiring

Its meaning from the given social contexts of specific 131 communities. In other words, "the criteria of status and Its possible dimensions and patterns vary with the design of community organization.*3^ Carrying this idea further. It means that we can best discover how status operates by observing the Interaction of people as they live within a community, especially one of limited size, since the social structure of a small community can be a factor that precludes the entrance of distracting Influences.

Therefore, it is the community that confers status, or position — it is the community’s own subjective evaluation.

Thus, "social stratification results from a generally 132130131

130. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. cit., p. 27.

131. Paul B. Foreman, "Negro Lifeways in the Rural South: A Typological Approach to Social Differ­ entiation," American Sociological Review; 13:413 (August, 1948).

132. Loc. cit. 171 recognized system of thinking about ranking, and not from an Inarticulate collection of individual opinions of such rankings.*133 it is apparent here that Sender’s position coincides with that of Lundberg and Dodd.134

Social stratification since 1945. In view of the limitations of this study and the availability of several surveys, current critiques, and bibliographies, a further discussion of our subject would only be redundant. We are reminded by Phautz of the excellent treatments of class stratification by the first generation of American soci­ ologists as considered by Page, as well as Gordon.*35

Bibliographies covering the pre-1945 contributions Include: Bailey et al.136136 134135133

133. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. clt«, p. 28.

134. Of. pp.165-168, ante.

135. Harold Ti. Pfautz, op. clt., p. 391. The Library of Congress Catalogue reveals that one of these is a pubTIsfied Ph.D. dissertation, viz., Charles H. Page, Class and American Sociology, in which the author perused the literature for comments on social class by six leading American sociologists: Lester F. Ward, William G. Sumner, Albion W. Small, Franklyn H. Giddings, Charles H. Cooley, and Edward A. Ross. The other study, by Milton M. Gordon, published as "Social Class in American Sociology,* American Journal of Sociology, is the substance of the author’s th.D. dlsaertaTon, Social Class in Modern American Sociology, Columbia CulversIty, i960.

136. W. C. Bailey, N. Foote, P. K. Hatt, R. Hess, R. T. Morris, M. Seeman, and G. Sykes Bibliography on Status and Stratification (New York: Social SeleneeH^e- search Council, 1952 (mimeographed). 172

Cox,13? an(fi Egbert et al.I3® Phautz1 venture In bibliography extends from 1945 to 1953.13® His au courant statement that

"probably no area of current sociological Interest suffers so much from the disease of overconceptualization" Is followed by some of the various definitions: "a system of social Inequality," "a vertical arrangement of persons — a hierarchy — a system of higher and lower, greater and lesser, superior and inferior," "a ranking system," and a 140 "system of inclusion and exclusion." Running through

137. Oliver Cromwell Cox, Caste, Class and Race, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1948) pp. 557-S0ol The six chapters which make up Pt. II are devoted to the study of class and its various ramifications. See especially the discussion of the "Problem of Classification," pp. 302-310. Cox also mentions (p. 121) Sorokin’s report on a collection of thirty-two "forms" of definitions of "social class," q.v. in Pitlrlm Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928), p. 543." See also Pitlrlm Sorokin and Carle C. Zimmerman, Principles of Rural- Urban Sociology, (New York: H. Holt and Company, 193%), p. 60, for a typology of definitions of class by various authors. In a footnote, (p. 121), Cox cites discussions of the social class concept to be found in C. H. Cooley, R. C. Angell, and L. J. Carr, Introductory Sociology, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935;, Chapters 20 and 21; E. A. Ross, Principles of Sociology, (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1938), Ft. VI, passim; and Kimball Young, An Introductory Sociology, (New Yorlc: American Book Company. T§39), Chapter XXTvI

138. Donald Drew Egbert, Stow Persons, and T. D. Seymour Bassett, Socialism and American Life: Bibliography, Descriptive and Critical (Princeton, I'tew Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962), II, pp. 343-418. 139. Harold W, Pfautz, op. cit., p. 391.

140. Ibid., p. 392. 173 them, of course. Is a general agreement on "social dlffcr­ eation" as distinguished from other types of dlfferention, say, age or sex.

Phautz makes apparent his own stand on the definition of status when he tells us that "Types of stratification are usually conceptualized in terms of the basis of in­ equality — some form of status: power, prestige, or a combination of both." Another determinant is the structural nature of the strata (some type of "class").

