D.V'...

'I'll‘

ulfl».x;lll.ll,xl.l 1

ABSTRACT

STRATIFICATION AND ALIENATION

by Richard A. Brymer

This thesis sought to test the relationship of social
stratification to alienation, particularly average status,
status inconsistency and social mobility and their bearing
upon alienation. The Durkheim-Merton model of anomie was
developed as an explanatory variable for the observed rela-
tionship of average status to ancmie and alienation, i.e.,
socially structured discrepancies between goal attainment
and means for achieving such goals. This rationale was then
logically extended to include status inconsistency and social
mobility, and hypotheses to this effect wenadevelcped. These
hypotheses were then tested on a random sample of the United
States gathered for this purpose in the fall of 1963. Nulti—
variate analytic procedures were used to analyze the relation-
ship of average status, social mobility and status inconsis-
tency to alienation and its various dimensions, e.g., power-
lessness, normlessness, social isolation, future orientation,
and subjective assessment of one's present standing in the
"goal” attainment process.

Briefly, this analysis revealed the expected relationship
between average status and all forms of alienation except
social isolation, but no relationship between status incon-

sistency, social mobility and alienation. Because of these

Bryser

findings, it was concluded that the Durkheim-Merton discrep-
ancy rationale is not valid, and that some other theory must
be developed to handle the empirically observed relationship
of average status to alienation. An attespt at developing
such a theory was begun, relying primarily upon the work of
Herbert Gans on community organisation, and the studies of
Gideon SJoberg, Richard Brymer and Buford Farris on bureauc-

racy and class.

'T-w—r‘\
ly‘

STRATIFICATION AND ALIEIATION

By

{04

. b
Richard k3 Brymer

1 THESIS

Submitted to
liohigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Sociology

195‘?

I'M Five 5
m s'pportec'
University, 1
13:11 Scrum
hiorick la:
ism: L. St.
“Pinter, 1g
”Yuribution
°f on» m“
ui Yrjo Lit
ofzh. Five {

3.03180 I
[Either I.“
No b. Gin
uii“ dire
to "91034.
in. “ '03}
113mm 10:

3mm, and

My“. 1
91430:.“ i.

99:303., in:

P311103 AID ACKIO'LIDGIIIITS

The Five Nations Project, on which this thesis was based,
was supported by the International Programs of Iiohigan State
university, the U. 8. Public Health Service, and the Agricul—
tural Service of Iichigan State University. Its directors were
Frederick.Iaisansn, Hideya Inmate, and Charles P. Lommis;
Robert L. Stewart was Acting Director from September, 1963, to
September, 1964. The author would like to acknowledge their
contribution to this dissertation, as well as the contributions
of other members of his committee. These include Donald Olmsted
and Yrjo Littunen, the latter directing the Finnish Component
of the live lations Project.

Because much of the last chapter was written after the
author left the Five Iations Project, acknowledgement must

also be given to lesley Community Centers, San Antonio, Texas

'and its director, luford Farris. A special thanks is given

to Iesley's Research Consultant, Gideon SJoberg. Research

done at Wesley Community Centers (which contributed to this

dissertation) was supported by the National Institute of Mental

Health, and by the Hogg Foundation of the University of Texas.
Because this dissertation is-as is much of modern sociology-

the result of a conglomerate of various enterprises, acknowl-

edgement is also made to all of the other known and unknown

persons, including family, friends, ccuwerkers, students, etc.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
I. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND THEORETICAL POSITION . . . . 1
Introduction e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1
30“" of “Gui. Theory e e e e e e e e e s e e e e 5
Durkheim e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 5
Merton e e s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 8
Societal ADOMIO e s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 12
The SUhJCOtiViBtS e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 14
ROVIO' Of Alienation Theory one s e e e e e e e e e 17
History and Early U838. e e e e e e e e e e e e 18
CUIICRt Alienation Theory e e e e e e e e e e 20
Summary of Alienation-Ancmie Theory . . . . . . . 31
Review of Empirical Alienation-Anomie Literature . 33
Operaticnalisations of Alienation-Anemia . . . 33
Inter-Correlations of Alienation Scales . . . 41
Relationships of Alienation to Other Variables . 44
Summary e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 47
Social lbbility and Status Inconsistency . . . . . 50
8001.1 Nobility e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e 50
Status Inconsistency . . . . o . . . . . . . . 52
Relationship of Average Status, Social nobility
and Status Inconsistency . . . . . . . . . . . 58
HypothOIOB e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e o e e 65
II. OPERATIONALIZATION OF MAJOR CONCEPTS . s e e e e e e 75
Introduction e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 75
Average Status and Status Inconsistency . . . . . . 75
Occupation e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e e e 77
Education e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 79
Income e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 79
Ethnicity e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 80
Average Status-Status Inconsistency . . . . . . 81
SOOill nobility e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 82
Ali.h.t1°n e e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e e e e 84
Introduction e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e 84
Student Sample e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 85
‘dfllt $8flp1. e s e e e s e e e e e e e e e e e 88
Sub—Sample of Achieved Sample . . . . . . . . . 91
Life Satisfaction and Future Outlook . . . . . . . 92
Study COBtCIt e e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e 94
sllpl. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 96
Analysis e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 99
Introduction e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e s e 99
PTOOOdUICI e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e 102
Operational HypOth;l.l e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 106

iii

III. SLLYSZS
Introi
P1:
Sec
Rel
First
Rel

V
a

Re!

I

Re]

I

Secon:

AV!

St:

Soc
Th1:

In.

AV!

8::

So:

Concll

N.COXCLL
CritL
5‘18?!
Alien
3001a

he
Patio
Cane;
Res

313;:0:

iv

III. ANALYSIS 0 O O O O O O O O O C 0
Introduction e e e e e e e e e
First Order Relationships .

Second Order Relationships

Relationship of Dependent Variables

First Order Relationships
Dependent Variables

Dependent Variables

Relatioaahip of Social Mobility to

Dependent Variables

Second Order Controlled Relationships
Average Status Relationships
Status Inconsistency Relationships

Relationship of Average Status to

Relationship of Status Inconsistency to

Social Mobility Relationships . .

Third Order Control Relationships

Introduction
Average Status . . . .
Status Inconsistency
Social Mobility . .
Conclusions

Iv. CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O
Critiques of Anomie Theory
Suggested Theory . . c . .
Alienation and Anomie . .
300181 lbbility, e e e e e

Average Status and Status Inconsistency

0....

Plth01081°&1 Behaviors e e e e e e e e e e

Conclusions and Proposals for Future

Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page
111
111
113
118
124
133

133
137

145
151
151
162
167
183
183
185
192
205
218

222
223
224
232

236
240

243

248

mmnm
R‘l
111-II
aw
.
so
so
00
es
0.
es
es
0 O.
.00.
see
essse
eeeee
eseee

WSWHWO
‘Se‘
2‘31
e
e
e
s e
e
e e
s 0
es s
as s
so es
e es
s es
as ea
es .0
so so
as ee
as as
e s

IMInmhmhhhu—mhhhttdnlAfintste

5

- Base! Ale .ue‘CalAU..1s.K09\..Vsll
1‘111‘111122

e e
s s
e e
e e
e e
e e e
. O O
O O O
s s e
e e
e e e
e e e
e e e
e e e
e e e
O C O

.1:

\1J
2

I‘-

2

\J
Ad

I“ 'l 1'

at 2

Table

III.

LIST OF TABLES

Inter-Correlations of Types of Alienation . e e

Inter-Correlations of Various Alienation Measures

Distributions and Collapse Limits for Categories

of Average Status and Status Inconsistency .
Representativeness of Sample for Race e . e e e
Representativeness of Sample for Size of Place
Representativeness of Sample for Income . . . 0

Average Status by Status Inconsistency, Using
MITOPVCIUORIJISOeeeeeeeeeeee
Average Status by Status Inconsistency, for
Collapsed values of Average Status and
Status Incon‘istCnoy . o s o o e e e e s
ANT“. Status by 3001.]. Mobility e e e e e
Status Inconsistency by Social Mobility . .
Average Status by Social Mobility at Each Love
Of Status Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e e
Average Status by Status Inconsistency at Rach
10.7.1 Of 3001‘]. [Ohility e e e e e e e o e e
Status Inconsistency by Social Mobility at Each
LC”). or Average Stfitfll e e e e e e e e e 0
Present Standing by waerlessness . . . e
Present Standing by Social Isolation . . .
Present Standing by Hormlessness . . s . e
Present Standing by Powerlessness-Normlessness
O O O
O O

eHeee

Future Orientation by Powerlessness .
Future Orientation by Social Isolation .
Future Orientation by Rormlessness . . e .
Future Orientation by Powerlessness-Ncrmlessne
Average Status by waerlessness . e e e e . .
Average Status by Social Isolation e s e e e
Average Status by Normlessness . . . e e . e
Average Status by Powerlessness-Normlessness
Average Status by Present Standing . . e . .
Average Status by Future Orientation . e e
Status Inconsistency by waerlessness . e
Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation e
Status Inconsistency by Hormlessness e e e
Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness-Rormle
Status Inconsistency by Present Standing .
Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation
Social Robility by Powerlessness . . . . e

V

Page

42
42

83
98
98
99

114

116
116
118

121
121

123
126
126
127
128
130
130
130
131
134
134
135
136
138
140
140
141
141
142
143
145
146

.7 —, .7 -

—-7.-?

~7’r—r-r—r-1‘r—7

23 Social

8 Sociil

H Social

M 80:13?
Q 5031

J} Avert

of‘

V Avora

Lev

35 tors
of

35 Aver:
A1

37 Aver
Le

31 Aver
Le

‘3 Ave:
1

11

1‘ Ave
0

12 Ave
‘ a
‘3 Ave
1

u ‘31
45 3.}
15 3’.
17 3.“
‘5 5.
49 S
50 S
31 S
32 E

vi

Table Page
28 Social Mobility by Social Isolation . . . . . . 146
29 Social Mobility by Normlessness . . . . . e . . 146
30 Social Mobility by Pewerlessness-Normlessness . 147
31 Social Mobility by Present Standing . . . . . . 148
32 Social Mobility by Future Orientation . e e . 149

33 Average Status by waerlessness at Each Level

Of 300131 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e e e e 152
34 Average Status by Social Isolation at Each

Level of Social nobility . . . . . . . .‘. . 152
35 Average Status by Rormlsssness at Each Level

Of SOOill Mbbility e e e e e e e e e e e e e 153
36 Average Status by Powerlessness—Normlessness

at EOOh LOVOI Of SOOill MObility e e e e e e 154
37 Average Status by Present Standing at Each

I‘VOI Of 8001‘]. “Obility e e o e o o e o o e 155
38 Average Status by Future Orientation at Each

L.V.1 or Social Mobility e e e e e e e e e e 155
39 Average Status by Powerlessness at Each Level

or Social Isolation e e e e e e e e e e 156
40 Average Status by Social Isolation at Each

LOVOl Of Status Inconsistency e e e e e e e e 156
41 Average Status by Rormlessness at Each Level

Of st‘tu. Inconsistency o a o o o o e o o e e 157
42 Average Status by Powerlessness—Normlessness

at Each Level of Status Inconsistency . . e . 158
43 Average Status by Present Standing at Each

LOVOI Of Status Inconsistency e e e e e e e e 159
44 Average Status by Future Orientation at Each

Level of Status Inconsistency . . . e . . . . 159
45 Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness at Each

LOVOI 0f 8001‘1 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e 163
46 Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation at

BEOh LOVOI Of 3001.1 Mobility e e e e e e e 163
47 Status Inconsistency by Normlessness at Each

LOVIl or 300131 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e 164
48 Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness-Ncrmless-

,ness at Each Level of Social Mobility . . e . 165
49 Status Inconsistency by Present Standing at

Each Level of Social Mobility . . . . . . . 166
50 Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation at

B‘Oh LOVOl Of 80°1Cl Mobility e e e e e e e 166
51 Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness at Each

LOVOI Of Average Status e e e e e e e e e e 168
52 Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation at

ESOh LOVOI Of Average Status e e e e e e e e 169

 

 

71

Table
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

69

7O

71

72

73

Status
Each
Status
ness
Status
Each
Status
Each
Social

Average Status
Controls for
Mbbility e 0

Average Status
Controls for
Mobility e e

Average Status
Controls for
Social Mobility

vii

Inconsistency by
Level of Average
Inconsistency by
at Each Level of
Inconsistency by
Level of Average
Inconsistency by
Level of Average

Page

Normlessness at

StBtUS e e e o o e e e e e 170
Powerlessness-Normless-
Average Status . o s e e e 171
Present Standing at

Status e e e e e e e s e e 172
Future Orientation at

SLEEUS e e e e e e e . e e 772

Mobility by Powerlessness at Each Level

Of Status Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e e e e 773
Social Mobility by Social Isolation at Each

LOVOI Of Status Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e 173
Social Mobility by Normlessness at Each Level

of Status Inconsistency . . . . . . . e . . . . 174
Social Mobility by Powerlessness—Ncrmlessness

at Each Level of Status Inconsistency . . . e . 175
Social Mobility by Present Standing at Each

Level of Status Inconsistency . . e . . . . . . 176
Social Mobility by Future Orientation at Each

Level of Status Inconsistency . e . . . . . . e 176
Social Mobility by Powerlessness at Each Level

Of Average SEOLHB e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 177
Social Mobility by Social Isolation at Each

LOVOl Of Average Status e e e e e e e e e e e s 178
Social Mobility by Normlessness at Each Level

Of ‘VOIGSO Status e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 779
Social Mobility by Powerlessness-Normlessness

at Each Level of Average Status . . . . . . . . 180
Social Mobility by Present Standing at Each

LOVOI Of Average Status e e e e s e e e e e e e 181
Social Mobility by Future Orientation at Each

LOVOI Of Average SLILUO e e e e e e e e e e e e 787

by waerlessness Means with

Status Inconsistency and Social
.00000000000000000186
by Social Isolation Means with

Status Inconsistency and Social

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 787
by Normlessness Means with

Status Inconsistency and
00.0000000000000188

Average Status by Powerlessness—Rormlessness
Means with Controls for Status Inconsistency
and Social Mobility

Average Status by Present Standing Means with
Controls for Status Inconsistency and

Social Mobility

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 189

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 190

':;e
81
:2

9

O

\3
air

‘36

Table

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

viii

Average Status by Future Orientation Means

with Controls for Status Inconsistency

and 500131 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness Means

with Controls for Average Status and

300131 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation Means

with Controls for Average Status and

500181 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0
Status Inconsistency by Normlessness Means

with Controls for Average Status and

$00101 Mobility e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness—Normless-

nose with Controls for Average Status and

800131 Mobility e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e
Status Inconsistency by Present Standing Means

with Controls for Average Status and

300181 MObility e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation Means

with Controls for Average Status and

SOOI‘I Mobility e e e e e o e e b e e e b e e e
Social Mobility by Powerlessness Means with

Controls for Average Status and Status

Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Social Mobility by Social Isolation Means with

Controls for Average Status and Status

Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Social Mobility by Normlessness Means with

Controls for Average Status and Status

Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Social Mobility by Powerlessness—Normlessness

Means with Controls for Average Status and

St‘tul InOODBiOtOnOy o e e e o o e e e e e e e
Social Mobility by Present Standing Means with

Controls for Average Status and Status

IhOonfliltOOOI e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Social Mobility by Future Orientation Means

with Controls for Average Status and Status

Inconsistency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

Page

191

193

195

197

199

201

203

206

208

210

212

214

216

Figure

I. 1

\u

0"

.... 1

Figure
II. 1

\n #- UJ A)

III. 1

LIST OF FIGURES

Derivation of Occupation Scores . . . . .
Derivation of Education Scores o . . . e
Derivation of Income Scores . . . o c . .
Derivation of Ethnicity Scores o . . . .

Dean Items Used in Operaticnalising
Alienation e e e e e e e e e o e e e e

Lack of Independence in Two Multi-Variate
Tables Uhing the Same Controls . . . .

Two Tables Illustrating Similarity of
Various Control Variables Arrangement .

Page

78
79
8O

81
86

105

184

STATE

In this t!
Itntifioath
mutton of
“3 mom.
effect of ,1
in th1| no
011 Film
Butt “P011

111101-97:
1“ lore .
Ritz-11"
mi ““11
lemon, u
09631}. be
“1 Van

CHAPTERI

STATEIEIT OP PROBIIM AID THEORETICAL POSITIOE

Introduction

In this thesis, our basic problem is to test the effect of
stratification upon alienation. Generally, it will test an
extension of the Durkheim-Merton rationale for the development
of anomie. Even more generally, there is a concern with the
effect of stratification upon individual behavior. Our interest
in this area stems from the convergence of two areas of interest:
one primarily theoretical, and the second primarily a ”hunch"
based upon the observation of patterns in empirical materials.

Theoretically, we have an interest in anomie and alienation,
but more specifically, we are interested in the rationale that
underlies the relationship of social structure to alienation
and anomie. This basic rationale stems from Durkheim, via
Merton, and argues that anomie is created when a discrepancy
occurs between that which an individual has been led to expect,
and that which he actually obtains. Anomie, in turn, leads to
the creation of various types of consequences or adaptations-
nearly all pathological or socially problematic.

From our empirical 'hunch' source, we are concerned with the
apparent overriding influence that social class has upon a large

number of these quasi-pathological variables, including aliena-

:‘m. That is
me to am]
i1il not new
of lover-clue
explanatory d
behavior.
Ania fro
other Itnti
11mm, g1
3" 01 than
8“ lover
“3 h"! :1
1" not ye
11111, (ac
mica u
The p“
”re" c

2

tion. That is, it would appear that lower-class people are more
prone to develop pathological behaviors than are others. Though
it is not necessarily cited and utilised in these myriad studies
of lower-class behavior, anomie theory has often been used as an
explanatory device for the lower-class predilection for deviant

behavior.

Again from an empirical source, we have noted that there are
other stratification variables—social mobility and status incon-
sistency, especially—which also have been found related to a
few of these more or less pathological behaviors. It would appear
that lower classne ss and social mobility and status inconsistency
may have something in common. Although the 'anomie' rationale
has not yet been applied to status inconsistency and social mo-
bility (nor tested), it would appear to be Justified from a theo-
retical and an empirical stance.

The purpose of this thesis will be to conjoin these two
sources of interest, in an attempt to extend and test the basic
'discrepancy rationale of anomie' developed by Merton and
Durkheim. Specifically, we will test the relationship of aliens-
tion to status inconsistency and social mobility on the grounds
that they are similar to social class, in that they exemplify the
Durkheim-Merton rationale. If, in fact, status inconsistency and
social mobility 31 related to alienation, then the anomie ration-
ale for the relationship of stratification to 'quasi-pathological'
behaviors is again validated and made more plausible. If there
is no relationship, then we are left with the problem of seeking

an explanation for the already proven relationship between

1:111 class
intent bobs
In orier
nd to this
b11511, in
taunts,
mm 33
fupter 11'.
1171107191,
In use
Phat,
12561: 1

111931 10

3

social class and anomie, as well as between social class and
deviant behavior.

In order to accomplish this task, several steps are necessary,
and to this end we present an outline of the rest of the thesis.
Briefly, in Chapter I we shall present our theoretical and logical
arguments, ending with a statement of hypotheses. Chapter II will
contain an operationalisation of these hypotheses for test.
Chapter III will contain our analysis of the empirical materials
developed, and Chapter IV will contain our conclusions.

In more detail, Chapter I will proceed as follows:

First, we shall review anomie theory as it has developed with
Durkheim and been extended by Merton. In this discussion, we shall
attend to the distinction betwun anomie as a societal condition,
and anomie—or enemy—as an individual condition. Although
Durkheim and Merton focused ostensibly upon anomie as a societal
condition, there is, we believe, a rationale implicit in their
theories which can be used to account for anemia as an individual
condition. To this end, we shall also review those writers who
are interested in anomie as an individual condition.

Second, we shall review and discuss alienation theory in an
attempt to illustrate a convergence between anomie and alienation,
in terms of their general definitions, as well as antecedents and
consequences. This does not constitute an essentially original
effort, as many sociologists consider alienation and anomie to be
identical or synonymous terms for the same phenomena. Although
many theorists view alienation as having a slightly different

theoretical tradition, we shall treat alienation separately, and

:hen attempt t1
Third, we 32
studies of hot
tunsmte th
111111111 at
1'11 theoretic:
dieution ant
1.1m miabl
mi unit.
1011 concert
W conseque
'9 331311 be I
33131110!“ 11
mm Class-
Fourth, ,
“tend the I
”W Iohi]
fin: mom
1111338 111
than ‘. “a

1‘, 1.
""3 11100

4

then attempt to illustrate a convergence.

Third, we shall review the literature concerned with empirical
studies of both anomie and alienation. we shall (a) attempt to
demonstrate that there is considerable overlap between alienation
and anemia at the empirical and operational levels, as well as at
the theoretical levels; and (b) explore the relationships of
alienation and anemia to other variables in order to show that
these variables are stably and consistently related to alienation
and anemia. Generally, there will be two orders of studies;
those concerned with antecedent conditions and those concerned
with consequences of alienation-anomie. In the former instance,
'we shall be particularly concerned with the very stable and
consistent relationship between alienation and anemia, and
social class-however operationalised.

Fourth, and following the above discussion, we shall then
extend the DurkheiméMerton rationale to two additional areas—-
social mobility and status inconsistency. In so doing, we shall
first demonstrate the theoretical and logical rationale for con-
sidering these two variables as examples of the DeM rationale;
then we shall present a review of the empirical literature for
status inconsistency and social mobility, in which we will demon—
strate that they are related to a series of variables which have
also been termed possible consequences of alienation.

In the fifth and final section, we shall present a summary of
our contentions so far, and on this basis, suggest a series of
hypotheses stipulating a relationship of average status, social

mobility and status inconsistency to alienation.

‘yv‘l”. fl: 3

hon.
mm I
integrati:
integrati
High
“$9 mi 1
liailu-i
to 601:0
$9381 :

mutt:

Review of Anomie—Anomia Theory

Durkheim

Anomie theory began, in the sociological tradition, with
Durkheim and his interest in the mechanisms of societal unity and
integration. In his classic work, The Division of Labor in
Society, Durkheim distinguishes between two general types of
integration-mechanical andorganic.1 In simple societies, with
a simple division of labor, persons are differentiated only by
age and sex and have a great deal in common. Because of this
similarity, a form of integration can be achieved by reference
to common ideas, interests, etc. This type of integration is
termed.mechanical and is characteristic of simple societies. In
industrial societies, however,'with their complex division of
labor and attendant specialisation of function and personnel,
persons are not likely to have a great deal in common, and,
therefore, a different form of integration develops, based upon
mutual interdependence. The development of this interdependence-
or organic integration—requires a period of lengthy contact and
mutual adjustment of groups which is not required in simple
societies. It would seem that Durkheim regarded the development
of integration in industrial societies as more problematic and
tenous than in simple societies. This notion is further evi-
denced by Durkheim's attention to the forms of abnormal inte-
gration (or specifically, abnormal divisions of labor) which may
develop-particu1arly in industrial societies. It is in the

description of one of these abnormal forms that the use of the

“:1 1:10:10 1
which the:
htordoponder
w. pm e If
Dubai: did
«the loci.
In hie YO
imam-.1 q
«n am.
if (Our ‘7?
mm: in
int-c, Ogoj
‘h' Iuicid.
ti“ the;
3110. In
“P5331: \

”Hider.

6

term anomie first occurs. Anomie was a form of division of labor
in which there had not been extended contact, so that mutual
interdependence had not developed. Although the term anomie did
not play a significant part in this work, it is clear that
Durkheim did use it to characterise and refer to a state of the
entire society or group.

In his volume, Sgicide, Durkheim attempts to formulate social
structural explanations of variations in suicide rates; here the
term anomie becomes significant.2 In this volume, anomie is one
of four types of abnormal societal conditions which lead to in-
creases in suicide rates. Frequently these terme—-anomic, fatal-
istic, egoistic and altruistic-—have been used to characterise
the suicide itself, although it would seem that Durkheim intended
that they refer to the social conditions which produced the sui-
cide. In order to understand Durkheim's use of anomie, his
emphasis upon the functions of norms in society must also be
considered.

Durkheim viewed human nature as essentially uncontrolled,
greedy and avaricious. Ian was a biological creature who, without
the presence of external controls, would seek to fulfill his needs
far beyond.the point of simple satisfaction. ”Human activity
naturally aspires beyond assignable limits and sets itself un-
attainable goals."3 ‘Iith this view’of human nature, Durkhemm
saw society (in particular, its normative structure) as furnishing
the necessary controls. lcrms specify the goals that man can
achieve, and what he must do to achieve them. Dy specifying goals,

norms both limit and Justify man's activity. In addition, the

3mm 0! t1:-
uut the mm
mm. “Sac?
condition, en
it moral re
uquilibriun 1
my Iilhdp
POM!!! e I
think ute ‘
Mi thereby
him. .1
lemme
‘3 “tel-en
‘ lien
in “In:
“on to l
1:: ms.
"1:311I
a! “in?
“In“

v!
u“ “J

7
presence of these norms allows the individual to make predictions

about the future behavior of others, and himself in relation to
others. ”Each person is then, at least . . . in harmony with his
condition, and desires only what he may legitimately hope for as
the normal reward of his activity. He has the essentials. The
equilibrium of his happiness is secure because it is defined, and
a few’mishaps cannot disconcert him."4 The normative structure
provided a stable frame of reference and meaning for human beings,
‘which sets their goals, defines what must be done to achieve them,
and thereby establishes an orderly, predictable endeavor.

Durkheim even suggested that poverty, as long as it is viewed as
legitimate and according to the norms, provides a meaningful frame
of reference.5

L.disruption of the normative structure, however, also disrupts
the meaningfulness and predictability of human life, and contrib-
utes to a state of tension, confusion, and loss of orientation.
Ian presumably reverted to his original state, and his aspirations
rapidly rose beyond any expectations of fulfillment. This state
of affairs-hthe absence of norms-whioh produced continual frus-
tration, anxiety, pointlessness, etc.,'was termed anomie. Further,
the anemic situation‘was seen as intolerable for any length, so
that anomie suicide resulted.

Durkheim saw many sources of anomie in industrial society—-
depression, inflation, unexpected prosperity, divorce, and upward
and downeard.mebility. The general mechanism which underlies these
diverse situations is that the norms, as guides specifying“what

one must do in order to achieve a certain goal, no longer operate.

