“ans. ”Lit-1. ‘lhl‘m ‘- ""‘I ‘ ‘13}.- -§‘ «*fig‘WQW gab ..- %”-E§‘E‘t:wh€"v Jig: _" ‘ #me “in" in a . , . w . 3 . a. .1- . .~: éwm fl Lflwm. 231;? “9‘5 ’3 ‘Sfif:\wd~ ‘ ~~ . $L‘. , '3': 9i k2"; - L‘ “’j'fit u 3“} ’_ ... ‘ w 39:53 “10.? K I" ‘EV§ 1‘ 34%;: 3&5: '-* 531:3; c; “ii-*4 ~ ‘1. V t? H- V p . >3... 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ a“ dash. 1g 'Wn}Xt-Lw:i-n? 333,11? luv" 3;); q a ,' L" .4. “i? *5 . :1 $21»; éffizfrfi’f £5347 5;! 9,112; . v, .95" "1‘1'31? . ' r‘ 4 .n" fixfiir g?" ,_. :2fifsgg..f '; .r'. ""71““ .{év‘g}; 4,’ {5&9 m; 3 -..€“"* {.11}. "fir/Eng, 2:155: :- x“ "war. , FIIV’I $74!}0’ “(Egg 1/“ .-~ ,» "TWEN {gaffg‘} , ‘Qzass- 13;: 2g 359:3" %- ”Ewir’” 73.5“” 7". 'l'f‘é: 5 r ! 7'51: .,;‘-0-'+- «.1. .miigyv'gy. if. “J?“ 9i»? UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII III II 3 1293 00909 III This is to certify that the dissertation entitled WORK AND COMMUNITY VARIABLES AS SOURCES OF VARIATION IN CLASS IMAGERY presented by Pilar Baptista Fernéndez-Collado has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoDo degree in SOCIOIOQ)’ glam a, Drama ' Major professor Date May 31, 1991 lMSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 W? I While- lute linker-Icy PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE __I____fi —_I MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cmmHI WORK AND COMMUNITY VARIABLES AS SOURCES OF VARIATION IN CLASS IMAGERY By Pilar Baptista Fernandez-Collado AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia] fulfiilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1991 (EX/— 7/3 5C) ABSTRACT WORK AND COMMUNITY VARIABLES AS SOURCES OF VARIATION IN CLASS IMAGERY By Pilar Baptista Fernandez-Collado Sources of variation in class imagery were investigated in this study. It was proposed that certain job and community circumstances are conducive to the development of certain class models of society; hence, images will vary according to the availability of such circumstances. Guided by Lockwood’s (1966) typologies of power (the awareness of "us“ in opposition to "them"), prestige (social divisions in terms of status), and pecuniary (money) models of society, three sets of hypotheses that link relationships between workplace, workmates, community, self-investment in work, and workers’ images of' the class structure were tested in Santiago Tianquistenco, Mexico. The unit of analysis was the industrial worker employed in the town factories. A sample of 228 blue- and white-collar workers were interviewed at their place of work, using a standardized questionnaire. The concepts individuals used to express their ideas about the class structure were elicited through open-ended questions about several dimensions of class: perceived class structure, criteria used to describe class differences, nature Pilar Baptista Fernandez-Collado of relationships between classes, and evaluative aspects of class relations. The incidence or frequency of images within the three models of society_was considered for the codification of the open- ended questions and correlated with frequency of interaction with workmates on the job and during leisure-time hours, frequency of interactions with persons of unequal occupational status, degree of identification with workmates, degree of identification with ‘ employers, degree of self-investment in work, and occupational status. Additional analyses of demographic characteristics also were performed. It was confirmed that people do hold images about the class structure, but in many instances without a "definite" model of society. There was a predominance of prestige imagery in this sample, although power and pecuniary imagery also was expressed. Not all the hypotheses were corroborated. But, in general, the data gathered in Santiago Tianquistenco support the basic premise of the study--that processes of interaction and identification are related to workers’ images of society. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research were discussed, stressing the need for more qualitative studies in the domain of class imagery. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments are a ritual that emphasizes that the author is a unique or fragmented combination of relationships and circumstances: that Simmelian idea of the intersection of circles where, through different group membership, individuality could be diminished or enhanced. Without a definite conclusion, I like to think that by overcoming conflicting roles I have learned something about myself and reached some level of individuality, thanks to many significant encounters. First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of my committee for their time and suggestions. To Dr. William A. Faunce I extend my sincere appreciation and friendship for his guidance, support, and patience as director of this dissertation. Also, I would like to thank professors Christopher K. Vanderpool, Peter K. Manning, Bradley S. Greenberg, Phillip Marcus, Ruth Hamilton, and Richard Hill, who taught me about inquiry, scholarship, and self- discipline. In addition to them, I would like to acknowledge Michigan State University and, especially, the Department of Sociology, for providing me with the resources, the atmosphere, and the wonderful people who made my graduate studies possible and enjoyable. I would like to thank the people of Santiago Tianquistenco--authorities, managers, and workers--who gave me substantial help concerning the field work of this dissertation. iv I shall always be indebted to all those different and diverse people in Mexico--close friends, special teachers, school mentors-- from whom I have learned many substantial things in life. They have helped me more than they know. I also thank dearly my parents for their faith and support. My very special thanks are for my long- time friend and husband, Carlos Fernandez-Collado. Analytical in his attitudes and coherent in his manifestations, he encouraged me to pursue this Ph.D. from the beginning through its completion. And for my sons, Inigo and Alonso, I acknowledge that they are truly the whole of life. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... Objectives of the Study .............. Introduction to the Theoretical Framework ..... Background Studies ................ The Studies of Class Imagery ........... Summary and Critique of the Literature ...... Formulation of Hypotheses ............. Work-Situation Variables ............ aw”'Community-Situation Variables .......... ,,,,’Class Images .................. II. RESEARCH PROCEDURES ................. Data Requirements ................. The Research Site ................. Sample Selection ................. Design and Data Gathering ............. Data Analysis ................... III. HE RESULTS ..................... The Sample .................... Assessment of Images of the Class Structure . . . . Factor Analyses on the Self-Investment Measure . . Hypothesis Testing ................ Additional Analyses ................ IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ‘ ............... Summary of Findings ................ Theoretical Implications ............. ‘~ Methodological Issues ............... ~—- Suggestions for Future Research .......... “Q‘- vi Page APPENDICES A. QUESTIONNAIRE IN SPANISH .............. 130 B. QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH .............. 145 C. PROTOCOL FORM .................... 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 159 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Sources of Variation in Working-Class Images of Society ...................... 2.1 Data Requirements for the Study ........... 2.2 Participants by Industry ............... 2.3 Industrial Affiliation of Sample Members ....... 2.4 Monthly Income of Participants ............ 2.5 Participants by Occupational Category ........ 3.1 Last Place of Work of Respondents .......... 3.2 Images of Society Held by Respondents ........ 3.3 Models of Society Given by Respondents in Several Dimensions of Class ................ 3.4 Class Reminders Pointed Out by Participants ..... 3.5 Beliefs on Class-Structure Issues .......... 3.6 Items Comprising the Self-Investment Scale ...... 3.7 Two-Factor Solution for Self-Investment ....... 3.8 Two-Factor Solution for Self-Investment, Excluding Items 46, 54, and 58 ................ 3.9 Items Comprising the Self-Investment Measure for This Study ..................... 3.10 Correlations Among Major Variables .......... 3.11 Correlation Coefficients for Class Imagery With Job and Community Variables for White- and Blue- Collar Workers ................... viii wwww .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 Mean Scores of Types of Imagery for White- and Blue-Collar Workers ................ Occupational Category by Frequency of Prestige Images ....................... Average Number of Weekly Interactions in and Outside the Job .................. Age and Frequency of Power Images of Society ..... Gender and Frequency of Prestige Images of Society . . Income and Frequency of Prestige Imagery ....... Years of Formal Education and Frequency of Prestige Images of the Class Structure ........... Campesino Activities and Frequency of Prestige Imagery ...................... ix Page 89 89 95 99 100 101 103 104 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Objectives of the Study This study was designed to investigate sources of variation in class imagery. Here, class imagery refers to the mental representations of the class structure held by social actors. The emphasis is on subjective models of class structure that individuals hold and the social linkages that might account for such models. By subjective models is meant not only the picture individuals have about what society is like, how many classes they distinguish, or how they fit into it, but the nature of the relationships they recognize among classes and the criteria they use to explain the differences they see. In this study, the researcher sought to establish linkages between particular features of the social structure and distinctive models of class imagery. Specifically, the study centered on the role of micro-structural features--that is, on patterns of interaction and influence in a local Mexican community and at the workplace. The importance of studying the relationships between class images and the contexts where class imagery may be elicited was stated by Bott (1957): 1 People do have direct experiences of distinctions of power and prestige in their places of work, among their colleagues, in l schools, and in their relationships with friends, neighbors and relatives. In other words, the ingredients, the raw materials, of' class ideology are located in the individual’s primary social experiences, rather than in his position in a socio- economic category. The hypothesis advanced here is that when an individual talks about class he is trying to say something, in a symbolic form, about his experiences of power and prestige in his actual membership groups and social relationships both past and present. (p. 163) Hence, the basic premise in this study was that people’s images of society are constructed out of their experiences of social inequality in their immediate social milieu. The central research question in the study was: What are the relationships between the social context of' particular occupational groups and their own subjective perception of class structure? The answer to the research question was guided by a set of hypotheses that basically propose that certain circumstances are conducive to the development of certain class models of society; hence, class images will vary according to the availability of such circumstances. The hypotheses were guided by Lockwood’s (1966) typologies of working-class images of society. Lockwood outlined three types of workers. and the work and comunity factors associated with each type. The "traditional proletarian" worker is characterized by a dichotomous power model of society and is most often found in heavy industries and in jobs characterized by occupational (comunities. The ”deferential" worker is one who holds a prestige model of society and is found in occupations with much interaction between employer and employee, in small firms, and in small towns with interactional status systems. The ”privatized“ worker is one whose social imagery approximates a pecuniary model of society. This model is more likely to be found among affluent, urban workers. The use of ideal types for the study of class imagery provides clarity to a very complex set of relationships: those among workplace, workmates, community, job involvement, and how workers interpret their social situation. However, typologies also provide simplified categories, taking extreme types that cannot be directly applied to particular instances without elaborating the factors involved. Subsequent empirical researchers stimulated by Lockwood’s article somehow misunderstood the purpose of the ideal type analyses and, instead of using them as reference points around which the analysis might be done, used them as ”boxes" into which data were fitted. This study expands the research previously done in class imagery. Lockwood’s typologies were used in developing the propositions and hypotheses, reformulating the underlying dimensions in a set of interrelated variables that were investigated in their own right. The hypotheses were tested in Santiago Tianguistenco, Mexico. The unit of analysis was the industrial worker employed in the town factories. In addition, the researcher drew samples of managers and clerical workers for purposes of comparison. A survey research design was used for data collection. Material based on the town’s industrial history, cultural influences, and current situation was used as a frame of reference to interpret and elaborate on the results found through a carefully designed questionnaire. The study was designed to enlarge our knowledge and understanding of the meaning of stratification by explaining social imagery in terms of patterns of interaction between different social and occupational groups. try to h i r mewor The concept of social class has been the center of many debates, theories, studies, and political movements. As is the case with many social issues, discussions on social class have been generated by the tension existing between an objective condition and a subjective definition. This tension is two-fold. One aspect of it is the tension between class as an observable social phenomenon, and the various sociological interpretations given to this phenomenon. The other, and more complex, aspect of this tension is that between those sociological interpretations or constructs of "class" that are defined by sociologists as 'de facto' properties of a social population (i.e., objective indicators such as socioeconomic status, income per year, occupation), and those subjective meanings of class given by the social actors who in their own way will experience and observe classes, inequality, and stratification. This investigation involved this tension, considering in these images only vertical differentiation of roles based on perceived attributes such as occupation, income, education, ownership, and so on. It was mainly stimulated by Lockwood’s (1966) work on sources of variation in working-class images of society. In his study, Lockwood related comunity and work experiences to variations in class imagery. As mentioned above, he used ideal types (sociological constructs) to explain how objective conditions (work, community) affect the subjective representations of the class structure held by social actors. His workers’ types and sources of variation for their class imagery can be summarized as in Table 1.1. To situate this study in a theoretical context, those works that constitute background studies for class-image research were reviewed . Background Studies Literature on the sociological meanings of class (Bottomore, 1966; Ossowski, 1963; Rytina, 1967) has documented a wide variety of usages of the term, which underlie the tension in the interpretations of the social phenomenon in question. Everyone seems to agree on its existence. However, why this happens, what is the nature of it, what its consequences are, and what it ought to be are questions on which scholars sharply disagree. Rytina (1967) 5 pointed out that ”we are confronted with the case where competent scholars in a scientific discipline do not agree on the use and meaning of one of the most widely utilized concepts in that discipline" (p. 17). Conceptualizations of the term relevant to this dissertation are those used by Marx and Weber. For both, the relationship to the market was a central empirical indicator of class. Marx stressed more the economic aspects of class and divided society into two (sometimes three) great camps based on the relationship to the means of production: the exploiters and the .nm~-ms~ .mw .xo.>um _ao_mo_o_uom .xuovoom we mouse. «nope mcwxco: c. co.uo*co> wo woocaom .Aommp. .uooxxooq .o ”cocoon .ucm>o_oc om uoc 0cm mauoum can coxom .mucnucmum co_uasamroo can .oeooc_ .cu—moz an mace» :. touovucocouwpu momma—o cum—o co poaovmnc egos co oco mapa man u ocucoo omen. oco u—opor ocoz .oocouaooom co .ucancmxoon pomoom .o—xum cup. mo muooamo we mace» cm town.» icocoemmv momma—o egos co coach "pope: om_umocm :.m:: can Ampocovmmouoca .mcomocoe .mco—pooioumcxv :Eocu: mo mmococnz< .xuwcozuao one Luzon yo commmommoa we «Eco» c. noummucocouumm .momme_o cones och “Auto: nosed .xuwcae usoo ecu cw ucoezoouuo :04 .coeeoo c. opuuwp aco> cum: acomcocum wo vooccoazm.oz .xu_caesoo on» yo =mommo—oz poco>om cu—x aco_uoucouc_ .ocau uoacum .mco.ueaaooo unpopuco icouupo .aoumxu azueum .o004 .mq'cnco_u -o—oc uvcxuomo—u .nouoExco: ecu aconzmwo: uco mocu_cu .ecauoacum pocowaoaaooo co m. .cowuoau.m xcox o» ce—.e*m a. .uouoeauao »_sm*; .xuo—ocgoou comuoaoocauwmoe no.3 newcouoou .ucmm—m a. wouesxco: co oa_ca icouco ecu ou acoezoouu< .ocauoacum xu_conu:o ovum——occouom .mommcacouco appaou .uuuoco .ncomuoaaooo oo—>cow ..m.o .mconsoe nae—ouo—vu.e cosuo use acoxopaeo guy: comuowo nommo poocmo c. 3*; «maven .aon a. once oo>po>c. we oocmov no.1 .m=.xoou .mc.u_.=aa_sa .mc.=me ..a.e .cowumau.m xcoxiocoz .vouo—oa_ _ _ x . u u .vo-uo>wgm . . 2 IL IJ _ _ _ 4 . < .mwucocouoa _ z _ O . . . h _ _ _ o . < m . h caveman—0cm _ IL ocauoacum mmopu uo memos. oacuoscum xuvcaeeou comuoauwm xcoz coxcoz mo oaxh .xuo_oom mo memos. mun—oumcvxcoz c. covuo—co> we moocaomna.~.— o—noh exploited. This conceptualization is often described as a dichotomous power model of society. The Marxian concept of class is deeper and more complex than is suggested here. However, what has to be stressed here is that, in the Marxist theory of stratification, there is a basic dichotomy between the owners or upper class, and the propertyless class of wage workers, and that the essence of stratification resulting from this is power, expressed as control over the distribution of resources and material property. Weber acknowledged the importance of economic characteristics as determinants of class differences, but he made analytical distinctions among class, status, and power. Power for him was the essence of stratification, and class andstatus were different modes of stratification. According to Weber, these modes coexist, although one will dominate, depending on the economic circumstances of the labor market. Weber defined social classes not so much in their relation to the market owners, but by what men could sell in that market: property, labor, education, and so on. Hence, Weber distinguished multiple, hierarchical dimensions of class. Both authors were also concerned with the nature of people’s perceptions of society. 'Marx distinguished between Klasse an sich and Klasse fur sich, expressing the difference between class as an aggregate» of' people under: certain economic criteria, and class consciousness, which includes the latter definition plus a psychological criterion grouping people with common antagonisms and common interests (Ossowski, 1963). Weber was also concerned with the subjective aspects of class. Specifically, he was concerned with the possibility of ”communal action," action that is oriented by the feeling of the actors that they belong together, action that "will emerge from the conditions under which a number of persons share a similar class situation" (Weber, l958). The studies of class imagery have shared these concerns for the psychological aspects of class. However, a class-imagery study is not an analysis of class consciousness. The relationships between the two are complex and difficult, but they are analytically separable. This might be seen more clearly by considering the main ‘characteristics of class consciousness. Following Heizelrigg (1973), class consciousness is said 'to exist when four characteristics are present: 1. Awareness of the class structure. 2. Self-identification, in terms of perceived location in the class structure. 3. Class interests, or sharing the definition of these interests as basically in conflict with the interests of another class. 