Due to the extent of the notices that Phautz * re­ view of the literature has received, and its bearing on multifarious aspects of the stratification problem — including the methodology to be used in this paper — it is felt that a few words by way of recapitulation are in order. After a review of the "lack of consensus" in the proliferation of conceptualization and theory, methodology, empirically oriented studies, and a synopsis of the critical literature (of which there is also a voluminous amount),142 phautz gives us a capsule summary of current issues: theoretical rationale; conceptions of status and class (multidimensional character of status); the logical 142141

141. Ibid., pp. 392-393.

142. Ibid., pp. 393-405. character of the concept of class (Is it a ”suhstantIve* or a *classificatory" term?)$ class structure a function of local community values or of the mass society; and "objective* and "subjective0 class delineation and placement." On the basis of his review of the literature, he Interprets the period covered as an experimental one with respect to methods 144 and concepts.

Other recent literature includes an excellent reader.

Class, Status and Power, by Bendlx and Lipset.*45 This book encompasses pur subject of social status as well as a good cross section of the many facets of social stratification.

The first published textbooks in the field, called Social

Stratification, b y Cuber and Kenkel, appeared a year later in 1954. The latter consists of a brief "integration of many...scattered theoretical and empirical works..,some of the main ideas and Issues and a representative cross section of the empirical materials and critical analyses

of them."

The International Bibliography of Sociology has been one of the items in the program of the International

Committee for Social Sciences Documentation, a committee 146145144143

143. Ibid., pp. 405-406.

144. Ibid., p. 407. 145. Relnhard Bendlx and Seymour Martin Lipset, Class, Status, and Power (Glencoe, Illinoiss The Free Press, 195377 % 3 pp. 146. John F. Cuber and William F. Kenkel, op. clt., 360 pp. — --- 175 set up In 1950 with the help of the United Nations Educa­ tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the purpose of encouraging and development of all bibliographical and documentary activities relating to the social sciences.

In the first issue of Current Sociology, In 1952, and in several thereafter, an exceptionally adequate bibliography 147 appears along with trend reports on present tendencies in social stratification research."*"4® 149 Sociological Abstracts, as of January, 1955, 148149147

147. Current Sociology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1952 (Inter­ national Bibliography of Sociology, Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), pp. 26-28 (see also subject Index, pp. 67 and 75); Vol. 1, No. 2-5, 1952, pp. 113-116 (see also subject Index, p. 173); Vol. II, No. 2-3, 1953-1954, pp. 122-124 (see also subject index, pp. 251 and 260); Vol. Ill, No. 2-3, 1954-1955, pp. 153-160 (see also subject index, pp. 266-267); Vol. IV, No. 2-3, 1955, pp. 81-87 (see also subject index, pp. 213- 214); Donald G. MacRae, ^Bibliography,'* Vol. II, No. 1, 1955-1954, pp. 36-73. On the whole this bibliography is progressively more exhaustive, e.g., the number of period­ icals consulted has increased from approximately 150 in 1952, to well over 1150 In 1956. This Is an Important step in the establishment of regular channels of exchange of information between sociologists of the world.

148. Donald G. MacRae, "Social Stratification: A Trend Report," Current Sociology, Vol. II, No. 1, 1953-1954, pp. 7-32; Louis Wlrth, ^Social Stratification and Social Mobility In the United States," Current Sociology, Vol. II, No. 4, 1953-1954, pp. 279-303; Gunnar Boalt and Carl-Gunnar Janson, "A Selected Bibliography of the Literature on Social Stratification and Social Mobility In Sweden," Current Sociology, Vol. II, No. 4, 1953-1954,pp. 306-328; Ariga and OdaEa Hlmeoka, "A Select Bibliography on Social Stratifi­ cation and Social Mobility in Japan Since 1800," Current Sociology, Vol. II, No. 4, 1953-1954, pp. 329-3621

149. Sociological Abstracts, Vol. 1, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; Vol. 2, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; Vol. 3, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; coverage of periodicals has increased from 7 to almost 90; books and dissertation abstracts are included, also. 170 includes "Social Stratification" In its scheme of classifi­ cation. Since its inception in November, 1952, this subject . . ■ ■ ■ ' ' : . .* . . ’ . had been included under the broader classifications of

"Methodology" and "Social Structure." It is still possible to find leads to research in various phases of social status by perusing the contents of these categories, as well as "Interaction Within Groups,” "Interaction Between

Groups," "Personality," and "Sociology of Occupations and 150 Professions."

Conclusion

Itlsing Sender*s approach as a paradigm, we have followed his example by presenting definitions of a by no means complete sample, yet with "food for thought" gleaned from considerable literature that has become available since his 1949 study. An attempt has been made to draw from the view of the members in our sample the basic-implications which one might expect to stem from the particular theoretical or methodological foundations

of their thinking. When it was feasible, these implica­

tions were collated; this seemed to offer the best demonstra­

tion of the overall vagueness which exists in much of the

sociological literature dealing with status.