Intho cm of
:rditioml nc
me of prospe
homily oxpec
mqun.
tinl: paler
logitincy an
mm, end I
”dilution .1

In um”:
“Flutter: .
manned t
P! u, u ,
“ion. in ll
31. “1° r1
"Minion
min '91..

.c‘e, mbi]

8
In the case of an economic depression, when one follows the

traditional norm, one no longer gets the expected goal. In the
case of prosperity, one obtains far more than he would have
normally expected. In both cases, there is a considerable die-
crepancy between the expectations and attainments that were norma-
tively prescribed. This discrepancy casts doubt upon both the
legitimacy and.the efficacy of the norm itself. It is no longer
useful, and apparently discarded. But without it, there is no
regulation at all, so that human life eventually becomes confused.
In summary, Durkheim.developed the concept of anomie as an
explanatory device which operated at the societal level, and
influenced the suicide rate. His main concern was not with anomie
per so, as experienced by the individual, but more with the vari-
ations in the suicide rate and the social conditions themselves.
His basic rationale for the individual was a discrepancy between
expectations and achievements, and particularly as these discrep-
ancies were produced by changes in an individual's social position,

e.g., mobility, divorce, etc.

2.2m
Robert I. Merton, in his seminal article, "Social Structure

and inc-is," has both extended and generalised Durkheim's theory
of anomie.6 He has extended it in the sense that he sought to
explain many forms of 'deviant' behavior rather than just suicide,
and generalised it in that the sources of anomie and consequent
deviant behavior are seen, not as consequences of the breakdown of
norms, but as inherent in the social structure itself. In a way,

‘lerton was even more sociologically oriented.than Durkheim, for he

iidnot sake t
m that Durkh
all a his do
in, 1..., er
I: a locally

In dmlop:
htmn cultu:
in dim-0pm
”mixed at
‘° Ilbm of
“1m“ Itn
“0 Mum.
linen” 1.
i"hick th.

9
did not make the assumptions about the "biological” nature of

man that Durkheim did. Rather, he saw man's aspirations, as
well as his deviant behavior, as a product of the social struc-
ture, i.e., anomie not as a reversion to a "natural state”, but
as a socially induced product.

In developing his theory of anomie, Horton distinguishes
between cultural and social structure, with anomie as a product of
the discrepancy between them. Cultural structure is ". . . that
organised set of normative values governing behavior which is common
to members of a designated society or group."7 That is, the
cultural structure contains the values and goals of the society-
the definitions of things that man must strive for. Social
structure is the " . . . organised set of social relationships
in which the members of the society or social groups are vari-
ously implicated."8 Thus, social structure is the set of insti-
tutional norms or means which is specified in order to reach the
culturally defined goals. The social structure and the cultural
structure are, however, independent of each other and ". . . the
cultural emphasis placed upon certain goals varies independently
or the degree of emphasis upon institutionalised msans.”9 inomie,
then, is ”. . .a breakdown in the cultural structure, occurring
particularly when there is an acute disjunction between cultural
norms and goals and the social structured capacities of members

10

of the group to act in accord with them." Anomie refers to a

condition of the society, although the members of the society are
affected by it, since it is they who fail to achieve the goals that

they have been enjoined to seek. This anomie, once it has come

into existence
m arm" I
mall: some ;
[man devote
fuiliu- eds;
M1" the I
.3811! (or be
"11" mm.

mung};
misty or
mi“): N:
“trim; c,
“fluted .
1“1! Gone
“trio“ ‘
“i the c
99:53“ 1
far 1:33
1°th

’
4‘s.

10

into existence, sets up a strain towards equilibrium, which in
turn creates a form of adaptation.11 These adaptations are
usually some form of deviant behavior, and it is to them that
Ilerton devotes the majority of his emphasis. Generally, the now
familiar adaptations, as laid out by Horton in his original work,
involve the acceptance or negation of either the goals or the
means (or both), or the creation of a new set of both goals

and means.

Although.lsrton's schema logically could be applied to any
society or group, he devoted much of his analysis to American
society, and, in particular, to the discrepancy between the
American cultural goal of success, and the differentially dis-
tributed social means for attaining such a goal. He was partioup
larly concerned with the discrepancy between the egalitarian
American ethic which held ”success" to be within the reach of all
and the class system of America which encumbered lower-class
persons in the struggle for success. This mechanism would account
for the disproportionate representation of lower—class persons in
deviant groups .

In summary, Merton seems to attend only to the antecedent
conditions, and the consequences of anomie, with very little
attention paid to anomie, per so. Also, Merton seems to be
ccncsrnednwith anomie as a societal condition. Although he
recognises the possibility of researching the subjective aspects
of anemia, and even cites Srols's and lacIver's work, it is clear
from the amount of attention he devotes to the topic that he is

12

primarily interested in anemia as a societal condition. The

ntiomlo for
objective as
min, Iilila
mid hold t1
teal soul a
«9": the gen
structure a‘.
If he does -
that create
an inn“;
sizing, h
'riterg.
madly
thou 'hc
"fare“.

of °Pfira

11
rationale for the development of 'individual' anomie, or the

subjective aspects of anomie, seems to be implicit in Merton, and
again, similar to those of Durkheim. Generally, this rationale
would hold that the individual must first be exposed to the cul-
tural goal and, to some degree, internaliss it; then, he will
seek the goal to the extent that his position in the social
structure allows it; and, if he achieves it, conformity results.
If he does not achieve it, a discrepancy will exist, which will
then create anomie and the need for some sort of adaptation (for
the individual). Although the rationale is present in Merton's
writing, he has done little with it. This has remained for other
writers. For those pcst—Itsrton sociologists, there seem to be
generally two schools of thought and effort. First, there are
those who utilise a more or less societal or group frame of
reference. These persons have attempted to develop new methods
of operationalising societal anomie, and extend the Hertonian
theory. Second, there are those scholars who have taken a sub-
jectivist approach and are attempting to discover the correlates
and conditions of the subjective aspects of anomie—or anomia as
their group generally prefers to call it.13
Although we have somewhat arbitrarily separated these two
approaches, we do not mean to imply that they have had no over-
lap. Psrhaps much of the overlap is only at an operational level
in research. Inch of the difficulty in drawing a clear-cut line
between these two approaches stems from the form that their

research takes. lany who would classify themselves as interested

in societal anomie utilise data gathered on individuals and their

numeric
infining an
the theory
Ibout, loci
of individ‘.
overlap. I
lnic purp:
mmch a

“Poet: of

Societal A
Sine. I
main the
basic rgtf
10m), b
'it‘n u.
"my bet.

13m. to:

D'dbin’

12

characteristics. And conversely, many who use attitude scales—
defining anomia as an individual state of mind—both cite and use
the theory developed by persons who are interested in, and writing
about, societal anomie. And no doubt, the old theoretical devil
of individual versus group contributes no small degree to this
overlap. Is will, however, arbitrarily separate them for ana-
lytic purposes, because the author feels that there is a closer
research affinity betwun the persons studying the subjective

aspects of anomie.

Societal Anomis

Since Horton, there have been several contributions to the
anomie theory. The majority of these, however, deal not with the
basic rationale for anomie (either at the group or individual
level), but more with the adaptations stealing from anomie, or
with the particularistic social situation in which the discrep-
ancy betwaen the cultural goals and the socially structured
means for achieving them occurs.

Dubin, for example, subdividss Horton's category of means into
two categories: means and norms.14 loans are those actual behav-
iors that a person carries out in his daily activities. lorms
specify what is prescribed behavior and what is prescribed behav-
ior. This distinction sets actual behavior apart from the values
used by actors to select among the behavioral choices. Iith this
new distinction, Dubin expands the lsrtonian adaptation categor-
ies of Innovation and Ritualism from one to six alternatives each.

Rebellion and ritualism are retained as in the original work.

Tu Iertonian
(show) i
Clonrd, .
nay (ulthou
than in a 1
ta and i
:11: mum
am the -
um, 01
file ma 1
3°11 of '
then 11]
fleas. .
“not“
“ultra
"that
“will:

hi‘ ha'

13

The Hertcnian rationale of a discrepancy between norms, goals
(and.means) is not, however, modified.

Cloward, on the other hand, has extended the notion of discrep-
ancy (although he has not basically modified it) by noting that
there is a socially structured differential access to both legit-
imate and illegitimate means.15 That is, if one cannot attain
the culturally prescribed goals by legitimate means, there is
still the possibility that he may attain them by illegitimate
means. Oloward suggests that where illegitimate means are avail-
able and the person 'sueoseds' in using them, there is a different
form of 'innovation' than where the person does not succeed in
these illegitimate structures and.must create his own innova-
tions. Of course, if he cannot gain access to the illegitimate
structure, nor create one of his own, then a situation of double
failure exists, and no form of adaptation is left but that of the
rstreatist. Although Oloward was specifically interested in
applying and.rsvising the anomia theory to deliquent behavior,
his actions regarding the necessity of inspecting'means struc-
tures, other than the traditional institutional structure, have
been the point of departure for other critiques and reformulations
of the lertonian theory of anomie.

The majority of the other reformulations of’ancmie theory
generally see the need for adapting the notion of goals-means to
the particular social situation or group in which the actor is
operating. Short, for example, stresses the need for attending
to the goals and means present in the delinquent gang itself,

rather than assuming that the societal goals and means are

null] “lie:
umption of
«mom, and
cultural gm
betmn the
In luau}
touched the
i! not to ‘
m been u
‘M then
“Plicitll

taken int.

14
equally salient for all persons.“ Iemsrt notes that the

assmpticn of society-wide goals in a pluralistic society is
tenuous, and attention should be paid to the goals of these sub-
cultural groupings, especially as they mediate and intervene
between the individual and the societal levels."

In summary, these post-Hertonian theoretical changes have not
touched the underlying rationale whereby anomie develops. This
is not to say that criticisms of the discrepancy rationale have
not been advanced, but within the tradition of anomie theory per
so, there have been none, nor in the research that has stemmed
explicitly from it have there been these sorts of criticisms

taken into account, as we shall see.18

Th3 Sfljsgt 13st!

Ry subjectivists, we do not mean to refer to those persons who
are interested in ascertaining the psychological bases or ants-
oedsnts of anomia. Rather, we refer to those who have an interest
in anomia as a characteristic of an individual; as a set of beliefs
about the nature of the world that he perceives; and as an individ-
ual stats of mind. lost writers in this tradition, as implied
above, are explicitly sociological in that they see the cause of
individual attitudes, etc., as stemming from the individual's
position in society.‘9 That is, the stats of societal anomie is
held to create a parallel state for the individual.

Perhaps the first two sociologists to become interested in
anomia were KacIver and Srole, in 1950. hacIver, for instance,

is very explicit in his concern over the individual aspects of

mom.

holy signi:
up by hit a
only diooon
continuity,
boon spin
unponnibl:
nonunion ‘
state of a
minion-
fatnlly we

Clearly, t]
on the other
theoretical
titugung ‘
mm.- 2‘
mm“ 1:
“ mm
13117111141:

“‘3‘ int.

15

anomia.
Anomy signifies the state of mind of one who has been pulled
up by his moral roots, who has no longer any standards, but
only disconnected urges, who has no longer any sense of
continuity, of folk, of obligation. The anosic man has
become spiritually sterile, responsive only to himself,
responsible to no one . . . He lives on the thin line of
sensation between no future and no past . . . Anomy is a
state of mind in which the individual's sense of social
cohesion-the mainsgring of his morals-is broken or
fatally‘seakened. 2
Clearly, this is a subjectivist conception of anomie. Srcle,
on the other hand, is much less a subjectivist-at least, at the
theoretical level. In his early works, he states that he is
attempting ” to test hypotheses centering on Durkheis's concept of

“0.1.e. 21

He notes that although Durkheim focused mainly on the
societal level, there is the possibility of a ”parallel continuum
of variations seen from the 'microscopic' or molecular view of
individuals as they are integrated in the total action fields of
their interpersonal relationships and.reference groups."22
Further, he argues that there can exist a continuum ranging from
'eunomia' to 'anonia', with the former ”referring to the individ-
ual's generalised, pervasive sense of 'self-to-others belonging-
ness' and [with] 'self—to—others distance' and 'self-to—cthers
alienation' at the other pole of the continuum.” 23 Little more
theoretical attention is given to the development of his conceptu-
alization. However, in his rationale for cpsrationalisation, we get
an even clearer cue that Srole considers his anomia conceptuali-
saticn to refer to "the ideaticnal states or components that on

on theoretical grounds would represent‘igtggggliggg.counterparts

or reflections, in the individual's life situation, of conditions

of mini $331
Beaming '
ntion, Srolo
of Karton the
mint mil
ntian in the
(FM!) or a
hnthcr, Sr:

hm ac:
”Gratin
“tunic
1. Refer
'ithin I
2. Gene:
con'
5“]- cm
and (c)
3. Th.
tionghi
“him
“one,
ttrucm

16

of social dysfunction.”24

Regarding the sources of this anomia or eelf-to-others alien-
ation, Srole appears to follow the explicit sociological tradition
of llerton when he states that "social dysfunction is the inde-
pendent variable, the individual's state of self-to—group alien-
ation is the intervening variable, and change in personality
(Fromm) or adaptive modes (Herton) is the dependent variable”?5
further, Srole explains:

Three more inclusive sets of forces are also seen as

operating in his [the anomia person] contemporary

situation.

1. Reference groups beyond his immediate field of action,

within which acceptance and ultimate integration are sought.

2. Generalised qualities of the molar society netrating

his contemporary action field as these affect a) his life

goal choices, (b) his selection of means toward these goals,

and (c) his success or failure in achieving these goals.

3. The scoialisation processes of his interpersonal rela-

tionships during child hood and adolescence, as these have

conditioned the interpersonal expectations, value orienta-

tions, and behavioral tendencies of his current personality

structure. 25

Perhaps Srcle's greatest influence in this area was his devel-
opsent of the now famous Irole Scale for measuring individual
anomia. Following the development of this scale, there have been
few purely theoretical treatises on the nature and sources of
individual anomia. On the other hand, there has been a virtual
explosion of empirical studies, each making their own contribution
to our knowledge about anomia. In explaining this explosion, it
is worthy to note the ease cfzus'in‘g an attitude scale versus the
difficulty of constructing group indexes. Primarily, these
studies have sought to correlate anomia with conditions which

might be thought to exemplify the Hertcnian rationale, and they

will be (1180'
spiricnl 11
In sums:
uonin theoz
the nuntnint
Ind it: mm.
M mnderi
Inbntlntivq
fl n1» lg:
'mtually
”filmtorl
Winn“ o
“1' 'hich
hit”. in
mm
a! it . .
“‘4 up)
in our r1
“Mich
inn 1121
Eve:

01

“I.

17
will be discussed in the section dealing with a review of

empirical literature.

In summarising our perusal of selected writers in anomie-
anomia theory, we are forced to agree with Cohen. ”In view of
the sustained interest in anomie theory, its enormous influence
and its nmerous [empirical] application . . . it is worth noting
and wondering at the relatively slow and fitful growth of the
substantive growth theory itself." 27 In addition, we find that
we also agree with IcOlosky and Schaar when they say that
”virtually all of this [empirical] work has employed a single
explanatory model for the analysis of ancmyc a specified social-
cultural condition gives rise to specified feelings in individ-
uals which in turn result in specified behaviors. Different
writers have werked variations on this scheme, but nobody has
challenged the scheme it self or attempted a fundamental revision
of it . . . [and] virtually all studies of ancmy have employed the

28 Is must note, however, as we shall see

a explanatory model.”
in our review of empirical literature, that no study using an
explicitly avowed anemic theory framework has come up with empizb
ical findings which have directly challenged anomie theory.

Therefore, the explanatory rationale appears to hve some valid-

it’s

Review of Alienation Theory
'e have arbitrarily separated alienation theory from anomie
theory because alienation theory seems to have a much longer

history as well as a wider scope of discussion, at least in its

me by soc
the uin, al
eociety' vie
the etructun
the ho cone
introductio-
hner‘e v01-
etiented 31
ntien thee:
intereeted
Of social 1
intended a:
ti”; nth.

cm:

6133

18
usage by social critics from a wide variety of intellectuals. In

the main, alienation is used by those theorists holding to a ”mass
society" viewpoint, whereas anomie-anomia theorists are more from
the structural-functional point of view. is we shall see, however,
the two concepts are similar. Is shall first provide a brief
introduction to this history of the concept, relying heavily upon
Peuer's work.29 Then we shall turn to those more empirically
oriented alienation theorists forthe bulk of our review of alien-
ation theory. We shall confine our attention to those theorists
interested in developing the theory of alienation for the purposes
of social reseu-ch—rather than social criticism. This is not
intended as a slight to social critics nor to demean their func-
tion; rather it is a recognition of a distinction between social

criticism and social science.

History 2d larly Hem
According to Peuer, alienation is an ethical concept having

its historical source in ”the youthful larx who in manuscripts,
sometimes, unpublished, erte down an ethical critique of capi-
talism."3o Peuer argues that Harx picked up the term and its
accompanying vocabulary from Hegel, who in turn ”imbibed the
concept of alienation from pessimist Protestant theology (Calvin,
in particular)."31 Generally, Marx saw alienation as a condition
resulting from the separation of the worker from the product he
made as well as the means of production. Or, at least this is
the traditional contemporary interpretation of llarx's meaning

of alienation. Peuer maintains, however, that this is a super—

fiml reniin
first need by
Ina Fonerbach
semi comet
epnoteet of
civilisation,
pence vith bo
toneept which

Uthough r
the tea has
nliennted int
31”“! lkin
”leucel co:
‘hwriete. 1
“3 Minot

31““ View:

miaicle. Fe

“.1, "1d co

 

Weep: of

 

 

19

ficial reading of Marx's theory, and that "...'a1ienation' as
first used by Marx, Engels, and their fellow young Hegelians
and Peuerbachians was a romantic concept, with a preponderantly
sexual connotation. It was the language of a group which made
a protest of romantic individualism against the new capitalist
civilisation, but which soon went on to its post-adolescent
peace with bourgeois society. Marx and Engels discarded a
concept which became alien to their own aims.”32

Although rejected by Marx and Engels, and classical Marxists,
the term has returned to our vocabulary via MacDonald, and other
alienated intellectual social critics of the 1930's vintage.
Closely akin to the social critics‘ usage of alienation as a
polemical concept has been the use of the term by ”mass society”
theorists. lass society theorists view alienation as a slightly
evil product of modern society, somewhat in the manner that
Simmel viewed modern society.33 In this style, alienation is
sometimes referred to as a cause of everything from apathy to
suicide. Peuer is somewhat critical of this wide usage of the
term, and concludes that ”...'alienaticn' remains too much a
concept of political theology which bewilders rather than clari-
fies the direction cf political action...[is] a dramatic metaphor
which for reasons peculiar to intellectual's experience has become
their favorite root-metaphor for perceiving the social universe...
[and] a projection of the psychology of intellectuals disenchanted

Vi th themselves . " 34

4

went the
lettler,
he connente
tron anomie
tion.35 let
he been eat
the culture
minty."36
We of th.
°°3°°Ption c
'ith reel
little: an
critic, (1,5.
lily. '6 I
”muons:
‘50 “Imp

“hm-‘1 y;

20
' Current Alienation Theory

lettler, in an effort to clarify the referents of alienation,
has commented upon the degree to which alienation is distinct
from anomie (as a societal condition) and personal disorganisa-
tion.35 Nettler's definition of an alienated person is "one who
has been estranged from, made unfriendly toward, his society and
the culture it carries ... the feeling of estrangement from

society."36

lxplicitly, this definition refers to a psychological
state of the individual. Nettler appears to equate Srcle's
conception of anemia with alienation, however.

Iflth.respect to the conditions under which.alienation occurs,
lettler cites a large number of the mass society theorists and
critics (Proms, De Grasie, etc.) but contributes little person-
ally. ‘Ie may assume, however, from his theoretical guide to
operaticnalisation—-i.e., "all specific questions were guided by
the assumption that the alienated person would £32.22}. the ccmon
cultural values of his society”31-that alienated persons reject
the cultural goals in favor of their own. Vb would assume that
this is at least not incongruent with the Merton rationale of a
discrepancy, although how Rattler would feel about the rejection
or acceptance of norms is obviously not known. Theoretically,
there is another alternative interpretation of lettler's position.
Given that his definition of alienation includes rejection of
cultural goals, and estrangement from the rest of society, it
may be logically possible to consider this as a form of Horton's

'retreatist' adaptation. In this case, the antecedents of

lettler's ”alienation” again could logically be congruent‘with

letton'e no:
or elienntic
qnencee of I
mid negate

One of t'
wntuporu-
u inepecti
in dienati
one of th.
llh the t;
'11”? IP11
thwflticaj

5‘93 used.‘

21
‘lerton's conceptualization of the preconditions of anomie-
or alienation. Regarding the theoretically possible conse-
quences of alienation, lettlsr says little, but apparently
'wonld regard it as an open question, to be answered empirically.
One of the most productive writers and researchers on the

38 This is evident from

ccntemporary scene is Kelvin Seaman.
an inspection of the institutional affiliations of many writers
in alienation.39 In an effort to "make more organised sense of
one of the great traditions in sociological thought ... and to
make the traditional interest in alienation more amenable to
sharp»empdrical statement," Seeman has developed five basic, but
theoretically separable, ways in which the term alienation has

“.n “.4e4o

The five variants arse (1) poserlessness or ”the
expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own
behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or
reinforcements, he seeks”;41 (2) meaninglessness, or the "low
expectancy that satisfactory predictions about future outcomes
of behawior can be made”;42 (3) normleesness, or a ”high expect-
ancy that socially unapproved behaviors are required.to achieve
given goals”;43 (4) isolation, or the condition in which the
person ”assignEs] low reward values to goals or beliefs that are
typically highly valued in the given society”;44 and (5) self-
estrangement, or “the degree of dependence of the given behavior
upon anticipated future rewards".45 All variants are explicitly
individual states, and, maintains Seeman, should not be confused

or equated with personal disorganisation, or other quasi-patho-

logical chars
oliosetion, t
moo! defini
etion, in the
oble.

to inspect
cf nlienetlor
with miounl
etion. H. r
Rotter:

[Rotter'

d'POnde
the beh
Elk of
H these
b'haViorl
Neon q
when I
likely e

 

22
logical characteristics. Although these phenomena may accompany

alienation, they are not identical with it. Seaman's relatively
narrow definitions of alienation are an aid in researching alien-
ation, in that they make alienation somewhat more Operationalis-
able.

An inspection of Seaman's writings with respect to the causes
of alienation seems to indicate that mass society, in conjunction
with various aspects of learning in a mass society, create alien-
ation. He relies very heavily upon the social learning theory of
Rotter:

[Rotter's] principal contention is that human behavior
1

depends on ) the degree to which a person ex cts that
the behavior will have a successful outcome, and (2) the

value of that success to the person trying to achieve it.
If these factors are powerful, separately or together, the
behavior is most likely to occur. Specifically, if a
person expects that learning somethinngill help him
achieve some goal and/or he values that goal, he is more
likely to learn.‘

Another factor influencing learning is the degree to which a
person conceives cf the success or failure of a given behavior
being due to an external or an internal factor, i.e., something
outside his control or under his control. ”A person will
definitely learn‘;ggg_from experiences he conceives to be domi-

nated by outsiders, cr-by chance, which he feels he cannot influ-
47
I

This general learning theory is, in Seaman's view:

Parallel [to] the argument of the followers of mass theory
that the isolated individual in the 'lonely crowd', sub-
ordinated to and intimidated by bureaucracy, becomes con-
‘vinced of his powerlessness and gives up learning about
those things that might affect his future. As a specific
example, he becomes apathetic and igdifferent to politics
. . . 'You can't fight city hall'.4

In genera
mote eltue
ontoonee of
menu: in
notes lain‘
iniividual 1
his create

hie eet
min of t
to the burg
"tire with
:More 1.
hot they.
”Rx-01’ O!

h 'Ould Is

23

In general, Sesman maintains that bureaucratic social systems
create situations where persons cannot learn how to control the
outcomes of their behavior, i.e., they cannot learn what is
necessary in order to obtain a reward. Or at least that bureauc-
racies maintain control over the reward systems so that what the
individual does has no bearing upon the rewards that he receives.
This creates the powerlessness, normleesness, etc.

This set of propositions does not, however, contain a specifi-
cation of the particular form of the relationship of the individual
to the bureaucracy. And unless we can assume thatial;.relation-
ships with bureaucracy produce alienation, then some other set of
factors is necessary. Additionally, Seeman's view seems to assume
that there is, on the part of the individual, some expectation of
control, or at least, reward.49 If this assumption is made, then
it'would seem that Seeman's learning theory-mass society rationale
is not basically incompatible with the Durkheimélertcn rationale,
but more an explication and extension of it for the 'mass society'
context. That is, given the nature of bureaucratic systems,
there is a distinct possibility that the individual will experi-
ence a discrepancy between his desire for control, meaning,
rewards, etc., and the control, meaning, rewards, etc., that he
actually achieves. In this manner, then, we can consider Seeman's
theoretical rationale as a part of the discrepancy rationale. As
we shall see later,‘Iaisanen has explicitly set out a series of
'discrepancy' conditions which can lead to Seaman‘s various forms
of alienation.50

Seeman suggests many possible consequences of alienation.

lilienetion 11
political pan
out in seven
hm little 1
mm! his I
dienntion p
lend to . fa
1’ " are ac
Womtion
lent to a

refomtou
‘53 tart.E
the lore ;
"tion u, .
naming
““1? or ,
“51‘" ll:
“lion, &
‘é’tin, it

24

”Alienation in turn results in al enated behavior, such as
political passivity, racial and religious prejudice, taking
part in movements that promise to usher in the millenium (but
have little immediate or practical effect) and the like."51
Perhaps his most provocative consequence is the degree to which
alienation prohibits the learning of new information that would
lead to a form of control by the individual over his situation.
If we are not misinterpreting Seaman, learning certain types of
information about a situation lead to control over it, or at
least to a sense of control. But in his study of hospitals and
reformatcries, he notes that alienation precludes learning of
this sort.52 Therefore, alienation may be spoken of as beget-
ting’more alienation—-or at least alienation sets up a situation
‘which may not be self-correcting, and is likely to be ever
increasing. Somewhat the same rationale is presented in his
study of unions and powerlessness, where he argues that to some
degree alienation is both a structural result of lack.of partici-
pation, and a activation 59.; 3g belong to organisations.53 And
again, it has the consequences of feeding upon itself, and
increasing.

In general, Seeman's contributions seem to lie in the area of
narrowly specifyingHwhat alienation is, so that it may be more
sharply distinguished from its antecedents and its consequences.
And although he relies upon a relatively general theory of mass
society as an antecedent condition, it does not appear to be in
conflict with the 'discrepancy' rationale set forth by Durkheim

and Herton.