4. Class action—-that is, class-relevant behavior. Looking at this inventory of components of class consciousness, it might be said that class imagery could be a component of class consciousness or, as Vannerman (1980) suggested, "the lowest of several levels of class consciousness” (p. 769). And while the sociological importance of popular class imagery has gained considerable attention in recent years, results of studies such as those of Graetz (1983) have shown that neither nominal class affiliations nor conceptions of class structure encompass ideologically homogeneous perspectives. Hence, class consciousness, manifested in specific actions (such as voting behavior), and class imagery require investigation in their own right because their connection is not very clear. However, it is clear that to have certain class images does not imply automatically a sharp or objective image of the class structure. Nor does it mean that one has class interests or is engaged in class-relevant actions. That is, there is not a necessary connection between workers’ view of society and their voting behavior, strike actions, and other manifestations of collective solidarity of a class-based kind (Bulmer, 1975). Also, the reverse is in need of emphasis. Gonzales-Casanova (1968) stated that in Mexico the working class does not appear to be aware of the problem of marginality, and he suggested a lack of working-class consciousness. However, absence of class consciousness (defined as having a coherent image of class structure, articulated in class- relevant actions) is not necessarily a demonstration that workers do not hold definite images of society (Lockwood, 1975). Class images may or may not be the raw material for political actions of a radical kind. In relation to this, it should be noted that class images can be coherent and articulated, or they can be fragmented, ambivalent, unclear, and uncertain. How coherent they are is an open question. Many class-consciousness studies 10 (Bechhofer, Elliot, & McRone, 1978; Logan, 1977; Mann, 1973; Petras & Zeitlin, 1967; Smith & Rodriguez, 1974; Touraine, 1966: Vannerman, 1980; Wilensky, 1970) have been primarily interested in the consequences or actions that derive from being class aware. Sometimes, they have pointed out some of the structural conditions that facilitate or inhibit the development of class consciousness, such as the pattern of economic growth, the political structure, geographical mobility, and so forth. Vannerman (1980), for instance, analyzed the conventional notion about differences in the class consciousness of the English and Americans and found much similarity in the perceptions of class. However, he found substantial evidence of political differences. Americans do not translate their recognized class positions into votes because their political parties do not reflect labor concerns as much as parties in Britain, such as the Labour Party. Hence, given the similarities in the perception of class, the political differences would be better explained in the party system rather than in attitudinal differences of voters themselves. In this regard, it might be said that the study of class imagery is interested in the class map that a person has in mind, whether or not it is articulated or coherent, and in the sources from which this map comes. But before entering into the area of class-imagery studies, other theoretical backgrounds from which class-imagery research stems will be delineated. Theories on stratification and the class- consciousness issue have been discussed. Now, studies of class 11 identification, which stress the psychological aspects of class, are examined. A controversial work was Centers’s (1949) socio- psychological study, which attempted to link interest-group theory to the class identification of the individual. "This theory implies that a person’s status and role with respect to the economic processes of society impose upon him certain attitudes, values and interests relating to his role and status in the political and economic sphere" (Centers, 1949, p. 28). Centers asked the following question of a U.S. national sample (n - 1,097): "If you were to use one of these four names for your social class, which would you say you belonged in: the middle class, lower class, working class or upper class?" The results showed that the majority of respondents identified themselves as either middle class (43%) or working class (52%) and that very few (1%) considered themselves lower class. Fourteen years later, Tucker (1963) compared data from the Centers study with another national sample. He found a reduction in the use of the working- class label. As Centers did, however, he found a consistent pattern between class identification and other social indicators. Studies of this kind stimulated much criticism. Some contended that the formulation of closed-ended questions such as the one of Centers above "puts words in the respondent’s mouth.” As a result, open-ended-question studies were launched to assess the "true" meaning of class to people. Respondents were asked what names they used to identify classes and the criteria they used to distinguish between them. From these studies it was argued that social-class 12 terms had no intrinsic meanings for most Americans (Case, 1955) and that there was a tendency to view stratification "in a conventional way, namely as status hierarchy” (Haer, 1957). They concluded that the idea of a status system seemed more realistic than the notion of discrete classes because class categories "did not have a precise meaning which is generally accepted” (Lenski, 1961). The two-fold tension between objective conditions and definitions of scholars, which, in turn, were in tension with conceptions of class held by common people, continued, and several theoretical clarifications were attempted in subsequent studies. For instance, Rytina (1967) stated that studies approaching class identification from a status perspective undersampled the poor and other minority groups for whom class differences mean being structurally deprived of life chances. Hence, class differences are more important than status differences based (MI attributional and personal Icharacteristics. She found empirical support for the hypothesis that those who have much wealth differ from those who have little in their explanations of the way the system works. Other studies (Jackman, 1979; Jackman & Jackman, 1983; Vannerman & Pampel, 1977) found n9 support for the idea that the United States is a kind of pluralistic society, where classes and socioeconomic antagonisms are no longer relevant. Their findings supported more the interest-group theory of society, where education, occupation, and income are usually the‘ objective indicators of class position associated with variations in class conceptions. 13 All of the studies that methodologically used the technique of self-rated class have been influential for class-image inquiry because they have provided evidence that people hold mental representations of the class structure that can be elicited spontaneously. The quarrel over the labels is of greater relevance for class—imagery studies because here the question is not so much how many different categories people are able to enumerate, but what are the concepts they use to explain the nature of the relations and differences they see. As Willner (1957) expressed it: The word class . . . appears relatively rarely in the responses of a variety of subjects. The illusion of certain intellectuals that everyone talks or should talk in terms of a theory of society should be abandoned. But nevertheless the replies on diverse themes--success, wealth, inequalities--show that people do refer to society and to stratification. (p. 254) Besides exaggerating the importance of labeling, “a major defect of interest theory is a systematic neglect of the class contacts open to people.“ This observation was made by Hodge and Treiman (1968, p. 535), whose data showed that patterns of acquaintance and kinship between various status groups, as well as residential heterogeneity, are no less important than socioeconomic positions in the formation of class identity. In her study on “Family and Social Network," Bott (1958) singled out the importance of friends, neighbors, and relatives in the images of social class. She argued that people base their notions of social class on their own pattern of social relationships. Bott’s views of family and comunity as bases for class images have been most influential in the study' of' class l4 imagery since the construction of the ideal types in Lockwood’s (1966) article were grounded in family, community, and occupational interactions. The occupational context involves other theoretical influences in Lockwood’s approach to the study of class imagery. Studies of how workers’ social relations at work and social relations in leisure time overlap (Blauner, 1960) and studies of how jobs influence nonwork-related activities and of how occupation and certain industrial experiences affect job involvement (Goldthorpe & Lockwood, 1963) are included among the theoretical grounds for the creation of Lockwood’s typology. Sumarizing, Lockwood’s approach to the study of class imagery established an important theoretical linkage because it related the study of class and its meanings in sociological explanation to social experience and brought together the study of stratification, occupational communities, and industrial sociology. As Bulmer (1975) stated, ”the establishment of this linkage underlies the influence of Lockwood’s article“ (p. 11). MW As we have seen, many differing conceptions of the nature of people’s perceptions of social stratification have been written. Lockwood’s article was an attempt to provide clarity to this issue by the use of ideal types. The purpose of his article was not aimed at the solution of the correspondence between a concrete description of class structure and workers’ class imagery. Rather, it used ideal types, as a methodological device, to consider variations in 15 subjective social-class representations among workers (Bulmer, 1975). Two main assumptions can be distinguished in Lockwood’s paper: 1. People do generate images of class stratification. 2. Forms or models of class stratification vary according to the power and/or status experienced by the individual. Past research on class identification (Case, 1955; Centers, 1949; Haer, 1957; Hodge & Treiman, 1968; Jackman, 1973; Rytina, 1967; Tucker, 1963) has shown that lower classes, working classes, and marginal groups see the distribution of power and economic rewards as a result of structural factors, and that middle-income people and white-collar workers see the stratification system as a result of favorable personal attributes. These studies have suggested that a power model of society is characteristic of blue- collar workers, whereas a hierarchical model of stratification is more adequate to illustrate the class images of white-collar people. However, this has left many things unexplained. For instance, why do persons in similar socioeconomic strata and occupational positions hold such different conceptions of the class structure (Vannerman & Pampel, 1977)? Lockwood argued that class images vary according to experiences with prestige and power; he proposed that there is variation within the working class that results from different kinds of work situations and community structures. These differences provide workers with different kinds of interactions with fellow workers, employers, and community members. (See Table 1.1 for a synopsis of these sources of variation.) 16 Subsequent research has expanded and challenged the initial explanation given by Lockwood. Moore (1973) studied several relatively isolated coal villages. It was expected that the miners would have a ”traditional proletarian” image of society. Nearly all the conditions of work and conInunity proposed by Lockwood were fulfilled. Moore reported that a large proportion of miners did not develop a traditional image of society, and thought that Lockwood’s argument was too simple because he overlooked variables such as coherence of religious, economic, and political beliefs. Moore found a kind of parochialism in the working-class culture and a lack of class solidarity. In sum, he concluded that an isolated work environment and a close-knit type of community are not sufficient sources for a dichotomous class image of society based on power. A study by Blackburn and Mann (1975) called attention to other possible influences in working-class images of society. Their study attempted to reproduce the internal diversity and structural uniformity of the working class. They interviewed 954 manual workers spread through nine organizations in the same town. Blackburn and Mann argued that, although their sample was very heterogeneous, they could not identify three types of workers, as Lockwood proposed. All workers seemed to share a proletarian ideology; however, the authors noted, they were not committed to it. "Most remain confused by the clash between conservatism and proletarianism, but touched by both. Which workers are not in this situation?” (p. 155). The authors thought that this ambivalence is 17 part of industrial society. Workers are exposed to messages through mass media and interpersonal communication that are ambivalent: ”Strikes are caused by agitators“; "The management thinks only in terms of profits.” The problem is then not of a division between working-class members with different views on stratification, but of fragmented class consciousness in all workers as individuals. Goldthorpe, Lockwood, Bechhofer, and Platt’s (1969) studies of the "affluent worker” provided the support for the "privatized” worker category. The authors tested the hypothesis that rising income levels and technological change lead to the embourgeoisement of the working class. To test this hypothesis, the authors studied a sample of 229 well-paid workers in a relatively new industrial town in England that possessed few of the characteristics of the older industrial areas. The sample was drawn from technologically advanced industrial plants (a chemical plant, an automobile factory, and a plant manufacturing ball and roller bearings). For comparative purposes, white-collar workers were also interviewed. 0n the basis of their results, the authors rejected the embourgeoisement hypothesis. Although the blue-collar workers were enjoying economic affluence, they were not concerned, as white- collar workers were, with status distinctions inherent in such arrangements as separate canteens for blue-collar and white-collar workers. Also, they were not concerned with advancement, promotion, or belonging to voluntary associations. There was little evidence of striving for status. White-collar workers, in contrast, were 18 more likely to be involved in social networks outside the family, to entertain at home, and to belong to voluntary associations. Findings relevant to the study of class imagery were those suggesting that a "new" worker was emerging. Goldthorpe et al. (1969) described this new worker as developing a privatized life style, centered on home and the conjugal family, and mainly concerned with earning the money to increase his domestic consumption. He no longer sees the society as divided between "us" and "them” (a power model of society) but in a fashion that can be labeled as a "money" model or "pecuniary" model of society, where .the workers perceive social stratification as one large central class plus one or more residual or elite classes different only in terms of wealth, income, and consumption standards. In relation to this new type of worker, an article by Form (1957) can be cited here. The author argued that status symbols, such as clothing, household furnishings, income, type of house, and so on, are important because, since many social contacts in the city are segmental and anonymous, symbols of status are necessary for strangers and passing acquaintances to place and appraise one another. Some authors (Cousins & Brown, 1970) have criticized the typification of the privatized worker, arguing that the characteristics that Lockwood associated with this type of worker are close to Marx’s idea of the proletariat, i.e., I'what classical Marxists saw as the social accompaniments of large-scale machine industry in which labor has solely the status of a comodity" (p. 19 55). The authors suggested the possibility of technological and industrial development that may produce homogeneity in workers and therefore be closer to a 'truly" proletarian attitude than those traditional industries and occupational groups that Lockwood specifically pointed to as providing the basis for class solidarity. Specifically, the authors mentioned that in those occupational groups (such as miners, dockworkers, shipbuilders) there are different unions, work gangs, work cycles, and payment systems that compete for the rewards of the firm and the comunity. Thereby, these features of the so-called occupational comunities inhibit rather than promote class solidarity. In a study entitled "In Search of the New Working Class," Gallie (1978) also challenged the idea of a “new” worker, i.e., the privatized worker. He argued that it is improbable that characteristics of advanced technology are of any importance in explaining commitment or noncommitment of workers within the enterprise. Based on comparative research on British and French workers, Gallie concluded that automation does not necessarily lead to a high degree of social integration or to new forms of class conflict. In sum, Gallie’s study challenged Lockwood’s proposition that the high-technology-workplace dimension is a salient and relevant influence on workers’ attitudes. Faunce’s (n.d.) discussion of the privatized worker may help reduce the confusion centered on the typification of the privatized worker as ”new,“ or as a mere product of technological innovations. 20 Privatization, for Faunce, is one of the possible consequences of withdrawal of self-investment. Self-investment in work refers to a commitment to work based on the relevance of occupational achievement to self-esteem (Faunce, 1982, 1984). He suggested that a privatized life style results from certain work and living environments that offer few opportunities to encounter class, status, or power differences. On one hand, privatized workers do- not experience the class solidarity ('them” versus 'us”) of workers living in or belonging to certain types of occupational communities. On the other hand, they seldom experience contact with persons of different, occupational status than their: own because their occupational environment (big firms, highly mechanized) does not provide the opportunities for such interaction. Also, the specific job tasks (e.g., unskilled workers on assembly lines) provide almost no basis for evaluation of quality of performance because there is little opportunity to display such traits as skill and responsibility or even courage, strength, or independence. All these conditions, according to Faunce, mean that work-related values and class-related values will have little relevance for the self- esteem-maintenance process. Therefore, a privatized worker is one who does not invest himself in work- or class-relevant issues and is, as a result, less likely to have an image of society in which work or social class is a salient component. Following Faunce’s (n.d.) argument, the privatized worker may be a "new" worker in the sense that the conditions producing privatization are more likely to exist in mature industrial 21 societies where "the social structural conditions that give rise to a proletarian or deferential orientation are becoming less comon and the conditions producing privatization more common” (pp. 88-89). From this perspective, the privatized orientation is very different from the Marxist concept of a class-conscious proletariat. Money is seen by privatized workers not as a divider but as a common denominator. This ideological position was clearly expressed by Alfred Winslow Jones in 1865; he wrote: The money economy . . . lends a pervasive illusion of equality. Men are obviously not equal-~either in skill, intelligence nor wealth or opportunity, but [they think] one man’s dollar is eqozl to any others in the places where things are bought and so . WW Several dimensions of' working-class ideal types have been suggested in the studies just discussed. It is clear that Lockwood’s paper has been quite influential, and subsequent researchers have tried to examine his propositions concerning class images and the identification of these with both occupational groups and community structures. Many of the studies discussed have suggested very important considerations to be included in the study of workers’ class images of society. In particular, this researcher would like to single out for comment the following: the importance of the status and/or class “reminders“ that a comunity or a work environment offers and their effect on job involvement and class attitudes (Faunce, 1982); the issue of considering mass media, as sources of class imagery (Blackburn 8 Mann, 1975); and the relevance 22 of interpersonal relations in explaining variations in classimages among persons in apparently identical occupations (Bell & Newby, 1973). The review of studies of class imagery has also highlighted some theoretical and methodological problems. Lockwood’s typologies have been criticized for not being sufficiently specific and for being inadequate to the analysis of certain situations. Moore (1973) said that all the conditions proposed by Lockwood as characteristic of the proletarian worker "were fulfilled"; nevertheless, he did not find that these workers had a power-model image of society. Moore (1973), Bell and Newby (1973), Martin and Fryer (1973), and Batstone (1975) thought that Lockwood had overlooked the importance of specific community features, such as religion and ethnic and cultural rules. Cousins and Brown (1970) said that Lockwood’s typologies not only neglected the importance of structural factors but did not distinguish among the different patterns of ‘relationships that could be found in the so-called traditional occupations. I This researcher thinks that, in these critiques, one can identify an important _methodological issue that may involve a misunderstanding of the purpose of Lockwood’s typology. The essential characteristic of typologies is that they involve a reduction (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954). McKinney (1966) defined a typology as a "purposive, planned action, abstraction, combination, and (sometimes) accentuation of a set of criteria with empirical 23 referents that serves as a basis for comparison of empirical cases" (p. 3). This reduction aspect can be illustrated by the following summary of Lockwood’s typology: I. Work Situation Interaction and Interaction and Involvement Identification Identification in Job With Workmates With Employers Middle class + + + Deferential + - + Proletarian + _ - Privatized - - - II. Community Structure Interactional Occupational Occupational Status System Community Differentiation Middle class + + + Deferential + - + Proletarian + + - Privatized - - - This typology represents a reduction or simplification in several senses. First, we note that only three variables underlie the basis for the classification in each situation in the workplace and in the community. Each of these has been dichotomized, and such a dichotomization does not recognize that there may be varying degrees of, for example, job involvement, or of identification with workmates. McKinney (1966) indicated that the rationale for dichotomizing is often that the theorist wishes to pinpoint polar types. This was the case in Lockwood’s theoretical approach. He described extreme types to be used as points of reference around 24 which the analysis should be done. The use of ideal types in the study of class imagery provided a frame of reference to locate a complex set of relationships. These types, however, cannot be used directly in explaining a specific comunity and/or work situation without elaborating the factors involved. Moore illustrated this problem when he said: "Nearly all the conditions of work and community, set by Lockwood, are fulfilled," but he did not find that miners had a ”proletarian" image of society. Another example is that given in the Cousins and Brown (1970) article. They stated that, in the shipbuilding industry, which Lockwood defined as typically traditional proletarian, they found that workers’ images of society were more varied than had been allowed for by Lockwood’s typology. The problem as it can be observed from these arguments is that Lockwood’s typologies were used as boxes into which data were fitted, and, in this manner, some authors proceeded as if they were "testing hypotheses" rather than using ideal types as reference points. Furthermore, the problem with these studies is that they simplify, even more than Lockwood, the relationships among work, community, and class imagery. Let me explain. One of the major assets of Lockwood’s approach, and what distinguishes it from the class-identification studies, is that he did not use occupation or place of residence as indicators of a certain socioeconomic status, which in turn presumably has an effect on how people see the class structure. These indicators are too raw and crude to explain 25 variations in class imagery. Instead, Lockwood used occupation and community as context variables that affect the way social inequality is experienced. He gave some illustrations of typical settings that could provide such experiences, expressed as patterns of interaction and identification with others in equal or unequal class positions. These experiences are the instances considered by Lockwood as most influential in the class imagery held by social actors. Degrees of interaction and identification with workmates, with managers, or with members of a whole