150. Loc. cit 177

Methods of classifying sample members. Gumplowlcz,

Small, Weber, Giddings, MacTver, and a number of others fit into a group we may call philosophical thinkers.

Thomas, Chapin, Zeleny, Warner are examples of researchers.

In the latter grouping. Sender would Include not only those who carried through field study projects, but also those whose theories were devised as objects for research, as, e.g., Zeleny and his formula for mathematically stating a status ratio.

Another differentiation may be made in which we can classify the members of our sample as operatlonallsts or non-operatlonalists. The former would be those whose theories are so designed as to lend themselves readily to research, i.e., a la Sender, their use of terms is specific so that we know "when we are measuring numbers of students who accept and reject other students as roommates in a dormitory, for example, we are really discovering what they meant by statuses." From what has been said in the presentation of their views earlier in this paper, the definitions of Park and Burgess, Bogardus, Chapin, Zeleny,

Warner, and Lundberg places them among the operatlonallsts; the views of Gumplowicz, Small, Giddings, Sorokin, and 151

151. Of. p. 156 , ante; Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. W5, 178

Maclver would fall In the non-operatlonal category.152

Turning to a study of the content of the defini­ tions, one may discover many methods of classification.

First, we may elicit from pur sample those who contended that societal thinking In terms of ranks or positions was

Individually-founded, and those who believed it to be group-founded. The former may be regarded as closer to the psychological focus than to the sociological, for they saw the individual, whose thinking depended in vary­ ing degrees upon society, as the "originator of opinions* — opinions that were organized into hierarchies — about other Individuals. All of the sample members did not ex­ plicitly state their views on this matter and would be difficult to classify under this method; however, one may cite Glddings, Bogardus, Young, Goldhamer and ShiIs, and perhaps, Zeleny. The group thinkers, on the other hand, carried the conviction that the course of social living is the determining factor in the genesis of positions, i.e., the individuals are taught by a given society what the "well-recognized* do, like, look like, etc. Adherents to this view are Gumplowicz, Small, Weber, and Sutherland, among others. Linton would also belong to this group when

152. Loc. cit 179 he speaks of the status (not statuses)

Next, one may attempt to distinguish between those who thought status thinking came about inherently, and those who thought it was externally caused. Giddings * explanation in terms of his organic analogy would come under the former category; however, the best example as an exponent of this view is W. I. Thomas. It is felt that externally caused status thinking is somewhat implied in the other definitions. Most of these sample members reveal in their thinking at least the implication that “societies naturally confer statuses,® as, e.g.. Park and Burgess,

Bogardus, Chapin, Young, Sutherland, Zeleny, and Warner, 1=4 - - among others.

Another set of categories which may be applied to the definitions considered in our survey are the single- cause and multiple-causality explanations. Of the former,

Gumplowicz and Thomas are excellent examples. Among those exemplifying the latter group are Bogardus, Parsons, and

Warner. Chapin, in his explanation of the status concept, would also fall into this group.

153. Ibid., p. 30.

154. Ibid., p. 31.

155. Loc. clt. 180

Bonder devises a fourth set of categories by differentiating those who considered status thinking and behavior -- whether It originated with persons as they met others, or was directed toward those who were met — on the part of individuals or groups as fixed in contra­ distinction to those who held it to be transitory. In other words, does one retain his status for life, or does it vary? Of those writers dealing with this matter clearly,

Bogardus, Young, Sutherland, Zeleny, and Lundberg seem to follow the latter view. Linton is close to it (with his concept of many statuses). Most of the others, from whose comments deductions on this point may be made, believe that — except for possibly some upward striving — one holds essentially the same status. Bonder believes that the weight of opinion lies with those who have held the fixed status theory.

To follow this weight of opinion, would be to

156. Perhaps among the criteria encouraging the fixed status theory, are studies which show, e.g., that "the social status of occupations has changed very little in the United States during the past 21 years...the multiplicity of social, economic, and psychological factors determining the relative prestige of occupations has continued to operate in a consistent manner." Maethel E. Deeg and Donald G. Paterson, "Changes in Social Status of Occupations," Occupations; 25:207 (January, 1947). However, in spite of the fact that "...much...research has attempted to show that American social classes have become relatively static and well-defined..." many authors have become relatively static and well-defined..." many authors "disagree among themselves as to the extent of its present-day make-up and rigidity." Gideon Sjoberg, "Are Social Classes in America Becoming More Rigid?" American Sociological Review; 16:775 (December, 1951). ~ 181 place our emphasis on past conditioning — the same status would always he retained. This view, of course, ignores the possibility that factors within communities to which a person may migrate exercise any strength in the determina­ tion of his social position. This possibility will, of course, form much of the warp and woof of the present study.