Glut, who
Sum, oxpli
ad in part1:
tha diacropa:
1mm the
to whine t
“961in sit
b0 i loam-q
he has, and
I“ 1110 r14
1' efident
(and there:
Munoz-at:
":3 that a
mm“ in <
"Did Ihif-
lion to ‘
”when

TDBBQ d

25
Clark, who also would appear to have been influenced by
Seaman, explicitly illustrates the possibility that alienation—-
and.in particular powerlessness-may indeed stem from a form of
the discrepancy between expectations and achievements.54 He
defines alienation as ”the degree to which man feels powerless
to achieve the role he has determined to be rightfully his in

specific situations."55

Further, ”a measure of alienation must
be a measure of the discrepancy between the power man believes
he has, and what he believes he should have-his estrangement
from.his rightful role."56 Although not explicitly stated, it
is evident that Clark feels that such a situation of discrepancy
(and therefore alienation) is more likely to develop in a large
bureaucratic situation. In characterising his study site, he
says that "this cooperative illustrates one of the most striking
trends in cooperative organisations in recent years, namely the
rapid shift from a small, community-centered, personal organiza-
tion to a large, sprawling, more complicated, and.impersonal
organisation."57

These definitions and comments indicate that Clark feels that
alienation is an individual state which results from a discrepancy
between cne's expectations and achievements, which is very likely
to occur in.mass societies. 'With respect to the consequences of
alienation Clark has little to say.

Following Seeman's lead in defining alienation, Dean has
attempted to develop empirical evidence regarding the separability
of the various types of alienation.58 Although Dean cites Seeman,

and follows his sub-types, there is a good bit of divergence

Moon the t
approxintoly
inability to
Mined by I)
am ind m!
hclnr‘. t
“he: so t
The mnflic
'incormm.
"Maris
“1mm:
lifinE Vc‘.
”01:1,, ‘
3mm 1
bank“
m. high

‘ Elven
ct331301163

in:

1
”‘68!

26
between the two. Both Dean and Seeman define powerlessness in

approximately the same manner, as a state of helplessness, of
inability to control one's future. Normlessness, however, is
defined by Dean as consisting of two sub-sub-typesa purposeless-
ness and conflict or norms. Purposelessness is similar to
lacIver's anomy-a state in which the individual has lost his
values so that he has no guiding purposes or goals in his life.
The conflict of norms occurs, for example, when the individual
”incorporates in his personality conflicting norms such as the
standards of Christianity versus the success imperative, the
stimulation toward a constantly higher material standard of
living versus the practical denial of a high standard for many
people, and the alleged freedom of the individual versus the
factual limitations on his behavior."59 Both of these types of
normleesness are at variance‘with Seaman's definition of norms as
the high expectancy that illegitimate means are required to reach
a.given goal. Actually, Dean's definition of the purposelessness
component seems to approximate What Seeman would define as mean-
inglessness, i.e., ”the low expectancy that satisfactory predic-

60

tions about future outcomes of behavior can be made.” Dean's
third component, social isolation, although theoretically similar
to Seeman's, is cperationalised quite differently. Whereas
Seeman considers social isolation within the framework of rewards,
Dean discusses it in terms of the number of social contacts that

one has, and.the sense of separation from.groups'which is conse-

quently engendered. Generally, it would seem that Dean's consider—

stian of elie
than is e te
utilize the ‘
Because h'
cynical re
little to a:
sequences 0
“in tetra
”mute m
it Iould a
use" to
creating I
343m
mile: ‘
”Rural

Ham dc

27
ation of alienation is somewhat similar to Seeman's, although

there is a terminological difference in the way that they
utilise the various terms.

Because his study was primarily aimed at ascertaining
empirical relations between sub-types of alienation, Dean has
little to say in terms of the antecedent conditions and the con-
sequences of alienation. Given his hypotheses regarding relation-
ships between social status, age and urban residence, and his
comments regarding his study paralleling those of wondell Bell,
it would seem that he implicitly believes that differential
access to goals, or social status is an important variable
creating alienation.
‘ EaJda's conceptualisation of alienation is to some degree
similar to Nettler's notion regarding the isolation from the
cultural mainstream, and Dean's notion of social isolation.6‘
Hajda defines alienation as ”an individual's feeling of uneasi-
ness or discomfort which reflects his exclusion or self-exclusion
from social and cultural participation. It is an expression of
non-belonging or non-sharing, an uneasy awareness or perception of

62 Eadda further conceives of

unwelcome contrast‘with others.”
alienation—-as Srole does of anomia-as a continuum that cannot
be understood apart from the opposite feeling of ”belongingness.”
Given this continuum, then, everyone in a society may at some
situation or another, feel more or less alienated. Regarding the

conditions under which alienation varies, Hajda conceives offbur

major factors:

[1) The numb!
In individm‘.
he participa
in these col
you out of
(3} the deg:
nezberstip g
of I: commit:
ties; (4) tj
‘0 Ihich on
of the cool
norms, beli

11th0ugh ‘
faich Rafi,
tion, he '0\
the devolop
Circ‘mnuc
Ilium, 10!“; ‘
‘3! Putic
lliena‘ed

he 1a:
with ,9
‘ilsuen
““0118 1
m”? r
with the

ship be,

28
(1) The number of qualitatively different collectivities

an individual belongs to and thus the number of subcultures
he participates in; (2) the extent to which the membership
in these collectivities is concentrically coordinated with,
grows out of, or is supported by the personal primary groups;
(3) the degree to which the ties to chronologically earlier
membership groups are not discarded or attenuated in favor
of a commitment to new and substantially different social
ties; (4) the extent to which the membership collectivities
to which one belongs represent or symbolize the main body
of the society and are infused with the prevalent values,
norms, beliefs.53

Although these are the general characteristics or conditions
which Hajda would see as associated with, or producing aliena-
tion, he would further maintain that there are many routes for
the development of alienation, dependent upon the particular
circumstances. With respect to the possible consequences of
alienation, Hajda has little to say. Again, it would seem that
the particular consequences would depend upon the particular
alienated group.

The last theoretical contributions to alienation theory
which we shall consider are those of Waisanen.64 In these efforts
Waisanen is explicitly formulating a rapprochement between the
various branches of alienation and anomie theory, as well as
theory from various scientific disciplines. Waisanen begins
with the notion that alienation is a consequence of the relatiar-
ship between the individual and the social system. He, then
hypothesizes that both the individual and the social system have
norms and goals. This, of course, raises the possibility of
several different types of discrepancies between individual and

social system, and between goals and norms. This logical proced-

ure produces a revision of Merton's paradigm. Then, waisanen

relhtos th‘ P0
theory of F091
for the Mrs
or implicitly
theorists. 1
Mon no“
uh tosothin
to not fit 1
use."65 1
“Milieu 1
amp“ to
To this

O! u .5931

that "its:
[131] boo:
than“ I
mi 3 581
lo Dorcei
h ”PM:

29
relates the possibility of a discrepancy to the dissonance

theory of Pastinger using it as a meta-hypothesis to account
for the 'strain toward adaptations' which is so often absent
or implicitly assumed in the work of previous alienation-anomie
theorists. Basically, restinger's meta-hypothesis is: "If a
person knows two things, for example, something about himself
and something about the world in‘which he lives, which somehow
do not fit together, we will speak.of this as cognitive,giggggr
‘gngg,”65 Further, "if these two things do fit together, the
condition is consonance. Dissonance prompts behavior which
attempts to reduce the dissonance."66
To this framework, laisanen has attached what might be thought
of as ”general goals" of the individual; or consequential elements
that ”accrue to the person as he participates in the system . . .
[and] become part of his self system."67 These consequential
elements are: (1) "Familiarity [which] represents knowledge of,
and a belief in the rules of the social system; it . . . relates
to perceived stability. It makes patterned behavior possible.
It represents internalisation of norms, perception of appropriate-
ness of roles, and ability to manipulate facilities.” (2)”Power
[or] influence within the system. It related to perceived sig-
nificance and productivity, and.represents a consequence of eye-
temic evaluation of the productivity of the person. Power implies
knowledge of the processes of the system, and the influencing of
these processes.“ (3) "The operation of the social system also

yields sentiment, or affective ties with other members of the

”$93368 In
the potion and
$131 elements I
produce the co
isolution to I
clement: v11].
iht individua'.
in not influe
to nu the Fe
diuomnco re

Factor: '1
to the 0,131:
both mum

"1 adding“

30
system."68 When the conditions of the relationship between

the person and the social system are discrepant, these consequen-
tial elements are not forthcoming, and Iaisanen would argue,
produce the conditions of powerlessness, normlessness and social
isolation to which Seeman refers. Although these alienative
elements will be present in any condition of discrepancy between
the individual and the social system, they, in and of themselves,
do not influence the direction which adaptations will take—or

to use the Pestinger terminology—they do not affect the mode of
dissonance reduction attempts.

Factors which do affect the form of the adaptation are similar
to the original Mertonian paradigm. Waisanen's introduction of
both personal and social system considerations, however, produces
an additional convergency with Seeman, and (:loward.69 Cloward

notes, and Seeman cites, the followings
It is our view that the most significant step in the with-

drawal cf sentiments supporting the legitimacy of conven-
tional norms is the attribution of the cause of failure to
the social order rather than to oneself . . .thther the
failure blames the social order or himself is of central
importance to the understanding of deviant ccnduct.70
If the individual sees the social system at fault, he will seek
changes in it, and vice versa. Il‘his additional element in
Iaisanen's reformulation clarifies the form of adaptations to,
or consequences of, alienation which were to some degree unclari-
fied in Seeman's thought. Additionally, it also specifies the
conditions of the relationship between the individual and the
social system which produce alienation—another factor which is

not present in Seeman's theoretical develczments regarding

alienation.

leieenen'e In
our picture of '1
sally, he eppeu
ficetion of both
at the ooneeque
«Map. It 1.
huh to some (1

New, or the

1. There 13
Manuel. It
mum 00nd:
In indium“
him “n”
'1‘“ Other us

mum“! eh

31
waisanen's main contribution, then, has not been to alter

our picture of what the state of the alienated person is; basi-
cally, he appears to agree with Seeman. Rather, it is a clari-
fication of both the conditions under which alienation develops,
and the consequences under which certain forms of adaptation
develop. It is, also, an explicit statement of a meta-hypothesis
‘which.to some degree sustains the dynamics of the alienative

process, or the strain toward adaptation.

Summary of Alienation-Anemia Theory

1. There is an ever-present problem with terminology and
semantics. It is generally accepted that anomie refers to a
societal condition and that anomy, anomia and alienation refer to
an individual state. Others consider alienation to be the indi-
vidual reflection of societal anomie. This is not incongruent
with other usages but merely an additional semantic issue which
eventually should be resolved.

2. lost researchers using the term anomia study the anteced-
ents and consequent conditions, with anomia as an intervening
variable; an exception (and this will become clearer in the
section dealing with empirical studies) 1. the usage of the Srole
scale, which is frequently used in antecedent-anomia studies, as
well as anomiapconsequence studies. Theorists using the term
alienation often are concerned with the nature of alienation,
rather than its specific causes and/or consequences, although
more persons seemed to be concerned with consequences.

3. Host theorists*wou1d agree with the basic rationale of a

discrepancy be‘
moment of
when this is :
It least, logi
:eticel vritin
4. Although
comic in gene
Manny $011
‘11:. it 1. th
I"fireman:
mien u tell
homer, , 83!
mmogical 1
tech Other, 1
3101.5.“ '0 '1
210" Ire bee:
entrained.

wad hardly

In emu,
relatiOnghip
there is E ii
echievementa .

.‘e ‘-
[A .1
3

“Mine u
an“ 13:11 Dr
'

32
discrepancy between an individual's goals and his actual

achievement of them as a cause of alienation/anomia. In cases
where this is not explicitly stated, it would appear that it is,
at least, logically consistent. Therefore, we can combine theo-
retical writings regarding alienation and ancmia—anomy.

4. Although it stems from a single general source, alienation/
anomia is generally thought to have various facets or sub-types,
generally following one or more of the Seeman variants. Addition-
ally, it is thought that alienation-at least at a theoretical
1evel-—should be conceptually separated from personal disorgani—
sation as‘well as other quasi-pathological phenomena. There is,
however, a general expectation that the sub-types, as well as the
pathological phenomena, will be found.empirica11y related to
each other. a problem stemming from this sort of conceptualisap
tion—-as we shall see later-is that many of the operationaliza-
tions are basically similar, and empirically have been found.to be
correlated. If they do, in fact, stem from a single source, we
could hardly expect them to be otherwise.

In summary, then, we can define alienation as a product of the
relationship of the individual and the social system, in which
there is a discrepancy between the individual's expectations and
achievements. Further, this condition creates for the individual,
feelings of a disturbing sort, which may embody powerlessness,
normleesness, etc. Although there is a theoretical basis for
separating the various forms of alienation, there must await

empirical proof of separability.

Review

0 retiomlizet
Pclloving th

Iihh', lost so]
cent: us their
core or lees :-
1119, end the:
llintione, I!
this b01118 net
and b! “1101
Srcle'e or
It“mum (
Wm om:
the “Drag. l
f" M83 and
that no“ pe:
m“: not b.
the 'Ol‘ld 'i
'Thea. a“;
It“ One
of Manes!
to inane“!
Wine; 11111
in“citing

he! ‘0 ere

33

Review of hpirical Alienation-Mamie Literature

Omrgticgliggtions of Alienation-Anon“
Following the general definition of alienation as a 'state of

mind', most scholars have tended to use ”attitude type" state-
ments as their measure of alienation. Host of these statements
more or less represent what a person who was alienated might feel
like, and thereby endorse. In discussing these various operation-
alisations, we will use Seeman's terminolog as our standard,

this being necessary because of the divergent terms which are
used by various writers.

Srcle's original anomia scale contained the following five
statements: (1) "There's little use writing to public officials
because often they aren't really interested in the problems of
the average man”; (2) ”Nowadays a person has to live pretty much
for today and let tomorrow take care of itself”; (3) ”In spite of
what some people say, the lot of the average man is getting
worse, not better"; (4) ”It’s hardly fair to bring children into
the world with the way things look fcr the future”; and (5)
"These days a person doesn't really know whom he can count on."71

Item one would seem to exemplify Seeman's ccnceptualisaticn
of powerlessness, in that it indicates an inability of the person
to influence what will happen to him, in the sense that he
cannot influence that which his leaders will do. Item two, by
indicating that "tomorrow” is essentially unpredictable, would

seem to exemplify Seeman's conceptualization of meaninglessness,

i.e., predict:
lede. tee: f<
although cone‘
em to be th.
of the leek o:
tural goals.
fection with
a hex-ion: g
ihiimee g 5
Indeed, it he
”MN!" loz-
lettlu'.
ee en Mp1.
1“ I‘Oflecte ,
M n” “101':

”‘1‘“ 3°31:

3° you
D" You
'91‘. ’0
3° am

You?
D° you

01‘ 1

These ,0”.

Glut: 1
Marlena.

hticipfit‘

re;
a. e reel:

34

i.e., predictions about future outcomes of behavior cannot be
made. Item four is of much the same character. Item five,
although construed by Srcle to mean social estrangement, would
seem to be the social isolation discussed by Dean, in terms
of the lack.of friendships, rather than estrangement from cul-
tural goals. Item three was meant by Srcle to indicate dissatis-
faction with the American progress ideal, and thereby rejection of
an American goal, or, cultural estrangement. Rut item three also
indicates a great deal of despair, or pessimism for the future.
Indeed, it has been opined that the entire Srcle scale measures
"despair” more than it does alienation or anemia.72
lettler's operationalisation of alienation is used by Seaman

as an example of the 'isolation' component of alienation, i.e.,
it reflects a dissatisfaction with, and rejection of, the values
of the majority society. Representative examples from Nettler's
11—item scale arse

Do you enjoy TV?

Do you read Reader's M?

Iere you interested in the recent national elections?

Do ;::;onal spectator-sports (football, baseball) interest

Do you believe human life is an expression of devine purpose,
or is it only the result of chance and evolution? 3

These sorts of items would appear to cperationalise a more or less
'intellectual alienation'.

Clark, in cperationalising alienation (or more specifically,
powerlessness) from a specific social system which an individual
participates in, asked a series of questions about the individ-

ual's feeling of influence within the social system. Specifically

he asked who 0
:11 felt he he
felt thet seal
which he felt
lutly, e ratz'
thuhumm
me to indie:
til the indir
°°°P0retive, 1
lie individua

1*‘3 has 0
“l in ldiiti
Willem."

Mien:

1. There

in:
20 '.u

3° The 1
4. There

35

he askednwhc owned the cooperative, how much influence the individ-
ual felt he had in the cooperative, how much ’say' the individual
felt that members ought to have in the cooperative, the extent to
‘which he felt that he was a 'part-owner' of the cooperative, and
lastly, a rating by the interviewer of the identification that
the individual has with the cooperative.74 These items would
seem to indicate powerlessness in the Seaman sense, in that they
ask the individual how much influence and power he has over the
cooperative, which in turn has some influence over the life of
the individual.

Dean has operationalised alienation as a general measure,
and in addition, includes three sub-scales of powerlessness,

normleesness and social isolation. Dean's items aree

Powgrlegsness

1. There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing
a major 'shocting' war.

2. we are just so many cogs in the machinery of life.

3. The future looks very dismal.

4. There is little chance for promotion on the job unless
a.man gets a break.

5. There are so many decisions that have to be made today
that sometimes I could just blow up.

6. It is frightening'to be responsible for the development
of a little child.

7. Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are
using me.

8. Ie're so reghmented today that there's not much room
for choice even in personal matters.

lormlgssness

1. I often wonder what the meaning of life really is.

2. Peoples' ideas change so much that I‘wonder if'we'll
ever have anything to depend on.

3. Everything is relative and there just aren't any
definite rules to this life.

4. lith so many religious beliefs today one doesn't
really know which to believe.

5. I‘worry about the future facing today's children.

—.
O

W‘s-Lyn)
O O O

.n‘ngfl H5???

(:3 «30‘
. o

36
6. The end often justifies the means.

7. The only thing one can be sure of today is that
he can be sure of nothing.

Socill Isolation

1. Sometimes I feel all alone in the world.

2. Real friends are as easy as ever to find.

3. People are just naturally friendly and helpful.

4. There are few dependable ties between people anymore.

5. I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd
really like.

6. lost people today seldom feel lonely.

7. One can always find friends if he shows himself
n1.nd1ye

8. The world in which we live is basically a friendly
pltOO e 75

Inspecting these items, it becomes apparent that Dean is
treating social isolation, not as Seeman did (as rejection of
culturally valued goals), but more as the perception of loneli—
ness of the lack of friends. This is similar to Srcle's item,
”These days a person doesn't really know whom he can count on.”
Dean's notions of normleesness also seem to approximate what
Seeman.defined as meaningless, i.e., low expectancy of predict-
ing the future, with one exception (item number six) where he
states that ”The end often justifies the means”, which seems to
exemplify approval of illegitimate means to get ahead. In
addition, one must note in both powerlessness snd.normlessness,
Dean emphasises the degree to which the future is either dismal
or unpredictable. The two items concerning the future for
children (powerlessnesse item six, normleesnesse item five) are
similar to Srcle's item regarding the dismal future of children
in today's world. There'would, however, appear to be a good

deal of convergence between Dean's and Seaman's conceptualise-

tion end cpl
lejde'e .
Clerk in th
turticule
cccnpetlcnl
feeling of
tetion, or
dents “hoe
Meence c
religion,
field the
testes, ,
M011 fe
‘litnete:
lam“,
notion,
°n° ie a
loci”,
0m th
Seeman.
this ii
See:
mien:
the I:
ecgle

37
tion and cperationalization of powerlessness.

Rajda's operationalisations of alienation are similar to
Clark in that he was attempting to measure alienation*within
a particular occupational sphere, in this case the academic
occupations.76 Following his definition of alienation as a
feeling of exclusion or self-exclusion from cultural partici-
pation, or unwelcome contrast with others, Hajda asked respon-
dents "how often they felt uncomfortably different in the
presence of non-academic people because of their views on
religion, views on politics, great interest in a specialised
field that non-academic people do not understand, personal
tastes, and concern about solving social problems.”77 If a
person felt uncomfortable for these items, he was said to be
alienated. This operationalisation is similar to that of
Nettler, and would seem to represent a variant of Seaman‘s
notions of isolation, in that there is a concern with what
one is doing that is not in accord with the majority of the
society. Hajda, however, includes 'uneasiness' or discomfort
over this feeling as a factor in alienation. lettler and
Seeman, however, would not apparently think it necessary for
this discomfort to exist in order for alienation to exist.

Seeman, after his definitive, ”On the Meaning of Alienation",
undertook a series of other studies in which he operationalised
the 'powerlessness' component of alienation.78 Although his
scale has not been published in its entirety, nor has the writer

been able to obtain one, Seeman does provide us with four

emplee eh
forced choi
departure f

Seaman's it

38

examples which he claims to be representative. They are
forced choice types and, as such, represent something of a
departure from the usual mode of asking attitude questions.

Seeman's items aree

1. (a) There's very little persons like myself can do to
improve world opinion of the United States.
(b) I think each of us can do a great deal to improve
world opinion of the United States.

2. (a) Persons like myself have little chance of protect-
ing our personal interests when they conflict with
those of strong pressure groups.

(b) I feel that we have adequate ways of coping with
pressure groups.

3. (a) Even if the odds are against you, it's possible to
come out on top by keeping at it.
(b) A person's future is largely a matter of what fate
has in store for him.

4. (a) Nowadays people just don't realise what an important
role luck plays in their lives.
(b) There is really no such thing as luck.

5. (a) Many times I have the feeling that I have little
influence over the things that happen to me.
(b) I do not believe that chance and luck are very
important in my life.

6. (a) Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; luck
has little or nothing to do with it.
(b) Getting a job depends mainly upon being at the
right place at the right time.

7. (a) The average citisen can have an influence on the
‘way the government is run.
(b) This world is run by the few people in power, and
there is not much the little guy can do about it.79
Seaman's original definition of powerlessness was in terms of
the ”expectancy of probability held by the individual that his
own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes,
or reinforcements, he seeke."80 In his operationalisations,
however, Seeman does not ask the person for this simplistic

probability or expectation. Rather, he follows the usual

practice of de
egreed or dish
etch e la! pro
euro! tefinit

inspection of

 

stiller to De
Retention of
“36 from the
blance to sro
public offici

lililetcn.‘

Wenonah.

39
practice of developing attitude type statements, which when

agreed or disagreed‘with,‘would characterize a person who hold
such a low probability. Seeman, thus, dilutes his relatively
narrow definition of alienation at the operational level. An
inspection of these items further reveals that they are somewhat
similar to Dean's items, especially his items regarding the
prevention of a 'shootingwwar', and promotion on the job stem—
ming from the 'breaks'. Seeman's items also bear some resem-
blance to Srcle's item regarding the uselessness of writing to

public officials.
Middleton, as a result of a survey of recent alienation-anomia

operationalisations, has attempted to develop attitude statements

81

which will elicit all current usages of alienation. Middleton's

items aree

Powerlgssness
There is not much that I can do about most of the

important problems that*we face today.

Meaninglessness
Things have become so complicated in the world today
that I really don't understand just what is going on.

Hormlessness
In order to get ahead in the world today, you are
forced to do some things which are not right.

Cultural Estranggment
I am not much interested in the TV programs, movies,

or magazines that most people seem to like.
Soc i=1 lstrggemggt
I often feel lonely.

lstrgggement from work
I don't really enjoy most of the‘work that I do, but

I feel that I must do it in order to have other things
that I need and'want.82
Middleton's notions of powerlessness and meaninglessness seem

to parallel those of Seeman, and his notion of meaninglessness is

very einll
etetenent
tion of m
neceeeery
to Seeman
elitetior
ccntenpo:
lildlete
mlgee,
"Id Srol
develop,
"one t.
new,
3‘“ Onl
1n 1
ten-1n
1Ovel,
"We
tital;
by e.
r°tli
11311
he“.
cut,
1*. ‘

p13:

40
very similar to Dean's notions of 'normlessness'. Middleton's

statement for normleesness explicitly follows Seeman's descrip-
tion of normleesness as the expectancy that unapproved means are
necessary to achieve a goal. Cultural estrangement is similar
to Seeman's definition of 'isclation', and Nettler's operation-
alisation of alienation, in that it represents the rejection of
contemporary mass society values. Social estrangement, as
Middleton lists it, is not included in the Seeman survey of
usages, but approximates Dean's usage of social isolation,
and Srcle's item about lack of friendship. Finally, Middleton
develops an item which elicits estrangement from work, and
seems to be very similar to Seeman's notion of 'self-estrange—
ment', i.e., the feeling that behavior has no intrinsic value,
but only in its effect or influence in obtaining future rewards.
In summary, it'would appear that there is some amount of
terminological confusion and empirical overlap at the operational
level, as‘well as at the theoretical level. In spite of this
overlap and confusion, however, there appear to be some rela-
tively clear-out usages. Powerlessness, for instance, is seen
by several writers (Dean, Seeman, Clark.and‘niddleton) as the
feeling of the individual that he cannot control, or has no
influence over, the majority of things that affect his life.
Isaninglessness, in the Seeman sense, is somewhat less clear-
out, both in terminology and empirical referents. Generally,
it wound appear that meaninglessness refers to the inability to

predict the outcome of any behavior. As such, the future

appears as
also voulc'
and tom}
There I
referring
nluee; a
10:1: of s
is presen
the Srcle
let. Soc
”resent
l‘l aliens
Street.
39-311
tively 8‘
“d 1301.

‘ genera

41
appears as chaotic and dismal. This meaninglessness component

also would appear to be present to some degree in Srcle's second
and fourth items.

There appear to be two clear varieties of isolation: one
referring to the estrangement from, and rejection of, popular
values; and the other referring to exclusion from a social net-
‘wcrk.of social ties, e.g., friendships, etc. This latter variant
is present in Dean's social isolation scale, and in one item in
the Srole scale, as'well as the intentional item in the Middleton
set. Social isolation, as estrangement from mass values, is
represented in Nettler's and Hajda's treatments, and is more of
an alienation developed by intellectuals than by the man on the
street.

Be-examining Srole's scale, it would appear that it is a rela-
tively general scale, containing powerlessness, meaninglessness
and isolation from social ties, plus some content referring to
a general pessimistic outlook for the future, e.g., despair.
Dean's scales also contain these sorts of items, as well as some
items about the future. As such, these two scales‘would seem to
constitute the most general scales available in contemporary

“...-8. e

later-Correlations of Alienation Scale!