community vary across different occupations and different local situations. Variation in these structures has to be interpreted in light of the basic premise of Lockwood’s study --that workers’ images of society will be constructed out of their experiences of social inequality in their immediate social milieu. Many of the studies critical of Lockwood’s work ignored this central proposition and proceeded as in the following example: Here we have a coal mine, coal miners were defined by Lockwood as typical examples of proletarians, hence they must have a power model of society. The problem here is that of using occupation as the main indicator of class images, instead of analyzing patterns of acquaintance and interaction in a specific coal miner’s community. Many valid and important questions arise from the research done on class imagery: What are the effects of affluence and technology on workers’ social consciousness? What happens with traditional industries such as mining and shipbuilding when they change management and production techniques? What is the implication of having an ambivalent and fragmented class image for political 26 action, especially that of a radical kind? (Blackburn & Mann, 1975; Westegaard, 1975). These questions are not separate from the study of class imagery, but neither are they solved by class-imagery research alone. The main class-imagery question centers on the sources from which class images develop or are reinforced, and Lockwood’s major premise, as noted above, was: People’s images of society will be constructed out of their experiences of social inequality in their immediate social context. His theoretical formulation immediately suggests a set of research hypotheses for each of the sources of variation in class imagery, namely, work variables, community variables, and class-image variables. In the following section, those work and comunity variables are identified that may be conducive to the development and/or reinforcement of certain class images of society. MW From Lockwood’s scheme, three sets of variables can be identified: (a) work-situation variables, (b) community variables, and (c) class-image variables. These variables were defined as 1 continuous rather than being composed of discrete categories. Wattles W. W WM. and mm; were considered by Lockwood as sources of variation in class imagery because they 27 presumably provide work experiences that affect the way an individual sees the social structure. For interaction and identifieetion at the workpleee, the argument goes as follows: Workers who interact frequently with their fellow workers and who have strong ties with their fellow workers may have a tendency to adopt a power image of society because they may be involved in solidaristic, occupational experiences, clearly delineated from the rest of society. By contrast, prestige images of society will be more typical in a job that brings the worker into "direct association with his employer and hinders him from forming strong attachments to workers in a similar market situation to his own" (Lockwood, 1975, p. 19). A distinction between interactions (either workmates or employers) and identification (either with workmates or employers) should be made. Lockwood put them together, when he really was implying two different things. Interactions with workmates and interactions with employers refer to the encounters a worker may have with any of these persons at the workplace. The identification with either of these groups--workmates or employers--is going to tell us which is considered by a worker as a reference group, and therefore as the group that shares his ideas of society. For example, white-collar workers, who were included in this study, may have frequent interactions with workers and managers alike. However, there is evidence to support the idea that, because their working relationships usually bring them together with higher management and administration, as well as with small groups of 28 workers of their own rank, they are likely to identify'with both “the firm” and their middle-class colleagues (Prendy, 1965). In addition to the distinction between ”interactions” and "identifications“ at the workplace, a further distinction should be made between the kind of ”identifications” that occur among workmates, and that of the workers toward the employer. In the first case, we are talking about group cohesiveness and solidaristic feelings, about ”sentiments of belongingness to a work dominated collectivity . . . to the awareness of ’us’ in contradiction with ’them’ (bosses, managers, white-collar workers)” (Lockwood, 1975, p. 18). Identification with employers does not imply feelings of belongingness or solidarity, but rather a deferential attitude. In fact, the deferential worker defers to his employer socially as well as politically because he recognizes in them "his ’betters,’ the people who know how to run things“ (Lockwood, 1975, p. 19). Moreover, Lockwood argued that workers of this kind will tend to support the parties of their "social betters,‘ while leaders of working-class origin will be seen by them as "spurious leaders" and their supporters as ”misguided followers.” A study about the proletarization of white-collar work (Oenemark, 1986), comparing the United States and England, showed that class identity plays a significant role in mediating associations of workers. In England, those identifying with the middle class consistently rejected working-class politics and activities. In America, the same happened. Thosemore identified 29 with their middle-class colleagues were reluctant to support collective acts of organization, such as unions and welfare programs. The distinctions between two kinds of interactions--with workmates and/or with employers--as well as the different meanings of identification--"solidarity with fellow workers” or "confidence in employers’ leadership"--was considered in the operationalization of the corresponding variables. Qgh_1nyelxemegt was for Lockwood a variable that also influ- ences a worker’s class imagery. When Lockwood distinguished between different kinds of workers--white-collar worker, deferential worker, proletarian worker, and privatized worker--job involvement was a characteristic of all except the latter. This is most interesting because it guides us to the possible causes of a "pecuniary" model of society, which may not be constructed out of the experiences of social inequality--as in the cases of the "traditional proletarian“ and "traditional deferential worker'--but from the lack of power, class, and status experiences. Job involvement was included by Lockwood as one work-related variable that most affects class imagery. However, he did not clarify the fact that this variable is, in part, a by-product of the work interactions and identification with persons at the workplace, discussed above. Research on job satisfaction (Bulmer, 1960) and on self- investment in work (Faunce, 1982) has indicated that job involvement is higher in those work environments that are conducive to the 30 development of proletarian, deferential, or middle-class images of the class structure but not in environments producing a privatized image. Job involvement is essentially self-investment in work, a process that Faunce fully explored. 'This author stated that job involvement is necessarily associated with evaluation by others in terms of occupational achievement. In the case of the traditional proletarian worker, Lockwood explained that he is likely to experience "pride in doing men’s work" in jobs that require strength, endurance, skill, and other traits that provide a basis for job evaluation. In the case of the traditional deferential worker, frequently linked with industrial craft jobs, service occupations, agricultural employment, and other kinds of family enterprises, job evaluation is likely to occur since these jobs are generally supervised directly by managers and owners. The latter is also the situation of the white-collar worker. In the case of traditional proletarian, traditional deferential, and white-collar workers, self-investment is likely to occur because frequent job evaluation may occur in work interactions and interactions off the job. As a consequence, these workers regard job evaluations given by workmates or by employers as being important. In contrast, the ”new" privatized worker is characterized by his low frequency of interactions at the workplace, his lack of identification with workmates and/or with employers and his less- frequent experience of social inequality, and, consequently, by his 31 withdrawal of self-investment in work. The withdrawal of self- investment from the job, according to Faunce (1982), is more easily accomplished in those jobs that do not provide bases for evaluation of quality of performance, such as those performed by unskilled workers in highly mechanized factories. Sumarizing, five variables have been identified in the work situation: 1. Frequency of interactions with workmates. 2. Frequency of interactions with supervisors, managers, and employers. 3. Identification with employers, expressed as trust and confidence in employers as leaders. 4. Identification with workmates, expressed as solidarity with fellow workers. 5. Self-investment in work. These variables are related to actual power and/or status experiences at the job and may affect the way individuals perceive the social structure. Also shaping experiences of social inequality are what Lockwood called "community structure.“ W W. W. and geegngtlgnel_g1fieregtiitlgn were considered by Lockwood as sources of variation in class imagery because they presumably provide social experiences that affect the way individuals see the class structure. A problem arises when we observe that these variables do not refer 32 to the same unit of analysis. Work-situation variables refer to individuals, whereas community components refer to structural variables. However, if we go back to Lockwood’s argument, we see that he was mainly arguing about individuals’ interactions and relationships that arise from certain community circumstances. These experiences reinforce and overlap with work relationships. Communities with jgtereetionel stetgs systems provide a social context where all members of a community are involved in a type of network characterized by frequent interactions with persons of different statuses, prestige, economic positions, occupational . roles, and so on, but in which personal characteristics provide the basis for status differentiation. The idea advanced here is that, within this kind of system, ”people do not judge one another from a distance and attribute status on the basis of a few, readily observable criteria, such as the amount of an individual’s material possessions” (Lockwood, 1975, p. 20). In his study of work-related values in villages in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Michigan, Faunce (1966) found in all these small towns, where everybody knew everybody, that ideologies with respect to status placement were expressed primarily in terms of valued personal attributes. The central premise of the study, however, was that as the size of the community increases, mainly due to industrialization, personal attributes tend to drop out as status- assigning criteria, whereas values related to work become of greater importance. This hypothesis was confirmed, and work-related values were shown to be most important in Costa Rica, the most "urban" of 33 the three villages. Lockwood thought that interactional status systems tend to produce either a ”power" or a “prestige" image of society. The research site selected for this study was likely to have primarily an interactional status system. Because it was quite small--geographically and in terms of population--it was possible to assume that people would have many face-to-face interactions in different community contexts: church, holidays, market, and so on. As a result, interactions were likely to involve people’s encounters under' different statuses and roles. To make this assumption, however, would have been risky and contrary to one of the objectives of this study, which was to recast Lockwood’s typologies as continuous variables, instead of fitting the data into discrete boxes. Thus, the interactional status system was expressed as interactional status relationships. The frequency of experiencing status relationships involving either an interactional or an attributional status system would vary among individuals in the community selected for study. Lockwood argued that interactional status relationships are going to be experienced more often by the white-collar worker and by the traditional worker, both proletarian and deferential. These interactions, which presumably involve experiences with class, status, and power, lead to images of society that show concern or awareness with class, status, and power differences. 34 The privatized worker presumably less often experiences interactional status relationships. Faunce suggested that the low self—investment in work characteristic of the privatized worker requires an avoidance of relationships where he is going to be evaluated in terms of class-related variables, prestige and/or power. Lockwood was not very clear in distinguishing between the causes and consequences of not participating in interactional status relationships. He suggested that a consequence may be the existence of a social situation where everybody is judged solely in terms of something highly visible, such as material possessions. This implies that, if a worker is not involved in an interactional status system, he then is "involved" in an attributional one. Obviously, these are not exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories, and the privatized worker may be less frequently involved in em status system, and less often evaluated in terms of any kind of hierarchy. Thus, so far, we can only say that a person who lacks interactional status and power relationships will not be likely to experience class differences. Therefore, this person is more likely to have "pecuniary" images of society. It does not follow, however, that this person will necesseflly have a "pecuniary" image of society, unless we make the unwarranted assumption that this is the only alternative to those based on status or power. Talking about the circumstances propitious for the decrease of interactional status relationships, Lockwood (1975) was somewhat clearer and suggested that such a situation arises in "new, low cost 35 housing . . . that brings people together, a population of strangers, who have little in common, save that they all experienced residential mobility and that most of them gain their livelihood from some kind of manual labor” (p. 22). Since our primary concern here was with the frequency of experience of status or power differences, the focus was on this dimension of interaction in off-the-job, community settings, rather than other aspects of the distinction between interactional and attributional systems. This focus omitted degree of intimacy of relationships, an important element of this distinction, but one that is less relevant for purposes of this study. In addition to lack of interactional status experiences, the privatized worker is not likely to experience interactions within "occupational communities" and "occupationally differentiated comunities,‘ which also helps explain his "pecuniary" image of society. Such 0c m cu.x .o».~...»»o:m _ co.uoo:uo egos zu.: “sec: u.cop ....= amxn :.»o.ce.oa coon :cco p.303» __. .goaozu u_=u 1....c on ...t u. .aooccoo no» £O...: l.c\cm :.ncoxcot ecu co. ac.c.~cu pee co.ueu:oo egos .auceE»o.oEo egos no.3 no>: auueoe¢ e>.ue:—e>w In.\mm :. 2:50.25 9:» uoouoca o» yes a. unocduc. >.co emoct ucol acco>om segue zu.x co.u:.o>ec o 59.: ao>s Ixocoacoo .02 «ones. .0 no.36oxu rawxne =.oc:u.:u acoco...v .o o»:aooQ...: to.\wm =.»ecom econ zu.: couooavo League ”cacao oce ocozu .co.ueu.o.axe a. ocozu oaaoooo...: no.\- =.ao.ce.on couuoa uem x05» on .536. Louuua Sou econ oaaeooe...: vomxse :.ae.u...aoaeu we. ace: .0 co.a.>.u as» c. »3_aauc.e ue_oioo .o «ooze use...v co. one: a a. o;og....: ween-.0 calla-u aco.ue—e¢ .0 ocean: cu.\wm :.co:oa .6 co.u:a.cua.o as» :. eo.uu:ac. a. 9.23 .33 c...:: a. layman es. .xcucaoo coon ace> e ecu on enaeoom...s Oxacoucoa .oz non-I. .o no.oiexw tm_\mm Omwxmm o-OOIashm ou.aoaao ox» ..ocoe Ocuxtn dbu\mo .uc.x..u .o axe: .co.u neocooc .o men)» .30. £633.60 th\m. :.cooa oz» co accused 30.; ecu r\acoacoo .oz ecu ..eco.uooauo on» :.uoc co econ .u. .o auc.x ox.. one 0:» .co.» nouns. =...«mc.cu acez: .uoooao o.eocouo on»: e>oz use» .aecoxe non—z» a:e:...= nou.o.nxo 03.: .o uo.oonu woos-90...: wee—u 04.5000: on one: c.500vbu am.\.m ak.\mm os\m_ .om\m__ om_\om axacoacoa .oz :.elooc. :.uae.o coco. ecu hone». o o>ez ...cooa aco> 0:» ac: at on: coco ace one—o ac. vexocoa eco- osu nxco: ecu .uoa.o =.«: we. Ace—on ounce» - e.vc.u ogu .nao.o coca .ce.ueo:ve egos o>ec can» coco on» Loan: 0:» so u». =...o.aI:: oz» no.3 nae—o o.vc.5 .0: «aces cone ace ccoc.z e ”noun-.9 oc- .:.coeoa es» =.»eocoxo. one n cos» .mc.cu»co>e moo. soon as: 50.; .o.oon 1 ex.— ...5003 ecu ve- sea-I. neocacm.:...: :36 oz: so.c och: aco> o.ooom...e ecu aces....: zo.c at» .oe»: .o no.3lexw ecauoasum ewe—u vet—cusps wean—oz uoz ooce.e>.3l< 5...:aoem oo.uaoca cocoa .ouoz .ane.o .o aco.acei.v .eco>oa c. aucoocoauec an co>.u >uo.ooa .o n.0ooxi..m.n 0.4a. 68 Assuming that people construct their images from experiences that influence their perceptions of society, a fifth question was asked, involving the "reminder" dimension of sources of images of society. Again an open-ended question was developed for this purpose: Do you recall a recent event that made you think about the social class issue? Results are shown in Table 3.4. Four categories were used to classify specific class reminders: ”intrapersonal,” ”interpersonal,” "organizational-structural," and "vicarious." Intrapersonal reminders were statements that showed that the participant reflected on the issue and was not necessarily reminded by some external stimulus (e.g., “It is not one event, it is daily life that makes us think about the class issue"). An interpersonal reminder was coded when the participant mentioned that a face-to- face interaction with one or more persons reminded him/her of the class structure. An example is "Because I had encountered persons of power who use all their authority to humiliate me." Organizational-structural reminders reflected experiences with work organizations or society as a whole that reminded the respondent of the class structure, e.g., "The other day when I filled out an application for employment and I was rejected” or "Everything in this country reminds me of the class structure, social problems and politics." Finally, ”vicarious reminders” were defined as those indirect experiences with the class-structure issue via mass media, 69 e.g., ”What reminds me about social classes in this country is the newspaper, all these stories about workers’ strikes." Table 3.4.--Class reminders pointed out by participants (N - 228). Class Reminder Number Percent No answer or unrelated answer 106 46 Interpersonal 49 21 Organizational/structural 29 13 Intrapersonal 23 10 Vicarious 21 9 Finally, Table 3.5 shows the distribution of replies to four statements to which respondents expressed their approval or disapproval. The replies were taken as indicators of attitudes toward class structure, authority within the industrial enterprise, and toward trade unions. They can also be seen as indicators of the models already described. Based on these statements, it was possible to characterize three groups of workers as Lockwood suggested. Deferential workers (53%) were expected to agree with Statement 3 in Question A, which represented a hierarchical model of the class structure. The traditional proletarian (14%) was expected to agree with Statement 1 in Question A, and the privatized worker (20%) was expected to agree with a pecuniary or money model of society (Statement 2 in Question A). 70 Table 3.5.--Beliefs on class-structure issues (N - 228). Question Percent A 1. In this country today there are basically two main classes, bosses and workers, and they have opposed interests. 14 2. Most people in Mexico belong to the same class. The only difference, the only thing that mat- ters, is money. 20 3. In Mexico there are several classes: the upper class, the middle class, the working class, the poor, etc. The upper class is the only one that leads the country and industry, and it should stay that way. 53 4. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. 13 We; 8 l. The factory is like a football team; we all have to cooperate and work hard to score goals, that is to win. 84 2. Teamwork in the factory is impossible since management and workers are on opposite sides. 15 3. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. 1 fix C 1. Trade unions and their leaders only generate problems between managers and workers. 10 2. Every worker should join a trade union, because workers should stick together and improve work- ing conditions. 84 3. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. 6 71 Table 3.5.--Continued. Question Percent D 1. Management is interested in the good of the firm and all workers. 73 2. Management is only interested in profits. 25 3. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. 2 1—0—0% Deferential attitudes were found in the majority of respondents . when asked about industrial authority (84%), indicating a belief (or maybe an experience) in paternalistic forms of authority. A small percentage (15%) expressed their agreement with a traditional proletarian view of the issue (2), accepting that management’s and workers’ interests were opposed. Nearly three-fourths of the sample regarded management as interested in the well-being of workers, and the other one-fourth viewed management as being solely concerned with profits. Although most of the sample had a deferential attitude toward management, the majority expressed their agreement with the belief that union membership was a positive thing to all workers. And although only 20% of the workers were members of a union, they believed that union membership mattered. In general terms, based on the results of these statements, the three models of society can be delineated. It should not, however, be assumed that this is a coherent set of attitudes. Agreement or 72 disagreement with the statements in Questions A through. D is not proof that people held a definite model of society. In eliciting images of society, the open-ended questions showed a greater diversity of images in comparison to questions using the agree- disagree response format. In sum, the evidence supported the idea that people hold mental representations of the class structure, probably influenced not only by their immediate social milieux, but also by the culture and the wider society, as illustrated by the finding of a colonization model. There was also a strong deferential orientation, involving belief in hierarchy, individualism, comitment to the firm, and management authority. Overall, prestige images were the most frequent in response to open-ended questions. F o nal s s on th Se f- v e a The self-investment measure employed in this study contained 20 items taken from a number of different sources. Six job-involvement items and four intrinsic-motivation items were taken from research conducted by Lawler and Hall (1970). It should be noted, however, that the job-involvement items used by Lawler and Hall were those developed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965), and the intrinsic-motivation items were developed by Lawler (1969). Ten items were developed by aFor a more detailed discussion of these factor analyses, see Carlos F. Fernandez-Collado, ”Self Investment in Work: A Study in a Mexican Industrial Comunity" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1984). 