.Overall vagueness of sample. In truth, much more space could be devoted to a reckoning of the categories into which our sample definitions could arbitrarily be placed. This classification (or perhaps, *reification") may give rise to the question as to whether or not the use of the concept is exactly the opposite of the asserted vagueness of our sample. Let us consider this further.

When one examines critically the categories mentioned above, it is evident that they are quite broad.

Attempts at subdivision produce "classes of such wide diversity that only one or two definitions are applicable to any given sub-category."^57

Important also is the fact that the various

classifications applied above cannot be synthesized

157. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 34. See also N. S. Tlmasheff, "The Basic "Concepts of Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology; 58:182 (September, 1952). In his pitch for unification in sociological terminology, Tlmasheff proposes elimination of "redundant concepts” and giving to the necessary ones "definitions conforming with the logical requirements of precision and parsimony, as well as with the methodological postulate of moderate operationalism" (p. 186). Also of Interest is his earlier article "Definitions in.the Social Sciences," American Journal of Sociology; 53:208-209 (November, 19"47 ). 182 into any meaningful whole, e.g., it cannot be said that all philosophical thinkers were, or are, "non-operatlonal- 158 ists who thought that status thinking was group-founded.1*

Similarly, it is not possible to discover any two or three mutually exclusive categories.

An additional factor to be considered is that while there may be similarities among several of the definitions, 159 no two are identical. Chronologically, the dissimilari­ ties do not follow one another in any way that might suggest an evolution in status conceptualization. There has been no development from simple to complex or complex to simple.

Rather, each writer a _sa facon seems to advance his own explanation, often with an almost ipse dixit aura about X60 it. Some agreement, of course, is shown by the

158. Otto Louis Sender, Jr., op. clt., p. 54.

159. M...on occasion the same phenomenon, the same referent, is given different labels by different writers. But this inconsistency and seeming confusion, while frequent­ ly inconvenient, is not a major liability; in some measure it exists in any field..." Kurt B. Mayer, Class and Society, (Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1955), p. 7. Mayer feels that in spite of the existing conceptual and terminological dis­ order, sociologists are steadily approaching a substantial measure of agreement.

160. "Too many (American) sociologists are writing papers — without reading any. Too many have succumbed to using techniques and statistics almost to the exclusion of thinking. Too many do their best...to translate common ideas into senseless jargon." In the same paragraph, how­ ever, this British sociologist lyrically mixes a metaphor in demonstrating his nonparochial position: "But the evi­ dence is impressive that the sociological shepherds are not unaware of the obstacles to be overcome, and that despite the woolliness of some of the sheep they at least do not have wool over their eyes." Alfred S. Schenkman, "Social Science in U.S.A.," Contemporary Review; 183-367 (June, 1953). existence of the devised categories mentioned earlier.

However, since these areas of agreement must necessarily he construed in a broad manner. Sender reminds us of the lack of clarity and consistency with regard to the finer details which "could he expected to really explain status thinking and behavior."^Gl

161. Otto Louis Bonder, Jr., op. clt., p. 35. 184

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Allport, Gordon W., The Use of Personal Documents In Psychological Science* New York:Social Science Research Council, 1942, 209 pp. Becker, Howard and Harry Elmer Barnes, Social Thought from Lore to Science* 2 v. Washington, b. d.: Barren Press, 1552, Vol. II, 925 pp. Bendlx,Relnhard and Seymour Martin Lipset, Class, Status and Power* Glencoe, Illinois: The Free P ress,1953. *723 pp. Bogardus, Emory S., Contemporary Sociology. University of Southern California Press', 1931. 485 pp.

Bogardus, Emory S., Sociology. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1954. 415 pp. Centers, Richard, The Psychology of Social Classes. New Jersey: Princeton University-Press, 1949. 234 pp. Chapin, F. Stuart, The Measurement of Social Status by the Use of the SocTal Status ScaTe~T9337 University oT Minnesota Press, 1933. 16 pp.

Chase, Stuart, Power of Words. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, T9537 506 pp. Conwell, Chic, The Professional Thief (annotated and Interpreted by fidwin H. Sutherland). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. 257 pp.

Cuber, John F. and William F. Kenkel, Social Stratification Ip the United States. New York: Appleion-Century- Crofts,“Inc., 1954. 560 pp.

Davis, Allison and John Dollard, Children of Bondage: The Personality Development of Negro Youth in the Urban South. Washington, D.*~C.: The American Council on Education, 1940. 500 pp.