411though there is some basis for considering alienation as a
separate but related phenomena, some sort of empirical tests are
necessary. These are partially available, and an inspection of

them may be helpful. First, from the Middleton study, it would

3??

afiVAwMAme

- §

Y‘ h‘

In.

42
appear that all items are relatively highly inter—correlated,

with the exception of cultural estrangement (Table 1).

Table 1a Inter—Correlations of Types of Alienation* 83

Meaning Norm Cult. Social Est.
Estrange. Est. from work

Powerlessness .58 .61 .06 .54 .57
Meaninglessness - .59 .17 .46 .81
Normlessness - - .31 .48 .67
Cultural estrangement ‘- - - .08 .20

Social estrangement

- "- — e71

 

* The number of cases is 256; the measure of association is
rule's Q. The values of 12 for all relationships for which
Q exceeds .30 are significant at the .05 level.
This would appear to give some justification for considering
cultural estrangement as a separate, independent entity.

From a variety of other studies, we can see other types of
inter-correlations between scales. Table 2 is constructed from
the studies of Dean, Nettler and Simmons.84 All figures are

product moment correlations, and are significant at the .05

level. ‘Where no information is available, ”n.aF is entered.

Table 20 Inter-Correlations of various Alienation.Measures

Icwerlessness Normlessness Social Nettler

 

 

Isolation
Srcle Scale .35(s) .25 s .23(s) 3o1(n)
.31 D
Powerlessness .43 S .53 S n.a.
.67 D .54 D
Hormlessness .33 S n.a.
.41 D
Social Isolation n.a.

Nettler

 

D I Dean

S - Simmons
N I Nettler

These if
is some deg
ationeliza

— none of th
cm the
. l 8 3'0 recen‘
o “ there is
—— ~_ utions o
7“ I ’8. 8 8' anHem
118 Pulp:
(1) ,
(2)
norm
of 1
Eli:
dete
- Down

'1‘}; g:

Nihic

“@7910

extra:

.— - a _ V

Ortho‘

43
These inter—correlations would seem to indicate that there

is some degree of empirical overlap between the various oper—
ationalisations of alienation, and its sub-types. The fact that
none of the correlations is very high, however, would also indi-
cate that there is considerable room for independent variance.
Two recent attempts to discover—-via factor analysis-dwhether
there is a common factor underlying these various operationali-
sations of alienation, do little to resolve our problem. Neal
and Bettig, in their factor analytic study, presented the follow-

ing purposes:

(1; To develop.measures of pmwerlessness and normleesness;
2 to test the orthogonality of the powerlessness and
normlessness measures from Srcle's anomie scale by means
of factor analysis; (3) to compare the structure of alien-
ation among'manual and nonpmanual workers; and (4) to
determine the relationship of status aspiration to the
powerlessness and normleesness dimensions of alienation.

85
lith these intentions, then, a series of items which measured
political and economic powerlessness and normleesness were
developed. Then, separate factor analyses‘were performed for
manual and non-manual workers separately, with nine factors
extracted. As expected, Srcle's anomie scale was found to be
orthogonal to alienation, and various forms of alienation were
found to be orthogonal to each other.

Struening and Richardson, in another factor analytic attempt
to determine the structure of the alienation-anomia-authoritar-
ianism nexus, found that the Srcle scale fell upon the general
dimension of 'alienation"which the alienation items also loaded

on.86 Their conclusion‘was that alienation and anomia (Srcle)

were of the

complicate m
Heel end Bet
Provides no

nelity of u
M1 end 381
oblique fac‘
Therefore, 1

Muted.

Sine. th
“3 more :3
there has 1
em“. I:

“1 twig.

tlimatmn

44
were of the same general underlying factor. And to further

complicate matters, Cartwright has written a critique of the
Neal and Bettig article, stating that their factor analysis
provides no answers to the questions of the possible orthogo—
nality of the various factors.87 His principle reason is that
Neal and Rettig's analysis did not allow for the possibility of
oblique factors, and necessarily developed orthogonal factors.
Therefore, he argues, their hypotheses are neither confirmed nor

rejected.

Rel tionshi s of Alienation to Other Variables

   

Since the development of the Srcle scale for measuring anomia,
and.more recently, the development of various alienation scales,
there has been an explosion of empirical studies using these
scales. In this section, we will review these studies, although
our review cannot be exhaustive. Following our concern with
alienation as a state of explicitly operationalised feeling of
the individual, we will concern ourselves only with those studies
using an attitudinal type of alienation or anemia. Most of these
studies indicate a relationship between alienation and a more or
less 'pathological' variable.

By pursuing this review, we would also hope to note that
alienation is a relatively stable area of phenomena (however
it is operationalised) in that we hcpe to indicate that it is
related consistently to a set of antecedent structural variables
(usually social class) and to a set of consequential variables-

usually held to be of a quasi-pathological nature. ‘we shall

04—” o-owm .

conclude
between
One <
beween
piece, i
mini
tionehi
on the

in to

45

conclude with a discussion of anomia as an intervening variable
between social class and these quasi-pathological variables.

One of the most consistent findings has been a relationship
between anomia/alienation and authoritarianism. In his original
piece, Srcle reports a relationship between anomia and authori-
tarianism, and prejudice, with anemia accounting for the rela-
tionship of authoritarianism to prejudice.88 Roberts and Rokeach,
on the other hand, contend that the relationship of authoritarian-
ism to predudioe did not disappear when anomia was controlled
for, but remained relatively high.89 Hobill, in a factor analyé
sis, finds about the same thing, i.e., that both anomia and

90

authoritarianism contribute equally to prejudice. Dean also

reports relationships between alienation (powerlessness, norm-
lessness and social isolation sub-scales) and authoritarianism.91
Throughout this set of studies, it is clear that there does exist
a relationship between alienation/anomia and authoritarianism-—
and prejudice towards ethnic minorities.

Other studies indicate that alienation/anomia is further
related to other forms of pathological behaviors or attitudes.
Simmons finds that anomia (Srcle scale) and alienation (Dean
scales) are related to misanthropy, low self-esteem, life dis-
satisfaction and attitude uncertainity.92 Rosenberg found that
alienation-as operationalised by faith in people-is related to
a willingness to use disapproved means in order to reach a
goal.93 Angell finds a relationship between anomia and a‘will-

ingness to invade other's privacy, as well as prejudice.94

45

McPhail finds a relationship between alienation-—as measured
by the Dean scales—-and dogmatism.95 Rhodes finds that anomia
is related to one's level of aspiration, regardless of the
socio—econcmic level, with high anomia related to high aspire-
tions (discrepancy between occupational aspiration and father's
occupation)?6 Tumin and.Collins find a relationship between
low anemia and readiness to desegregate, although Photiadis and
Riggar found no relationship>of anomia to ethnic distance.9?’98
McDill and Ridley found that anemia and political alienation
‘were inversely related to voting, and having an opinion on
political issues.99 Pearlin found that alienation from work
'was related to isolated*working conditions, feelings of limited
achievement, dissatisfaction'with work rewards, and lack of
social ties with co-workers.100

lettler and Rajda find that alienation (as cultural estrange—
ment) is related to feelings of psychological instability‘lm’flm
Seeman, in his various studies, has found that the powerlessness
dimension of alienation is related to (1) learning new informa-
tion about a social system, (2) organisational participation,
(3) possession of objective knowledge about a social system,
and satisfaction with this knowledge.103

Perhaps the most significant and stable finding, however, is
the relationship between social status and anemia. This finds
ing has recurred numerous times, and with many different measures

of both anomia or alienation, and socio-economic status. In the

empirical inventory of anemia studies provided in Clinard's

hooie and 1

teen etudie:
there tee a;

These etl
lover clue
and to the

the reletio

f" lover o

 

 

47
Anemia d Deviant Behavior, we note that in all of the thir-

teen studies explicitly involving status and anomia/alienation,
there was an inverse relationship.104
These studies indeed lend credence to the notion that the
lower class contains disproportionate numbers of anomie persons,
and to the use of anomia as an interpretive variable explaining
the relationship of lower classness and deviant behavior. That

the lower class contains disproportionate numbers and examples

of social problems is too well known to require documentation.

m;
In summary, it would appear that as yet anomia, alienation

and the various sub—types of alienation are not highly inter-
related, nor do they form an empirical identity. It may be that
they are related to each other as are the different species of
the same genus, as opposed to species of different genera.
That is, at one level, using one set of comparisons, they are
very similar, but comparing them to some other phenomena, they
appear to be very different. All one could argue, at this
point, is that they should be kept separate in the study of the
relationship of alienation to variables of different genera.
If they are similarly related to this variable, then it is
obviously a logical difference between sub-types that makes no
empirical difference (at least for that variable).

0f the various types of alienation, it would appear from
both an empirical and operational point of view that the Seeman

variant of isolation-—or cultural estrangement of Middleton, or

48
alienation of Nettler and Rajde—-is perhaps the most separable

and distinct element. Isolation or cultural estrangement,
however, is thought to be most characteristic of intellectuals,
and, therefore, perhaps should not be considered a phenomena
characteristic of mass society in general. If we recall Feuer's
comments, it also may be that this cultural estrangement factor
is the 'alienation' he is attributing to intellectuals.

At this point, we shall also begin to take into account the

characterizations of Rettler, Meier and Bell, and.McDill, re—

garding the nature of the Srcle scale, in particular.105

Nettler feels that the Srcle scale does not measure anomia,
but its correlate, despair. 'Meier and Bell concur, to a degree,
and state that:

‘Ie are convinced that these questions for the most part
measure despair, that is, utter hopelessness and discour-
agement . . . We emphasise the notion of despair in the
interpretation of our findings, although alienation
appears to be measured in some degree as well . . .‘We
have adapted the term 'anomia' to refer to the Srcle
scale, but other terms such as 'despair', 'hopelessness',
' discouragement' , ' personal disorganization' , ' demorali-
sation' (especially in the sense of disheartenment) in
our understanding of the phenomena being measured.165

MoDill, upon finding that the Srcle scale statements, authori-
tarianism, and prejudice, as well as economic factors loaded on
one factor in a factor analytic study, characterised this under-
lying dimension as:

A Ieltanschamg which is negative in nature, that is, it
represents a dim world view. The high loadings of all
five of the anomie items reflect . . . a lack of inter-
personal integration. Stated in other terms, this is the
perspectivebof being'mastered by threatening forces beyond
one's personal control . . . that the way to live and be
supported in this threatening'world is through obedience

to author
or : rigi-

Perhepe I':
city of the c'
simply the d:
Semen implie
clear that t]
llienation.
individuu i'
‘59 Various
‘1” or anon:
nation. in
lefinition c
m“ by his
the ”1.303“
'it‘miou.

61"“ the
mud “The;

tiOn, .113. I‘

49

to authority figures and through conventionalism
or a rigid acceptance of the status quo. 107

Perhaps‘what is at issue here is the narrowness or specifi-
city of the definition of alienation. If anomia/alienation is
simply the discrepancy between desired and achieved goals (or as
Seeman implies, a low expectancy of control, etc.), then it is
clear that the Srcle scale, as well as others, do not measure
alienation. 0n the other hand, if anomia is the state of the
individual in such a situation, then that which is measured by
the various scales may also logically be thought of as aliena—
tion or anomia. It is instructive to note Seemsn's operational-
isations in this regard. Although he gives a relatively narrow
definition of alienation, his operational definitions-as indi-
cated by his scale statements-are relatively broad, and include
the personal feelings of the individual in the low expectancy
situation.

Given the stable, but relatively low inter-correlations, we
'weuld perhaps argue that 'despair' may be a sub-type of aliens-
tion, and subject to the same family-genus classification we
specified on the previous page.

Impirically, we note a high correlation between class and
anomia, and between anomia and social problems. To this point,
we can conclude that anomia,may”well be an intervening variable
between class and social problems. This sets the stage for a
consideration of other types of stratification variables which
are also related to social problems, and which may exemplify the

Durkheimélerton rationale and thereby create anomia.

Sc

It has bee
Iteble phenoo
nd queei-pet
erplein these
ing the deveI
lover-class 1
tell: he ehox
'0 'ould eeel
of etratifice
5°“ m eoc
Mum the
reason; for n
that son“ a
logical, or

nu

11‘! end

 

 

50
Social Mobility and Status Inconsistency

It has been indicated that anomia and alienation are relatively
stable phenomena in terms of their relationship to lower classness
and quasi-pathological behaviors. The rationale utilized to
explain these findings is the basic DurkheiméMerton theory regard-
ing the development of a discrepancy between those goals that a
lower-class person is able to achieve, and those goals which he
fells he should legitimately be able to attain. At this point,
we would seek to extend this rationale to include two other types
of stratification variables which logically may also produce anomia.
These are social mobility and status inconsistency. This section
presents the argument that there are both theoretical and empirical
reasons for making this extension. First, it may be illustrated
that social mobility and status inconsistency theoretically and
logically exemplify the DurkheiméMerton rationale; second, social
mobility and.status inconsistency are empirically related to a
number of quasi-pathological variables of the same sort that
anomia and lower classness are. Therefore, it would be congru-
ent to hypothesise a relationship between social mobility and

status inconsistency, and alienation.

Social Mobility
In Suicide, Durkheim explicitly singles out mobility as a

factor in creating conditions which in turn lead to anomia. In

downward.mobility, for example:

They [mobile persons] must reduce their requirements . . .
their moral education has recommenced. But society cannot
adjust them instantaneously to this new life and teach
them to practice the increased self-repression to which

they are

oonditior

intoleral
That is, per:
expectations
but attain t1
tiecrepancy 1
the em Gym
It“use I p6:
l‘gitinately
Person to do
‘1“ notes t
ation. is re
on""‘ripping
lad “Skin, 5
he 'hOUld so

In Wotan

“11:1“, as

 

51

they are unaccustomed. So they are not adjusted to the

condition forced upon them, and its very prospect is
intolerable. 108

That is, persons who are downwardly mobile continue to base their
expectations for goal achievement upon their previous statuses,
but attain these goals with their new lowered status, so that a
discrepancy exists, which in turn creates anomia. Approximately
the same dynamic applies to upward mobility. In hie new higher
status, a person attains more goals than he could have expected

legitimately in hie old status. This, in turn, leads the mobile

person to doubt the efficacy and.legitimacy of all norms. Durkheim
also notes that when the efficacy of the norms as a limit to aspir—

ations is reduced, the aspirations of the individual spiral upward,

outstripping the attainments that even the new status can afford.

And again, a discrepancy exists between what the individual thinks

he should achieve, and what he actually achieves.

In contesporary sociology, this rationale has been little

modified, as is evident by inspecting Lipset's recent survey of

social mobility and its consequences:

Perhaps the most important key to an explanation of such
varying consequences of mobility . . . is the concept of
status discrepancies . . . The few analyses of the psycho—
logical dimension of this problem that have been made
indicate that status discrepancies may cause difficulties
in personal adjustment because of high self-evaluations 109
in one sphere of life conflict with low ones in another.

Lipset then goes on to cite Durkheim and his original rationale for

the relationship of mobility and anemia, presumably indicating that
.Durkheim's interpretation remains adequate.

This general rationale of strain is used to explain the rela-

tionships of mobility to mental illness,110 prejudice,111 social

 

isolation, 11
or radicalis
pathologies]
for example
quonoos of 1

thhoug‘n
Waging cc
rationale e
”mines t]
per so. '1‘
1' far fro
mobile '91
for highs

anomie .

52
political apathy,113 or political liberalism
114

isolation,112

or radicalism, etc. Lipset also cites as evidence of the
pathological consequences, ”many recent books (The Exurbanites,
for example)[which] portray the damaging psychological conse-
quences of mobility and competition within elite professions.115
Although fairly numerous studies indicate the possible

damaging consequences of mobility, and utilise the discrepancy
rationale as an explanatory device, only one study explicitly
examines the relationship between social mobility and anemia,
per so. This was done by.Meier and Bell, and the relationship

116 Among those of low status: the upwardly

is far from clear.
mobile were less anomie than the stable and downwardly mobile;

for higher status persons, however, the stable were the least
anomie. This would seem to indicate some degree of interaction

or contamination of social mobility with average status. ‘we shall

return to the relationship of status inconsistency, social mobil-

ity and average status in a later section.

Status Inconsistency
Status inconsistency had its beginning*with Hughes' concern

over status as position, and Benoit-Smullyan's concern with
various types of status.117 Hughes argues that a position came
to have associated with it, certain non-essential or secondary,
yet 'oharaoteristic' factors, e.g., the position ”doctor" has
attached.to it the characteristics of also being male, white and
somewhat older. Hughes was concerned, then, with persons fitting

the primary characteristic of a role but not the secondary char-

ecteristil
He srgoes
situation
asteristi:
ioctor vit
eet, then
sedation

Benoit
'hich one
810ml Phi
31mph, .
”Naive .

then take

53

acteristics, e.g., the doctor who is young, Negro and female.
He argues that such persons were often placed in ambiguous
situations because others had come to expect the secondary char-
acteristics as well as the primary characteristics, and the Negro
doctor violated these expectations. Given this ambiguous status
set, then, the person may be forced to make some sorts of accom-
modations to this unusual situation.

Bencit-Smullyan, however,‘was concerned.with the degree to
which one conceives of status as a unidimensional or multi-dimenp
sional phenomenae Many persons, like Hollingshead and‘larner, for

example, utilise a uni-dimensional conceptualization.118

They
conceive of social status as a single underlying variable, and
then take a number of variables as indicators of positions on
this unidimensional continuum. This set of indicators is then
'weighted, etc. (or more likely, averaged) so as to obtain the best
possible index of the person's standing on the status or social
class continuum. Others, however, conceive of status as being
composed of several different variables, and not necessarily
unidimensional, or as indicative or average standing on a general
continuum. Given this possibility, then, there also exists the
possibility what a person's scores on the set of variables may
or may not be congruent, i.e., there may be more or less vari-
ance in the individual status set.

It‘was not until 1954 that the possibility of a multi-dimen-

sional view of social class was acted upon, by Lenski, in his

original paper, "Status Crystallization: A.lon-Vertical Dimen-

lion of 5
way of a
an income
subject t
1150:! eta
tho had c
and findi
Isnski .u
example 0
different
Iould be 1
human;
“‘8an of

Uthow
“My, 11.
thill a" ‘
tency 'qm

ins th. ,1

54
sion of Social Status."119 In this paper, there was little by

‘way of a priori theory, except to suggest that a person in such
an inconsistent, or incongruent position, would in some way be
subject to strain. Lenski argues that persons with uncrystal—
lised statuses would be more liberal than would.those persons
‘who had congruent statuses. After testing this hypothesis,
and finding a relationship between inconsistency and liberalism,
Lenski suggested the 93.1139. explanatory devices citing Hughes'
example of the Negro doctor, he argues that persons who occupy
different positions on several different status hierarchies
'would be more likely to have experiences of an unpleasant and
frustrating nature, which'wculd lead them to search for an
avenue of escape, or rectification of this frustrating situation.
Although there were several studies using status inconsis-
tency, little else was done of a theoretical nature regarding
this new variable. Sampson, however, places status inconsis-
tency squarely in the Merton-Durkheim tradition, by emphasis-
ing the expectations that accompany statuses, and arguing that
when one occupies discrepant statuses, then one is also subject

12° Sampson discusses

to contradictory expectations of others.
”expectations" in the interpersonal behavior context. It'would

also appear logical to place it into the more general "goal at-

tainment” context (i.e., cne's expectations of rewards are based
upon the statuses that one holds). Then, he places this possi-

bility of discrepancy into the psychological framework of

restinger's dissonance theory, and.argues that status inconsis-

tency alsc
a etrain 1
eietent p1
called out
Interee
in resins:
laieanen.‘
“1 tender
link bets.
Aside :
be ”Phi!
ui'nltio:
'hioh Pro
mhologi
"mt. s
toms Of
I"thblogi
In Len
'hiP bety

infirm.”

55

tency also produces cognitive dissonance, which in turn produces

a strain towards reduction of the dissonance. Thus, the incon-

sistent person is called upon to make efforts that would not be

called out in a person who occupied consistent statuses.
Interestingly enough, the convergence developed by Sampson

is reminescent of the convergence in alienation theory by

121 By fm-ther placing these two theories into logi-

Iaisanen.
cal tandem, we are able to demonstrate a logical theoretical
link between status inconsistency and alienation/anomia.

Aside from theoretical reasons, there would also appear to
be empirical reasons for suggesting such a relationship. If
alienation is an intervening variable betwaen social conditions
which produce discrepancies in expectations, and more or less
pathological behaviors, then status inconsistency, Just as
average status and social mobility, should be related to various
forms of behaviors which can be construed as 'adaptive' or
pathological. These sorts of relationships appear to exist.

In Lenski's original study, for example, he finds a relation-
ship between status inconsistency and political liberalism, and
interprets political liberalism to be an effort at changing the
nature of the social order so that discrepancies in status will

not exist . 122

Further, Goffman finds a relationship between
status inconsistency and expression of a desire for a change in
the distribution of power, and Geschwender finds that incon-
sistents are much more likely to participate in change-oriented
acups.123’124 Ringer and Sills find that inconsistents are

much more likely to be political extremists than consistents."25

In tor:
Jackson ti
symptoms c
eistents a
consistent
eistents e
linority 5
foreign bc
utility;
”idhborhc
inconsistq
hunt or
in81110 31

In tun
Itatm 1m
"Min bet
“Wally <
'tltug“ ‘
“d mu:
u th' be}
hm‘dfi
a Md. 1::
of “Pact,

. “3°11
inteaatn
10°3er

3.}

56
In terms of more explicitly pathological types of behaviors,

Jackson finds that inconsistents are more likely to exhibit
symptoms of psychological stress, and Lenski finds that incon-
sistents are more likely to be socially isolated, than are
ocnsistents.126’127 Geschwender also has evidence that incon-
sistents are more likely toe (1) express hostilities toward
minority groups in the work force, e.g., women, Negroes and
foreign born; (2) have higher geographical and horizontal Job
mobility; (3) express less satisfaction with their Job and their

neighborhood.“28

The author also had data which indicate that
inconsistents rate themselves lower as to where they stand at
present on a rating scale with the best possible life they can
imagine at one end, and the worst possible life at the other."29
In emery, our argument states that social mobility and
status inconsistency exemplify conditions which may produce a
strain betwun that which an actor expects, and that which he
actually obtains. Following Durkheim, we would argue that
statuses are composed of sets of norms, which specify the rights
and privileges or rewards associated with the status, as well
as the behaviors which are required of such statuses. Further,
knowledge of various statuses furnishes persons not only with
a guide to their own behaviors and expectations, but with a set
of expectations for other persons in particular statuses. Now,
in a society with a large degree of specialisation and loose
integ-ation, it is possible for various statuses also to be

loosely articulated, so that at any one time, an individual may

possess several different statuses. It is also possible for a

person to de‘
any combinat:
expectations
statuses.

If these
actor is in
Consider the
hen a high
If the POrso
Oducatioml
obtains r";
th“ ! diner

'm 119 actu

it
“541.181

57

person to develop expectations based upon any one status or
any combination of these statuses, and have other persons make
expectations of him, based upon any combination of these
statuses.

If these statuses are not supportive or congruent, then, the
actor is in a position of conflicting demands and expectations.
Consider the status inconsistency situation where a person may
have a high educational status, and a low occupational status.
If the person bases his expectation of rewards upon his high
educational status and expects high rewards, and he actually
obtains rewards or goals based upon his low occupational status,
then a discrepancy exists between the reward he expected and
what he actually obtained. This is not to argue that such an
expectation-achievement discrepancy will, in fact, always develop.
It is to argue, as did Horton with respect to the lower class,
that such persons are more likely to develop such a discrepancy
than are persons who do not possess such incongruent statuses.
And to the degree that they are more likely to develop discrep-
ancies, they are also more likely to develop alienation.

such the same rationale exists for social mobility, in that
the person develops expectations based on one status, and then
moves away from that status into another, so that the possibil-
ity of a discrepancy is more likely than if he had not been
mobile, either upward or downward.

Given the above discussion, it would appear Justifiable to
hypothesize a relationship between social status, social mobil-

ity, and status inconsistency and alienation, because they all

exhibit the
expectation
to alienati
tion of the
then we mus
betteen av:
stratei.
for the a:
class and
Prior ‘
138110 of

b. 1.180113

mm

W
In“,

‘lienati
The “ti
1°16“ of
“1311c“
tap 0f 1

mute.

58
exhibit the possibility of developing a discrepancy between

expectations and attainments. If they are, in fact, related
to alienation, this would constitute an extension and valida-
tion of the Durkheim-Merton rationale; if they are not related,
then‘we must seek some other explanation of the relationship
between average status and anomia, which has been amply demon-
strated. ‘lb must also, then, seek an alternative explanation
for the cisting relationships between mobility, inconsistency,
class and these more or less pathological characteristics.
Prior to a simple statement of hypotheses, however, the
issue of the inter-relationships of these three variables must

be discussed, as must the nature of alienation.

Relationship of Average Status, Social Mobility and Status
Inconsistency

Let us begin our discussion with the relationship of class to
alienation, and more or less use it as our base of presentation.
The rationale here is that there is within the cultural knowh
ledge of the United States, a set of specified goals, which are
applicable to all Americans. Then, as one gets closer to the
top of the stratification system, one should achieve propor-
tionately more of these culturally specified goals. And, con-
sequently, there should be proportionately lees alienation,
when one compares a higher status‘with a lower status. This
would appear to be the case.

The relationship of average status and social mobility with
respect to alienation, however, is not independent. Consider

umward.mobility, for instance. The very change itself is likely

to create a c
upmrdly sob:
highs atatu
he should he
could 01min
“Wing If
mother he
nobility pe
“I adverse
The inane ¢
Waons, t]
i" in add
higher the
“'1? 10m
in “nu;

Person Ih

1113tu

Wrath,

hm. of

59

to create a discrepancy, and thereby create alienation. in
upwardly mobile person, however, has also moved up, and has a
higher status, so that when compared to lower-class persons,
he should have $23: alienation than they. In any case, one
could examine the effects of upward mobility, per so, only by
comparing within one class, stable and upwardly mobile persons.
Another factor mentioned by Meier and Bell, is that the upward
mobility per se is a goal achievement which may in fact mitigate
any adverse effects due to goals outstripping achievements.130
The issue of control, however, remains. For downwardly mobile
persons, the reverse of the above argument should operate. That
is, in addition to the mobility effects (which should produce
higher than average alienation) we also have the effects of the
newly lower status, as well as the ignominy of a recent decrease
in status. In this situation, however, the downwardly mobile
person should be more alienated than either the stable or the
upwardly mobile person. If we accmulate the various factors
operating in mobility, it would appear Justifiable to rank, in
terms of the expected amount of alienation, mobile persons of
m class in the following orders downwardly mobile, stable, and
upwardly mobile. The downwardly mobile should be the most alien-
ated because they have not only the newly acquired low status,
but also because of the ignominious effects of 'failure'.