73 Faunce. Lawler and Hall’s research was designed, in part, to determine whether job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation were measures focusing on the same conceptual domain or whether they focused on conceptually distinct psychological domains. Their study focused on the potential interrelationships among these three variables, as well as the relationship of these variables to other job characteristics in the work environment. Lawler and Hall concluded from their study that job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation were factorially independent and related differently to other job characteristics. The self-investment items used in the 'present study were randomly ordered in the measurement instrument to minimize potential threats to validity. The items and their respective item numbers as they appeared in the questionnaire and subsequent data analysis are presented in Table 3.6. Participants in this study expressed their degree of agreement or disagreement with these items by responding to five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 .. stroneg agree, 2 - agree, 3 - neutral, 4 - disagree, to 5 - strongly disagree. The information provided by the 228 respondents was then subjected to principal-components factor analyses (unities in the diagonals and eigenvalue default of 1.0) with rotation to a varimax criterion (Kaiser, l958). Multifactor solutions were then forced, as necessary, to discern appropriate factor structures. Three criteria were established a priori to determine optimal solutions: (a) items must load at a minimum of .60 and cross-load at a maximum of .40 to be retained on a given factor; (b) items associated with each factor 74 Table 3.6.--Items comprising the self-investment scale. 45. 47. 49. 51. 55. 59. 60. 61. 63. Job-Involvement Items The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. I am very much involved personally in my work. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. I live for my job. Most things in life are more important than work. I’m really a perfectionist about my work. Intrinsic-Motivation Items Doing my job well increases my feelings of self-esteem. When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well. When I perform my job well, it contributes to my personal growth and development. Items Developed by Faunce When I am through work at the end of the day, I hardly ever think about whether I did a good or bad job. I sometimes feel uncomfortable when talking to people whose jobs carry more prestige than mine. The type of work I do is important to me when I think about how successful I am in life. I think members of my family feel proud when they tell people what I do for a living. I sometimes feel ashamed to tell people what kind of work I do. I would be happy to have my children do the kind of work I do. When I make a mistake or do something badly at work, it some- times bothers me for days. To me, my work is only a small part of what I do. If I could not do my job well, I would feel that I was a failure as a person. ‘ j {eel depressed when I fail at something connected with my 0 . 75 must clearly exhibit common meaning; and (c) a maximum number of items meeting the preceding criteria should be retained to minimize loss of information. A three-factor solution was attempted first because the self- investment measure employed in this study contained items taken from three different sources. The results of this analysis were not interpretable. There were extensive cross-loadings across factors for many of the items. A two-factor and a four-factor solution were attempted next. Once again,the results were not interpretable because of substantial cross-loadings on many of the items. The results showed that the ten items developed by Faunce had substantial cross-loadings on the other factors. This suggested that the items were intercorrelated with job-involvement and intrinsic-motivation items. This was not surprising. In fact, it was Faunce’s intention to add some of them to the other scales, tapping some additional, possible dimensions of self-investment. However, this precluded identifying acceptable factor solutions, and for this reason it was decided to drop those items from subsequent analyses. A two-factor solution was then attempted, using only the original job-involvement items from Lodahl and Kejner and the Lawler intrinsic-motivation items. These ten items, four measuring intrinsic motivation and six measuring job involvement, theoretically should have grouped together in a two-factor solution. A two-factor solution was imposed on the data; the results are 76 presented in Table 3.7. This solution appeared to be quite interpretable, save for the problems associated with Items 46, 54, and 58. Items 46 and 58 did not load at the .6 level on either factor. Item 54 was equally cross-loaded on both factors. The first factor was a job-involvement dimension, and the second-factor was the intrinsic-motivation dimension. (Items 45 and 58 also were problematic in the Lawler and Hall [1970] analysis.) Table 3.7.--Two-factor solution for self-investment. Item Factor 1 Factor 2 44 .75363* .09604 46 .03139 .44111 48 .21967 .61158* 50 .57040 .12093 52 .80236* .04936 53 .26966 .62052* 54 .38095 .31044 56 .13907 .60580* 58 .22731 .14961 62 -.23051 .60457* *Indicates acceptable loadings. It was clear from these results that the most interpretable solution would be a two-factor solution with Items 46, 54, and 58 deleted. Consequently, a two-factor solution excluding these three items was executed; it was both interpretable and satisfied the criteria to determine optimal solutions. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 3.8. Table 3.8.--Two-factor solution for self-investment, excluding Items 46, 54, and 58. 77 Item Factor 1 Factor 2 44 .79088* .06929 48 .21029 .64090* 50 .64052* .09869 52 .80159* .06916 53 .22566 .67489* 56 .08323 .63920* 62 -.22447 .62205* *Indicates acceptable loadings. Item 48 presented another minor problem because it loaded on Factor 2, which was the intrinsic-motivation dimension rather than the job-involvement dimension. It should be noted that this was also the case for the two-factor solution that included the items that were deleted in this analysis. Given these results, it seems reasonable to conclude that this item, at least for this sample, was a more valid measure of intrinsic motivation than job involvement. Consequently, the item was included in this measure of self- investment. The items that comprised the two dimensions of self- investment in work are shown in Table 3.9. 78 Table 3.9.--Items comprising the self-investment measure for this study. Item FACTOR 1: Job-Involvement Items 44. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 50. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. 52. I live for my job. FACTOR 2: Intrinsic-Motivation Items 48. I am very much involved personally in my work. 53. When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accomplish- ment. 56. I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well. 62. When I perform my job well, it contributes to my personal growth and development. Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each factor to assess the internal consistency of the items. 'The internal consistency coefficient for the job-involvement items was .63, and the coefficient for the intrinsic-motivation items was .48. Neither of these coefficients was particularly high, indicating some degree of heterogeneity among the items, which increased the error variance associated with the measures. This obviously increased the difficulty of identifying relationships that might exist among the variables contained in the hypotheses. Self-investment in work emerged as a combination of the concepts of job involvement and intrinsic motivation, although it is a more specific and broader concept than each of its components. 79 Job involvement means the importance of the job to a person. Intrinsic motivation means the importance specifically of job performance for self-esteem. Self-investment in work implies that for someone his/her job is important and his/her job performance is important because it influences how that person feels about him/herself. Self-investment is, in sum, the concept that "glues" job involvement and intrinsic motivation, giving meaning to them. Both factors were used as a measurement of self-investment in subsequent analyses. flyppthesis Testing Table 3.10 delineates the results of testing the hypotheses, which examined the extent to which people’s images about class issues are affected by (a) interactions within and outside the job, (b) degree of identification with workmates and/or bosses, and (c) self-investment or job involvement. The hypotheses that were tested concerned three models of class images: power images, prestige images, and pecuniary images. For purposes of clarity, letters and numbers in Table 3.10 are used to designate relationships tested in the hypotheses. The hypotheses were tested using a set of five open-ended questions about the different dimensions of the class structure: perceived class structure, criteria used to describe differences between classes, possibilities of change, and class reminders. The five questions were post-coded to count the Inumber of ‘times a respondent mentioned power, prestige, or pecuniary concepts in 80 answers to each of the questions. Respondents could, of course, use any or all of the three kinds of imagery. The first set of hypotheses that was tested concerned the power model of society, measured by how often power imagery of class structure appeared in individuals’ responses to the open-ended questions. Power imagery was expressed by such concepts as "There are mainly two classes--’them’ and ’us’" and "There is the owner and we, the workers." First, it was proposed (see page 40) that people who show a high frequency of power-imagery use will have certain patterns of interactions and job-related characteristics, as stated in the following two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1;: The higher the frequency of interaction with workmates at the job and at leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Hyppthesis lb: The lower the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status on and off the job, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. The independent variables were measured ("1 a five-point scale for people to state their frequency of interaction with workmates and with persons of unequal occupational status in and outside of their jobs. (See pp. 44-45 for detailed discussion of measurement of variables; see Appendix A for questionnaire.) The correlation matrix in Table 3.10 expresses the relationships in Hypotheses la and lb. The first (Relation A-7) was not significant (r . .023, p > .05), and the second (Relation B-7)-- although a modest correlation--was significant and in the predicted direction (r - .106, p < .005). eacNN ' 2v fic-anpvv.hc> L.eh¢1= naps.v~..nv 3....4‘ .ne—tvueinewUIIiavu or. °~A~r~h 131 .moo. v ass .mo. v a. in mmo. om.. one. 333m.1 0...- «50. 3mm..- ~.o.u momma. 3co.caooo .o mocoaaocm . _ cm_. -- oso. em_m. «mmw. ek~_. «s¢_~.- so... 35mp. memos. om.oaoaa .o mocoaoocu : owe. :mo. -- m_o. a~__. ee-m.- assmw. ewe..- MNQ. momma. Logan .0 xocoaoocu u ono. kkm.m. m.o. .. «33m. m.o. m.o. .wo. m¢o. maooom .oco.ooa:ooo u «:3m.n emmw. em... 333m. .1 «mo.. em... em... mmo. 3co3 c. ocosowo>c.i..om u o.... en~.. «Nam.u m.o. emo.. in em.~.- .30.: m.o.u ncoxo.oeo no.3 ...ocov_ a who. 33:.~.1 333mm. m.o. 3m... em.n.u in mmo.u mmo. moooExco3 no.3 ...ocoo_ u maooom .oaooc: «mm..- em:.. ewe..- .oo. em... .so.u mmo.n ii emhm.n .0 «concoa no.3 co.ooogoo:_ a «.0.1 «mm.. mmo. moo. wmo.u m.o.i moo. nmo. in mooosxco3 no.3 co.ooonooc. < a a h m m c m N . momma. momma. momma. maooom 3co3 c. mooxo.oem moooexco3 .owwwmwmwo mooosxno3 3co.::oom om.omocm co3om .oco.o ocoEomo>c_ no.3 no.3 mcomnoo no.3 no.3 .o .cocm .o .vocu .o .oocu noaaooo a..om ...ocov. ...ocop_ co.ooocooc_ co.ooocooc_ .AmNN u z. mo.no.no> cones moose mco.oo.occouio.o..m o.noh 82 The next two hypotheses proposed: flyppthesis 1e: The higher the degree of identification with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Hypothesis lg: The lower the degree of identification with employers, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. These variables were measured by several items. Using a four- point scale, people described the extent to which they experienced feelings of solidarity and cohesiveness with fellow workers; thus, identification with workmates was assessed. The extent of workers’ confidence and trust in their employers was also measured by a four- point scale. The results in Table 3.10 (Relations C-7 and D-7, respectively) show correlations in the predicted direction that were statistically significant (r - .234, p < .005; r - -.322, p < .05). Another hypothesis regarding power images of society proposed self-investment as a variable that affects class imagery. Self- investment is essentially an individual process associated with work environments where interactions with workmates and/or bosses occur. It was explained that workers in such contexts are likely to experience pride and involvement with their jobs. Self-investment was measured by an instrument that originally contained 20 statements to which respondents expressed their degree of agreement or disagreement, using a Likert format. After a factor analysis was performed, seven items were included for the self-investment measure in this study. (See pp. 73-79.) 83 This hypothesis stated: Hyppthesis 1e: The higher the self-investment ‘Hl work, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Table 3.10 shows (Relation E-7) a moderate but significant correlation coefficient in the predicted direction (r - .112, p < .05). Next, it was expected that differences in occupational status would produce differing images of the class structure. It was hypothesized that: Hypgthesis lf: The lower the occupational status of an employee, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Referring again to the results in Table 3.10 (Relation F-7), the correlation coefficient showed no support for this hypothesis (r . .016, p < .05). The next model of class images that was tested was prestige imagery, measured by how often prestige or hierarchical concepts appeared in an individual’s responses to the five open-ended questions about the different dimensions of class structure. Prestige imagery was expressed as belief in the intrinsic qualities of at least three social qualifiers such as education, work capabilities, training, and having goals of advancement. In this second set of hypotheses, it was advanced that prestige images of society will be held by workers who experience work and community situations bringing them into contact with persons of unequal occupational status. (hi the job they have frequent interactions with employers, but they do not interact with workmates 84 as often. These pe0ple will see status distinctions as legitimate; they are comfortable in a context of prestige hierarchies. Also, frequency of interactions with employers at the workplace and occupationally heterogeneous contacts off the job increase the opportunity for evaluation in job-related terms, leading to an increased opportunity for job involvement. The following hypotheses were related to this proposition: Hypothesis 2a: The lower the frequency of interactions with workmates in the workplace and during leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. The correlation coefficient in Table 3.10 (Relation A-8) showed a significant relationship between frequency of interactions with workmates and prestige images of society. However, it was not in the predicted direction. It was assumed that frequency of prestige images of the class structure was to be associated with a lower interaction with workmates and a higher interaction with persons of unequal status. Hence, it was hypothesized that: Hyppthesis 2b: The higher the frequency of interactions with persons of unequal occupational status in the workplace and during leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. The results in Table 3.10 (Relation 8-8) supported Hypothesis 2b (r - .146, p < .05) but showed that the higher degree of prestige images of the class structure held was related to increased interaction with both workmates and persons of unequal occupational status. 85 As stated earlier, there is a distinction to be made between interactions and identifications. Interactions with workmates and with employers refer to the encounters a worker may have with any of these persons at the workplace or in leisure hours. Identification with either of these groups--workmates or employers--indicates which is considered by the worker as a reference group, the group that shares his/her ideas of society. In terms of identification, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypgthesis 2c: The lower the degree of identification with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Hypgthesis 2d: The higher the degree of identification with employers, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. The correlations in Table 3.10 (Relations C-8 and D-8) showed the results to be in the predicted direction and statistically significant. Moderate correlation coefficients expressed that people with higher degrees of identification with employers tended to have a higher frequency of prestige images of society, or, conversely, perhaps because they had these images they tended to identify more with their bosses. Also as predicted, people who identified less with workmates had a higher frequency of prestige images of society. It was also stated earlier (in the literature review) that prestige images of society tend to be associated with self- investment in work because the same environment that provides the types of social experiences that develop in prestige imagery (work 86 and community situations where job and status evaluations are likely to occur) is presumably conducive to self-investment in work. Hence it was hypothesized that: Hyppthesis 2e: The higher the degree of self-investment in work, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. A correlation coefficient of r = .235 (p < .05), shown in Table 3.10 (Relation E-8), supported Hypothesis 2e. Finally, it was proposed that workers with a higher occupational status, such as professional and clerical workers, will tend to experience more job and community situations conducive to prestige imagery. Therefore, it was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2f: The higher the occupational status, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. A correlation coefficient of r = .316 (p < .005), shown in Table 3.10 (Relation F-8), supported this hypothesis. A third set of hypotheses related to the pecuniary model of society--that in which money is seen not as a divider but as a cannon denominator. This model was related in the review of the literature to a "new" privatized worker characterized by a low frequency of interactions at the workplace and in the community, a privatized worker who has fewer experiences of social inequality. His/her only evaluation of class differences is in terms of "buying things." Therefore, a privatized worker is one who does not invest him/herself in work or class-relevant issues and is, as a result, less likely to have an image of society in which work or social 87 class is a salient component. Two hypotheses were advanced regarding this proposition: Hyppthesis 3;: The lower the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status, the higher will be the frequency of pecuniary images of society. Hypothesis 3b: The lower the degree of self-investment in work, the higher will be the frequency of pecuniary images of society. These hypotheses were supported by the results. For Hypothesis 3a, a low but significant correlation in the predicted direction is shown in Table 3.10 (Relation 8-9) (r - -.l39, p < .05). For Hypothesis 3b, Table 3.10 (Relation E-9) shows a moderate correla- tion of r - -.344 (p < .05). As stated, persons holding pecuniary images of society were differentiated by two major variables: low interaction with others and a relatively low degree of self- investment in work. The hypotheses described earlier were tested separately for management and clerical (white-collar) personnel (n - 76) and for skilled and unskilled (blue-collar) workers (n - 152). Pearson correlation coefficients, indicating the extent and direction of the associations, are shown in Table 3.11. The mean scores for power, prestige, and pecuniary imagery indicate that, for both groups, the highest mean score was for prestige images of society. White-collar workers had a higher frequency of imagery of all three kinds, but the results were statistically significant only in the case of prestige imagery. Cross-tabulations and chi-square as a significance test indicated that white-collar workers had more prestige imagery than blue-collar 88 Table 3.11.--Correlation coefficients for class imagery with job and community variables for white- and blue-collar workers. Imagery Predicted Relations Blue-Collar White-Collar (n - 152) (n - 76) interaction workmates job and leisure time .063 -.l79* POWER interaction unequal IMAGES occupational status -.078 .114 OF job and leisure time SOCIETY identification workmates .107* -.120* identification employers -.156 .146 self-investment .089 -.210* interaction workmates job and leisure time -.107* .069 PRESTIGE interaction unequal IMAGES occupational status .079 .046 OF job and leisure time SOCIETY identification workmates .250* .109* identification employers .198* .137* self-investment in work .106* .140* interaction workmates job and leisure time -.083 .145 PECUMIARY IMAGES OF interaction unequal SOCIETY occupational status .092 -.l98* job and leisure time self-investment in work -.148* -.105* 89 workers (X2 - 31.08, d.f. = 6, p < .05). These results are shown in Table 3.12 and 3.13. Table 3.12.--Mean scores of types of imagery for white- and blue- collar workers. Blue-Collar White-Collar Type of Imagery Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Power 1.74 1.90 1.98 1.80 Prestige 3.01 1.01 4.72 2.20 Pecuniary 1.31 1.60 1.43 1.30 Table 3.13.--Occupational category by frequency of prestige images. Occupational Category Prestige Row Imagery Secretaries Total Profes- and Other Skilled Unskilled sionals White-Collar Workers Workers Count 5 14 46 42 107 Row 2 4 7 13.1 43.0 39.3 46.9 L0" Col. 2 l4 3 34.1 59.7 56.2 lot. 2 2 2 6.1 23.2 18.4 Count 21 22 28 28 99 . Row 2 21.2 22.2 28.3 28.3 43.4 Madlum C01. 2 60.6 53.7 36.4 37.3 Tot. % 9.2 9.6 12.3 12.3 Count 9 5 3 5 22 . Row % 40.9 22.7 13.6 22.7 9.6 "‘9h Col. 2 25.7 12.2 3.9 6.7 Tot. % 3.9 2.2 1.3 2.2 Column Count 35 41 77. 75 228 Total Col. 2 15.4 18.3 33.8 32.9 100.0 x2 . 