Dodd, Stuart Carter, Dimensions of Society. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942. 944 pp. 185

Dollard, John, Caste and Class in a Southern Town. (Hew Haven: Yale Unlversity Press,“"1&37. 602 pp.

Dollard, John and Neal E. Miller, Social Learning and • Imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. 341 pp. .

Fairchild, Henry Pratt (editor), Dictionary of Sociology, Ames, Iowa: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1955. 342 pp.

Festlnger, Leon, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper & Brothers, T95D! 5 W p p . Garrett, Henry E., Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1§’53~ 460 pp.

Gerth, H. H. and C. Wright Mills (editors). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 19461 390pp.

Giddings, Franklin Henry, Principles of Sociology. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1096. 476 pp. Giddings, Franklin Henry, The Scientific Study of Human Society. Chapel HI117 The University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1924. 247 pp.

Green, Arnold Wilfred, Sociology: An Analysis of Life in Modern Society. New York: McSraw-HIJLl Bo o B Company, 1952 . 579 pp.

Gumplowlcz, Ludwig, Outlines of Sociology (translation by Frederick W. Moore)• PhTIadeIphla:American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1899. 229 pp.

Havlghurst, Robert J . and Hilda Taba (editors), Adolescent Character and Personality. New York: John Wiley and sons, lnc.T"T9%91 315 pp.

Hinkle, Roscoe C., Jr. and Gisela J. Hinkle, The Develop- 4. ” j " lew York: Doubleday and

Landtman, Gunnar, The Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes. Chicago: The University of"Chicago Press, 1938. 444 pp. 186

LaPiere, Richard T. and Paul R. Farnsworth, Social Psych­ ology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., T§49. 626 pp.

' ■ ■ ■ ' ; . - ' : . . Levy, Marion J., Jr., The Structure of Society. Princeton University Press, T9527 SS5‘"pp. Lindzey, Gardner, Handbook o£_ Social Psychology. 2 v. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954. Vol. I, 588 pp.

- . . " ■ . : Linton, Ralph, The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: T5T"Appleton-Century Company, 1945. Io7 pp.

Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man. New York: D. Appleton- Century Coop any, l95'S7 853 pp.

Linton, Ralph, The Tree of Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956. ' 692 pp. Lundberg, George A., Foundations of Sociology. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969. 556 pp. Lundberg, George A., Social Research. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1942. 426 pp. Maclver, R. M. and Charles H. Page, Society: An Introductory Analysis. Rinehart and Company” Inc., I9?9l 69V pp.

Maclver, R. M., The Web of Government. New York: The MacMillan Company, "1949% 498 pp.

Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia (translated from the German by Louis Wirth and Edward Shlls). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956. 318 pp.

Mannheim, Karl, Man and Society (translated from the German by Edward A* Shlls)! London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, Ltd., 1940. 469 pp.

Mayer, Kurt B., Class and Society. Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1955. 8 8 pp.

Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: fhe Free Press, 1949. 423 pp.

- Moreno, J. L., Who Shall Survive? Washington, D. C.: Nervous and Mental DiseasePublishing Co., 1934. 440 pp. 187

Northway, Mary L., A Primer of Soclometry. Canadas University of Toronto Press, 1052. 48 pp.

Ogburn, William F. and Meyer F. Nlmkoff, Sociology. Bostons Houghton Mifflin Company, 1946. "pp•

- ' : Park, Robert E. and Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: The University"of Chicago Tress, 1621. 1040 pp. Parsons, Talcott, Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied. Glencoe, iTTlnolss l*he Free Press, 1349.”' See pp.

Parsons, Talcott, The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1051. 5*?5 ppV

Rlesman, David, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney, The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1050. 373 pp.

Roucek, Joseph S. and Roland L. Warren, Sociology, An Introduction. Ames, Iowa: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1953. 275 pp. ShiIs, Edward, The Present State of American Sociology. Glencoe, Illinois: the Free Tress, 1945. 64 pp.

Simpson, George, Man In Society. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1054. 90 pp.

Small, Albion W., General Sociology. University of Chicago Press, 1905. 739 pp.

Smith, Edward C., and Arnold J. Zurcher (editors), A Dictionary of American Politics. New York: Barnes and Noble, Tnc., 1944. 559 pp.

Sorokin, Pltlrlm A., Social Mobility. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927. 559 pp.

Sorokin, Pltlrlm A., Society, Culture, and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947.' 742 pp.