Iith respect to the comparison of upwardly mobile and stable
persons of the same class level, there appear to be three empir-

ical alternatives, with three different theoretical interpreter-

tions. First, if the upwardly mobiles are no more alienated than

the stables
it: equally
the uplud:
the stable
dionated

cm of so
while per
in stable

tht upwu.
Person, w
not °°lmt
loads up“

to the s'

60
the stables, then we would argue that the "success” of mobil-

ity equally balances the effect of the change per so, so that
the upwardly mobile person is no more or no less alienated than
the stable person. Second, if the upwardly mobile person is‘;gg§
alienated than the stable person, we would argue that the suc-
cess of mobility over—balances the effect of change, so that the
mobile person has achieved 2.9.12.2 of his goals than the person who
is stable in a class, and is thereby less alienated. Third, if
the upwardly mobile person is more alienated than the stable
person,'we would argue that the success of upward.mobility does
not counterbalance the effect of change per so, so that this
leads the mobile person to a state of high alienation compared
to the stable person.

Another confounding factor is the impossibility of a person
in the highest class being downwardly mobile, at least in terms
of intra-generational and likewise, it is impossible for a person
in the lowest class to be upwardly mobile. This is an artifact
of our mode of constructing the class index, but nevertheless,
it is unavoidable-if one uses intra-generational mobility as
his index of mobility. In order to obtain independence of
mobility from class-to thereby assure us of the logical possi-
bility of downwardly'mobile persons in the highest class levels
(and upwardly mobile persons in the lowest class leve1)-dwe
‘weuld suggest the use of inter-generational rather than intra-
generaticnal mobility.

Inter-generational mobility also has its share of problems.
In terms of the discrepancy created by mobility, and the amount

o! tims an
obvious the
tional sobi
tho differs
inns-gens:
vould intro
intsr- u '
" 'ould st
“1" logics

h to tk
mansion,
'Wltiom
"lfiionah;
”Wisteria;

flintion

but [uggea

61
of time available for ‘adjustment' to the discrepancy, it is

obvious that there is more 'adjustment time' in intergenera—
tional mobility than in intro-generational mobility. Due to
the differences in this adjustive potential, it is likely that
inter-generational mobility will produce less alienation than
would intra-generational mobility. In that Meier and Bell find
inter- as well as intra-generational mobility related to anomia,
we would still suggest that inter-generational mobility is a
more logically adequate measure for this study.131

As to the theoretical and logical relationships of status
inconsistency and social mobility, we can make few a priori
suggestions. It would appear that there are logically possible
relationships between almost any type of mobility and status in-
consistency. But it depends largely upon the type and operation-
alisation of mobility. We shall not delve deeply into this area
but suggest a few of the problems involved, and the tenative
resolution that we propose.

First, there is the general problem of inter- versus intra-
generational mobility. If we consider intros-generational mobil-
ity, then status inconsistency and mobility may be confounded.
hr example, a young college graduate, as yet non-mobile because
he has his first lowly Job with low income, may be classified
as inconsistent as his education is out of line with his Job
and income. But if he is interviewed after his mobility, he
may be classified as consistent. 0n the other hand, an older,

high school graduate, who has been occupationally mobile into a

highly rat
the former
it results
ulstionst
inconsistt
in n ind
Mittens
his eye]
bility 91
5'6?“ 01

lith j
Perhap. :
relatgd ‘
city, 1211
in°°nsis
"4 ‘ ac

62
highly rated occupation, will be labeled as inconsistent. In

the former case, mobility resulted in consistency; in the latter,
it resulted in inconsistency. In any case, working out the
relationships between intrapgenerational mobility and status
inconsistency‘would.require an extensive history of the changes
in an individual's education, occupation and income, with cal-
culations of mobility and consistency at several stages of the
life cycle. This would also introduce a problem in the compara-
bility of life cycle stages and generations, as well as a high
degree of complexity.

Iith inter-generational mobility, the problem remains, but
perhaps is not so extensive. Insofar as occupations are cor-
related with other prestige factors, and especially with ethni-
city, then the inter-generational mobility of a son may produce
inconsistency. For example, if a father is a Negro laborer,
and a son is occupationally mobile, but not ethnically mobile,
he is mobile to an inconsistent position. Or, if a father is a
white banker, then an occupational mobile (downward) son may
move into an inconsistent situation. These are the only fore-
seeable logical possibilities of spuriousness in the status
inconsistency mobility nexus.

Perhaps the most serious control problem stems from the fact
that status inconsistency is not logically independent of status.
It is logically impossible for persons who are in the highest
and lowest average status levels to be inconsistent by virtue of
the fact that to be in the lowest or highest class, individuals

must have consistently high or low ranks on all dimensions.

Average st;
person is
status is
in only 1}
meet th
is wit
tween; 1
°°nf01md
increase,
311* also

1' more

63

Average status, in the middle status ranges, may occur if the
person is consistently middle on all dimensions‘2£_if his middle
status is a combination of both high and low statuses. And it
is only in the exact middle of the status range that one can
expect the highest degrees of inconsistency.

As with mobility, then, the possibility exists that the simul-
taneous effects of status inconsistency and average status will
confound each other in these middle levels. That is, as one
increases status he is decreasing the likelihood of alienation.
But also, as one increases status, from low to middle levels, one
is more likely (logically) to be inconsistent-or at least in a
statistical-logical sense.

This problem of the confounding effects of status inconsist—
ency and average status has been recognised in previous studies,
but these previous attempts at handling the problem have left
much to be desired. Ienski and Landecker, for example, have
approached control by removing from the 'extremely inconsistent'
group those respondents with the most extreme status scores
(both high and low status) until the inconsistent and.consist-
ent levels had equal status averages.132’133 In effect, this
‘was a form of'matching. But only for the consistency level as
a group. And, it is not a random form of matching, i.e., the
high and low status persons'were not randomly selected, but
were removed systematically. This, of course, takes out of the
sample those persons who-—due to their extreme status positions-
might contribute most to a relationship between average status

and alienation.

In View:
between s'
ity to al
contain I
“88s“ s
to schis‘
of ststu
5.19 rang
This, of
t0 assm
these t1
”Slug 1
in alig
mm“

Tm
there a
at1°21 .
Bub-11
My (:0

to a“

64
In view of the above, a shmple statement of a relationship

between status inconsistency, average status, and social mobil-
ity to alienation is not an adequate test; the hypothesis must
contain within it a statement of control. Therefore, we would
suggest a traditional form of multi-variant control. In order
to achieve this, though, one must have a relatively large number
of status groups or levels, so that there'will be several 'midp
dle range' levels of status in which inconsistency may vary.
This, of course, means that one must have a relatively large N
to assure sufficient representation in all status levels. ‘lith
these two conditions satisfied, it would be possible to hold
status more or less constant, and to observe the differences

in alienation among the various status inconsistency groups
‘within a given status level.

‘Iith respect to the tenative dependent variable, alienation,
there are two suggestions. First, we have observed that alien-
ation apparently has several related but partially independent
sub-dimensions. Specifically, our observation was that they
may constitute a unitary phenomena when placed in Juxtaposition
to some variables, yet independent phenomena when counterposed
to other variables. Therefore, our suggestion is that aliena—
tion be considered in its sub-dimensions for any study, and
that in that study a determination be made as to whether or not
alienation constitutes separate or a single dimension.

we must also recall the conclusions of‘McDill, and.Moier

and Bell, regarding the nature of much of this alienation-anomia

phenomena,
leltenschdt
event that
dent seam
sensors on
Stratific:

11th t
«rise of

t° aliens

65

phenomena, i.e., that it measure 'despair' or a ”negative
‘leltanschauung” rather than alienation or anomia.134 In the
event that this is so, we would suggest a logically indepen-
dent measure of satisfaction with one's life, or despair. This
measure can then be correlated.with alienation, and the various
stratification measures.

lith these qualifications, then, it is possible to state a
series of hypotheses regarding the relationship of stratification

to alienation.

Hypotheses

Our very general hypothesis is that if there are relationships
between average status, status inconsistency and social mobility
to alienation, then Durkheim-Merton discrepancy rationale is
once more validated. If all of these relationships are not
present, however, then a different explanatory rationale is
necessary to handle the relationships which do in fact exist,
particularly that of social class to alienation. Given the
nature of our arguments thus far, however, a more specific
detailed statement of hypotheses is deemed necessary.

1.‘Ie expect an inverse relationship between average status
and the various forms of alienation, i.e., powerlessness, norm-
lessness, social isolation, as well as to one's estimation of
his present standing, and his future outlook. That is, we
expect persons with lower average status to be more alienated
than persons‘with higher average status.

2. so expect little or no relationship between status incon-

sistsnoy and
present star:
3. lo ex;
nobility and
Specificall:
the nest a1:
tstsesn Sta
lllenatlon,
4. (s) I
“11 81161131
nobility u
(b) ‘
‘li'nation
statm me
“Met the
Ihen the ‘
“mm“
(c)

66

sistency and the various forms of alienation, estimation of
present standing, and future outlook.

3.‘lb expect that there will be a relationship between social
mobility and alienation, present standing, and future outlook.
Specifically, we expect that downwardly mobile persons will be
the most alienated, etc., and relatively little difference
between stable and upwardly mobile persons, with respect to
alienation, etc.

4. (a) we expect that the relationship between average status
and alienation, etc., to remain constant when controls for social
mobility and stat inconsistency are instituted.

(b) so expect that a relationship of status inconsistency to
alienation, etc., will become obvious when controls for average
status and social mobility are instituted. Literally, we would
expect that these relationships'will be pronounced and definite
‘when the controls are instituted, because of the removal of the
contaminating effects of average status and social mobility.

(c) we expect that the relationship of social mobility to
alienation, etc., remain constant or to increase when controls
for average status and status inconsistency are instituted.
Especially for average status, where the relationship of status
to alienation‘will be controlled, and the ”confounding” effects
for upwardly mobile persons are removed, i.e., in this instance,
‘we would expect that there will be a discrimination between stable
persons in a status level, and persons upwardly mobile to that
status level,‘with the latter category having the higher level

of alienation, etc.

5. (a) W
to alieneti
status incc
simultaneoa

(bl‘
sistency a
‘he relat'j
Ihen simu
“bility

(c:
it! and J
tied (0v
order 1s

Biatenc;

67
5. (a) We expect that the relationship of average status

to alienation, etc., will remain constant when controls for
status inconsistency and social mobility are instituted
simultaneously.

(b) so expect that the relationship between status incon-
sistency and alienation, etc., will be further intensified (over
the relationship we expect to appear at the second order level)
‘when simultaneous controls for average status and social
mobility are instituted.

(o) so expect that the relationship between social mobil-
ity and alienation, etc., will be further intensified and clari-
fied (over the relationship‘we expect to appear at the second
order level) when controls for average status and status incon-
sistency are instituted simultaneously.

Finally, we would note that the general hypothesis will be
tested only by testing specific hypotheses 4 and 5; hypotheses
1, 2, and 3 will not provide such a test. Hypothesis 1 will
(should it be confirmed) provide us with an estimate of valid—
ity, i.e., if there is a relationship in this study between
average status and alienation, we can assume that we are
measuring the same sort of phenomena that has been measured
in other studies reporting relationships between average status

and alienation.

1. Emile Du
George Sim]

2. kills D
300m Sin

3' M's
" Mn
5. leg

5. Robert
N" York:

7- his
3. m.
9e E“

FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER I

1. Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Societ , trans.
George Simpson (New York: The Free Press, 1947).

2. Emile Durkheim, Suicide, trans. John A. Spaulding and
George Simpson (New York: The Free Press, 1951).

30.£E;Ee’ P. 241.
4. Ibid., p. 250.
5. Ibid.

6. Robert K. Merton, Social Theor and Social Structure (rev.ed.;
New York: The Free EW—

7. gig" p. 162.

8. Egg.

9. 933., p. 133.

10. Ibid.: p. 162.

11. Why anomie should create disequilibrium and a consequent strain
towards adaptation as a method of restoring equilibrium has never
been fully discussed.

12o ”Orton, 22' 2&3}, Pe 162(fn.2) and. De 164(fne8)e

13. There has been a traditional terminological turmoil as to what
term to use, e.g., anomy, anomia, anomie, etc. We shall use
'anomia' to refer to an individual condition and anomie to refer
to a societal condition.

14. Robert Dubin, ”Deviant Behavior and Social Structures Continu-
ities in Social Theory,” American Sociological Review, 24(April,
1959). 147-164.

15. Richard A. Cloward, ”Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant
Behavior,” Angricgg Sociological Review, 24(April, 1959), 164-
176.

16. James 1'. Short, Jr., ”Gang Delinquency and Anomie,” Anomie and
Deviant ahfvior, ed. Marshall B. Clinard (New rot-ks The Free
Pr...’ 19 4 9 ppe 98-127e

17. Edwin ll. Lemert, ”Social Structure, Social Control and Devi-
ation,"in Clinard’ 22. cite, pp. 57.97e

18. Among those who have advanced salient criticisms of anomie and
anomia theory per so are Howard S. Becker, Alfred R. Lindesmith

and John Gagnon.

19. We will not consider Lasswell here because of his explicitly
psychological bent.

68

20. Robert
bouillon C

21. Leo Sro
to hplorat

b”: 1956):
22' Mn

23. M”

equates mo
others, how
“‘1 because
01' anomie)

lbw”!
25' £13” I

26' MN I
"“5103 of
"V have has
the! affect.

s°°i°1° cat

28' Herbert

anly’I 4
m 19 (its?
29. Lou. F!
3061010 Oi
'°°d Cliffs

59
20. Robert M. MacIver, The Ram ts We Guard (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1950), pp. 84—92.
21. Leo Srcle, ”Social Integration and Certain Corollariess

An Exploratory Study," American Sociological Review, 21(Decem-
ber, 1956), 710.

22a Ibide, Pe 710e

23. Ibid., p. 711. It is evident from this quote that Srcle
equates anomia with alienation. Because he cites Durkheim and
others, however, and because he terms his scale an anomia scale,
and because other persons using his scale place it in the anomia
(or anomie) tradition, we have chosen to treat his work here.

24. Ibid., p. 712 (italics supplied).
25e Ibide, p. 716a

26. Ibid., p. 711. This follows rather closely Merton's 1957
revision of Socigl Theon and Social Structure. These revisions

may have been available to Srcle, but one cannot know how much
they affected his work.

27. Albert M. Cohen, ”The Sociolog cf the Deviant Act,” American
Sociologicgl Review, 30(February, 1965), 5(fn.1).
28. Herbert McClosky and John H. Schaar, ”Psychological Dimensions

of Anomy,” Am rican Sociolo cal Review, 30 (February, 1965), 14
and 19 (italics added).

29. Lewis Feuer, ”What is Alienation? The Career of a Concept,”
Sociolggz on Trial, eds. Maurice Stein and Arthur Vidich (Ingle-
'wcod Cliffs, N.J.s Printice-Hall, Inc., 1963).

30. Ibid., p. 127.
31. £31., p. 128.
32. Ibid., p. 129.
33. Georg Simmel, "The Metropolis and Mental Life," The Sociology

of G or Simmel, trans. Kurt H. Kolff (New York: The Free Press,
1950).

34. Feuer, 2p. gig” pp. 138, 146.

35. Gwynn Nettler, "A Measure of Alienation," American Sociologi-
cal Ravi , 27 (December, 1957). 670-677.

360 we, Pa 672e

370 M03 P0 6740

38. Melvin Seeman, ”On the Meaning of Alienation,” American
figsdolcgical Review, 24 (December, 1959), 783-791; Melvin Seeman
and John W. Evans, ”Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Set-
ting,” American Sociolo ical Review, 21 (December, 1962), 772-
782; Melvin Seeman, ”Alienation and Social learning in a Reform-
atory,” Amggican Journgl of Sociology, 59 (November, 1963). 270-
2843 Arthur G. Neal and Melvin Seeman, ”Organisations and Power-
lessnesss A Test of the Mediation Hypotheses," American

 

     
  
  

Sociolo ical
Seeman, "Ant

3 (hr-June,

39: 0f th.
Salomon Rett
some effilia

40o Seem,
41' MU P
42' Mu Pl
43' Mu P
44' M" P
45' £13.” P
45- Seem,
‘7' Mn I
48. M.

‘90 RattOrI'
pr”listing
'hich 1" IOI

50' Freda-1.
W

51. seem,
“mien .
'Ould ”Elle
mm in ‘
tion be 1301

to “86981:
“tidote.

7O

Sociological Review, 29 (April, 1964), 216-226; and Melvin
Seeman, ”Antidote to Alienation-Learning to Belong," Trans-action,

3 (May-June, 1966), 35-40.

39. Of the various writers about alienation, Arthur Neal,
Salomon Rettig, Melvin Seeman, John Clark, Dwight Dean have had
some affiliation with Ohio State University.

40. Seeman, ”0n the Meaning of Alienation,” 22. 333., p. 783.
41- 22%." P0 784.

42. £81519, p. 786.

43. 2931., p. 788.

44. 32.42.. p. 789.

45. ELLE-9 Pa 790.

46. Seeman, ”Antidote to Alienation . . .", 22 . 933., p. 35.
47. M” p. 36.

48. 332$-

49. Rotter‘s theory would also seem to assume the existence of a
paw-existing goal toward which the individual is oriented, and
which he sees as legitimate for him to strive toward.

50. Frederick B. laisanen, ”Stability, Alienation and Change,”
Sociological Mtgrlz, 4 (Winter, 1963), 18-32.

51. Seeman, 31. $1., p. 35. If movements gig have immediate or
practical effects, it might be logical to suppose that Seeman
would argue that they were not in fact alienated, but partici-
pants in a grand and glorious scheme, i.e., they would by defini-
tion be powerful, and therefore not alienated. Really, he seems
to suggest that alienation can produce its own diagnosis and
mtiutOe

52. Seeman, ”Alienation and learning in a Hospital setting,"
21- cit.
53. Arthur G. Neal and Melvin Seeman, op. cit.

54. John P. Clark, ”Measuring Alienation Within a Social System,”
Am :16 3061 10 6.1 eview 24 (December, 1959), 849-852.

55. M09 p. 849.

56. M.

57. 931., p. 850.

58. Dwight Dean, ”Meaning and Measurement of Alienation,"
W: 26 (October. 1961). 753-758.
59s Ibide, PO 7550

60. Seeman, ”On the Meaning . . .", 22. 311., p. 786.

61. Jan Hajda, ”Alienation and Integration of Student Intellec-
tual,” Ana-162 SOOlOloflogl Bevin, 26 (October, 1961), 758-777.

 

620 M” p
63' M01 F
64. laisanen

65. Leon ht
Ron-Peter»:

66. Insane:
67. M-
68' M01

69- 888mm,
910011.; 3‘
31-5" Y1

10. 010‘“
I“ 0 81‘01. ,

72s broth
Access to
kma 21

73. Hettl‘
741 Clark

75. m,
Kid “9 I

(I?
N
e

was:

{(0 41:54 :‘5’
If g'
4.» E? ”fig/c?

/'\
I

71
62. Ibid., pp. 758-759.

63s Ibide, PO 7590
64. Iaisanen, 22. 321;.

65. Leon Fastinger A Theory; of Cogitive Dissonance (Evanston:
Row-Peterson, 1957s.

66e W‘isman, ‘92s as, pa 6e
57. Ibid..
68. Ibid., p. 7.

69. Seeman, ”Alienation and Social Learning in a Reformatory,"

32w t.; R. A. Cloward and L. E. Ohlin, Delinguencz Ed- Opmrtun-
it; New York: The Free Press, 1960).

70. Cloward and Ohlin, Ibid., p. 111.

71. Srcle, 33. _c_i_’§_., pp. 712-713.

72. Dorothy L. Meier and Wendell Bell, "Anomia and Differential
Access to the Achievement of Life Goals," American Sociological

£221.01. 24 (April. 1959). 191.
73s NCtt1.r, 93o 23-3.." Do 675.

74. Clark, op, cit., p. 850.

75. This full listing of items was obtained from Dean personally,
and are not presented in his article.

76. Clark, 31. 23.3.; Haida, 32. git.

770 333“! 22° 2.3.1" I’- 754-

78. Seeman, "0n the Meaning . . .," o . 93.1.

79. Item number one and two were taken from the article "Organi-
sations and Powerlessness,” items three and four from the article
”Alienation and Social Learning in a Reformatary,” and items five,
six and seven from the article ”Alienation and Learning in a
Hospital Setting.” All items purportedly measure powerlessness.

800 3.0““, ”On th. Meaning e e e," .22. Cite, Do 784

81. Russell Middleton, ”Alienation, Race and Education,” American
Sociological Review, 28 (December, 1963), 973-974.

82- .....Ibidn PP-973-974o

83. This table is a modification of that presented in Middleton,
23. cit., p. 975.

84c mm, 22. Cite, nettluyfle cite, ma. Jo Le Simona, ”SOD.
Inter-Correlations Among 'Alienation' Measures,” Social Forces,
44 (March, 1966), 370-372.

85. Arthur Real and Salomon Rettig, ”Dimensions of Alienation Among
Manual and Non-Manual Workers," American Sociological Review, 28
(August, 1963): 599.608-

 

86. Elmer L
Analytic E1
imism Dome

1965), 768-

87. Desmond
American Sc

88. 31'016 ,

890 ‘e H. 1
Prejudice:
(mey,

80310-300:
Forces, 3g

91. Dean,
92. 31mg]

931 Kerri
088, 19

940 RObOI'
he“ ’11 £

Unpublie]
Stfitg Uh,

96e uh.

we,

91s M911
Win

“\30c3

72

86. Elmer L. Struening and Arthur H. Richardson, ”A Factor
Analytic Exploration of the Alienation, Anemia and Authoritar-
ianism Domain,” American Sociolc ical Review, 30 (October,

1965). 768-775.

87. Desmond S. Cartwright, "A Misapplicaticn of Factor Analysis,"
American Sociolc ical Review, 30 (April, 1965), 249-252.

88. Srcle, 33. g3.

89. A. H. Roberts and M. Rokeach, "Anomie, Authoritarianism, and
Prejudice: A Replication," American Journal of Sociolc , 61

(January. 1956). 355-358.
90. Edward L. McDill, ”Anomie, Authoritarianism, Prejudice and

Socic-Econcmio Status: An Attempt at Clarification," Social
Forces, 39 (March, 1961), 239-245.

91. Dean, 23. cit.
92e Simmons, 22' Cite

93. Morris Rosenberg, Occumtions and Values (New York: The Free
Press, 1957).

94. Robert C. Angell, ”Preferences for Moral Norms in Three
Areas,” American Journal of Sociolc , 67 (May, 1962), 650-660.

95. Clark McPhail, ”Dogmatism, Religiosity and Alienation,"
Unpublished research report, Department of Sociology, Michigan
State University, 1962.

96. Albert L. Rhodes, ”Anemia, Aspiration and Status," Social
____1'orm. 42 (May. 1964). 434-440. "'""""
97. Melvin M. Tumin and Roy 0. Collins, ”Status Mobility and
Anomie: A Study in Readiness for Desegregaticn,” British Journal
0; Sociology, 10 (1959), 253-267.

98. John D. Pactiadis and Jeanne Biggar, ”Religiosity, Education,
and Ethnic Distance," American Journal of Sociology, 67 (May,
1962), 666-672.

99. Edward McDill and J. C. Ridley, "Status, Anomie, Political

Alienation and Political Participation,” Amgrican Journal of
Scciglogz, 68 (September, 1962), 205-213.

100. Leonard I. Pearlin, ”Alienation from Works A Study of Nursing
Personnel,” gal-1cm Sociological Review, 27 (June, 1962), 314-326.

101. Nettler, 23. cit.
102. Hajda, £2. _c_i_t_.

1o3o Seeman, 21. 9.13.0

104. These studies are smarised in Clinard, 92. $3.; they are:
Srcle, 2;. 2L.; Roberts and Rokeach, 23. g_i_t_.; Arthur Kcrnhauser,
Harold L. Sheppard and Albert J. Mayer, When Labor Votes (New York:
University Publishers, 1956), pp. 189-200; Wendell Bell, ”Anomie,
Social Isolation, and the Class Structure ," Sooiometry, 20 (June,

1957). 105
Anomie: A:
1958)1 23<
Op. .92.,
Small Cit;
545-554; 1
Charles X
or Social:
3. lax Hi?
(Hater, '
A Stud: 01
Rhodes, 2

1050 Nett
92' me

106. big

73

1957), 105-116: David J. Bordua, ”Juvenile Delinquency and
Anomie: An Attempt at Replication," Social Problems, 6 (Winter,
1958), 230-238, Meier and Bell,.gp..gi§.; Tumin and Collins,
op. 9.3.03 3. H. Mizruchi, "Social Structure and Anomia in a
Small City,” American Sociolc ical Review, 25 (October, 1960),
645-654; Dean, 93. 22.3.: McDill, 22. 93.1.; Lewis M. Killian and
Charles M. Grigg, "Urbanisms Race, and Ancmia," American Journal
2

of Sociology, 67 (Mb , 1962 661-665; Richard L. Simpson and
H. Max MillerS "Social Status and Anomie,” Social Problems, 10
9

(Winter, 1963 256-264: E. H. Mizruchi, Success and 0 rtunit :
A Study of Ancmii (New York: The Free Press, 1964); Albert L.
Rhodes, 93. cit.

105. Nettler, 93. cit.; Meier and Bell, 93. cit.: and McDill,
fie Cite

106e M0101: md 3011, 93s Cite, ppe 191-192e

107. McDill, 22. cit., p. 244.
108e Durkheim, 22s Cite, pe 252s
109. Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in

Industrial Society (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1960 , ppe 4"65e
110. A. B. Hollingshead, 9.7.9.12: ”Social Mobility and Mental

Illness,” American Sociologicil Reziew, 19 (October,1954),
111. Joseph Greenblum and Leonard I. Pearlin, "Vertical Mobility

and Prejudice: A Socio-Psychological Analysis,” Class Status,
iii-d Power, eds. Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Lipset (New York

The Free Press, 1953), pp. 480-491. _
112. Peter Blau, ”Social Mobility and Inter rsonal Relations,”

American Sociological Review, 21 (June,1956 , 290-295, Richard

Curtis, ”Occupational Mobility and Membership in Formal Voluntary

Association," American Sociological Review, 24 (August, 1959),

846-848; and Richard Curtis, "Occupational Mobility and Union
Membership in Detroit: A Replication," Social Forces, 38
(October, 1959), 69-71.