31.08 d.f. - 6 p < .005 90 roupatjonal oatogory: Seventy—six white-collar employees and 152 blue-collar workers participated in the study: 15.35% were managerial-professional, 17.98% were clerical workers, 33.77% were skilled workers, and 32.98% were unskilled workers. This job- classification variable was statistically significant in association with prestige imagery. The higher the occupational category, the higher the frequency of prestige images of societyu 0f the subsample of white-collar workers, 37.9% were categorized as having a high content of prestige imagery. Only 9% of the blue-collar subsample was coded under this category. The relationship was generally linear. A greater proportion of professionals (40.9%) expressed seven or more prestige images in their statements. Among their clerical counterparts, only 22.7% of the subsample were in this category (X2 = 31.08, d.f. = 6, p < .001). Hypotheses stating associations with power images of the class structure were the following: Hypothesis lo: The higher the frequency of interaction with workmates at the job and at leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. flypothesjs 1o: The lower the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status on and off the job, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. ‘ flypothosis lo: The higher the degree of identification with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Hypothesis lo: The lower the degree of identification with employers, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. 91 flyoothosis lo: The higher the self-investment in work, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. H esi lf: The lower the occupational status of an employee, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Hypothesis lg: The higher the frequency of interaction with workmates at the workplace and during leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Differences in patterns of interaction and identification of white- and blue-collar workers were stated earlier. This showed up in terms of the power images of society. It was proposed that - white-collar' workers with low self-investment in work could be expected to reject rather than identify with the class to which they objectively belonged, and, if so, this would lead to different consequences for class imagery from those predicted for blue-collar workers. These considerations suggest some exceptions to the power- imagery hypotheses listed above for the white-collar segment of the sample. For white-collar workers: W: The lower the frequency of interaction with workmates at the workplace and during leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. . The lower the degree of identification with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. 1 : The lower the self-investment in work, the .higher will be the frequency of power images of the class structure. Table 3.11 indicated that, for blue-collar workers, only Hypothesis lc was supported. For white-collar workers, data 92 lower frequency of interaction with workmates, a lower' degree of identification with workmates, and a lower degree of self-investment in work, as predicted in Hypotheses 1h, 1i, and lj. Hypotheses regarding prestige images of the class structure stated: Hypothesis 2a: The lower the frequency of interactions with workmates in the workplace and during leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Hypothesis 2b: The higher the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status in the workplace and during leisure-time hours, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Hypothosis 2c: The lower the degree of identification with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. flypothosis 2d: The higher the degree of identification with employers, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. flypothgsis 213: The higher the degree of self-investment in work, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Hypothosis 2f: The higher the occupational status, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Once again, looking at the white-collar/blue-collar breakdown, the results in Table 3.11 supported Hypotheses 2a, 2d, and 28 f0r blue-collar workers. Blue-collar workers who had less interaction with workmates on the job and at leisure time had more prestige images of society, as predicted (Hypothesis 2a). As predicted in Hypothesis 2d, blue-collar workers with a high degree of identification with employers had a higher frequency of prestige 93 images of society. However, having a high frequency of prestige imagery was also related positively with a high degree of identification with fellow workers, which differed from the original hypothesis that a high degree of identification with fellow workers was associated with a lower frequency of prestige imagery. Because white-collar workers do interact with workmates as well as with persons of higher occupations (employers) off and on the job, they can be identified with colleagues, i.e., workmates, as well as with employers. Given these considerations, it was predicted that the hypotheses listed below for the white-collar segment of the sample would be proven: H129Lh§§i§_29= The higher the identification with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Hypothesis 2h: The higher the interactions with workmates, the higher will be the frequency of prestige images of the class structure. For white-collar workers, having a higher frequency of prestige imagery was moderately associated with a higher degree of identification with bosses and a higher degree of identification and interactions with workmates or colleagues, as predicted in Hypotheses 2f and 2h. As expected, white-collar workers with a higher frequency of prestige imagery tended to be more self-invested in work. Regarding pecuniary images of society, it was hypothesized that: 94 11mm: The lower the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status, the higher will be the frequency of pecuniary images of society. is : The lower the degree of self-investment in work, the higher will be the frequency of pecuniary images of society. The last part of Table 3.11 indicated some statistically significant findings that were mostly in agreement with the predictions regarding pecuniary images of society. For blue-collar workers, the higher the frequency of pecuniary imagery, the lower the degree of self-investment in work. For white-collar workers, having a higher frequency of pecuniary images of society was related to a lower degree of self- investment and a lower frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status, as predicted in Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Although a more detailed discussion is given in the next chapter, some explanation is advanced here. It appears that controlling for blue- and white-collar workers did produce a refinement in the findings. And, more important, the results led to the conclusion that, in many instances, job and community variables influenced class imagery, as expected. The interaction variables were, in most cases, poor predictors. One of the reasons for the low contribution of these variables could be that a high frequency of interactions was going on in this town, not only with workmates, but also with persons of equal and unequal status as well, both in and outside the job. 3 Using the SPSS variable transformation features, and for purposes of clarifying what has been presented, Table 3.14 shows the average number of 95 weekly interactions for white-collar and blue-collar workers, as well as for the total sample. Table 3.14.--Average number of weekly interactions in and outside the job. Total Sample Blue—Collar White-Collar (N = 228) (n - 152) (n - 76) Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Number of interactions with workmates 21.9 .70 20.2 9.87 25.6 8.17 Number of interactions with persons of unequal 23.9 9.75 22.2 9.02 27.0 9.92 occupational status Number of interactions with persons in more 23.1 9.65 21.5 9.84 26.3 10.10 prestigious occupations The identification variables--degree of identification with workmates or bosses-~presented more variation than the interaction variables. As stated earlier, it was considered that interactions are behaviors that indicate encounters, whereas identifications are attitudes toward a reference group with which one shares ideas of society. These attitudes were measured as the degree to which workers agreed on items that expressed solidarity and cohesiveness toward fellow workers and the extent to which trust and confidence were expressed in items about employers. And although three- quarters of the sample (73%) agreed with the notion that management 96 is interested in workers and in the good of the firm, it was found that workers who expressed disagreement with such statements tended to have a higher frequency of power images of society. Also, those blue-collar workers who agreed with statements of solidarity among fellow workers (there were many: e.g., 84% felt that workers have to stick together and join unions) had a higher frequency of power images of society, as predicted. But, as reported in Table 3.14, a higher degree of identification with workmates was also related to a higher frequency of prestige images of society, a relationship that was statistically significant for blue-collar workers. These , findings opened an interesting possibility, which will be discussed in the appropriate section of the study. It can be advanced here, though, that perhaps feelings of solidarity among this sample of workers do not necessarily indicate attitudes of "us against management,” and, although some of the relationships between variables in this study were not as predicted, the findings pointed toward alternate subjective models of society and how society works, different from those observed elsewhere. Self-investment in work was a most influential variable in class imagery. Predictions regarding this variable were especially accurate for white-collar workers. Tables 3.10 and 3.11 showed moderate correlations, mainly supporting the initial propositions. As expected, blue-collar and white-collar workers with higher frequencies of hierarchical or prestige models of society tended also to have a higher degree of self-investment in work, as opposed 97 to those workers having a higher frequency of pecuniary images of society, who had a lower degree of self-investment in work. On the other hand, it was assumed that workers with a higher frequency of power images of society would also have a higher degree of self-investment in work (traditional-type workers with pride in doing their jobs). The opposite, as predicted, was statistically significant for white-collar workers, probably because white-collar personnel who tend to have a higher frequency of power images of society are somewhat alienated from their work and do not see their employers in a deferential manner, but rather antagonisticallyu Thus, perhaps, these white-collar workers do not see their employers and their evaluations as meaningful, tending toward a lower degree of self-investment in work. Additi n An 1 Additional analyses were performed to clarify issues about class imagery. Specifically, analyses of age, gender, education, income, and other activities could help explain differences in social experiences. From the results described here, it could be said that prestige imagery was abundant in the sample in this town (817 prestige images versus 416 power images and 318 pecuniary images coded in the five open-ended questions). However, there were still many concepts that indicated the presence of power and pecuniary imagery. Are these images related to other characteristics in the sample such as age, gender, occupational category, education, income, other activities of the 98 respondent, and type of industry? (See pp. 52-55 for the distribution of these variables.) Frequency of imagery' was recorded in three categories for purposes of cross-tabulation with discrete variables, as well as for descriptive purposes, with continuous variables, not linearly related. For the three kinds of images in the five open-ended questions, a ”low frequency" of imagery - 1 to 3 images, a "medium frequency" = 3 to 6 images, and a "high frequency” - 7 or more images. Ago. The mean age of the entire sample was 26.5 (s.d. - 7.65) years. Age was statistically significant only when related with power imagery. Only 17% of the sample (228) expressed more than three power images in the open-ended questions. Those respondents who were 40 years old or older tended to have more power imagery. In Table 3.15 it can be seen that more than 75% of the sample was less than 30 years old. In fact, we interviewed a young labor force, very eager to work and quite satisfied with their new industrial jobs. Perhaps the differences in this table showing that older workers had more power imagery can be explained by pointing out that those workers 40 years or older were more disenchanted than the younger ones. Probably some of them came from nearby Mexico City, brought by their employers to the opening of a new plant in Santiago Tianquistenco. 99 Table 3.15.--Age and frequency of power images of society. Age in Years Power Row Imagery 0-19 20-30 31-40 41-50 51+ Total Count 22 125 31 8 2 188 L Row 1 11.7 66.5 16.5 4.3 1.1 82.5 0" 001. x 78.6 83.3 88.6 61.5 100.0 Tot. x 9.6 54.8 13.6 3.5 .9 Count 5 23 4 3 0 35 M di Row x 14.3 65.7 11.4 8.6 0 15.4 e “m Col. x 17.9 15.3 11.4 23.1 0 Tot. x 2.2 10.1 1.8 1.3 0 Count ' 1 2 0 2 0 5 H. h Row 2 20.0 40.0 0 40.0 0 2.2 ‘9 061. x 3.6 1.3 0 15.4 0 Tot. x .4 .9 0 .9 0 Column Count 28 150 35 13 2 228 Total 061. x 12.3 65.8 15.4 5.7 9 100 0 x2 - 14.4 df - 8 p < .05 goooor. Sixty-eight and six-tenths percent of the sample were males, and 31.4% were females. Gender was statistically significant only in association with prestige imagery. The female subsample had a higher proportion of respondents (15%) in the category of those with the highest number of prestige images of society. Only 7% of the males were in this categoryv(x2 - 6.49, d.f. - 2, p > .05). (See Table 3.16.) Most of ‘the female labor force was in- assembly factories (maquiladora type), where the requirements of the speedy assembly of parts and packing are better met by the more developed, fine motor 100 skills of women. The result that women had more prestige imagery than men could be explained by the fact that, in the maquila occupations, informal chatting and interactions among supervisors, bosses, and workers are frequent. Therefore, the chance of cross- status interactions is increased. Table 3.16.--Gender and frequency of prestige images of society. Gender Prestige Row Imagery Male Female Total Count 78 27 105 L Row % 74.5 25.5 46.9 0" 001. x . 51.0 38.0 Tot. % 34.9 11.9 Count 66 33 99 M d' Row % 66.3 33.7 43.4 e 1"” 001. x 41.8 46.5 Tot. % 28.8 14.6 Count 11 ll 22 H' h Row % 50.0 50.0 9.7 ‘9 001. x 7.1 15.5 Tot. % 4.9 4.9 Column Count 155 71 226 Total Col. % 68.6 31.4 100.0 x2 - 5.49' d.f. = 2 p < .05 looomo. As shown in Table 3.17, three-quarters of the sample (77.4%) received a minimum-wage salary, whereas 9% of the sample received ten times that salary (55,000 pesos), considered an average 101 .00808 me . c~__0u .m.= P .ommp c. .momoa mo mucamzoga cum pco. v a «p u .m.u m—mo.mm a Nx o.oop m.Pm p.m~ ¢.m m.¢ m.m p.m a. a .pou punch o- opp am up —p up n N acaou csapau m.m m.p m. m.p s._ a. v. a .aoh m.o P.m m.op m.- o.m~ o.o~ o.om n .pou gap: s.m v.mm o.m_ p.o o.mp o.m_ —.m m.¢ a 30¢ . - m m N m m w _ «csou n.5p ~.m_ m.m o.p ~.~ ~.~ q. a .aoh o.mm m.~m ~.mm ¢.mm o.om e.p~ o.om a .pou azvcmz ¢.m¢ o.mm o._m «.mp P.¢ —.o p.m o.p n.3am mm am pm Np v o m — acscu m.mm p.pp ~.~ m.P m.p o o x .uoh m.mm v.~¢ m.o~ c.mm o.m~ o o x .Pou 304 a.m¢ p.mo m.m~ ~.¢ m.m m.~ o o x 3cm mop om mu m ¢ m o o «csou v so Poo.m poc.m_ —oo.c~ poo.om —co.c¢ +cco.pm pauoh ooo.m -ooo.op -ooc.o~ -coo.om -coo.oc -amm.om agum~3~ 3oz mm_amacm «sou:— .>gmm~e_ mmwammga ma Aucmaamgm can «sou:_-h.u_.m m—nah 102 managerial income at that time. Approximately 21% of thesample lay between the two, and a linear association between income of the respondents and prestige imagery emerged. The higher the income, the higher the frequency of prestige images of society (X2 - 33.05, d.f. - 12, p < .001). Patterns of association were not significant for other types of imagery. Eoooetioo. The mean number of years of formal education was nine years (s.d. - 3.77), which translates to completion of middle school. People who completed high school (14%), with some years of college (14%), and a professional degree (4.8%) were mainly coded as having medium and high content of prestige imagery. Respondents with lower (35.1%) and middle school (32%) had a low content of prestige imagery (X2 . 38.21, d.f. - 8, p < .001, r . .39). (See Table 3.18.) Other eotivitjes. Results regarding such activities as church participation or belonging to and participating in unions, professional associations, and political parties were not statistically related to imagery. Fifty-two percent of the respondents belonged to a religious organization, 11% to a professional organization, and 30% to a conmunity organization. Only 20% belonged to a workers’ union, and only 16.7% declared membership in a political party. Although none of the preceding activities were significantly related to class imagery, there was a significant relationship between those respondents who still were doing campesino activities 103 besides their factory jobs (33.2% of the sample). Horkers still doing campesino activities had fewer prestige images of society. (See Table 3.19.) Table 3.18.--Years of formal education and frequency of prestige images of the class structure. Formal Education Prestige Row Imagery Pri- Some Prof. Total mary M.S. H.S Coll. Degree Count 50 39 12 6 0 107 L Row % 46.7 36.4 11.2 5.6 0 46.9 0" 001. x 62.5 53.4 37.5 18.8 0 Tot. x 21.9 17.1 5.3 2.6 0 Count 28 29 15 20 7 99 M 0' Row % 28.3 20.7 15.2 20.2 7.1 43.4 e 1"” 001. x 35.0 39.7 46.9 62.5 63.6 Tot. % 12.3 12.7 6.6 8.8 3.1 Count 2 5 5 6 4 22 . n Row % 9.1 22.7 22.7 27.3 18.2 "‘9 001. x 2.5 6.9 15.6 18.8 36.4 Tot. % .9 2.2 2.2 2.6 1.8 Column Count 80 73 32 32 11 228 Total 001. x 35.1 32.0 14.0 14.0 4.8 100 0 x2 - 38.21 d.f. . 8 p < .001 Note: M.S. - middle school H.S. - high school 104 Table 3.19.--Campesino activities and frequency of prestige imagery. Campesino Activity Prestige Row Imagery Yes No Total Count 44 62 106 L Row % 41.5 - 58.5 46.9 0" 001. x 59.7 41.1 Tot. % 19.5 27.4 Count 25 74 99 M di Row % 25.3 74.7 43.4 e "m C01. 94 33.3 49.0 Tot. % 11.1 32.7 Count 6 15 21 H' h Row % 28.6 71.4 9.3 ‘9 001. x 8.0 9.9 Tot. % 0.7 6.6 Column Count 76 151 226 Total Col. % 33.2 66.8 100.0 x2 - 6.33 d.f. = 2 p < .05 It is not surprising that people with a higher income and more years of formal education had more prestige images of society because income, occupation, education, and similar status attributes define the social identities of the middle and upper classes. Hhat is unusual is that Table 3.19 shows that people who still did campesino activities, besides their workers’ jobs, had fewer prestige images of society. This contrasts with Bell and Newby’s (1975) findings; they found that agricultural workers in their sample tended to be deferential. The differenCes in the results of the present study could be explained in that these campesinos owned 105 their land and were not employees of a landowner, and thus did not have greater degrees of interaction with an employer as did workers in the Bell and Newby study. Moreover, workers who at the same time were. campesinos in this study' may have had more power imagery because they were still connected to the land, to their ejido, as something that was given to their families as a result of the 1910 Revolution and as something that could be threatened by continuous industrial growth, hence given a feeling of ”us” against "them." A summary of findings is presented at the beginning of the next chapter. Hith many limitations in mind, it can be advanced as a closing line for this chapter that daily experiences on the job and in the community influenced class imagery. The relations were not as clear-cut as predicted, and perhaps the influence of the community as a whole was overlooked. Specific explanations for the results presented here are given in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the study are discussed in this chapter. A summary of findings is given first; theoretical and methodological issues are discussed next. Based on this critique, directions for future research are then considered. Summary of Fjpojpgs The basic premise of the study was that people’s images of society are formed in their immediate social milieu. The central research question was: What are the relationships between the social context of industrial employees and their perceptions of the Class structure? To guide this research, it was proposed that the work situation and the community influence the images that people hold about class issues. The work situation was analyzed mainly for the frequency of interaction and degree of identification with workmates and employers, as well as the degree of investment of oneself into the job. The influence of the community was measured as variables that indicated the frequency of relationship with other people at different status levels in the town, and the overlapping interactions with workmates at leisure-time hours, i.e., frequency of association with workmates. 106 107 It was confirmed that people do hold images about. the class structure. When asked about these issues, respondents were never out of words. They were willing and able to talk about class imagery. Concepts that represented class images were given by respondents to a set of five open-ended questions that explored perceived class structure ("How would you explain to others about social classes in this country?'), criteria used to describe class differences (”what are the differences among these classes?”), the nature of relationships between these classes ("In your opinion, why do these differences exist?”), evaluative aspects of class relations (”How could this situation be changed?"), and class reminders ('Do you recall a recent event that made you think about social class issues?'). A total of 1,587 class-related images were given in response to these questions by 228 industrial workers. Following Lockwood’s (1966) scheme on the traditional proletarian and deferential worker, and the new' privatized worker, the images. were coded into the following results: 1. Four hundred sixteen power images, expressing a dichotomous power model of society, the awareness of "us" in opposition to ”them,” thoughts of two classes standing in a relation of opposition, the feeling of being subjected to power, and feeling powerless. 2. Eight hundred prestige class images, expressing a hierarchical model of society; thought of social divisions in terms 108 of status, prestige, and education; and beliefs in the existence of an elite who exercise leadership paternalistically. 3. Three hundred eighteen pecuniary class images or a money model of society where class divisions are seen mainly in terms of differences in income and material possessions. From these results, it can be said that people do hold class images, but in many circumstances without a definite "model" in mind. As Bulmer (1975) and other authors (Blackburn 8 Mann, 1975; Cousins & Brown, 1970) suggested, images might be the reflection of the contradictions with which a worker is faced in an industrial society. Lockwood’s scheme was very useful, not in the sense of finding exclusively held models of society, but in categorizing images of society, because respondents had imagery of all three kinds. People, then, had a variety of class images, and their social milieu influenced it. The community was basically an interactional status system community, where occupational and class intermingling occurred. As predicted, the frequency of experiencing interactions with persons of different status, prestige, or occupational roles provided the grounds for the predominance of a hierarchical model of society. The typical respondent answered the class-dimension questions with three or four prestige images of society, one power image, and one pecuniary image. Despite the predominance of a hierarchical model of society, it must not be overlooked that power and pecuniary imagery existed. 