Stonequlst, Everett V., The Marginal Man. New York: Scribner, 1937. SST^pl

Sutherland, Edwin H . , Principles of Criminology. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1917. 643 pp. 188

Thomas, W. I. and P. Znanieeki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America; 2 v. New Yorks Knopf, 19277 Vol. I, Ills pp., Vol. II, 1155 pp.

Thomas, W. I., The Unadjusted Girl. Bostons Little, Brown, and Company, 1923. 261 pp.

Twain, Melvin M., Social Life: Structure and Function. New York: Alfred 1." Xnopf, 1948. 72T^p.

Warner, W. Lloyd, Marchla Meeker, and Kenneth Eells, Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of ^ocfal""Stat^T "TJhicago: Science Research Associates'^ 1949. 274""pp. Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. 460 pp.

Warner, W. Lloyd, Robert J. Havlghurst, and Martin B. Loeb, Who Shall be Educated? New York: Harper and Brothers, 1044. 190 pp.

Williams, Robin M., Jr., American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. New"'York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1052. 845 pp. Young, Pauline V., Scientific Social Surveys and Research. New York: Prentice-hall, Inc., 1940. 821 pp.

Young, Kimball, An Introductory Sociology. New York: American Book Company, 1934. 6IS pp.

Young, Kimball, John Lewis Glllln,.and Calvert L. Dedrlck, The Madison Community. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1934. 229 pp.

Young, Kimball, Social Psychology. F. S. Crofts and Company, Inc., 1944. 578 pp. 189

Signed Periodical Articles

Adams, Stuart, "Regional Differences in Vertical Mobility In a High-Status Occupation," American Sociological Review; 15:228-235 (April, 1955T: Adams, Stuart, "Status Congruency as a Variable in Small Group Performance," Social Forces; 32:16-22 (October, 1953). Andrzejewskl, Stanislav, "Vertical Mobility and Technical Progress," Social Forces; 29:48-51 (October, 1950).

Albrecht, Ruth, "Social Class In Old Age," Social Forces; 29:400-405 (May, 1951). “

Becker, Howard, "Changes in the Social Stratification of Contemporary Germany," American Sociological Review; 15:333-342 (June, 1950). “

Benolt-Smullyan, Emile, "Status, Status Types, and Status Interrelations," American Sociological Review; 9:151- 161 (April, 1944)7

Beum, Gorlin 0. and Joan H. Criswell, "Application of . Machine Tabulation Methods to Sociometric Data," Soolometry; 10:227-232 (August, 1947).

Bogardus, Emory S., "Measuring Social Distance," Journal of Applied Sociology; 9;299-308 (1925).

Bogardus, Emory S., "The Sociology of William I. Thomas," Sociology and Social Research; 34:34-48 (September- October7 1949).

Brooks, Maxwell R., "American Class and Caste: An Appraisal," Social Forces; 25:207-211 (December, 1946).

Calhoun, Donald W., "With the Operationallsts," Social Forces; 20:498-504 (May, 1942).

Chapin, F. Stuart, "Measurement in Sociology," American Journal of Sociology; 40:476-480 (January, 1935).

Chapin, F. Stuart, "A Quantitative Scale for Rating the Home and Social Environment of Middle Class Families in an Urban Community: A Measurement of Socio-Economic Status," Journal of Educational Psychology; 19:99-111 (January, 1928). 190

Cox, Oliver C., "Max Weber on Social Stratifications A Critique,H American Sociological Review; 15:223-227 (April, 1950).

Criswell, J. H., ^Measurement of. Reciprocation under Multiple Criteria of Choice,H Soclometry; 9:126-127 (May-August, 1946). Davis, Kingsley, "Book Review," American Journal of Sociology; 48:511-513 (January, 1943). Deasy, Leila Calhoun, *• An Index of Social Mobility," Rural Sociology; 20:149-151 (June, 1955).

Deeg, Mae the 1; E. and Donald G. Paterson, "Changes in Social Status of Occupations," Occupations; 25:205-208 (January, 1947). Dodd, Stuart Carter, "A System of Operationally Defined Concepts for Sociology," American Sociological Review; 4:619-634 (October, 1939).

Dotson, Floyd, "Disminuclon de la Poblacion Mexicans en Los Estados Unidos de Acuerdo con el Censo de 1950," Revista Mexicans de Sociologia; 17:151-169 (January? April, 1955)1 Flschoff, Ephraim, "Immigrant Adjustment in Yankee City," Social Research; 14:104-109 (March, 1947).

Foreman* Paul. B., "Negro Llfeways in the Rural South: A Typological Approach to Social Differentiation," American Sociological Review; 13:409-418 (August, 194S).

Forsyth, Elaine and Leo Katz,. "A Matrix Approach to the Analysis of Sociometric Data," Soclometry; 9:340-347 (November, 1946).