113. Lipset and Bendix, 33. c_i_t_., p. 69.
114. 33.3., pp. 67-68.

115. 939., p. 253.

116. Meier and Bell, _op. gig.

117. Emile Benoit-Smullyan, ”Status, Status Types and Status
Interrelations,” America Sociological Review, 9 (April, 1944),

151-161: Everett Hughes, "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status,"

American Jourgil 2; Sociology, 50 (March, 1945), 353-357.

118. i. B.
lental Illr.
and Paul 5.
Haven: Yale
"The lame}
and Power,

“9 o Gorha
Dimension -

(Avast, 1

120. Rbu
Consistent:

121- Waist
122' Lane}

74

118. A. B. Hollingshead and F. C. Redlich, Social Class and
Mental Illness (New Yerk: John Wiley, 1958); and W. Lloyd Warner

and Paul S. Lunt, The Status S stem of a Modern Communit (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1942). Also see Ruth Kornhauser,
"The Warner Approach to Social Stratification,” Class, Status
gd Power, eds. Bendix and Lipset, 32. gig, pp. 224-254.

119. Gerhard.E. Lenski, "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical
Dimension of Social Status,” American Sociolc 'cal Review, 19
(Auemat. 1954). 405-513.

120. Edward E. Sampson, ”Status Congruency and Cognitive
Consistency, Sociometrz, 26 (June, 1963), 146-162.

121. Waisanen, 2. cit.
122s Len.k1, 22. 0117.

123. Irwin W. Goffman, "Status Consistency and Preference for
Change in Power Distribution," American Sociolc ical Review,
22 (June, 1957), 275-281.

124. James A. Geschwender, ”Status Inconsistency, Cognitive
Dissonance and Social Change,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
IMichigan State University, 1962. -

125. B. B. Ringer and P. L. Sills, "Political Extremists in
Iran,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 16 (Winter, 1952-53). 689-701.

126. Elton F. Jackson,"Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress,"

American Sociological Review, 27 (August, 1962), 469-480.

127. Gerhard E. Lenski, "Social Participation and Status Crystal-
lisation,” American Sociolc ical Review, 21 (August, 1956), 458-
464.

128 e GCUOhWOnder , 2£e Cit e
129. Although this finding has not yet been tested for signifi-

cance, the probability that the three consistency groups in the
analysis would distribute in the observed manner by chance alone

13 e16e
130. Meier and Bell, 22. cit.
131. Ibid.

132s Lenflki, 1954 md. 1956, gas 2&1.

133. Werner S. Landecker, ”Class Crystallization and Class
Consciousness,” American Sociolc ical Review, 28 (April, 1963),
219-229.

134w McDill, Op. Cite, and Meier and. B011, Op. Cit.

In this
alize the n
9398 in th.
status, at
it: Bub-(13
isflfiticm
future.
shall the
the Sup]

tion of <

CHAPTER II
OPERATIONALIZATION OF MAJOR CONCEPTS

Introduction

In this chapter, the primary purpose shall be to operation-
alise the major concepts presented in our theoretical hypoth-
eses in the previous chapter. These concepts are: average
status, status inconsistency, social mobility, alienation and
its sub-dimensions of powerlessness, normleesness and social
isolation, present satisfaction with life, and outlook for the
future. After operationalisation of these major concepts, we
shall then attend to the context and design of the study itself,
the sample, analysis procedures, and conclude with a presenta-

tion of our hypotheses in operational form.

Average Status and Status Inconsistency

Average status and status inconsistency are to some degree
complementary aspects of the same concept, when operationalized.
Average status usually assumes a general, underlying unidimen-
sional status continuum, that may be indexed by the 'average' of
a person's standing on several different component measures of
status. Sometimes a simple average of positions on several
different components is taken: and other times a weighted average
is taken. In any case, the operationalisation of status-as-an-
average also raises the possibility of variance in the status

75

 

896, 109:,
mean for 81
or effect 6

then it is

 

”Palate as.
general erg
fication t1
I”ski: an:
"”858 at
In deve
f“ 391881
“Stage 8‘
khaki (a
“113181453
Procedure
status Cc
Status (
”Cuban
engages

tional .

76

set, i.e., the variance of.gigg component position around the
mean for all components. If each component has any validity
or effect on behavior independently of this created average,
then it is possible that the variance itself constitutes a
separate aspect of stratification. Or, at least, this is the
general argument advanced by this thesis, and by other strati-
fication theorists.1 Generally, we shall endeavor to follow
Lenski, and his develOpment of status inconsistency and
average status.

In developing these two concepts, we must first attend to
the selection of the component dimensions which make up both
average status and status inconsistency. .We shall follow
Lenski (and others) and use occupation, education, income and
ethnicity or ethnic background. we might note here that this
procedure indirectly assumes that the family is the basis of
status conferral. A wife, for instance, will have her average
status (and status inconsistency) based upon her husband‘s
occupation-unless she also has an occupation in which she
engages full-time-—the family's total income, her own educa-
tional level, and.her own ethnic background. This assumption
has frequently been criticized, but the only available alterna-
tive has been to remove from analysis all those females who do
not have full-time employment.2 This, of course, would amount to
almost half of the study sample, as well as half the population
to which we would like to generalize.

Following the selection of each dimension, a method of stand-

 

ardizing
so that .
till he
each 41:
each 61:
arrive
Stat
fellovj
ceiure
sizing
the ,q
“n "81
then f

13003

77

ardizing a person's rank on each dimension must be arrived at,
so that a true average may be computed. This standardization
will be done by developing a cumulative percentile range for
each dimension, and assigning the person a percentile rank on
each dimension. These percentile ranks may be then averaged to
arrive at an 'average status'.

Status inconsistency will be computed according to the

following formula: SI -‘\/{(Xi.d. -- I”) . This pro-

cedure has the effect of minimizing small deviations, and.maxi-

 

mizing large deviations, when the 'X' is squared; then taking

the square root of the resultant sum has the effect of creating
an ”average variance” present in the status set (low scores would
then indicate low status inconsistency and high scores, high
inconsistency). Both the average status and status inconsist-
ency formulas create a possible range from 0-100; due to the
logical impossibility of grouped data having a percentile rank

of either 0% or 100%, however, the empirical range is likely to

be somewhat different.

Occupition
Following our notion of the family as the basic stratifica-

tion unit, each person was asked for the occupation of the head
of the household in which he lived and for his own occupation.
Where possible, the occupation of the head of the household was
utilized as the primary determinant of occupational status. In
those cases where a person was retired, and had no current occu-

pation, the pricr—to-retirement occupation‘was used. Again,

 

this invs
upon the
of his 11

Each 8
Census, C
assigned
0f prestl'
Prestige
Our Opera
categori,
the occu]
distribu-

host:
”when.
difficul

\'
Pre

78

this involves the assumption that a person's status depends
upon the occupation he followed (usually) for the majority
of his life.

Each occupation was then coded according to the 1960 U. 8.
Census, Occupational Classification. Each occupation was also
assigned the prestige score derived in the Duncan-Hatt analysis
of prestige of occupations.4 In the Duncan-Hatt study, these
prestige scores were then further transformed into deciles.

Our operaticnalization assigns the mid-point of the decile
categories as the percentile score (Figure 1). In summary, then,
the occupational component score is the percentile standing on a
distribution of occupational prestige.

Prestige percentiles were used rather than percentages of
occupational classifications per so, because of the general
difficulty in imputing status to these general classifications,

Figure 1: Derivation of Occupational Scores

 

Prestige Score Range Percentile Score

0 - 42 05
43 - 52 15
53 25
54 - 57 35
58 - 59 45
60 - 64 55
65 - 67 65
68 - 70 75
714- 75 85
76 -'99 95

 

i.e., professional, technical, etc. In addition, it allows us a
larger amount of variability of occupational statuses. Finally,
‘by using a prestige score which is predicted from education and

income (or oorrelated.with it), we are using a score for occupa-

tion whic
income, a
tive in 1
This vil'.
discrepa

IhOI up,

Einsstic
\

Each
she had
and till

“03, 1

79
tion which is very likely to be consistent with education and

income, at least. That is, our test will be somewhat conserva-
tive in that we have built in a factor making for consistency.
This will have the effect of allowing only gross and clear-cut
discrepancies between occupation, and education and income, to

show'up.

Education

 

Each respondent was also asked how many years of school he or
she had completed. Then, in order to obtain percentile ranges
and.ranks, the sample percentages in various categories were

used, which produced the following range:

Figure 2: Derivation of Education Scores

 

 

Educational ‘ Percent Cumulative - Midpoint
Level in Percentile PRS*
Sample Range-

None or 1-4 yrs 5.0 0 - 5.0 02
5-7 yrs 10.3 5.1 - 15.3 10
8 yrs 19.8 15e4 " 35e1 25
9-11 yrs 16.1 35.2 - 51.2 43
H.S. graduate 26.4 51.3 - 77.6 64
Technical, trade or

business school 4.0 77.7 - 81.6 79
1-3 yrs college 9.6 81.7 - 91.2 86
College graduate or more 8.7 91.3 - 99.9 95

 

7 Percentile Rank Score.

Income

 

In order to compute income percentile rank scores, the sample
statistics were again used. The question in the schedule used to
elicit this information asksdihe family's total income last year.
This was done in line'with our assumptions about the familial

unit as the status conferral unit. The following percentile

rank 3

Inc

whiz r3
°°°ia1
'as him
or the
the“ ‘
'°uld E
Van tag

“hie

80

rank scores were developed:

Figure 3: Derivation of Income Scores

 

Income Percent Cumulative Midpoint
in Percentile PBS*
Sample Range

8 0 - 999 4.6 0 - 4.6 02
1,000 - 1,499 3.6 4.7 - 8.2 06
2,000 - 2,499 5.7 12.3 - 17.9 15
2,500 - 2,999 4.2 18.0 - 22.1 20
4,000 - 4,999 11.4 30.9 - 42.2 36
5:000 - 5,999 22.3 42.3 - 64-5 53
7:000 - 9:999 17.? 64-6 - 82.2 73
10,000 - 14,999 10.0 82.3 - 92.2 87
15,000 + 3e6 92e3 - 95e8 94

 

a
Percentile Rank Score.

Ethnicity
Ethnicitwaas the most difficult dimension of all to con-

struct. Generally,‘we followed Lenski's and Jackson's procedp
ure for developing this dimension.5 Four ranked levels of

ethnicity were posited as follows:

High a 01d American, Canadian, or English
b Northwest European descent
0 Southeast Eurcpean descent

Low d

Ne , Asian, Jewish, or Spanish—s aking
finally Mexican or Puerto Rican

This ranking procedure follows closely Bogardus' scale of

social distances from various ethnic groups.6 If a respondent
was himself, or if his parents or grandparents were, born in any
of the above countries, the respondent was thusly classified. If
there were parents or grandparents born in classifications which
'would have put them in different levels, the paternal lineage
‘was taken first on the assumption that ethnic identity plus

ethnic surnames follow the paternal lineage more so than the

 

maternal 1:
did not km
was name

After 01
and cumula

Percentile

 

81

maternal lineage. If the respondent could not remember, or
did not know, where his parents or grandparents were born, it
‘was assumed that he was an "Old American".

After classifications were made for the sample, percentages
and cumulative percentile ranges were obtained, from which

percentile rank scores were assigned as follows:

Figure 4: Derivation of Ethnicity Scores

 

Group Percent Cumulative Percentile
Percentile Rank
Range
Lo
Negro,Asian,etc. 19.0 0 - 19.0 09
S.E.Eur0pean 9e4 19e1 -' 28e4 24
N.W.European 23.0 28e5 "' 51e4 41
Old American 47e7 51e5 "' 99e1 76
Hi .

 

Average Status——Status Inconsistency

With these scores, then, each person's average status and
status inconsistency were computed. If a person had any three
of these scores, a computation was made: if, however, two or
more were incomplete (i.e., if no information about that com-
ponent was available), a computation was not made, and thus
no score was obtained. Of 1,528 respondents, only 6 lacked
sufficient information to compute average status or status incon-
sistency. The empirical distributions ranged from 4-90 for
average status, and from 1-90 for status inconsistency. ‘Examples
of average status and status inconsistency which will illustrate
various points along these ranges are as follows:

(a) Negro M.D., making 810,000 a year Average Status 71
Status Inconsistency 73

The :11
thus deve

aPFIOIima

relet ions
Multi-m
further c
and three

(“9 p. 8

I“Ollow
“30 int.”
minty.
aimPle me
min 310]
tlke the
occu‘mtim
her “the;
occupatim
“118.1- d1

measure ’ ‘

 

82

(b) Jewish college professor making 88,000 a year
Average Status 68
Status Inconsistency 70

(c) Negro insurance salesman, 7th grade education
making 815,000 a year Average Status 52
Status Inconsistency 85

(«1) 01d American medical technician, with technical
training, making 87,200 a year Average Status 76
Status Inconsistency 4
The distributions of average status and status inconsistency
thus developed were then categorized into ten categories of
approximately ten percent each for the initial analysis of the
relationship of each variable to alienation, etc. In the
multi-variate stage of our analysis these ten categories were
further collapsed into five for the average status variable,

and three fer the status inconsistency variable. Table 1

(see p. 83) presents the limits of these categories.

Social Mobility

Fellowing our suggestions of the previous chapter, we shall
use inter—generational mobility, rather than intra-generational
mobility. And more specifically, we shall use a relatively
simple measure of occupational mobility as our indicator of
social mobility. In measuring occupational mobility, we shall
take the difference between father's occupation and son's
occupation: for females, we shall take the difference between
her father's occupation and her husband's. In classifying
occupation, we shall use a simple blue-collar versus white-
collar dichotomy. we realise that this is a relatively simple

measure, but there are several reasons for doing so. First,

66.
71.
77-

Tote

Scor

1o .
17.
24.
29 .
33.
38.
42 .
46.
52.

83

Table 1: Distributions and Collapse Limits for Categorization
of Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

AVERAGE STATUS

   

 

Score Range Ten Category Limits Five Category Limits
N % N

4.- 26 147 9.7 291 19.2
35" 42 146 9.6 309 20.3

49 - 53 149 9.8 316 20.7

54 - 59 167 10.9

60 - 65 175 11.4 334 21.9

66 - 70 159 10.5

71 - 76 137 9.0 272 17.9
Totals 1,522 100.0 1,522 100.0

STATUS INCONSISTENCY

Score Range Ten Category Limits Five Category';?mits

 

N 76 N
IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIII
17 - 23 157 10.3 439 28.8
29 - 32 154 10.1
38 - 41 153 10.4 598 39.3
52 .. 57 164 10.8 485 31.9
Totals 1,522 100.0 1,522 100.0

 

there were the general demands of interview time, and to obtain
intra—generational mobility requires that one plot a progression
of Jobs for each respondent-a time-consuming endeavor. Second,
it is not likely that a'wife‘will always be aware of her hus-
band’s first Job, although she may be aware of her father's Job
(or at least the Job he held during the prime years of his life).

This allows us to utilize more data with more generalizability.

And, I
of the
in tin

Ope
engage
sional
(3) 011
be Ola:
line wj
inter—é
8 blue.
blue-cc
1 “it:
'hiteq
as Stet
the res
°laseii
the res

Use
Our Bar

m°bile

T

1312233
In 0

the D03

initial

84
And, finally, intra—generational mobility creates problems

of the different prestige levels of jobs at different points
in time.

Operationally, we shall define white-collar workers as those
engaged in the census occupational categories of: (1) profes-
sional, technical and kindred: (2) managers and prOprietors;
(3) clerical workers: and (4) sales workers. All others will
be classified as blue-collar workers. This is generally in
line with most other studies of blue-collar to white-collar
inter-generational mobility.7 If the head of a household has
a blue—collar occupation, and the respondent's father held a
blue-collar occupation, or if the head of the household holds
a white-collar occupation, and the respondent's father held a
‘white-oollar occupation, then the respondent'will be classified
as stable, i.e., nonpmobile. If the father was blue-collar, and
the respondent is white-collar, then the respondent will be
classified as upwardly mobile: if the reverse is true, then
the respondent will be classified as downwardly mobile.

Use of this schema produced the following percentages in
our sample: Downwardly mobile 8.65%, Stable 68%, and Upwardly

mobile 23.3%.
Alienation

Introduction

In operationalising alienation, a decision was made to use
the Dean scales, with their division into sub-scales. These
scales were selected because of their generality, and their

initial separation into sub-scales. Because of the cross-cul-

tural

felt t
of the
Nettle
desire
poseib

the D04

85

tural approach, as well as the use of national sample, it was
felt that a general scale would be more advantageous than any
of the more specific scales available at that time, e.g.,
Nettler's, etc.8 Also, following our conclusion regarding the
desirability of attempting to separate alienation into as many
possible components as possible in any study, we must note that
the Dean scale is the only scale which attempts this separation.
The Dean scales were not simply adopted in Mg; rather a
series of Guttman scaling analyses were performed to insure the
unidimensionality of each sub-scale. we must note that this
was not done in the original Dean analysis, and that there was
therefore no assurance of unidimensionality. This analysis
would also provide us a test of the separability of the various
dimensions of alienation. All in all, three separate scaling
analyses were performed, with three separate pepulations: first,
a student sample from Michigan State University: second, samples
of the adult population of Lansing, Michigan: and last, the sub-

sample of a random national sample used in the actual study.

Student Sample

The student sample was performed in the summer of 1962, using
100 students drawn from social psychology classes. These sapho-
more-level classes were open to Juniors and seniors, as well as
graduate students; in addition, summer school attracts more
adults than otherwise is the case. Therefore, the sample is
somewhat more heterogeneous than the usual introductory class

sample of freshmen. These students were administered the full

 

Dean scale
strongly a
strongly ah
Isissnen t
Figure

‘

harlessn
1. There

 

a me:

 

 

Dean

86
scales, with five possible response categories (Figure 5):

strongly agree, slightly agree, don't know, slightly disagree,

strongly disagree. The Guttman analysis used was the modified

‘Waisanen technique.

9

Figure 5: Dean's Items Used in Operationalizing Alienation

 

Powerlessness:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing
a major 'shooting'war'.

we are just so many cogs in the machinery of life.

The future looks very dismal.

There is little chance for promotion on the job unless
a man gets a break.

There are so many decisions that have to be made today
that sometimes I could Just blow up.

It is frightening to be responsible for the development
of a little child.

Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are using
m.e

8. We're so regimented today that there's not much room for
choice even in personal matters.
Normlessness:
1. I often wonder what the meaning of life really is.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

PeOples' ideas change so much that I wonder if we'll

ever have anything to depend on.

Everything is relative and there Just aren't any definite
rules to this life.

With so many religious beliefs today one doesn't really
know’which to believe.

I worry about the future facing today's children.

The and often justifies the means.

The only thing one can be sure of today is that he can be
sure of nothing.

Social Isolation:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.

Sometimes I feel all alone in the world.

Real friends are as easy as ever to find.

PeOple are Just naturally friendly and helpful.

There are few dependable ties between people anymore.

I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd
really like.

Most pecple today seldom feel lonely.

One can always find friends if he shows himself friendly.
The world in which we live is basically a friendly place.

 

First, an attempt was made to scale all of the alienation items

together, to see if, in fact, a common scale should be developed.

ofv
be e
have

than:

tely
rela
dro]

the

7211:
Fig
86e:

iOC.

87
This was not possible; neither a sufficiently high coefficient

of reproducibility, nor an even distribution of scale types,
could be achieved. Even with the removal of several items, the
C.R. was not increased appreciably. Therefore, it was assumed
that no general dimension of alienation existed. No combination
of various sub—scales was attempted at this time. And, as will
‘be evident from our last scaling analysis, perhaps this should
have been done. However, hindsight is always so much better
than foresight.

When each sub-scale was submitted to scaling analysis separa-
tely, however, appreciable C.R.‘s were obtained, as well as a
relatively even distribution of scale types. Several items were
dropped so as to require an inspection of content to assure that
the basic meaning of the scale had not changed.

The powerlessness sub—scale achieved a C.R. of .928. Items
which did not scale, and.were dropped, were items 1 and 3 (see
Figure 5). Removal of item 1 regarding a 'shooting‘war' would
seem to remove a more or less "political” item from the scale,
i.e., an item referring to a political or international context,
and thus leave the total scale a more general one. Item 3,
regarding the dismal future, would seem to remove the only
clearly future referent in the scale, perhaps typing the entire
scale as one more oriented to the ”here and now” definition of
the situation.

The normleesness sub-scale achieved a C.R. of .94. with

items 5, 6, and 7 being drOpped in order to meet scale criteria.

This would seem to leave the total scale with a clear referent

 

to the "u

 

 

expectant;
normleesnel
the referz
Seeman se:
1' Perhaps
referring
respect u
re to m
The 301
items 5, 7
Inspectim
‘0 the re}

remaining‘

883,19 .

Adult 88.31

 

The it
me than
“tilt (ma
Ea“ 14m;
technicu
all 0?”

from Hex-t

‘

Japane r~

1.

“1% '01;

aidit:

 

88
to the ”unpredictability of life". Item 6, which refers to an

expectancy of using illegitimate means-—or the Seeman variant of
normleesness——is removed, which would seem to clarify or specify
the referent of the total scale as "meaninglessness" in the
Seeman sense. Item 5 refers to a dismal future for children, and
is perhaps more characteristic of powerlessness, because the item
referring to children in the powerlessness scale remained. With
respect to item 7, few "face" reasons can be seen for its fail-
ure to scale.

The social isolation sub-scale achieved a C.R. of .93, with
items 5, 6, 7 and 8 dropped in order to meet scale criteria.
Inspection of the content of the dropped items, in comparison
to the remaining items, reveals little if any differences. The
remaining items do, however, form a statistically unidimensional

scale.

Adult Sample
The items which were scalable in the M.S.U. student sample

'were then tested on the following samples: (1) a sample of
adult (male and female) heads of households in the Lansing and
East Lansing, Michigan area; (2) a sample of persons in a
technical training school in San Antonio, Texas, who were from
all over South America and Central America, with the majority

10’ and (3) a.sample of adult heads of households in

from‘Mexico
Japan. Guttman scalingHwas carried out in an attempt to find items
‘which‘wculd meet scale criteria in all three of these samples.

In addition, as many items as possible were cut out in an effort

 

to r
Evan

give

Cultu

89

to reduce the amount of interview time devoted to this section.
Eventually, two items were selected from each scale which would
give maximum representation of the entire scale.

This attempt at cross-cultural scaling raised many interesting
and perplexing problems in the methodology and theory of scale
analysis. Generally, the most perplexing problem was whether
or not to lump respondents from all samples together, or to
perfbrm a scale analysis for each sample separately and inde-
pendently. The decision was made to scale each sample separately,
*with an attempt to use common items, item order and cutting
points. If we had lumped all samples together, there would
have been a serious possibility of non-random distribution of
respondents in the scale analysis (i.e., respondents from one
cultural sample might have clustered around a certain scale
type). And, had this occurred, it would have been very diffi-
cult to get any amount of variation within any one sample.

That is, there was the possibility that an item would be agreed
‘with by all Japanese, and disagreed with by all Americans. This
non-random distribution would not have shown up in the scaling
analysis per as. Its consequences though, would have been to
place every respondent in the same category for responses to
that question when an analysis of that sample‘glgngboccurred,
i.e., an item'would not differentiate within the Japanese
pOpulation.

By pursuing an independent analysis for each sample, we would

check not only the C.R., but discriminability and distribution of

scale ype
best set c
the maxim
samples).
the Englie
modificati
Wilmabi]
final seal

Items t
Iith a mg
for the J4
In Order 4
30b and m
fied to N
unless , t
396m to a‘
“0 item 1
t" items
"1°90 It
Ergo“). t
to the in

Item
'1th 11 pe
or “he:

Spanish 8|

 

90

scale types within each sample, and between samples, until the
best set of items were found (i.e., items which would produce
the maximum discriminability and distribution in all three
samples). Another problem which arose was the translation of
the English items into Japanese and Spanish. This required
modification of some items, in order to obtain maximum "meaning”
comparability. Where modified items were inserted into the
final scale, it will be noted.

Items retained for the powerlessness sub—scale were 4 and 5,
'with a C.R. of .95 for the American sample. (The coefficient
for the Japanese sample was .93 and .97 for the Spanish sample.)
In order to make item 4 applicable to persons without extensive
job and‘work experience, and in order to translate, it‘was modi-
fied to read: "There is little chance to get ahead in this life
unless a man knows the right people.” This modification did not
seem to affect the content or the scalability of the remaining
two item scale. An inspection of the content of these remaining
two items, compared to the items out out, reveals little differ-
ence. Item 4 contains a general referent, and item 7 contains a
personal referent. All in all, the content would seem to refer
to the inability to exert control over things that happen in life.

Items retained for the normleesness scale were 1 and 2; again
'with a personal referent and a general referent. The coefficient
of reproducibility was .93 for the American sample, .95 for the
Spanish sample, and .88 for the Japanese sample. Again, the
:referent of the total scale would seem.to be the lack of order

and predictability in life. With the cancellation of item 4,

referring
two items
previous]
Items
2, vith a
Simish 8
items hav
to be 1,0
Japanese.
seem to a
"I feel a
fiCtual 80.
Tags, J
1119, and 1
'hen t2

 

91

referring to the multitude of religious beliefs, the remaining
two items would seem to have a more general referent than
previously.

Items retained for the social isolation sub-scale were 1 and
2, with a C.R. of .97 for the American sample, .94 for the

11 Again, the

Spanish sample, and .77 for the Japanese sample.
items have one general and one personal referent. Item 4 had
to be dropped due to translation problems, both in Spanish and
Japanese. The content of the remaining two item scale would
seem to apply both to a sense of loneliness and isolation-—

"I feel all alone in the world"-—as well as to a feeling of
actual social contact with persons.

These items were included in the final version of the sched-

ule, and were administered to national samples of five nations.