109 Hhen people were asked to describe the class structure, their responses mainly indicated a prestige hierarchical model of society (50% gave a clear-cut prestige model of society, 17% were ambivalent about this, and fewer perceived a power model of the class structure (13%) or a pecuniary model (7%). In answer to the question regarding the criteria people used to describe differences among Classes, there were fewer references to status and educational differences (28%) and more to pecuniary discrepancies; money was seen as an important differentiator (24%). This question generated the greatest number of ambivalent responses (28%), containing economic aspects, educational and status dimensions, moral aspects, and ownership of the means of production. Only 7% of the sample had a clear-cut power model of society in their response to this question, mentioning issues of exploitation and control of the means of production. When people were asked about the nature of relations between the Classes, almost 40% of the sample described class relationships in terms of status differences in work and education capabilities. But 15% expressed strong feelings against injustice, poverty, and exploitation. There was also ambivalence (16%) and some pecuniary imagery (10%) in their responses to this question. Hhen respondents were asked how this situation could be changed, again it was mainly a prestige-hierarchical model that emerged (41%). To be more educated, to perform well on the job and be promoted, and to receive more training were some of the responses people gave. But there also were responses of a radical kind (17%). Revolution and major 110 structural changes in government were, for example, mentioned as alternatives. To have more money was definitely not seen as a widespread solution (3%). Ambivalent responses were the fewest for this question (14%), but one-third of the respondents answered, "I don’t know how this situation could be changed," which, in essence, indicates a feeling of powerlessness. In support of the idea that class imagery stems from a particular social milieu, a different kind of imagery was found. Thirty-six images of what we called a "colonization model" were expressed when describing the class structure. Responses such as "He are divided between the foreigners and us” and "The blonds and us, the Mexicans" indicated a dichotomous model of society with divisions given in terms of race and nationality. Now, to what extent is this imagery related to the work situation and community variables? Three sets of hypotheses, each one corresponding to a particular kind of imagery, guided the response to the central research question. Hypotheses initially were tested for all the sample. In additional analyses, hypotheses were tested separately for white-collar and blue-collar workers. A summary of the results follows. Hypothesis set I predicted that a higher frequency of power images of society would be associated with a higher interaction with workmates, a lower interaction with persons of unequal occupational status at work and during leisure-time hours, a higher degree of 111 identification with workmates, and a lower degree of identification with employers. For the sample as a whole, statistically significant relationships were found between frequency of power imagery and a lower frequency of interaction with persons of unequal status, a higher degree of identification with workmates, and a higher degree of self-investment. Hypotheses that were not supported involved the following variables: frequency of interaction with workmates and occupational status. Different predictions regarding some of these relationships were made for blue-collar and white-collar workers. When the sample was divided in this way, significant relationships were found for white-collar workers between power imagery and less interaction with workmates, lower identification with workmates, and lower self-investment. For blue-collar workers, significant relationships were found between power imagery and more identification with workmates and a lower degree of identification with employers. Hypothesis set 2 specified some variables that were expected to differentiate prestige images of the class structure from power images. More frequent prestige imagery was hypothesized to be associated with a lower frequency of interaction with workmates, a higher frequency of interaction with persons of unequal status, a lower degree of identification with workmates, a higher degree of identification with employers, higher occupational status, and more education. Statistically significant relationships were found between prestige imagery and a lower frequency of interaction with 112 workmates, a higher frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status, a higher degree of identification with workmates as well as with employers, and a higher degree of occupational status. All hypotheses were supported by the data that involved associations between frequency of prestige images and all variables for the entire sample. However, the hypotheses were not supported when dividing the sample. A distinction between white-collar and blue-collar employees was made in this set of hypotheses. With the sample divided this way, white-collar workers had statistically significant relation- ships between prestige imagery and higher identification with workmates and with employers and a high degree of self-investment. Blue-collar workers had those same prestige imagery relationships and the addition of a lower frequency of interaction with workmates. The third set of hypotheses dealt with variables that differentiated pecuniary imagery from both of the other types. These hypotheses proposed that a high frequency of pecuniary images describing class structure would be associated with a lower degree of self-investment in work and a lower frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status. The data supported both of these hypotheses. In the additional exploratory analyses that were conducted, the following statistically significant relationships were found: 1. Respondents in the 40- to 50-year-old bracket tended to have more power images of society. 113 2. Homen tended to have more prestige images of society. 3. The higher the income, the higher the frequency of prestige images of society. 4. The more years of formal education, the higher the fre- quency of prestige imagery. 5. Respondents who still did campesino activities had a higher frequency of power images of society. 6. There was an association between type of technology (the most automated plant) and a higher frequency of pecuniary images of society. Regarding these differences, several possible explanations were given. Older workers, those 40 years old and older (less than 25% of the sample), tended to have more power imagery, perhaps because they were more disenchanted with industrial jobs, which, for most of the sample, were a novelty. Homen tended to have more prestige imagery because they were concentrated in assembly factories (maquiladaras), where a greater chance of cross-occupational inter- actions exists. It also could be suggested that women tended to be more verbal and talkative when interviewed and therefore tended to mention more attributes and concepts when asked about class-related issues. People with higher education and income tended to have more prestige imagery, probably because that model of society had a greater affinity with their values. And, finally, workers who still did campesino jobs (tending the land and crops) had more power imageryu A possible explanation could be that they' were more 114 connected to the land that had been given to their families as a by- product of the Mexican Revolution and that they might have felt a threat to their land and their campesino activities coming from industrial development. Thus, sentiments of "us" against "them" could be more frequent. Th r tical m i i n Lockwood’s main contribution to the study of class imagery was to make a linkage between subjective class issues and experience of status and power in the workplace and the community. In accordance with this, the present researcher attempted to establish those linkages empirically by focusing on individual patterns of interaction at the workplace and in the conlnunity, feelings of identification, and self-investment in work. The fundamental procedure in this study was the use of Lockwood’s typologies as a guide for the operationalization of variables and not as boxes in which to fit data, as he proposed in his first study on class imagery (Lockwood, 1966). In reviewing the results of the present study, I found myself, on the one hand, in agreement with the critics of Lockwood’s studies (Bell & Newby, 1975: Moore, 1973), who considered that Lockwood’s initial propositions were too rigid and neglected many issues of particular importance in each industrial community. (M1 the other hand, I agree with Lockwood’s proposition that large-scale macro- structural factors needed more attention. In this sense, the present study understated, perhaps, the importance of the community 115 as a whole. It was found that people had many interactions with workmates and persons of unequal occupational status. This was an occupationally differentiated community where an interactional status system was present. People were relating to one another in a complete or whole way, which involves meeting others in a multiplicity of roles. Hence, the predominance of prestige images of society makes sense along with the low influence of the "interaction" variables in explaining different kinds of images of society. Santiago Tianquistenco has basically an interactional status system, where everybody knows everybody. Its history dates back 450 years, to when it was a market town and a crossroads between smaller towns. It continues its traditions of a market town, and every Tuesday (much like in prehispanic times) seeds, medicinal plants and herbs, vegetables, and fruit are sold. One can still see the oranges, tuna, and peanuts arranged in towers. But the town is not frozen in time. Music tapes, plastic toys, jeans, and shirts made in the United States are also sold. In the 1970s, Santiago Tianquistenco housed an industrial park. Industries were invited to be established with tax-shelter propositions. When we first arrived there in 1980, 30% of the sample came from agriculture, crafts, or a self-employed occupation. They were quite happy with their jobs; only 14% were not satisfied. Sixty percent had experienced upward mobility. They still remembered tougher times, when their economy depended on 116 unpredictable forces that influenced the selling of crafts. Now, in the factories, they have lunch, uniforms, and a sure check every week. They also have a job and not much fear of losing it because they could easily obtain another factory job. I have said that some aspects of the community were overlooked, in the sense of not anticipating the homogeneity of work and community interactions. On the other hand, I think that using individual variables, such as each person’s frequency of interaction, permitted an explanation for power and pecuniary imagery in the members of the community that, by Lockwood’s typologies, should be only deferential, traditional workers. The present study permitted the exploration of such issues as ambivalence and an incipient proletarian model of society. As did Blackbourn and Mann (1975), we found that many workers did not have Clear-cut class-structure models but were touched by all of them. The authors thought this fragmentation was characteristic of the industrial society, where workers listen to ambivalent messages via mass or interpersonal communication. Lockwood envisioned that workers who interact with their fellow workers would have a tendency to adopt power images of society because they might be involved in solidaristic experiences. The results of this study show that, in spite of a high frequency of interaction with workmates, alliances and imagery’ were not as simple as that. People had frequent interactions with workers and managers alike, and this did not necessarily mean the adoption of a power model of society. Nho were the respondents with a higher frequency of power images? They were 117 the white-collar workers, who interacted less with their Colleagues, probably resulting from feelings of alienation; the older workers (between 40 and 50 years old), who were probably more disenchanted; those who were still doing campesino jobs, and, yes, those who had a higher degree of solidarity with workmates. However, contrary to Lockwood’s assumption that a high frequency of interaction implies solidaristic feelings, it was found here that frequent interactions did not necessarily lead to a high degree of identification. Identification with bosses or fellow workers implied using one of these as a reference group. ' These variables worked well as predictors. They implied more than saying, "I talk to my supervisor three times a day.” Instead, they implied, "Yes, I agree with the statement, ’Management is interested in the good of the firm and all the workers” (73%). Agreement and disagreement with such statements indicated trust and confidence in employers, and those attitudes were found to be consistent with a higher frequency of prestige imagery. Being identified with management, however, did not mean not having solidaristic feelings with workmates or agreement with such statements as "Every worker should join a trade union because workers should stick together and improve working conditions." Workers who agreed with such statements tended to have more power images, but also more prestige images of societyu So being solidaristic with fellow workers did not necessarily mean being against management. 118 An approach that frequently' is used in class-image studies (Bulmer, 1975) is to discuss Class images as components of class consciousness. Following Hazelrigg (1973), class consciousness is said to exist when four characteristics are present: (a) awareness of the Class structure, (b) self-identification of perceived location in the class structure, (c) class interests or sharing the definition of these interests as basically in conflict with another class, and (d) class action--that is, class-relevant behavior. In this study, the third and fourth characteristics were not identified. Only 20% of the workers were unionized. This situation has probably changed in recent years, especially since 1987, when the Confederacion de Trabajadores Mexicanos (CTM), the powerful confederation-of unions linked to the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) government, has lost some of its strength. Independent unions have been more active recently and sometimes are used as a means of getting votes by other political parties. In the present study, power images of society might be the raw materials for class consciousness, but just that, diffuse images, which, even if they indicate a proletarian view of society, are not organized into a coherent model, even less are they articulated into relevant actions. Comparative research is necessary to establish whether observed patterns are unique to a single nation--whether they describe general, universal regularities, or are particular to countries of a given type. Most of ‘the research on class imagery and class identification has been done in English-speaking countries: 119 England, the United States, and Australia. However, the signifi- cance of doing such research in Mexico has been documented with the present dissertation. Ongoing internal debates on Class structures and class issues (Gonzalez Casanova, 1970) could be enriched by work that contributes to the understanding of the nature of the subjec- tive meanings of Class. Moreover, this type of study helps link social structure and personality variables, thus enhancing our understanding of the effect of work and industrial development on individuals. Mexico, like other countries, is undergoing many changes: Liberalization of the economic system and a slow liberalization of the political system are some of the immediate changes that had to be made in order to continue the enormous efforts made since the economic crisis of 1982, when the Mexican economy suffered zero growth for the first time in 40 years (Castaneda, 1986). The response of the workers to this crisis might surprise or upset many observers. As noted in our results from one Mexican conlnunity, there is low participation in the political system and in unions. This would not be expected in a country that recently had an acute economic crisis. But researchers have documented some worker activities in spite of apparent stability (Roxborough, 1983; Schryer, 1986). There is, for example, a trend in union problems that is not so much oriented toward management but toward other union leaders. In a sense, workers want to be left alone by high union leaders to negotiate for themselves with management. An 120 increase in labor conflicts has also been documented. Two famous ones are those at Cerveza Corona and Ford Motor Company, where problems arose between leaders of different unions in their attempt to gain union members in those plants. Traditionally, the CTM gained through workers’ affiliation with the PR1. Now, the dissident Pristas party, the Partido del Frente Democratico (PRO), is doing the same with its own affiliated unions. Many workers, as mentioned earlier, however, would like to be left alone to negotiate their specific job situations with their employers. At the present time, with the Federal Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada, Mexico is expected to increase its labor- intensive production. How will this affect the workers’ perceptions of their social situation? It is expected that an important result of this expansion of industry will be a substantial rise in the wages of Mexican workers. Largely because of increased economic activity resulting from the growth of the maquiladora industry, the Mexico City-Monterrey-Guadalajara axis has rapidly built up and is experiencing urbanization (Cassidy, 1991). How this is implemented will have an impact on the individual and his/her life style. In the coming decade, studies that link occupations, community, and the individual will be of utmost importance to assess the quick changes that are about to occur in Mexico. A conclusion from Faunce’s (1966) study of industrialization and community status in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Michigan can be applied in reference to the community of Santiago Tianquistenco: 121 To the extent that one of the concomitants of industrialization is the development of a more integrated, hierarchical community structure that involves people at different occupational prestige levels in regular interaction, one of the effects of the industrialization process is likely to be an increase in the interrelationship of work and community status. (p. 399) A possible direction of change in the relationship between work and status in Mexico is suggested by our finding that pecuniary images of society were associated with a lower degree of self- investment in work and a lower frequency of interactions with others having unequal status. Goldthorpe et al. (1969) pointed to an emerging "new worker," developing a privatized life style, no longer seeing society divided between "them" and "us," but perceiving ‘ satisfaction in terms of wealth and money. Lockwood (1975) proposed that the privatized worker was appearing in highly technological and automated plants. Other authors have challenged the idea of a new privatized worker as a by-product of new technologies (Cousins & Brown, 1970; Gallie, 1969). The present study supports Faunce’s (1982) thesis that the privatized worker is one who does not invest him/herself in work- or class-relevant issues and, as a result, is less likely to have images of society in which work or social class is a salient component. Although pecuniary imagery was less frequent, the hypothesis proposing association with this kind of imagery and a lower degree of self-investment in work was confirmed. Hhite-collar workers with a higher frequency of pecuniary images had less frequency of unequal status relationships, probably being the ones who did not live in the community, but commuted from the neighboring 122 cities of Toluca and Mexico City. Horkers with pecuniary images of society see money not as a division of classes but as a common denominator. They do not express solidarity with a new order, as Gallie suggested with his thesis of embourgeoisement, but are withdrawn from evaluation of any occupational reference group. They are in jobs that require less evaluation from others and live in housing where people do not know each other. Faunce (n.d.) stated that "the social and structural conditions that give rise to a proletarian or deferential orientation are becoming less common and the conditions producing privatization more conlnon.” In the town under study, considerations conducive to pecuniary imagery were not met. However, incipient pecuniary imagery was present and associated with a lower degree of self-investment in work and, in the case of white-collar workers, with a lower frequency of interactions with people of different status, as suggested by Faunce (1982). Methodologiee! Issues The use of Lockw00d’s typologies in this study was intended to give points of reference around which the research was done. The use of ideal types provided a frame of reference to locate a complex set of relationships. He avoided saying, "Here we have in Santiago Tianquistenco an interactional status system and an occupationally differentiated community; therefore, the workers must be traditional deferential with a hierarchical model of society.” This was avoided, and, instead, individual variables expressed in patterns of 123 interaction, identification, and self—investment in work were measured. By doing so, we were able to find that some of these patterns were related to, class imagery. However, correlation coefficients were moderateand explained a proportion of the variance that was, in most instances, minimal. The question that immediately follows is: Hhat are the major influences on class imagery? Even if our main speculative delineation is confirmed by the evidence gathered at Santiago Tianquistenco, it is not conclusive. Processes of interaction and identification are only part of the worker’s experience within a given social milieu. It was beyond the scope of this study to find out about. workers’ past histories, past experiences, and future expectations regarding class issues. Class imagery might be the joint product of these, and not only the images associated with workers’ current interactions and alliances. The present research stressed the use of open-ended questions in the study of class imagery. They were used to provide evidence that people hold mental