Gillen, John, "Ralph Linton," American Anthropologist; 56:274-281 (April, 1954). Goldhamer, Herbert and Edward A. Shils, "Types of Power and Status," American Journal of Sociology; 45:171- 182 (September, 1939).

Goldschmidt, Walter, "Social Class in America— A Critical Review," American Anthropologist; 52:483-498 (October-December, I960). 191

Gordon, Milton M., “The Logic of Socio-Economic Status Scales,• Soclometry; 15$342-355 (August-November, 1952).

Gordon, Milton M., UA System of Social Class Analysis,” The Drew University Bulletin; 2:1-19 (August, 1951).

Guttman, Louis, "A Revision of Chapin’s Social Status Scale,” American Sociological Review; 7$362-369 (June, 1942).

Hatt, Paul K. and Virginia Ktsanes, "Patterns of American Stratification as Reflected in Selected Social Science Literature," American Sociological Review; 17i670-679 (December, 1982). Hughes, Everett Cherrlngton, "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status," American Journal of Sociology; 50:353-359 (March, 1945). Inkeles, Alex, "Social Stratification and Mobility in the Soviet Union," American Sociological Review; 15:465-479 (August, 195oj;

Katz, Leo, "On the Matrlc Analysis of Sociometric Data," Soolometry; 10:233-241 (August, 1947). Kaufman, Harold F., "An Approach to the Study of Urban Stratification," American Sociological Review; 17:430-437 (August, 1952).

Kaufman, Harold F., Otis Didley Duncan, Neal Gross, and William H. Sewell, "Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of Social Stratification in Rural Society," Rural Sociology; 18:12-24 (March, 1953).

Kenkel, William F., "The Relationship between Status Consistency and Politico-Economic Attitudes.” American Sociological Review; 21:365-368 (June, 1956).

Lamastera, e . E.,"Social Class Mobility and Family Integration," Marriage and Family Living; 16:226-232 (August, 1954).

Lenski, Gerhard E., "Comment on Kenkel’s Communication," American Sociological Review; 21:368-369 (June, 1956).

Lenski, Gerhard E., "Social Participation and Status Crystallization," American Sociological Review; 21:459- 464 (August, 1956)1 192

L©nski, Gerhard E., "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status,” American Sociological Review; 19:405-413 (August, 1954). Linton, Ralph, "Culture, Society and the Individual," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; 33:425-436 [October, 1936). Llpset, Seymour Martin, "Social Mobility and Urbanization," Rural Sociology; 20:220-228 (September-Deeember, 1955).

Llpset, Seymour Martin and Natalie Rogoff, "Class and Opportunity In Europe and the U. S.," Commentary; 18:562-568 (December, 1954).

Llpset, Seymour Martin and Reinhard Bendlx, "Social Mobility and Occupational Career Patterns," American Journal of Sociology; 57:366-374 (January, 1952).

Llpset, Seymour Martin and Reinhard Bendlx, "Social Status and Social Structure: A Re-Examination of Data and Interpretations," British Journal of Sociology; 2:150- 254 (June, 1951). " "~ Lundberg, George A. and Pearl Friedman, "A Comparison of Three Measures of Socioeconomic Status," Rural Sociology; 8:227-236 (September, 1943).

Lundbergh, George A., "The Measurement of Socioeconomic Status," American Sociological Review; 5:29-39 (February, 1940 )Y

Matthews, Donald R., "United States Senators and the Class Structure," Public Opinion Quarterly; 18:5-22 (Spring, 1954).

McGuire, Carson, "Social Stratification and Mobility Patterns," American Sociological Review; 15:195-204 (April, 19513T7"

Mills, C. Wright, "Book Review," American Sociological Review; 7:263-271 (April, 191577

Mulligan, Raymond A., "Social Mobility and Higher Education," Journal of Educational Sociology; 25:476-487 (IprlT,- ! ^ ! : "

Mulligan, Raymond A., "Social Characteristics of College Students," American Sociological Review; 18:305-310 (June, 19537% 193

Mulligan, Raymond A., ^Socio-Economic Background and College Enrollment,w American Sociological Review; 16:188-196 (April, 193TT: “

Parsons, Talcott, "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification," American Journal of Sociology; 45:841-862 (May, 1940).

Rfautz, Harold W. and Otis D. Duncan, "A Critical Evaluation of Warner1s Work in Community Stratification," American Sociological Review; 15:205-215 (April, 1950).

Pfautz, Harold W., "The Current Literature on Social Stratification Critique and Bibliography," American Journal of Sociology; 58-391-418 (January 1953).