Sub-Sample of Achieved Samplg_

When the sample of 1,528 respondents had been completed, and
the interviews returned, a sub-sample of 150 was drawn (every
tenth interview, with a random starting point), and a third
Guttman analysis was performed. This last analysis used the same
item orders and cutting points as had been arrived at in the
previous analysis; thus this last analysis formed.more of a vali—
dation and check on our previous analyses than an independent
effort at scale construction. In this third analysis, not only
coefficients of reproducibility were figured, but also the
”improvement over chance.”12

For the normleesness scale, the C.R. . .912, and the I.O.C.-

.81; for
and for ‘
1.0.0. I
sub-scale
are an ac
tion. W:
'hich ca:
In ad:
attempt 1
of items
\
three 811
relative
and norm
e 0.3. o
Purposes
finsl
Beale,
Mantle
and 0 r

sealing
Of the

In re
and 250.2;
39331;“:

I
devel Op

 

92
.81; for the powerlessness sub-scale, C.R. - .90 and I.0.C.- .78;

and for the social isolation sub-scale, C.R. - .90 and the
I.O.C. - .71. ‘We would assume from these values that the three
sub-scales do have some validity and unidimensionality, and thus
are an adequate specification and operationalisation of aliena-
tion. ‘With two items, each scale develops three scale types,
‘which can be labeled High, medium and Low powerlessness, etc.
In addition to the above scaling checks, a final heuristic
attempt was made to derive a general alienation scale, composed
of items from all three sub-scales. The attempt, using all
three sub—scales, again failed, as C.R.‘s and I.O.C.'s were
relatively low. However, a combination of the powerlessness
and.normlessness sub-scales did meet scaling criteria, with
a C.R. of .91, and an 1.0.0. of .66. Therefore, for heuristic
purposes, if nothing else, this scale was included in our
final analysis. It is termed the powerlessness—normlessness
scale, and being composed of four dichotomized items has five
possible values, from 0-4, with 4 representing high alienation,
and 0 representing low alienation. 'We also take this latter
scaling effort as some evidence of the empirical separability

of the social isolation component.

Life Satisfaction and Future Outlook
In response to the suggestions of Meier and Bell, Nettler
and McDill regarding the Srcle scale (and possibly alienation)
measuring 'despair' rather than alienation, we thought to

develop a more or less independent and general measure of

despa:
alien:
develc

of Opt

think .

3083“)

himeel:

93

despair cr dissatisfaction with one's life.

13 Further, because

alienation sometimes has a future connotation, we thought to
develop some measure of one's outlook for the future, in terms
of Optimism or pessimism.

A general technique for this sort of measure is the Cantril
Self-Anchoring satisfaction scale-or at least a modification
of it.14 Briefly, this technique asks the respondent to
describe, in detail, the best possible life that he could
imagine; and then the worst possible life imaginable. Then,
the respondent is asked to consider what he has described as
the best possible life as standing at the 'top' of a ladder with
11 rungs (0-10), and the worst possible life at the bottom. The
respondent is then shown a picture of such a ladder and asked
where he would place himself on the ladder as of right now;
where he thinks he stood five years ago, and where he thinks
he will stand five years from now. By having the respondent
describe the polar ends of the scale, Cantril wOuld suggest that
these ends are then 'anchored' in the respondents definition of
his life. In a sense, Cantril is taking many diverse views of
what the best and worst possible life constitutes, and is then
equating them by letting them form the extreme ends of a
common continuum-the ladder.

Our modification of this general technique was to ask the
respondent to 'imagine' the best possible life that he could
think of as standing at the top of the ladder, and the worst
possible life he could imagine at the bottom, and then to place

himself on the ladder as of right now, etc. Our primary modi-

*7

l

fication,
best and
them to
The I
tee uti?
to ehta
respond
his in:
the pn
lover
and, 1

define

ofo

Thes,

 

94
fication, then, consisted of asking the persons to imagine the

best and worst possible lives, rather than actually describing
them to the interviewer in detail.

The respondent's actual placement of himself on the ladder
was utilized as the score for 'present life standing'. In order
to obtain some indication of his outlook for the future, the
respondent's present standing on the ladder was compared with
his imagined future standing; if the future was higher than
the present, he was termed ”Optimistic"; if the future was
lower than the present, then he was defined as ”pessimistic";
and, if the future was about the same as the present, he was
defined as ”neutral”.

Operationally, we subtracted the respondent's score for
present standing from his score for future standing, and, in
order to remove any negative numbers, added a constant of 10.
This then produced a possible range of 0—20. Then the following
collapse limits were observed:

0 ~18 Pessimistic, with the future standing two or more
steps below the present.

9 -11 Neutral, with the future within one step, above
or below the present.

12 -20 Optimistic, with the future two or more steps
above the present.

In this fashion, a person with a present standing of ten,
and a future standing of ten, was classified as "neutral", as

‘was a person with a present standing of 0, and a future standing

or Go

Study Context

These operationalisations were carried out as a part of the

 

 

1

Five Nat:

 

cross-cull

 

and syete
was a sur
samples 0'
Costs 31:
the Unit.
study in
modifies
Using
necessau
SChedul.
tions w.
uP seal
The inc
the so
etc., '
The
in that
And, in
necegBar
and refe
“r9 Sac
require:
Anot):

Undertaj

require:

95
Five Nations Project at Michigan State University—-a much larger

cross-cultural study of alienation, attitudes toward change,
and systemic linkage. The primary method of data collection
was a survey-type, one-hour interview administered to random
samples of five different nations-United States, Mexico,
Costa Rica, Japan and Finland. For this problem, however, only
the United States data were used.15 The inclusion of a small
study in such a large undertaking'made numerous concessions and
modifications necessary for the sake of the project as a whole.

Using a survey approach, for example, meant that all of the
necessary questions had to be fitted into a one-hour interview
schedule. This required the sacrifice of many items and ques-
tions which otherwise would have been beneficial. Items making
up scales and other indexes were kept to an absolute minimum.
The inclusion of the Japanese sample set the upper limit for the
time schedule-due to the necessity of many status formalities,
etc., which were required in Japanese interviewing procedures.

The cross-cultural approach also presented its difficulties
in that questions had to have cross—cultural applicability.
And, in order to obtain this comparability, it was frequently
necessary to resort to a relatively general level of meaning
and reference. In the case of attitude scales, many items
'were sacrificed before finding those which satisfied scale
requirements, cross-culturally.

Another requirement made necessary by the very size of the

undertaking was the use of computer facilities. This, in turn,

required relatively structured questions, etc., for ease in

 

coding,
compute
In a
by the
The int
the Gal
by thei
'83 als
the Fiv.

the Fiv

 

 

96

coding, and working out procedures which would be feasible for
computer application.

In any case, the final interview schedules were worked out

by the Five Nations Staff, of which the author was a part.16

The interviews in the United States were contracted out to

the Gallup Organization of Princeton, New Jersey, and were done
by their staff between September 2 and October 6, 1963. Coding
was also done by the Gallup staff, from codes constructed by
the Five Nations Staff. The analysis, however, was left up to

the Five Nations Staff.

Sample
The sample-—as well as the interview survey—ewes done by the
Gallup Organization of Princeton, New Jersey; it was composed
of 1,528 persons, age 21 or older. We shall quote from their
report as to the design of the sample:

The design of the sample is that of a probability sample
down to the block level in the case of urban areas, and to
segments of townships in the case of rural areas.

After stratifying the nation geographically and by size
of community in order to insure conformity of the sample
with the latest available estimate of the Census Bureau
of the distribution of the adult population, 143 different
sampling points or areas were selected on a strictly random
basis, with probability of selection proportional to pOpu-
lation size. An additional sample of 58 sampling points
were drawn in the same manner from the states of Texas,

New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado. This proced-
ure, in effect, doubled the number of sampling points
drawn for these five states.

Approximately ten interviews were conducted in each such
randomly selected sampling point with the exception of the
sampling points in the five Southwestern states mentioned
above in each of which approximately five interviews were
conducted. The interviewers had no choice whatsoever con-
cerning the part of the city or county in which they con-
ducted their interviews. Interviewers were given maps of
the area to which they were assigned, with a starting point

indies

t sac
to sel
method
folloe

Sine
sample
21 or
is, ex
gious
tions)
for th
people
a samp
in the

The
(East,
males

The ed
the for
'6 must :-
mention“
Of 5mm;
exact amc

“Bissau:

 

1* sitar~

While
variables
hes, fer

U03 . sumf’J
levela a:

At the

M513

‘ 1

conriden:

 

97

indicated, and required to follow a specified direction.
At each occupied dwelling unit, interviewers were instructed
to select respondents by following a prescribed systematic
method, and by a male-female assignment. This procedure was
followed until the assigned number of interviews was completed.
Since this sampling procedure is designed to produce a
sample which approximates the adult civilian population (age
21 or older) living in private households in the U.S. (that
is, excluding those in prisons and hospitals, hotels, reli-
gious and educational institutions, and on military reserva-
tions), the survey results can be applied to this population
for the purpose of projecting percentages into number of
people. The manner in which the sample is drawn also produces
a sample which approximates the pepulation of private households
in the United States.
The returned sample was balanced within each of four regions
(East, Midwest, South, and West? by educational attainment by
males and females, separately.

The sample is then, by definition and operation, representa-
tive for the characteristics of age, sex, education and region.
we must note that it is also more representative for the five
mentioned Southwestern states-because of the additional number
of sampling points-than for the rest of the nation, but the
exact amount is not known. This could not help but increase the
representativeness of the sample as a whole, and in no way could
it adversely affect representativeness.

While the sample is representative for the above-mentioned
variables, it would be worthwhile to examine the representative-
ness for other selected variables. To this end, we present the
tables below. All figures listed as "census" come from the
U.S. Summary of General Population Characteristics; confidence
levels and.margins are taken from the Gallup Report.

At the .95 percent confidence level, with percents near 90,
and N - 1,500, sample error margin is 1; 2%. For whites, the

confidence interval is 85.8% - 89.8%, which includes the census

 

iSHCe

r9380}

from 1
the 05
For lb
chané’e
At

7:
J

98

Table 2: Representativeness of Sample for Race

 

 

Nondwhite 12.2 11.4

 

figure. Therefore, we would conclude that the sample is repre-

sentative as far as the variable of race.

Table 33 Representativeness of Sample for Size of Place

 

 

 

Location Sample % Census %
Urban 7008 6909
Rural 29.2 30.1

 

At the .95 confidence level, for percents near 70, with
N u 750, sampling error margin 13.3. 4%» For urban, the confi-
dence interval is 66.8% - 74.8%, which includes the census figure.
Therefore, we would conclude that the sample is representative
as far as the variable of size of place.

Because of inflation, income is subject to much more rapid
change than any of the other variables listed above. For this
reason, we have made an extrapolation from 1959 (when the census
'was taken) to 1963 (when the sample was taken) by estimating
the four—year increase in income as a fraction of the change
from 1950-1960. During this ten-year period, the percent in
the category, 84,999 or less, decreased 31.4%, or 3.14% per year.
For the four years from 1959-1963, then, we would expect a

change of approximately 12.6%.

At the confidence level of .95, with the percent near 40,
N - 750, sampling error is 1; 4%. For income, the confidence

level for 84,999 or less is 37.9% - 45.9%, which includes the

Ta

Incom

g

34,99
5,00

‘

census f
repreeen

we we
aentativ

this Sam

Introd
In on
relatio
t0 exert
pl“ions
r°3tric1
“tiling
nor Gene
“mall,

 

the MI

 

99

Table 43 Representativeness for Sample for Income

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income Sample % Census %
1959 1953
$4,999 or 1983 41e9 52e2 "’ 12e6 . 39e6
5,000 or more 58e1 47e8 + 12e6 - 60e4

 

census figure. Therefore,'we would conclude that the sample is
representative as far as the variable of income.

we would conclude from the above that the sample is repre-
sentative of the 0.8. population, and as such, findings based upon

this sample will be generalizable to that population.

Analysis

Introduction

In our theoretical chapter, we have argued that the inter-
relationships among our independent variables make it necessary
to exert some form of control. Further, we have argued that the
previously used controls reduced the sample size, and thereby
restricted generalizability. Therefore, we shall endeavor to
utilize a method of control which does not restrict sample size
nor generalizability. we have set upon that method of control
usually referred to as 'multi-variate analysis', and have incor-
porated the excellent models of Lazarsfeld and Hyman in our
analysis procedures.19

Multi-variate analysis is an appropriate tool to use in
situations where one is examining relationships between three
inter-related variables. Literally, it is a method of examining

the relationship of two variables, while holding variance due to

a third variable, more or less constant. If, for example, A and

100

B, B and C, as well as A and C are related, then one may have
reason to suspect that the relation of any two variables is
spurious, in reality being caused by the relationship of the
other two, e.g., the relationship of B to C is spurious, caused
by the relationship of A to B and A to C, etc. In order to see
if B is related to 0, independent of the relationship of A to
B and 0, one must figure out some way of holding the effect of
A constant, or removing its effect upon B and C.

Partial correlations are one method of so doing, in that
they mathematically remove the variance in one variable due to
another, and then allow one to examine the effect of a third
variable upon the remaining variance. However, partial corre-
lations Operate upon the entire variable at once, i.e., operate
in terms of individual scores and assume a more or less linear
relationship. And, due to the fact that they operate in terms
of individual scores, it is relatively difficult to obtain a
table (i.e., a visual method of inspecting curvilinearity).
Therefore, one cannot ascertain the differential effects of a
control variable, i.e., detecting a relationship of two vari-
ables which Operates at one level of a control variable, yet
not at another.

Multi-variate analysis, however, in that it operates in
terms of grouped data—-grcups of individuals-does allow for
this sort of inspection. Multi-variate analysis has the dis-
advantage of losing precision (compared to partial correlation)
because of this grouped data. In grouped data, one is working,

in effect, with the correlation of group»means (or mean variance)

 

of the g:
is workir
a group I
and the
Variance
the true
‘e h
Variabl
and ate
°UIVili
aietenc
IGVelg

Bell a,

101

of the group as a whole; whereas in partial correlation, one
is working with the correlation of individual scores. Moreover,
a group mean is much less sensitive than an individual mean,
and the group mean contains, by definition, much more random
variance; consequently, it has a less reliable estimation of
the true population mean.

we know, however, two facts about the relationships of our
variables. First, via the logical relationship of average status
and status inconsistency, we know that there is likely to be a
curvilinear relationship between average status and status incon-
sistency, with the most extreme status levels having the lowest
levels of status inconsistency. Secondly, from the Meier and
Bell article regarding the relationship of social mobility and
anomia, we know that social mobility may be related differently
to anomia at different levels of status.20

There is also another reason for using multi-variate analysis
over and above the correlation methods. Correlations must at
least have interval data; our data are not interval but are
ranked at most. While arguments could be advanced for their
intervality, it would be more conservative to utilize a less
powerful test. Also, we must note the exploratory nature of our
study. If there is a true difference involved, we must assume
that it will become apparent. Given the logic and inquiry of
science, it is far better to reject a valid hypothesis than to
accept an invalid hypothesis and thereby place it into our body

of theory. If we do, in fact, reject a valid hypothesis, it is
still present in nature, and given more scientific inquiry, it

Iill surc

veriate 1

Procedurc

 

The f:
relation:
related.
and on ti
'8 should
ship of 1
03: notic

Second
dent Var:
Orientatj
tiOn, If
the conte
lien..0r
(Or, at J
criptiOn
related,
frOm deg]
SPGCificj

our t:

relatiOnc

able.

catQSOry

as to flat

102

will surely come to light again. Therefore, we shall use multi-

variate analysis.

Procedures

 

The first step in our analysis will be to test the inter-
relationships of our independent variables to see if they are
related. Logically, we have demonstrated that they should be,
and on this basis suggested certain methods of control. Now,
we should verify our contention, and check the actual relation-
ship of these independent variables. If they are related, then
our notions regarding the necessity of control are validated.

Second, we should test the inter-relationships of our depen-
dent variables, to see if "Present Life Standing" and "Future
Orientation”, as indicators of despair, are related to aliena-
tion. If they are related, then we have added plausibility to
the contention that despair forms an integral part of aliens»
tion-or that alienation forms an integral part of despair.
(Or, at least we will have added another element to the des-
cription of alienation.) If these dependent variables are not
related, then we have indicated the independence of alienation
from despair; and we then have proof of the current relative
specificity of our alienation measures.

Our third analytic step'will be to ascertain the first order
relations of each independent variable to each dependent vari—
able. In this set of tables, we will utilize the full ten-
category range of status inconsistency and average status, so

as to detect any curvilinearity in the relationships. we must

note, howeve
a test of t}:
be done only
presence or
“lecte not]
The four
each iniepe;
centralling
reletionehi
”3W8 inoo
Step, ‘8 vi
able t0 the
miable. j
hmtheeis
Finally
miahle t
°ther m
all three
I“ the
be e339“:
dependent
“rim, .
“in to
Ship. Th

table in“

(

"ails pt

 

 

 

__ __ _‘._

-_.-...__

103

note, however, that these first order tables do‘ggt‘constitute
a test of the original hypotheses stated in Chapter I; this can
be done only with the controls instituted. At this level, the
presence or absence of a relationship neither confirms nor
rejects nothing.

The fourth analytic step will be to test the relationship of
each independent variable to the dependent variables, while
controlling for another of the independent variables-i.e., the
relationship of average status to alienation, controlling for
status inconsistency, then for social mobility, etc. In this
step, we will examine the relationship of the independent vari-
able to the dependent variable, at each level of the control
variable. Analysis at this level will constitute a test of
hypothesis.

Finally, we will examine the relationship of each independent
variable to each dependent variable, while controlling for the
other‘tzg.independent variables. This step is necessary because
all three variables have been shown to be logically inter-related.

In the tables presented at each level of analysis, there will
be essentially two steps. As the‘ggggt step, the means of the
dependent variable for each value or level of the independent
variable will be inspected, as well as the percentages, in
order to determine the "pattern” or direction of the relation-
ship. This step generally allows one to make statements about
the "theoretical meaning” of the table, and thereby makes the

table interpretable; if no pattern is present, then the table
(while possibly statistically significant) has no theoretical

messing.

    
   
  

step—s ste
present, t"
statistic
possibly 1;
about such
use at less

ssmtive

104

meaning. If theoretical meaning is present, then the second
step-a statistical test-dwill be attempted; if no pattern is
present, the statistical test will not be attempted. The
statistic used will be chi square. Although our data can
possibly be interpreted as rank order data, there are questions
about such an interpretation. Therefore, we have decided to

use a less powerful and efficient test, in favor of a more con-
servative one. There are also pragmatic factors involved in

this decision, revolving around the use of the computer. It
will be remembered that, due to the size of the over-all project,
the computer was necessary. Although computers are reputed to be
capable of anything, it turns out to be quite a laborious process
to develop programs for certain rank order statistics, e.g.,
KolmogorovuSmirnoff, etc. Rather than go through this labori-
ous-and expensive-process, it was decided to use a chi square
and other statistics capable of being used at a nominal level of
measurement.

Related to the problem of statistics, there are certain other
statistical problems contained in the use of a complex multi-
‘variate analysis procedure. Generally, these have to do With the
lack of independence of observations from one multi-variate
table to another. When, for example, one creates a table for
the relationship of Y to Z, at various levels of control for
X, this table contains a series of £913 (values of the dependent
‘variable and total) which are identical for a table listing the

relationship of X to Z, controlling for Y. Only the order of

«I

 

 

105

Figure 68 Lack of Independence in Two Multi-Variate
Tables Using the Same Controls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table I Table II
Control Indep. Dep. Control Indep. Dep.
variable variable variable Variable
X Y Z Y X Z
r s t * r s t *
a 45615; a ‘IA 45615
A b 7 8 9 24 B 13 14 15 42
10 11 12 33 A 7 8 9 24
b
a 13 14 15 42 q B 16 17 18 51
B b 16 17 18 51 A 10 11 12 33
c
19 20 21 60); 423B 19 20 21 60
e
Marginals.

the rows is changed.

From this example, it is obvious that the two different types
of controls do not change one set of marginals, i.e., the right
hand totals; nor do they shift the extremes, i.e., the upper-
and lower-most rows. This would, we argue, create a lack of
independence between the two tables, so that two sets of statis-
tics, assuming independence, could not be legitimately run for
both tables-or at least an interpretation based upon one signif—
icant statistic would be risky. Literally, we would expect a
certain number of significant statistics to occur with a higher
proportion of times by chance alone than if there were true
independence. In order to interpret the significance of statis-
tics oomputed for the above set of tables, a distribution of
statistics would be needed which would take this 'lack of inde-

pendence' into account. Because such a table is not now in

I
existence,

patterns th

 

form. The:
of control,
iCent iindi
the usage
hsve each
as halting a

Becfiuse
in the Sta
the fOllow

AS
SI
535
P

N
801
PM

PS
F0

‘8 hypotht

I. A. A 8;
0n :
rel;
8C0:

B. A 8
0n j
Shi
0n
Lit
P

TT

‘0

a I

106

existence, we would argue that it is much better to inspect the
patterns that the various combinations of rows (and their means)
form. That is, if a stable pattern forms across several levels
of control, then we would be prepared to accept it as a signif-
icant finding. we might note that this is also an argument for
the usage of as many levels of control as possible-that is,
have each variable contain as many values as possible, as well
as having a relatively large sample in any study using a multi-

variate type of analysis.

Operational Hypotheses
Because of the relatively high amount of redundancy occurring
in the statement of Operationalized hypotheses, we shall utilize
the following set of abbreviations:

AS - Average Status

SI - Status Inconsistency

SM - Social Mobility

P - Powerlessnsss (sub-scale of alienation)

N - Nermlessness (sub-scale of alienation)

801- Social Isolation (sub-scale of alienation)

PN - Powerlessness—Normlessness Combined (sub-scale
of alienation)

PS - Present Standing on Ladder

F0 - Future Orientation

We hypothesize:

I. A. A significant difference, between AS groups, in the scores
on P, N, 501, and PM, taking the form of an inverse, linear
relationship, i.e.,'with the higher AS groups having lower
scores than the lower AS groups.

B. A significant difference, between AS groups, in the scores
on PS and F0, taking the form of a direct, linear relation-
ship, i.e., with the higher AS groups having higher scores
on PS and F0 than lower AS groups.

II. Little or no difference between SI groups in the scores on

 

”Do

no
in
.e |
big
on

‘.,
IL

 

IV. Mt I
encl
rem

B.At
enc
re:

V. AeAt
er:

(1:

 

th;

81‘:
dry

 

 

107

III. Significant differences between the SM groups of
”Downward", and "Upward and Stable", but little or
no difference between ”Upward" and "Stable" SM groups,
in the scores on P, N, SOI, PN, PS and F0. Further,
we hypothesize that the "Downward" group will have
higher scores on P, N, SOI and PN, with lower scores
on PS and F0, than either the "Upward" or ”Stable”
SM groups.

IV. A.At all levels of control for SI we expect the differ-
ences between AS groups hypothesized in I.A. above to
remain constant.

B.At all levels of control for SM, we expect the differ—
ences between AS groups hypothesized in I.B. above to
remain constant.

V. A.At all levels of control for AS, a significant differ-
ence between SI groups:

(1) In the scores on P, N, SOI, and PN, taking the form
of a direct linear relationship, with the higher SI
groups having higher scores than the lower SI groups.

(2) In the scores on PS and F0, taking the form of an
inverse linear relationship, with the higher SI groups
having lower scores than the lower SI groups. -

B.At all levels of control for SM, a significant differ-

ence between SI groups:

(1) In the scores on P, N, SOI and PN, taking the form
of a direct linear relationship, with the higher SI
groups having higher scores than the lower SI groups.

(2) In the scores on PS and F0, taking the form of an
inverse linear relationship, with the higher SI groups
having lower scores than the lower SI groups.

VI. A.At all levels of control for AS, a significant differ-
ence between all SM groups in the scores on P, N, SOI,
PN, PS, and F0. Again, we expect the "Down” SM group
to have the highest scores on P, N, SOI, and PN, and
the lowest scores on PS and F0; and the "Stable" SM
group to have the lowest scores on P, N, SOI, and PM,
and the highest scores on PS and F0.

B.At all levels of control for SI, a significant differ-
ence between all SM groups, in the scores on P, N, SOI,
PN, PS, and F0. Again, we expect the "Down" SM group
to have the highest scores on P, N, SOI, and PH, and
the lowest scores on PS and F0; and the "Stable" SM
group to have the lowest scores on P, N, SOI, and RN,
and the highest scores on PS and F0.

 

VII. A

 

VIII.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

108

At all levels of third order control, with SI as

the primary control, and SM as the secondary control,
the differences between AS groups hypothesized in
I.A., on preceding page, to remain constant.

At all levels of third order control, with AS as the
primary control, and SM as the secondary control,
the differences between AS groups hypothesized in
V.A.(1 and 2) and V.B.(1 and 2) to remain the same.

At all levels of third order control, with AS as
the primary control, and SI as the secondary
control, the differences in SM groups hypothesized
in VI.A. and B. remain constant.

 

 

1. Gerhard
Dimension
Menu, 1;
20 filter
tions in
S

     
   
  

°rlfitslliza

3? Nhtrac
115stion,
Sistency .

4' Briefl
°°°upatio
310a ma]
the OCCu]
3Vallab1,
101' occuj
tion! 38
510a eqm
prefitige
no 131681;;

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER II

1. Gerhard.E. Lenski, "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical
Dimension of Social Status,” American Sociolc ical Review, 19

(August. 1954). 405—513.

2. Walter B. Watson and Ernest A.T. Barth, "Questionable Assump—
tions in the Theory of Social Stratification," Pacific

Sociological Review, 7(Spring, 1964), 10-16.

3. This is a modification of Lenski's original formula, which was
aimed at operationalizing status crystallization, e.g., status

crystallization: ‘ A
- .. " 2
10° Vgqu . xij) °

By subtracting from 100, a low score would indicate high crystal-
lization, or in our obverse Operationalization, low status incon—
sistency. In practice, then, they are similar formulas.

4. Briefly, this study predicted the prestige scores of all
occupations listed in the census, based upon a multiple regres-
sion analysis of the correlation between education and income of
the occupations for which North-Hatt prestige scores were
available. That is, Duncan and Hatt correlated prestige scores
for occupations with the income and education of those occupa—
tions as listed by the census. From this, a multiple regres-
sion equation was developed which was then used to predict
prestige scores for census occupations which previously had

no prestige ranking.

5e Leani, _O_Ee Me, Ppe 406-407.

6. Emory Bogardus, ”Race Reactions by Sex,” Sociology and Social
Research, 43 (August, 1959), 439-441. This ranking of various
ethnic groups by social distance does not contradict our ranks
ing in that every ethnic group classified by our method as "low",
for example, ranks below every higher group in the Bogardus scale
also.

7. Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in
Industrial Society (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1960).