representations of the class structure and that they can be elicited spontaneously. However, open-ended questions within the context of a standardized questionnaire with 60 additional closed-ended questions is not to be considered as optimum. The questionnaires were administered individually in sessions of 45 to 60 minutes. When getting into the open-ended questions about the class issues, respondents were cooperative in providing answers. However, they talked while we generally kept silent. He did not inquire further about their responses; we did 124 not ask, ”th is this so?" or "Would you care to talk more about this?" In sum, we did not interrupt the respondents because we did not have the time to dwell more on these questions. Looking at the responses later, and having a variety of images in those responses, it seems of most importance for a study of class imagery to include open-ended questions, but within the context of an in-depth interview where respondents could talk freely and in detail about their perceptions of the class structure, about the nature of the differences they seek, about the relationships between classes, and about how a specific situation could be changed. Open-ended questions work very well, but they definitely cannot be rushed. Studies that seek. to establish linkages between particular class images and the contexts in which class imagery may be elicited should ,focus more on the direct experiences of inequality of prestige. As Bott (1957) stated, When an individual talks about class he is trying to say something, in a symbolic form, about his experiences of power and prestige in his actual membership in groups and social relationships both past and present. (p. 163) The present study contributed to an understanding of linkages between particular patterns of interaction, identification, self— investment in work, and class imagery. However, more in-depth studies are necessary to describe the meanings that people give to concrete experiences in their lives that make them hold particular representations about class-related issues. Critical instances of inequality of feelings related to class should be explored in a more 125 comprehensive fashion to grasp how people process personal experi- ences into imagery. In the present study, most of the open-ended questions were well understood and elicited immediate responses. But one question about class reminders was misunderstood by many respondents. The question was, "Name a recent experience that reminded you about these class issues." Forty-six percent of the responses were coded as missing cases. Thirteen percent of the respondents talked about experiences at work. or in the community, 9% about mass media messages, and 21% about interpersonal experiences. Questions that link experiences with imagery should be extended and refined. The suggestion for more exploratory, in-depth, open-ended interviews does not rule out the use of standardized scales for other issues analyzed here. Specifically, the self-investment measure was particularly useful in detecting the association of a low degree of self-investment in work with the existence of pecuniary imagery. As stated before, what seems to Characterize a "new worker" is his/her withdrawal from the job and Class evaluations. If this proposition is to be tested elsewhere, it would be important to develop a self-investment scale dealing with self-investment in class as well as in work. It was mentioned that, in some ways, the importance of community was understated. Evidence supports the idea that people hold mental representations of the class structure, probably influenced not only by their immediate social milieu, but also by the culture and the wider society, as illustrated by the finding of 126 a colonization model. The bottom line here is not to return to boxes or typologies (e.g., let’s study a coal mine to see whether the miners are traditional proletarian workers, and so on), but to use typologies as reference points to find a variety of communities where patterns of interactions vary according to the specific social situation. In the present study, it was understood from the beginning that the community had an interactional status system, but, because it also had a variety of industries, it was thought that the availability of occupationally differentiated interactions would also give us a variety of patterns of interaction and identification. The results, however, show that the community in this report was too homogeneous. u e ' n for Future Re e r Although some suggestions were implicit in the last paragraph of the previous section, I would like to single out for comment three specific suggestions for future research in the area of class imagery: ' l. The line of inquiry on the privatized worker should be continued. Is this an emergent kind of worker, more alienated, more detached, more fragmented? Is this related to postindustrial, more automated plants, and/or enterprises where job situations are less conducive to workmates’ interactions? Is there a privatized white- collar worker with a definite pecuniary model of society? In what kinds of work situations or enterprises are they to be found? To 127 what extent are these pecuniary images of society held inthe larger society? In sum, is this a trend? To study these questions, parallel scales of self-investment in 1work and self-investment in class-related issues should be developed and tested for validity. Besides the study of the phenomenon of privatization, the first leads us to analysis of participation, productivity, and quality of output, which are very much needed in the industrial context. The second leads us to analysis of class consciousness, political action, unionization, and other topics of inquiry that have not been clearly linked to imagery. 2. Research should be done to test the following causal model implied in this study: Social experience , 9 Self-investment Class \\\\\\\\A in class & work ‘ 5 images Identification From the results gathered here, it seems that, depending on our experience with social inequality, we form images of society, as suggested in the basic premise of this study. This social experience in terms of the intensity and type of cross-status contact seems to determine our self-investment in or our withdrawal from class and work values, which, in turn, seems to determine the 128 types of images people hold about society. Identification also plays an important role in determining imagery. As Gartrell (1987) suggested, the content of these networks or cross-status contacts and the evaluation and meaning we give to them play significant roles in mental representations about class issues. 3. The line of inquiry that Lockwood began regarding the connection between class imagery and work and community contexts should be continued. Comparative studies in different communities should be done. In his response to the criticism generated by the results of studies on working-class images of society, Lockwood (1975) stated that enough attention had been given to micro- structural factors and that a focus on large-scale market forces, national and international, was needed. I agree with this statement. An ideal study should look for ideal sites of research, selecting several communities in several countries where the availability of social situations is varied. But after structural Land contextual conditions are analyzed, questionnaires and standardized scales should be used for purposes of comparison and for the measurement of individual variables. As we saw in the present study, a predominantly interactional status community still had people with pecuniary, power, and colonization imagery. So a combination of' contextual and survey research designs would be useful. 4. Finally, I think that, in spite of the utility of data gathered by survey research designs, what are also needed in the study of class imagery are qualitative studies that could penetrate 129 more deeply into the social drama of experiencing class differences in work, in the community, and within our own families. In-depth interviews could give us a deeper understanding of how people experience class. By analyzing and coding the protocols derived ' from these interviews, we should be able to grasp the concepts or images people use to describe class—related issues. As Lakoff (1979) stated in his book on metaphors, those concepts are the key to understanding how people perceive, how they get around in the world, and how they relate to other people. "Our conceptual system,” Lakoff stated, "plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. . . . What we experience is very much a matter of metaphor" (p. 3). I strongly suggest a study of metaphors on Class imagery because, by analyzing language, one could look at the ways people think, experience, and give meaning to class-related issues. Because class imagery is a subjective phenomenon, this kind of study seems most appropriate. As Emmison (1985) suggested, it is important to study the language of economic discourse and the meaning people attach to economic terms. Economic imagery could help us gain knowledge about how people define their social situation in terms of class relations. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE IN SPANISH 130 N TA 0 R E TRABAJ A C MUN DA Buenos dias. Mi nombre es . Soy estudiante y estoy trabajando en un estudio que servira para elaborar una tesis profesional. Estamos interesados en lo que los empleados de la industria piensan de su trabajo, su comunidad y la sociedad en general. Estudios como éste se han realizado en las industrias de otros paises y de otras ciudades, y nosotros como estudiantes mexicanos estamos interesados en las opiniones de los empleados industriales en este pais. Ouisieramos pedirle que nos ayude, contestando a unas preguntas. No llevarah mucho tiempo, y permftame decirle que sus respuestas seran confidenciales y andnimas, es decir, el cuestionario no llevara su nombre. Las personas que seran entrevistadas, no fueron seleccionadas por su nombre sino por nOmero. Mire usted, como no podemos entrevistar a todo aquél que trabaja en la industria, seleccionamos al azar a 30 empleados de esta fébrica que trambie'n previamente escogimos al azar. De esta manera obtendremos personas de todo tipo y clase de ocupaciones. Las opiniones de estas personas seran sumarizadas y reportadas en la tesis profesional. Nunca se reportarah ni industrias, ni personas particulares. No hay respuestas correctas, ni incorrectas, simplemente estamos interesados en saber cbmo la gente que trabaja en industria opina sobre ciertas cosas como lo son e1 trabajo, la comunidad y la sociedad. Le rogamos pues su cooperacion. 131 Primero quisiera hacerle algunas preguntas sobre su ocupaci6n y experiencia de trabajo. l. ,LCuil es actualmente su ocupaci6n? Titulo del trabajo 2. ,aOué es lo que hace en este trabajo? Es decir, ~Cuiles son algunas de las labores que desempeha en este tra ajo? 3. aQua’nto tiempo lleva en este trabajo? Escribir nfimero de meses 0 anos. 4. 5, En que’ trabajaba antes de este empleo? 5. 3, En d6nde tenfa ese trabajo? l - Campo-Industria 2 - Autoempleo-Ind. 3 - Comercio-Ind. 4 - Industria-Ind. 6. aCua'nto tiempo estuvo en ese trabajo? Escribir numero de meses 0 anos. 7. .gAparte de su trabajo actual en esta industria, hace usted labores en el campo? 1. Si 5. No 9. NA Quisiera ahora hacerle unas preguntas sobre su situacidn de trabajo: 8. En esta industria, {Hay otras personas haciendo la misma labor 0 actividad que usted hace? 1. Si (ir a pregunta--9) 5. No (ir a pregunta--ll) 9. zOue’ tan fa’cil es comparar el trabajo que usted hace, con el que otros en su misma posicioh estih haciendo en el lugar de trabajo? 1. Es fatil hacer comparaciones 5. Es diffCil hacer comparaciones 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 132 En la clase de trabajo que usted y otros hacen, aHay diferen- cias en el desempeflo de ese trabajo, o todos lo hacen igual? l. Hay diferencias, unos hacen el trabajo mejor que otros 5. No hay diferencia, todos hacen el trabajo igual aOué tan a menudo 1e hace evaluaciones la persona que supervisa su trabajo? l. Muy a menudo 2. A menudo 3. A veces 4. Rara vez 5. Muy rara vez Y entre companeros de trabajo, £Oué tan a menudo se evalfian y comparan su trabajo entre ustedes mismos? l. Muy a menudo. 2. A menudo 3. A veces 4. Rara vez 5. Muy rara vez Cuando el supervisor evalfia su trabajo, zCree usted que lo evalOa justamente? 1. Si (ir a pregunta--15) 5. No (ir a pregunta--l4) 9. NA (ir a pregunta--15) a. aOué es lo que toma en cuenta e1 supervisor o jefe inmediato para evaluar su trabajo? b. gOué cree usted que deberia de tomar en cuenta su supervisor o jefe inmediato para evaluar su trabajo justamente? 133 c. lOué‘tan difftil seria lograr que el supervisor o jefe inmediato cambiara de criterio para evaluar su trabajo justamente? 1. Serfa muy dificil lograrlo 2. Serfa dificil lograrlo 3. Serra algo diffCil de lograr 15. Y las personas con las que usted trabaja, aCree usted que evaluan justamente su trabajo? 1. Si (ir a pregunta l7) 5. No (ir a pregunta l6) 9. NA (ir a pregunta 17) 16. a. aQué es lo que toman en cuenta sus compafieros de trabajo para evaluar su trabajo? b. aOué cree usted que ellos deberian de tomar en cuenta para evaluar justamente su trabajo? c. goué tan dificil seria lograr que sus compafieros de trabajo se guiaran de un justo criterio para evaluar su trabajo? l. Seria muy dificil lograrlo 2. Seria dificil lograrlo 3. Seria algo dificil de lograr 17. g Oué tan satisfecho esta usted con su trabaja? Por ejemplo, dirfa usted que en su presente empleo esta: l. Muy satisfecho 2. Satisfecho 3. No esti satisfecho 18. 5,0ué tan competitivo considera usted su actual trabajo? Lo describirfa como: l. Muy competitivo 2. Competitivo 3. No competitivo 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 134 g,Piensa usted quedarse en su actual trabajo hasta que se retire? 1. Si (ir a la pregunta 22) 5. No (ir a la pregunta 20) 1A qué trabajo piensa cambiarse? Titulo del trabajo 5, Por qué piensa usted hacer este cambio? ,gDirfa usted que el trabajo que actualmente tiene es el mejor que ha tenido en su vida? 1. Si (ir a pregunta 25) 2. No (ir a pregunta 23) zOué trabajo fue mejor? Titulo del trabajo aOué era lo que hacfa que este trabajo fuera mejor? gOue tendrfa que pasarle, para que usted se sintiera mfis exitoso en su trabajo? LOue tan diffcil es promovido en esta organizaci6n donde usted trabaja? 3. Muy diffCil 2. Difi'cil l. Algo diffCil Sf fuese promovido a un trabajo mas arriba del que ahora tiene, zQue trabajo serfa éSte? Tftulo del trabajo 28. aOué tan seguro esté usted de las oportunidades que tiene de ser promovido 0 de subir en su trabajo? 1 Muy segfiro 2. Segfiro 3. Algo segfiro 4. Inseguro 5 Muy inseguro 29. zOué tan importante es para usted subir de posicidh en el trabajo? 1. Muy importante 2. Es importante 3. Es medianamente importante 4. No es importante 30. (Due tan satisfecho se encuentra usted con la experiencia de trabajo que durante su vida ha tenido? ° Ha realizado lo que se proponia? z,Hay cosas que aOn le gustar an hacer? En fin, aOué tan satisfecho se siente? 1. Me siento muy satisfecho 2. Me siento satisfecho 3. Me siento disatisfecho 4. Me siento muy disatisfecho 31. Ahora voy a leerle unas opiniones acerca de lo que algunas personas sienten por el trabajo. Trate por favor de pensar como si usted estuviera dando estas opiniones y digame que tan de acuerdo o que tan en desacuerdo esta con ellas. ’Yo leere las opiniones y usted me dice el nfimero que su opinion representa. Para e1 nfimero bisese en esta tarjeta que le voy a dar la . targeta dice: e1 uno quere decir ”estoy muy de acuerdo con esta opinidn," e1 dos significa "estoy de acuerdo," e1 tres es 'ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo," e1 cuatro significa "estoy en desacuerdo,” y, por filtimo, e1 cienco significa “estoy muy en desacuerdo." Ahora 1e leere cada una de estas opiniones. Por favor piense cuidadosamente en ellas antes de responder. 1 - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 - Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo 4 - Desacuerdo 5 - Muy en desacuerdo 1 2 3 4 5 a. La mayor satisfaccioh en mi 135 vida proviene de mi trabajo . Al final de un dfa, yo nunca me pongo a pensar si hice bien 0 mal mi trabajo .50—4 136 - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 - Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo . Desacuerdo 5 . Muy en desacuerdo . Cuando yo hago mi trabajo mi autoestima aumenta . Algunas veces cuando hablo con gentes que tienen tra- bajos de mayor prestigio que el mio, me siento muy incomodo . Yo personalmente estoy muy involucrado en mi trabajo . Cuando me pongo a pensar en el ékito que tengo, el tipo de trabajo que yo hago es muy importante para mi . Las cosas mas importantes que mesuceden a m1, estan relacionadas con mi trabajo . Creo que muchos miembros de mi familia se sienten orgullosos cuando dicen a la gente lo que hacen. '. Yo vivo para mi trabajo. '. Cuando hago bien mi trabajo siento que he cumplido con algo importante . La mayoria de las cosas en la vida son mas importantes que el trabajo . Algunas veces siento verguenza de decirle a la gente 1a Clase de trabajo que yo hago . Cuando desempefio bien mi tra- bajo siento una gran satis- facci6n personal 137 - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 - Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo - Desacuerdo 5 - Muy en desacuerdo an— n. Yo estaria contento de tener a mis hijos haciendo el mismo trabajo que yo hago 0. Con respecto a mi trabajo yo soy un perfeccionista p. Cuando cometo un error 0 hago algo mal en el trabajo estoy molesto por dias enteros q. Para mi el trabajo, es tan s610una peque‘na parte de las cosas que hago en la vida r. Cuando yo desempeho bien mi trabajo siento que yo con- tribuyo a mi crecimiento y desarrollo personal s. Si no pudiera desempefiar bien mi trabajo me sentirfa que como persona soy un fracaso t. Cuando fracaso en algo rela- cionado con mi trabajo me siento deprimido Las siguientes opiniones no son necesariamente sobre el trabajo. l - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 . Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo 4 - Desacuerdo 5 . Muy en desacuerdo 1 2 3 4 5 1. Yo siento que soy una persona de valer, por lo menos com- parandome con otros desde un mismo angulo 2. Yo siento que tengo un cierto numero de buenas cualidades 138 I - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 - Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo 4 - Desacuerdo 5 - Muy en desacuerdo l 2 3 4 5 3. Hoy por hoy, me siento inclin- ado a decir que soy un fracaso . Como muchas otras personas, yo puedo hacer las cosas muy bien hechas . Creo que no he hecho muchas cosas por las que pueda sentirme orgulloso . Yo tengo una actitud positiva hacia mf mismo . En general me siento satis- fecho conmigo mismo . Desearia tener mas respeto por mi mismo . A veces pienso que soy un bueno para nada Hemos terminado las preguntas que se refieren a experiencias de trabajo. trabaja. 32. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Quisiera preguntarle ahora sobre personas con las que usted Por ejemplo, quisiera preguntarle: aOué ocupaciones tienen las cinco personas con las que usted habla mis seguido en el trabajo? No quiero saber sus nombres sino sus ocupaciones. TITULO DEL TRABAJO 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 139 En un tipico dia de trabajo, 3,0ué tan a menudo habla usted con sus compafieros de trabajo? 5 o 6 veces al dia 3 o 4 veces 81 dia l o 2 veces a1 dia menos de una vez a1 dia En un tipico dia de trabajo, LQué tan a menudo habla usted con su supervisor o jefe inmediato? 5 o 6 veces al dia 3 o 4 veces a1 dia l o 2 veces a1 dia menos de una vez 81 dia En una tipica semana de trabajo, aC6mo cuantas veces habla usted con una persona o personas de puestos més altos que su supervisor o jefe inmediato? ‘ 5 o 6 veces a la semana 3 o 4 veces a la semana l o 2 veces a la semana menos de una vez a la semana Para todos nosotros hay personas con las que nos sentimos muy a gusto. Personas que nos caen bien y que respetamos. En fin, personas que influyen en nuestras actitudes porque a nosotros nos importan sus opiniones. ,goué tanto le importan las opiniones de sus compafieros de trabajo? Son muy importantes Son importantes Son poco importantes No me importan zOué tanta confianza tiene usted en su jefe? Tengo mucha confianza Tengo algo de confianza Tengo poca confianza Nada de confianza 140 Muy bien. Hemos terminado con la secci6n de preguntas que se refieren a su experiencia en el trabajo. Quisiera ahora hacerle algunas preguntas sobre su comunidad. 38. g,En qué comunidad o localidad vive? 1. Rural 2. Ciudad pequena 3. Ciudad grande 39. g,Cuahtos afios ha vivido en ? Escribir numero de anos. 40. z,Cu51 es su lugar de origen? 1. Rural _ 2. Ciudad pequena 3. Ciudad grande 41. Y en esta comunidad (nombre que deo el entrevistado a la comunidad donde actualmente vive), a Oué tan bien conoce a sus habitantes? l. Conozco bastante bien a todos 2. Conozco solamente a algunos 3. Conozco a pocos habitantes de esta comunidad 4. Casi no conozco a nadie en la comunidad en donde vivo Ahora quisiera preguntarle las ocupaciones de las cinco personas con las que mis frecuentemente se reune fgere del trabajo. 42. 2_Cuales son las ocupaciones de aquellas cinco personas con las que usted mas frecuentemente se reune en sus horas de descanso? (fuera de su familia) TITULO DEL TRABAJO (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 141 43. En general, gOue’ tan a menudo se reune con sus compafieros de trabajo, tgete de las horas de trabajo? Es decir durante los dines de semana, en las tardes y dfas de fiesta. 5 o 6 veces a1 mes 3 o 4 veces a1 mes l o n 2 veces a1 mes me as de una vez al mes 44. En general, .gOué tan a menudo habla usted con personas que tiene ocupaciones de mucho prestigio? (Que tienen ocupaciones importantes, que desempefian trabajos que en esta comunidad se consideran de gran prestigio e importancia) 5 o 6 veces al mes 3 o 4 veces al mes l o 2 veces al mes menos de una vez a1 mes 45. En general, ,gOué tan a menudo habla o platica con personas cuya ocupaci6n es diferente de la de usted? Ya sea de mas prestigio 0 de menos prestigio que la ocupaci6n que usted tiene. 5 o 6 veces al mes 3 o 4 veces al mes l o 2 veces a1 mes menos de una vez al mes Hemos terminado con la secci6n de preguntas que se refieren a su comunidad. Las preguntas que voy a hacerle ahora se refieren a la sociedad en general, es decir, al pais en donde vivimos. 46. Si usted tuviera que explicarle a un extranjero sobre las clases sociales, o clases de gente que hay en México, aOué 1e diria? aCuantas clases de gente hay? 47. 5,0ué diferencias hay entre estas Clases sociales? Es decir, qué es lo que distingue a estas clases de gente. “II-1‘11 48. 49. 50. 51. 142 ,gPor que cree usted que existen estas diferencias? 