Pierce, Albert, "On the Concepts of Role and Status," Soclologus; 6:29-34 (1956). Reiss, Albert J., Jr., "Some Logical and Methodological Problems in Community Research," Social Forces; 33:51-57 (October, 1954).

Roshwald, M., "Social Class Structure in a Fluctuating Community," British Journal of Sociology; 6:61-70 (March, 19567%

Saenger, Gerhart H., "Social Status and Political Behavior," American Journal of Sociology; 51:103-113 (September, 1946). ;

Scaff, Alvin H., "Social Stratification and the Re­ habilitation of Ex-Huks in the Philippines," Research Studies of the State College of Washington; 23:83-91 (June, 1965).

Schenkman, Alfred S., "Social Science in TJ.S.A.," Contemporary Review; 183:362-367 (June,. 1953).

Scudder, Richard and C. Arnold Anderson, "Migration and Vertical Occupational Mobility," American Socio­ logical Review; 19:329-534 (June, 1954).

Sjoberg, Gideon, "Are Social Classes in America Becoming More Rigid?" American Sociological Review; 16:775- 783 (December, 1951).

Sorokin, Pitirim A., "Los Canales de la Clrculacion Vertical," Revista Mexlcana de Soclologla: 16:483-500 (September-Deeember” 1954). 194

Stern, Bernhard J ., "Giddings, Ward, and Small: An Inter­ change of LettersSocial Forcea; 10*305-318 (March. 1932).

Stone, Gregory P. and William H. Form, "Instabilities In Status: The Problem of Hierarchy In the Community Study of Status Arrangements," American Sociological Review; 18*149-162 (April, 1953). '

Tlmasheff, N. 8., “The Basic Concepts of Sociology," American Journal of Sociology; 58:176-186 (September, T952")'.------Tlmasheff, N. S., "Definitions In the Social Sciences," American Journal of Sociology; 53*201-209 (November, 1647). Void, George H., "Edwin Hardin Sutherland* Sociological Criminologist," American Sociological Review; 16*3-9 (February, 1951).

Zeleny, Leslie Day, "Measurement of Social Status," American Journal of Sociology; 45:576-582 (January, 1640).

Zeleny, Leslie Day, "Measurement of Soelatlon," American Sociological Review; 6:173-188 (April, 19411*1

Zeleny, Leslie Day, "Rejoinder," American Journal of Sociology; 46*775-776 (March, 1940).

Zeleny, Leslie D., "Status and Role Among Fifth-Grade School Children," Sociology and Social Research; 35:425-427 (July-August, 1951).

Unsigned Periodical Articles

l National Opinion Research Center, Opinion News; 9*3-13 (September 1, 1947).

Encyclopaedla Articles

Brinkman, Carl, "Nationalism," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition, I, T69. :

Kohn, Hans, "Race Conflict," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition, Xlll, 36. 195

Radln, 'Max, "Status,** Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition, XIV,“375^77". :

Stern, Bernhard J •, "Franklin Henry Glddings,* Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edition, VI, 6S4-65S.

Unpublished Manuscripts

Senderj Otto Louis, Jr., Social Status in a Unlversity Veterans * Community: A SociologicaT*Study. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology, Bucknell University, 1949. 222 pp.

Abstracts of Manuscripts

Hinkle, Rosco Conkling, Jr., "Theories of Social Stratifica­ tion in Recent American Sociology," Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations: University of Wisconsin; 15:201-20$ 11951-1952).

Lasswell, Thomas Ely, "Status Stratification in a Selected Community," University of Southern California: Abstracts of Dissertations, 1955,~1?61-M4 Sharp, Harry Palmer, "Migration and Social Participation in the Detroit Area," Dissertation Abstracts; 15:642 (1955).

Spielman, Ralph, "A Study of Stratification in the United States," Dissertation Abstracts: 15:906 (1955).

Sykes, Gresham M ’Cready, "Social Mobility and Social Participation," Dissertation Abstracts; 14:1855-1856 (1954).

Newspapers

Arizona Wildcat (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona), October 10, 1947; November 14, 1947; September 50, 1949; October 26, 1949; March 1, 1950.

Associated Press Dispatch, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), July 22, 1 9 5 6 . ------196

Tucson Daily Citizen, January 3, 12, 16, 19, 1946.

Miscellaneous

Annual Report of the Dean of Men (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arlzonal,”T95^-19537 1935-1956.

Arizona Alumnus (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona), February, 1946; May, 1948; July, 1948.

Minutes of the Polo Village Committee (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona), October 27, 1955; July 5, 1956.