3C6mo podrfa cambiarse esta situacidn? LRecuerda usted algfin hecho reciente que la haya traido a la cabeza este tema de las clases sociales? ‘aCual? Describamelo. Ahora voy a leerle unas opiniones que otra gente ha dado sobre la sociedad, los trabajadores y la gerencia. Digame por favor que tan de acuerdo a que tan en desacuerdo esta con ellos. Basese en la misma tarjeta que usamos anteriormente. l - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 - Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo 4 - Desacuerdo 5 . Muy en desacuerdo . Yo diria que en este paiE hay basicamente dos Clases soci- ales: los patrones y los que trabajan, y estas dos clases tienen intereses muy opuestos. . La mayorfa de la gente en este pais pertenece a la misma clase social. Lo finico diferente, lo que de verdad importa es el dinero que uno gana. an— 143 - Muy de acuerdo 2 - De acuerdo 3 - Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo - Desacuerdo 5 . Muy en desacuerdo . Yo dirfa que en este pais hay varias clases sociales. La clase alta, la clase media, la clase trabajadora, los pobres, etc. La clase alta es la que guia a1 pafs y a la industria y asi debe ser. . La fabrica donde uno trabaja es como un equipo de futbol, todos tenemos que cooperar y darle duro para anotar goles, 0 sea para ganar. . La clase trabajadora debe permanecer unida. Todos los obreros deben apoyarse para mejorar condiciones de trabajo. . El trabajo de equipo en la fabrica donde uno trabaja es imposible porque la ver- dad es que gerencia y traba- jadores estan en lados opuestos. . La gerencia esta interesada en el bienestar de la com- pahia y en el bienestar de los trabajadores. . Lo finico que 1e interesa a la gerencia son las utilidades. ’. Los sindicatos y lideres obreros solamente crean proble- mas entre gerencia y trabaja- dores. 144 Por Gltimo quisiera preguntarle algunos datos personales. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Cuél es su edad? Sexo: M F Cuantos anos de escuela termin6 usted: 123456 789 101112 1314151617 MA Cuél es 0 cual fue 1a principal ocupaci6n de su padre? Titulo del trabajo Aproximadamente, Cuénto dinero gana 1a mes? Digame usted si pertenece a alguna de las siguientes organiza- Ciones I 5 | Si (ir a pregunta 58) No Religiosas Profesionales De la comunidad Del vecindario Sindicales Partidos politicos Sindicato l. CTM 2. Compania 3. otro Partido politico l. PPS 2. PRI 3. PARM 4. PAN 5. otro INDUSTRIA: 1. Capital Nacional 2. Capital Mixto Grado Legitimizacién Organizacional APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH l.(1)* 2.(4) 145 First of all, we would like some information about your job and work experience. What is your present job? (GET SPE- CIFIC JOB TITLE.) 8. (Job Title) b.(2) What do you do on that job? What are some of your duties? d.(3) How long have you been in that job? (GET YEAR AT WHICH CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT ON THIS JOB BEGAN.) (Year What was the full~time job you had just before the one you have now? a. (Job Title) d.(6) During what years were you in that job? (Years) 6.a.(42c) Is your wife employed? 7.(420). (I) Yes (1) What kind of job does she have? (Job Title) How about the other members of your family? Do you have any (ASK ABOUT EACH RELATIVE BELOW) who are employed full time? (If yes): a. What kind of job does he(she) work at most of the time? (Job Title) b. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE) *Numbers in parentheses are question numbers in the Spanish translation of the interview schedule. See Appendix A. 146 A. Brothers who are employed? (1) Yes (2) No (Go to B) do i l Erooe (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) B.(42d) Sisters who are employed? (1) Yes (2) No (Go to B) Job Title Etooe (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 8.(32) Now I would like to have you think about the five people with whom you talk most often while you are at work. I don’t want to know their names, but I would like to know their occupa- tions. What jobs do they have? J it Erooe (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 9.(34) 10.(35) ll.(42) 16.(44) 17.(45) 147 During a typical oey on the job, how often do you talk to your immediate supervisor? (READ AND CIRCLE ANSWER.) (1) 5 or 6 times a day or more (2) around 3 or 4 times a day (3) once or twice a day (4) less than once a day During a typical week on the job, how often do you talk to persons obove your immediate supervisor? (READ AND CIRCLE ANSWER.) (1) 5 or 6 times a week or more (2) around 3 or 4 times a week (3) once or twice a week (4) less than once a week Now please think about the five people ogtsioe your family with whom you most often get together socially during eve- nings or weekends. a. What are their jobs? If any are not employed, I would like to know that, too. In general, how often do you talk to people whom you regard as having high-status jobs? (ACCEPTABLE SYNONYMS FOR HIGH- STATUS JOBS ARE "HIGH-PRESTIGE JOBS” OR "JOBS GIVEN HIGH STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY.") Would you say it was: (READ RESPONSE CODE AND CIRCLE ANSWER.) (l) 5 or 6 times a month or more (2) around 3 or 4 times a month (3) once or twice a month (4) less than once a month How often do you talk to people whose occupational status is eny oifferent from yogrs--either higher or loeet? (READ RESPONSE CODE AND CIRCLE ANSWER.) (1) 5 or 6 times a month or more (2) around 3 or 4 times a month (3) once or twice a month (4) less than once a month 148 Now we have a few more questions about your experiences at work. 23.(8) 24.(11) 25.(12) 26.(13) Are there others where you work who have more or less the same job as yours? (1) Yes (2) No (Go to B) (IF YES): a.(lO) Is it easy to tell whether or not you are doing a better or worse job than they do? That is, is it easy or hard to compare your work and the work of others? (1) Easy (2) Hard b.(9) Are there differences in how well people do your job, or is everyone’s performance about the same? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Differences (2) About the same How often are evaluations of how well you do your job made by the person who supervises your work? Would you say that happens: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very often (2) Often (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom (5) Very seldom How about the people you work with? How often do you compare or evaluate each other’s work? Would you say that happens: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very often (2) Often (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom (5) Very seldom Do you think your supervisor uses the right criteria or the right basis when he evaluates your work? That is, does he evaluate you on the right things? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Go to 27) (2) No 27.(15) 28.(18) 149 (IF NO): a.(l4b) What criteria or basis should he use? b.(l4a) What criteria or basis does he use? c.(l4c) How hard would it be to get him to use the right criteria? Would you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very hard to do (2) Hard to do (3) Somewhat hard to do How about the people you work with? Do they use the right criteria or the right basis when they evaluate your work? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Go to 28) (2) No (IF NO): a.(16ab) What is wrong with the criteria or basis they use? b.(16c) How hard would it be to get them to use the right criteria? Would you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very hard to do (2) Hard to do (3) Somewhat hard to do Would you describe your job as a competitive one? That is, would you say it was: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very competitive (2) Somewhat competitive (3) Not very competitive (4) Not at all competitive 29.(l9) 30.(22) 31.(25) 32.(26) NOTE: 150 Do you plan to stay in the job you have now until you retire? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Go to 30) (2) No (IF NO): a.(20) What job do you plan to change to? (Job Title) b.(21) Why do you want to make this change? Would you say the job you have now is the best job you ever had? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Go to 31) (2) No (IF NO): (23) What job was better? (Job Title) What made it better? What would have to happen for you to feel that you were more successful at work? PROBE: Anything else? How hard would you say it would be for you to get promoted or to move up in the organization where you work? Would you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE) a. 1. Very hard to do 2. Hard to do 3. Somewhat hard to do b.(27) What would the next step be? (Job Title) FOR PERSONS ALREADY AT TOP OF ORGANIZATION, ASK, I'IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REPRESENT A STEP UP TO YOU?”) 33.(30) 34.(31) 151 c.(28) How certain do you feel about your chances of moving up? Would you say you were: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very certain (2) Certain (3) Somewhat certain (4) Uncertain (5) Very uncertain d.(29) How important is it to you to move up? Would you say it was: (READ AND CIRCLE) ) Very important ) Somewhat important ) Slightly important ) Not at all important In general, would you say you have already achieved most of the goals you set for yourself in your work life, or are there still things you feel it is important for you to accomplish? How satisfied are you with what you have accomp- lished? Would you say you were: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Dissatisfied (4) Very dissatisfied Now we would like to know how much you agree or disagree with some statements about work. Please try to think about your responses as though you were giving them to yourself rather than to me or to anyone else. Ao—a W 0' O Q m ‘1', 3' do (.1. 152 Here is a card with numbered responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. I will read the statement and you tell me which number on the card represents your response. While all of the statements are somewhat similar, each contains something different. Please think about the ggaégments carefully before responding. (PUT CHECKS IN A S . Strongly Agree 2 . Agree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree = Disagree 5 - Strongly Disagree .(31a) .(31b) .(310) .(3ld) .(31e) .(31f) .(319) .(3111) .(311) .(31j) .(3lk) The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. When I am through work at the end of the day, I hardly ever think about whether I did a good or a bad job. Doing my job well increases my feeling of self-esteem. I sometimes feel uncomfortable when talking to people whose jobs carry more prestige than mine. I am very much involved per- sonally in my work. The type of work I do is impor- tant to me when I think about how successful I am in life. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. I think members of my family feel proud when they tell people what I do for a living. I live, eat and breathe my job. When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. Most things in life are more important than work. 153 l - Strongly Agree 2 - Agree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Disagree 5 - Strongly Disagree l.(3ll) I sometimes feel ashamed to tell people what kind of work I do. m.(3lm) I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well. n.(3ln) I would be happy to have my chil- dren do the kind of work I do. o.(3lo) I’m really a perfectionist about my work. p.(3lp) When I make a mistake or do some- thing badly at work, it sometimes bothers me for days q.(31q) To me, my work is only a small part of what I do. r.(3lr) If I could not do my job well, I would feel that I was a failure as a person . s.(3ls) When I perform my job well, it contributes to my personal growth and development. t.(31t) I feel depressed when I fail at something connected with my job. The following statements do not necessarily refer to work. l.(31.1) I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. 2.(3l.2) I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3.(3l.3) All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 154 1 - Strongly Agree 2 - Agree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Disagree 5 - Strongly Disagree 4.(3l.4) I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5.(31.5) I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6.(31.6) I take a positive attitude toward myself. 7.(31.7) On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 8.(3l.8) I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at times. 10.(3l.9) At times I think I am no good at all. Now let’s go to a number of questions about community and society, about Mexico, our country. 35. If you had to explain to a foreigner about social Classes in Mexico, what would you say? How many social classes are there in Mexico? 36. What are the differences among these classes? That is, what is it that distinguishes the types of people you described? 155 37. In your opinion, why do these differences exist? 38. How could this situation be changed? 39. Do you recall a recent event that made you think about this "social classes" issue? Please describe it to me. Now, I am going to read you several opinions about workers, employ- ers, and social classes given by other people. To what extent to you agree or disagree with such opinions? I - Strongly Agree 2 - Agree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Disagree 5 - Strongly Disagree A l. The factory is like a football team; we all have to cooperate and work hard to score goals--that is, to win. 2. Teamwork in the factory is impossible since management and workers are on opposite sides. 3. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. B 1. In this country today there are basically two main classes, bosses and workers, and they have opposed interests. 2. Most people in Mexico belong to the same class. The only difference, the only thing that matters, is money. 156 l - Strongly Agree 2 - Agree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 . Disagree 5 - Strongly Disagree 3. In Mexico there are several classes: the upper class, the middle class, the working class, the poor, etc. The upper class is the only one that leads the country and industry, and it should stay that way. 4. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. C 1. Trade unions and their leaders only generate problems between managers and workers. 2. Every worker should join a trade union because workers should stick together and improve working con- ditions. 3. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. D. 1. Management is interested in the good of the firm and all workers. 2. Management is only interested in profits. 3. Do not agree, do not have any opinion. 157 To finish up, I need a little information about you. How old are you? Years Sex: M F How many years of school do you have? 123456 789 101112 13141516 M.A. About how much is your monthly income? Are you a member of the following organizations? Qrgonization 1e_ No Religious Professional .Community Neighborhood Unions Political parties If you are a union member, to which union do you belong? CTM A company union Other If you are a member of a political party, to which do you belong? PPS PR1 PARM PAN Other APPENDIX C PROTOCOL FORM 158 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL same menu: IUIIAU ' nun HALL EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 Marzo 15 do 1980 A las Autoridados Corrospondiontos: Somos dos j0vonos mexicanos quo ostudian on Michigan State University y que en fochas pr6ximas obtendremos o1 doctorado on Sociologfa. E1 roquisito final para obtonor o1 grado do doctor es una disortaci6n o tesis, la cual consisto en un trabaja do investigacidn original y sf o1 alumno es extranjero: preferen- tomonte realizado on su pafs do origen do modo que la disortaci6n sea una manera do ir aplicando los conocimientos adquiridos a la roalidad do 105 problemas nacionalos. El estudio tiono como finalidad la elaboracién do nuestras tesis doctoralos quo investigar‘n o1 ofecto que o1 trabaja tiene en la autoestima do las personas. El estudio protondo procisar las rolacionos oxistontos entre los individuos, sus ocupaciones, su comunidad y la ostructura social. Considerando la importancia que tiono el trabaja y su potencial eficacia en el desarrollo do cualquior comunidad y pafs, agradecorfimos la colaboracidh que ustedes so sirvan prostar a la investigaci6n y nos permitimos ofrocorlos o1 roporto comploto do nuostro estudio cuando osto so haya finalizado. Atentamonto ’9'. . plea—4.x fl V349“ / // Pilar Baptista Fernahdoz BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allcorn, D. H., & Marsh, C. M. (1975). Occupational communities: Communities of what? In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Workinq cless images of society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Batstone, E. (1975). Difference and the ethos of small town capitalism. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Working Class images of society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bechhofer, F., Elliot, 8., & McRone, D. (1978). Structure, con- sciousness and action: Sociological profile of the British middle class. British Journal of Sociology, 22(4), 410-436. Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1973). The sources of variation in agricul- tural workers’ images of society. Sociological Review, 21, 224-253. Blackburn, R. M., & Mann, M. (1975). Ideology in the non-skilled working class. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Workjng elass images of society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Blauner, R. (1960). Work satisfaction and industrial trends in modern society. In W. Galenson & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Lebor end trede unionism (pp. 339-360). New York: Wiley. Bott, E. (1957). Fomjly eno sociol network. London: Tavistock. Bulmer, M. (Ed.). (1975). Working cless images of soeiety. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Case, H. (1955). Marxian implications of Centers. Soeiel Forces, 3;, 254. Cassidy, S., Detwiler, A., Felsenthal, M., & Henshon, M. (1991). Mexico d th U it t ' Fo i a w nomi 1 o - ship. Unpublished manuscript, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Castafieda, J. G. (1986). Mexico at the brink. Eoreigo_Afte1rs, pt, 287-303. 159 160 Centers, R. (1949). [he psyehologv of sociel classes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cousins, J. M., & Brown, R. K. (1970). Shipbuilding. In J. C. Dwewdney (Ed.). Durham: British Association for the Advance- ment of Science. Denemark, D. H. (1986). The politiceleconseouonces of lower white oollor occupationol routinizetion end fregmentotion in Englond and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University. Emmison, M. (1985). Class images of the economy: Opposition and ideological incorporation within working class consciousness. Politioal Sociology, 12, 19-38. Faunce, W. A. (n.d.). Work. stetus god self-esteem. Unpublished monograph, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Faunce, W. A. (1982). The relation of status to self-esteem: Chain saw sociology at the cutting edge. Sociologicol Foous, 15, 163-177. Faunce, W. A., & Smucker, M. J. (1966). Industrialization and community status structure. Americen Sociologieal Review, s1, 390-399. Form, W. H., & Stone, G. T. (1957). Urbanism, anonymity and status symbolism. Americen Journol of Soeiologx, pp. 504-514. Gallie, D. (1978). In search of the new workiog closs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Gartrell, D. C. (1987). Network approaches to social evaluation. Anngal Reyjew of Sociology, 1;, 49-66. Gibson, B., Lustig, N., & Taylor, L. (1986). Terms of trade and class conflict. Journal of Development Stuoies, 23, 40-59. Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., & Bechhofer, F. (1972). Affluent worker in the class structure. Am ri Jo r f o 010 , 5, 781-783. Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J. (1969). The affluent worker in the class_strgetore. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Gonzalez, C. H. (1968). C as oci n M xi . Mexico: Fondo do Cultura Econica. I61 Graetz, B. R. (1983). Images of class in modern society: Struc- ture, sentiment and social location. Sociology, 11, 79-96. Haer, J. (1957). An empirical study of class awareness. Social forges, S6, 117-121. Heizelrigg. L. (1973). Aspects of measurement of class conscious- ness. In M.Armer & A. Grimshaw (Eds.), Comparative social reseeroh. New York: John Wiley. Hodge, R., & Treiman, R. J. (1968). Class identification in the U.S. American Journel of Sociology, 1S(4), 535-547. Jackman, M. R. (1973). Class identification. Americen Jouroel of Sociology, 55, 38. Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1983). Class awareness in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 2;, 187-200. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lawler, E. E., & Hall, 0. T. (1970). Relationship of job charac- teristics to job involvement, satisfaction and intrinsic moti- vation. Jogrnal of Applied Psychology, S5, 305-312. Lazarsfeld, P., 8 Barton, A. H. (1951). Classification typologies and indices. In D. Lerner & H. Laswoll (Eds.), The policy sciences. Stanford: Stanford University press. Lockwood, D. (1966). Sources of variation in working class images of society. Sociological Review, 15, 249-267. Lockwood, D. (1975). In search of a traditional worker. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Wor i ima o i . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Lodahl, T. M., 8 Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 24-33. Logan, J. R. (1977). Affluence, class structure and working class consciousness in modern Spain. Amerjeen Journal of Soeiology, §S(2), 383-402. Mann, M. (1973). u n t r wor i olass. London: Macmillan. 162 Marshall, G. (1983). Some remarks on the study of working class consciousness. Politioal Sociology, 12, 263-301. Martin, R., & Fryer, R. H. (1975). Deference and the ethos of small town capitalism. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Working class 1meges of society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. McKinney, J. (1966). Constructive typology and soeial theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Moore, R. S. (1973). The political effects of village Methodism. In M. Hill (Ed.), A sociologicel yearbook of religion in Britain (pp. 156-182). London: SCM Press. Newby, H. (1972). Agricultural workers in the class structure. Soeiologieal Review, 29, 413-435. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill. Ossowski, S. (1963). gloss structure in the sooial oonseiousness. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Prandy, K. (1965). Professionel employees. London: Faber & Faber. Roxborough, I. (L983). Union locals in Mexico: The new unionism in steel and automobile industries. Journal of Lotin Americeh Studies, 1S, 117-135. Rytina, J. (1967). Ideology of eless stretificetion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Salaman, G. (1971). Some sociological determinants of occupational communities. Sooiologieal Review, 12, 53-77. Schryer, F. J. (1986). Peasant politics in Latin America: Case studies of rural Mexico. Latin Amerieen Reseereh Bevjem, 21, 270-277.. Smith, B. H., & Rodriguez, J. L. (1974). Comparative working-class political behavior: Chile, France and Italy. Amerjeeh Behevi- mm. 18(1), 59-96. Touraine, A. (1966). n i n vri r . Paris: Editions de Sevil. Tucker, C. W. (1968). A comparative analysis of subjective social class: 1945-1963. Soeiel Eorees, pp. 508-514. 163 Vannerman, R. D. (1980). U.S. and British perceptions of class. American Journel of Sociology, SS, 769-789. Vannerman, R. D., & Pampel, F. C. (1977). The American perception of class and status. Americen Socioloqicel Review, AS, 422- 437. Weber, M. (1960). The methodology of the social sciences. Chicago: Free Press. Westgaard, J. H. (1972). Sociology: The myth of classlessness. In R. Blackburn (Ed.), Ideology in the social sciences (pp. 119-163). London: Fontana. Wilener, A. (1957). Images de la societe et classes sociales. Socioloqie du Travail, A, 332-348. STRTE UNIV, L MICHIGAN IBRQRIES 1111111111 1111111|||11|l||1111|||111111111 312 6474 9300909