8. Gwynn Nettler, "A.Measure of Alienation,” American Sociological
Review, 22 (December, 1957), 670-677; Dwight Dean, "Meaning and
IMeasurement of Alienation,” American Sociolc ical Review, 26

(October, 1961), 753-7580

9. Frederick B. waisanen, "A.Notation Technique for Scalogram
Analysis," Sociological Quarterly, 1 (November, 1960), 245-252.

10. This sample was carried out by ClarkchPhail as part of his
dissertation analysis, "Self Identification Within a Specific

 

 

109

 

E
Context 0:1

11. In th:
50031 lac
not midi:

)2. knew
amigo n:
18 the 831C
“Whigs

     
    
  
    
 
 

used: C.

 

110

Context of Experience and Behavior” (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1965).

11. In this latter effort, it became clearly apparent that
social isolation-for the Japanese-dwas unscalable and therefore
not unidimensional for that culture.

12. Improvement over chance was figured by first computing the
average minimum marginal reproducibility (taking the average of
the largest marginals for each item, on the assumption that this
is the amount of response which could be predicted without any
knowledge of the scale patterns); then, the following formula was
used: C.R. __ M.M.R. ‘which gives an estimate of the percent-

1 "" MeMeRe
age increase in predictability obtainable by using the scale
pattern over the marginals. J.M. Jackson has suggested that
an arbitrary figure of .70 be required as defining a sufficient
improvement over chance. JQM. Jackson, "A Simple and More
Rigorous Technique for Scale Analysis," in A Manual for Scale
Analysis, Part II (Montreal: McGill University, 19495, mimeo-
graphed.

 

13. Meier and Bell, 32. cit.; Nettler, gp.cit.; and Edward L.
McDill, ”Anomie, Authoritarianism, Prejudice and Socio-Economic
Status: An Attempt at Clarification," Social Forces, 39 (March,

1961), 239-245.

14. Hadley Cantril, "Hopes and Fears for Self and Country,”
American Behavioral Scientist, 6 (October, 1962), supplement.

15. The study was sponsored by a variety of agencies and founda-
tions: The Carnegie Foundation, the United States Public Health
Service, the International Programs of Michigan State University,
and the Agricultural Extension Service of Michigan State Univer-
sity.

16. The directors of the Five Nations Project are Frederick
laisanen, Hideya Kumata, and Charles P. Loomis; Robert L. Stewart
‘was acting director from September, 1963 to September, 1964;
other staff members were Clark McPhail (1962-63). Jon Reeves
(1963-64), Charles w. Tucker (1962—66), Cay Bettinghaus (1963-
64), Robert 0. Turley (1964-66), and Richard A. Brymer (1962-64).

17. Gallup Organization, Inc., He rt to the De artment of
Sociolc and Anthro lo Michi an State Universit (March,
1934): PP- 3-4-

18. U. 8., Bureau of the Census, Summary of General Pepulation

Characteristics: 1260.

19. Paul Lazarsfeld, "Interpretation of Statistical Relations as
a Research Operation," in Paul Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg
(eds.), The Language of Social Research (New York: The Free Press,

1955); and Herbert an, Survey Design and Analysis (New York:
The Free Press, 1955 .

20. Meier and Bell, 93. cit.

 

In this

develOped t

 

 

 

hE’POtheseg
Chapter 8h:
Seatior.
detailing
Averase St
hobility (
“13°11 the c
the relat:
set of ta‘
but Fl 11
Pl‘etatian
Sectio
depicting
PWerlesS
Poe-megs
Film, or
of the re

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS

Introduction

In this chapter, we shall present our analysis of the materials
developed in Chapter II, which shall also constitute a test of the
hypotheses suggested at the end of Chapter I. Briefly, this
chapter shall contain six sections.

Section 1 shall contain a set of tables and interpretations
detailing the inter-relations of the independent variables, e.g.,
Average Status (AS), Status Inconsistency (SI), and Social
Mobility (SM). Also, we shall analyze the effect of each variable
upon the other, while controlling for the third, i.e., examining
the relationship of A8 to SM while holding SI constant, etc. This
set of tables shall not constitute a test of hypotheses as such,
but will give us information which will allow us to make inter-
pretations of tables which do constitute tests of hypotheses.

Section 2 shall contain a set of tables and interpretations
depicting the inter—relationships of the dependent variables, i.e.,
Powerlessness (P), Normlessness (N), Social Isolation (SOI),
Powerlessness-Normlessness (RN), Present Standing (PS), and
Future Orientation (F0). Principally, however, it will consist
of the relationships of PS and F0,to P, N, SOI, and PN. ‘We shall

not analyze the inter-relationships of P, N, SOI, and PN because

111

 

 

   

or are no‘
Shohsn of

Seotior
order rele

H)to our

 

 

 

ences to d
not in th!
signifiCa
Of °0uree
and shat
section ,
Idler ta"
Ellis
Wiserne

P91153111;

112

this was done in the previous Guttman scale analysis in Chapter
II, and would, therefore, be redundant. One element we will

be concerned with here is the degree to which PS and F0 are,

or are not, related to alienation, and whether they can be
spoken of as constituting aspects of alienation.

Section 3 shall contain a set of tables listing the first
order relationships of our independent variables (AS, SI, and
SM) to our dependent variables. we expect significant differ-
ences to occur in the tables listing the AS relationships, but
not in the tables listing the SI or SM relationships. Finding
significant differences with respect to AS and alienation would,
of course, validate our operationalizations of both alienation
and stratification. Much of the information gleaned in this
section will be used as background in the interpretation of
later tables and sections.

This section shall contain a set of tables and interpretations
concerned with the second order relationships of our three inde-
pendent variables to the dependent variables—-i.e., the relation-
ship of one independent variable to a dependent variable, while
controlling for another independent variable. This section shall
constitute tests of hypotheses, and it is here that we expect
that a relationship between SI and SM and the dependent vari-
ables will become apparent.

Section 5 shall contain our inspection of the third order
relationships-i.e., the relationships of an independent vari-

able to a dependent variable while controlling for the other two

 

14;
indepen..

   
    

constitu.

Final:

tiOn

821
lower
Telatj

1%“

\

113

independent variables simultaneously. Again, this section shall
constitute a test of hypotheses.
Finally, we shall present a general summary of the findings,

and our conclusions based upon those findings.

Relationship of Average Status, Status Inconsistency
and Social Mobility

First Order Relationships

 

 

In this section, we shall inspect the inter-relations of
AS, SI and SM. The first relationship presented (Table 1)
concerns the effects of AS and SI upon each other. The body
of this table presents the N falling in each AS—SI cell. Of
principal interest, however, are the AS means for each level
of SI, and the SI means for each level of AS. Inspection of
the SI means (row means) for each level of AS reveals that AS
is curvilinearly related to SI. That is, persons in the highest
and lowest AS categories have low SI means. The peak of this
curvilinear relationship falls at the third AS level, or
approximately the equivalent of a "lower middle" status.
Empirically, then the point of highest or most extreme incon—
sistency falls not at the exact middle of the status continu-
um, as was suggested earlier, but somewhat lower.

An inspection of the mean AS for each level of SI (the column
means), however, reveals that there is a slightly inverse rela-
tionship operating, with the higher levels of SI having relatively
lower levels of average status. This may be a reflection of the
relative concentration of highly inconsistent persons in the

lower status ranges. That is, of those persons who are highly

 

 

 

 

 

seamenHmzooZH mosses \\ trustee.» -

 

 

 

custom cflecxplnoa. Hes—h one season .NOneolfinCOOCH Inseam no heroism firehouse. up ceases

..ooJc J2. .. mu

 

 

 

moi.» mm.¢ ~N.m No.m om..v wtm mm.¢ untv motv mm.¢ mm.m ..KI .Hoo
as. so. me. mm. an. es. en. mm. an? me. Hesse
a: as: 8.8: we we. .2: E to. we to. we we. as as

 

114

se.. mm. Ae.r v e e m s. N e m. e .m es
m..v an. Ao.m V m. a m a. mm m as me e mm
mm.¢ mm. Am.opv as m. m m as ou om a. no
mr.e m». “n.aav on m am m. or m. om r. as
.e.m he. ho...v mm as cm a. mm mm m. mm o
ev.m mew Am.m v me am m. mm m. .m om m u
.~.m mes A~.o.v n. mm mm rm .m m. up a m
er.n we. Ar.m v e. «N mu m e. mp PP r a
mm.m era Am.m v a, no N. m. e m. m r. m
m..m so. A~.m v a . m a m e um mm em on

OFNmfi'mmb-(D‘m

 

 

 

 

 

 

was asses g e r a. e m e m
hogan" mzoozH Edam

 

 

omssm endoplseeéaa on» modem .hosevsflmsoosH seesaw he. unseen ewshebd 3 capes

115

inconsistent, there are more in the lower end of the middle
range than in the upper end of the middle range. The chi square
for the entire table is 734, which is significant at beyond the
.001 level.

When the full ten-value range of both AS and SI is collapsed
into the five and three category ranges to be used in the control
tables, the curvilinear and inverse relationships become much
more pronounced and clear (Table 1a). In any case, these tables
demonstrate the need for control when examining the relationship
of either AS or SI to any third variable.

Table 2 demonstrates the relationship between Average Status
and Social Mobility. Again of importance are the row and column
means, listing, respectively, the mean SM for each level of AS,
and the mean AS for each level of SM. we must comment on the
concept of ”mean Social Mobility". This is, of course, an
incorrect usage of the statistical device of the mean because
presumably the various categories of Social Mobility cannot
legitimately be ordered, i.e., they are nominal. For this
reason, we have also included the percentages across, i.e.,
the percent of persons falling into the various SM categories
at each level of AS. An inspection of these percentages across,
as well as the "mean SM", for each AS level, reveals that there
is a roughly linear relationship, with higher AS persons having
higher proportions in the "Upwardly Mobile” category than those
persons of lower AS. This is to be expected. The reverse, how.

ever, is not true. Lower status persons reveal little downward

mobility, with the largest concentration (94.6%) existing in the

116

Table 1a: Average Status by Status Inconsistency, for Collapsed
Veluss of Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

Average STATUS INCONSISTENCY
High
2 316 5.43
3 334 4.56
(High) 4 272 2.93
T°tel 439 598 485
i * 4.85 4.67 3.92

 

 

* .Means derived from ten-value range.

Table 2: Average Status by Social Mobility

 

SOCIAL MOBILITY -

Average

Ur
Status N (95) N (9‘) N (fi) N (73)
(Low) 0 3( 2.3) 122(94.6) 4( 3.1) 129(1oo) 2.01

Down

Stable

Total

Row x

 

 

 

1 10( 7.6) 114(87.0)a 7( 5.4) 131(100) 1.98
2 11( 8.2) 109(81.3) 14(10.5) 134(100) 2.02
3 20(13.5) 112(15.7) 16(1o.8) 148(100) 1.97
4 16(11.6) 98(71.0) 24(17.4) 138(100) 2.06
5 17(11.2) 90(59.2) 45(29.6) 152(100) 2.18
6 21(12.9) 88(54.o) 54(33.1) 163(100) 2.20
7 13( 8.4) 90(58.1) 52(33.5) 155(100) 2.25
8 9( 6.9) 64(49.2) 57(43.9) 130(100) 2.37
(High) 9 2( 1.5) 73(55.7) 56(42.e) 131(100) 2.41
Total 122( 8.7) 96o(68.0) 329(23.3) 1411(100)
Col. f 4.49 4.00 6.24 4.56

 

 

:2 - 191.1, or - 18, p(.001.

117 _
"Stable" category. What downward mobility there is appears to

fall into the middle and lower middle levels of AS. This is,

of course, paralleled by examining the mean AS for each social
mobility category, which reveals that (as expected) the ”Upwardly
Mobiles" have the highest mean AS; what is somewhat surprising,
though, is the finding that those persons who are downwardly
mobile have higher AS than those who are stable. we must
remember that we are using an inter-generational measure of
mobility. The chi square for the entire table is 191, which

is significant at beyond the .001 level.

This findingHwill affect our hypotheses, in that we should
now expect that those persons in the ”Stable" category of SM
will have higher alienation than either the upwardly or down-
wardly mobile, strictly because of the "contamination" by the
AS dimension. This points up the need for control in examining
the effect of SM on alienation.

Table 3 lists the relationship of Status Inconsistency and
Social Mobility, and uses the full ten-value range of Status
Inconsistency. Further, Table 3 indicates a small but statis-
tically significant direct relationship between SI and SM, with
a chi square of 34.5, which is significant .025)1p > .01. By
examining the mean SI for each category of SM, we can see that
the "Downwardly Mobile" have the lowest mean SI, and the
"Upwardly Mobile" have the highest mean SI. An inspection of
the mean SM, as W611 as the percentages across for each level

of SI, reveals that there is a very roughly direct linear

118

Table 3: Status Inconsistency by Social Mobility

g

  
 

   

SOCIAL MOBILITY
Down ‘Stable Up
1 2

 

Total Row

<1) i‘

Status
Inconsis.

            
 

 

(Low) 0 8 101 29 138( 9.8) 2.15
1 12 100 28 140( 9.9) 2.11
2 14 84 22 120( 8.5) 2.07
3 17 95 26 138( 9.8) 2.07
4 13 100 22 135( 9.6) 2.07
5 14 89 43 146(10.3) 2.20
6 9 84 34 127( 9.0)' 2.20
7 14 119 35 168(11.9) 2.13
8 14 106 37 157(11.1) 2.15

(High) 9 7 82 53 142(10.1) 2.32

Total 122 960 329 1411(100)
Col. '1? 4.43 4.50 5.09 4.63

 

 

 

 

x2 - 34.5, a: - 18, .025) p) .01.

relationship, with the higher levels of SI having generally

higher SM means, and larger percentages of persons in the "Stable"
and "Upward” SM categories. This relationship does, however,
produce some degree of confusion, because from Table 2 we know

that the "Upward” SM category has a high AS mean-and from

Table 1 we know that "High” AS persons have relatively low SI.

That is, from Tables 1 and 2 we would assume that upwardly

mobile persons have low SI; and in fact they have high SI. This

again points up the need for control.

_§gcond Order Control Relationships
In this section we shall examine the inter-relationships of

<3ur three independent variables, two at a time, while controlling

1 l

119
for the effect of the third. In these tables, we shall present

only N and the row and column means. And, following our argur
ment regarding the use of statistics in multi-variate tables,

we shall not compute any statistics; instead, we shall rely upon
a simple inspection of patterns of row and column means.

Table 4 details the relationships of Average Status and
Social Mobility, at all three levels of Status Inconsistency.
Generally, we can say that the control for SI does not disrupt
the linearity of mean SM for each level of AS, which was found
in Table 1. That is, at each level of SI, there is a general
increase in mean SM with each increase in AS level. This line-
arity would appear to be somewhat clarified, however, as one
moves from low to high SI control levels, i.e., the linearity
is ever increasing at the high SI level, whereas there is some
slight curvilinearity for the “Iow”AS levels, at the ”Low" and
"Medium” levels of the SI control.

With respect to the mean AS for each category of SM, however,
all we can say is that the "Upward” category, at all levels of
the SI control, maintains the highest mean AS. This also was
present in Table 2. The mean AS of the "Stable” and "Down”

SM categories, however, is changed from that in the original
table, but only for the "Low” SI control level, i.e., at the
"Low" SI level, "Stable"- 1.86, "Down” I 3.68, whereas at the
"Medium” SI level the means are respectively, 1.86 and 1.90; and
at the ”High” SI control level, 1.51 and 1.48. These compare

‘with 4.49 for the ”Down" SM, and 4.00 for the ”Stable" in the

120
original table (Table 2).

A problem, then, is about elements in the "Icw"'level of SI
which create approximately equal amounts of mean AS among "Up”
and ”Down” SM persons. If we remember that the ”Low" SI group-
ing contains both very high and low AS persons, but with a pre-
ponderance of high AS persons; and that in terms of mobility,
most lower AS persons are stable; then, it may be that for those
of low inconsistency, mobility separates out those persons who
are high and low status. That is, we know that the "Low" SI
group is composed of both very high, and very low AS persons,
with a relatively high AS mean. Then, these who are low status
are also stable, so that only those downwardly mobile persons
who are somewhat middle class are left, and they combine to
form the relatively high mean AS present in the downwardly
mobile group at the low SI level. In effect, we are observ-
ing another form of the SIéAS relationship, as it Operates via
SM. As it also turns out, the entire group of "Down" SM to
"Low" SI has an N of 34, of a sample of 1,522 (or approximately
2.4%). And, of these 34, 16 fell in the next to highest AS level.

Table 5 lists the relationship of Average Status to Status
Inconsistency, for the three levels or categories of Social
Mobility. An inspection of the SI means for each level of AS,
reveals that the controls for SM do not disrupt, nor appreciably
alter, the curvilinearity of SI or AS. Nor is the linear regres-
sion of AS scores for each increasing level of SI altered, except
:for those persons in the ”Stable" level of control. If anything,

“this relationship is made much more clear in the ”Up" and "Down"

 

mm.m mw.m mm.m N vm.w mw.w mm.P N mv.w om.w mm.m N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as. we oe am «Aemv mm. me me we eflflmv am. 0 m m vfiamv
em._ me as a? m mo.P em we on m mm. M Ma ea m
mn.w oe mm e m ma.. mm so. mw m em.w we Ne w m
em.. om o. o a mm.. are em em F mm.. me e N .
mm.a a m 1. P voqv Nm. mm mm woe ofioqv mo.. m e e oflogv
x swam cos :3 m4 M SE was :3 m4 x . swam son :3 3
I. AhcnopmfimsoosH unpspmv AhosopmwnsoonH mapspmv I. AhosopmwnsoosH ndpspmv
e835 .Sfim damages

 

MBHAHQOE AdHoom

 

Mpfiafipos Hsfioom mo Hosea nosm vs honopmHmQOOSH mopspm hp mopspm cwcnobd .m canoe

121

 

 

 

 

mm.~ R; we; M mm.m mm; om; M 84 mm; 83 M
ev.m m. me o efismv me.m oe me m «Afimv mm.~ an we m eAHmV
~m.m we em a m m mm.m we we mp m .o.m a. on we m
mm.m oe an Ne w mo.m mm we. a. m oo.m e mm e m
mo.m om are me P no.9 or em m. a mm.. 0 mm N .
mo.m a mm m voqv mm.. m me e vogV em.. a mo. e OAQQV
"E E g

x-. as oapmpm neon me x as capapm egos me m up mapapm neon m4

Aspaaflpos Hasoomv Aspnafipos Hanoomv
MonopmflmsoosH swam MonopmwmsoosH ensue:

MozmemHmZOOZH mbadem.

mspaanpos Hufioomv
encamfimcoosH BOA

 

 

hocmpmfimsoosH mopsvm ho Hc>oq doom as hpaawpos HsHoom hp nspspm cmsscbd .¢ canoe

122

levels of control, for in the original table (Table 13), there
was only a small difference in mean AS between the "Low" and
"Medium" levels of SI—-4.85 and 4.67, respectively. The lack
of a difference in mean AS between the "Low" and "Medium" levels
of SI at the "Stable" category of control may be due to the
correlation of SM and AS, particularly the fact that the "Stable"
group in Table 2 has the lowest mean AS of all three SM groups.
That is, the "Stable" group contains disprOportionate numbers

of lower class persons, who are also, by definition very low in
SI (Table 1). It would appear, then, that SM might obscure the
relationship of AS and SI, in the original tables.

This interpretation would appear to be the case, when Table 6
(which describes the relationship of Social Mobility to Status
Inconsistency, at all levels of Average Status) is inspected.
That is, "Up" SM, at each level of AS, apparently creates high
SI. The converse relationship is also clarified by the control
for AS. In the original table (Table 3), the regression of mean
SM for each level of SI was somewhat linear; in the control table,
these SM means are, in all cases, clearly linear. What is not
particularly clarified, however, is the difference between the
"Down” and "Stable" categories of SM; at the "Low” AS level, the
"Down" category has a higher mean SI than the "Stable" (1.07 vs.
.82), whereas at the third and fourth status levels, the
”Stable category has a higher mean SI than the "Down" category;
and the middle AS levels of "One" and "Two" retain the lack

of differentiation present in the original table. It is clear,

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. mm. 5. M 3... No; mm. M

we.m we me o swam em.~ we em m swam

23 av 3 m ems m~.~ S E. 2 so:

mm.m an me m sea .o.m a. on m. sea

M mp «Seem anon Hm M .5 £933 £69 Hm

Aswamv e m
R: w... 3.. M 3; mm; mm; M mm... 8. mo; M
mm.m oe am we swam mo.w om ... m. swam no.m a mm m swam
mo.m mm woe ea eos mm.. or em m. so: mm.. m me e ems
oo.m v mm e :94 mm.. 0 mm m sea ~m.. F mow e seq
M an 03qu 8.8 Hm M as .33.... :38 Hm M an .Sfim Eon Hm

N

w

mDedam m0<mm><

0 A55

mspspm omsno>< mo Hoeoq mean as thHHpos Hsfioom hp hosovmfiusoosH museum .m canes

 

, __
Q
I
.
i
s O 9
.
n. .
q
1
O
f .
.
--f ..

124
though, that the control for AS does alter the relationship of

SM and SI.

The previous statement might serve as a model for our summary
of the relationships of our independent variables. That is, at
the first order level, it is evident that there are a series of
contaminated inter-relationships between AS, SI and SM. For
example, we note from Table 1 that high AS persons are likely
to have low SI; from Table 1, high AS persons are also likely
to be ”Up” SM; this would then lead us to the tenative conclu-
sion that "Up" SM persons are also likely to be low SI, because
of the relationship between SM and AS. But this is not the
case, as we can see from Table 3, where "Up" SM persons have
relatively high SI—-the exact opposite of our prediction. At
the control levels, we also saw that many of the original
patterns held up; but also, some are appreciably changed. While
our main point is not to clarify the relationship of these three
variables, it is clear that they are highly inter-related. And,
this, of course, validates our original statement regarding the
necessity of control in examining the relationship of these
three variables to alienation. Further, it points up the need
to control at both the second and third order levels, because
many of the original relationships of these independent vari-

ables continued to hold at the second order.

Relationship of Dependent variables

In this section,‘we shall present the inter-relationships of

our dependent variables. we shall present, however, only those

125

relationships between Present Standing and Future Orientation,
and the set of four alienation measures, i.e., Powerlessness,
Social Isolation, Normlessness, and the combined form, Powerless-
ness-Normlessness. (Hereafter, we shall refer to these variables
by their initials.) It will be remembered that these former
variables were constructed in an effort to delineate a relatively
"pure" measure of the "despair" or ”dismal future" outlook
imputed to alienation by some alienation theorists. At this
point, then, we would like to carry out an empirical examina-
tion of the relationship between these two different "forms"

or "aspects" of alienation.

Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 document the relationship of Present
Standing to the alienation scales: P, SOI, H and PN. It will be
recalled that P8 was measured by asking the respondent to place
himself on a ladder describing his present standing between the
best and worst possible lives that he could imagine. The values
of PS in Tables 7-16 represent these standings. It will be
noted that the vast majority of persons ranked themselves as
standing at step five or above, with only 10 percent ranking
themselves below five. This would seem to indicate that Americans
consider themselves as having a relatively good life, or at least
a "better than average" life.

All tables exhibit significant chi squares, with probabilities
of .01 or less. An inspection of the column means-—or the means
IS for each level of alienation-reveals that there is inverse
and.fairly linear regression of PS on alienation; with each

:increase in alienation level, there is a consistent decrease in

126

Table 71 Present Standing by Powerlessness

 

     

  

 

 

15 100)
1 12 100 1.42
2 12 100 1.42
3 37 100 1.22
4 83 100 1.12
5 293 100 .99
6 212 100 .94
7 226 100 .76
8 106 36.8 114 39.6 68 23.6 288 100 .87
9 40 37.4 41 38.3 26 24.3 107 100 .87
(High)10 83 37.7 85 (38.6 52 23.7 220 100 .86
metal 505 (33.6) 613 (40.7) 387 (25.7) 1505(100) .92
0010 X 7019 6074 6.46 6.85

 

 

x2 - 46.535, 4: - 20, significant < .001.

Table 81 Present Standing by Social Isolation

 

Present
Standing

   

  

 

(Low) 0
N (%9

     

SOCIAL ISOLATION

1
N

(High) 2

(75) (%)

 

   

 

  
     

 

 

(16w) 0 1 20.0 8 53.3 4 26.7 15 100 1.07
1 1 8.4 7 58.3 4 33.3 12 100 1.25

2 1 8.3 5 41.7 6 50.0 12 100 1.42

3 9 24.3 18 48.7 10 27.0 37 100 1.03

4 18 21.7 36 43.4 29 34.9 83 100 1.13

5 62 21.2 167 57.0 64 21.8 293 100 1.01

6 37 17.4 119 55.9 57 26.7 213 100 1.09

7 52 22.8 121 53.1 55 24.1 228 100 1.01

8 78 27.0 161 55.7 50 17.3 289 100 .90

9 25 23.4 64 59.8 18 16.8 107 100 .93
(High)10 75 33.5 114 50.9 35 15.6 224 100 .82
Total 361 (23.9) 820 (54.2) 332 (21.9) 1513(100) .98

001. X 7.19 6085 6039 0

 

 

 

x2 - 44.4, df - 20, significant‘ .01.

 

”‘7’

127

Table 9: Present Standing by Normlessness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mamassnnss

Present (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Row
Standing N (1%) N (76) N (9%) N (96) J!

(Low) 0 3 20.0 4 (26.7 8 53.3 15 100 1.33

1. 3 25.0 1 8.3 8 66.7 12 100 1.42

2 2 16.7 2 16.7 8 66.6 12 100 1.50

3 4 11.1 13 36.1 19 52.8 36 100 1.42

4 13 15.9 32 39.0 37 45.1 82 100 1.29

5 54 18.6 117 40.2 120 41.2 291 100 1.23

6 44 20.7 84 39.4 85 39.9 213 100 1.19

7 68 30.0 97 42.7 62 27.3 227 100 .97

8 78 27.2 114 39.7 95 33.1 287 100 1.06

9 25 23.4 51 47.6 31 29.0 107 100 1.06

(High)10 62 27.9 72 32.4 88 39.6 222 100 1.12

Tota_l_ 356 (27.9) 587 (39.0) 561 (37.3) 1504(100) 1.14

001. X 7e16 6e87 6e58 6e83

 

x2 . 48.02, a: - 20, significant .001.

PS means. All of these PS means are still,gbgzg.the middle of
the ladder, however (i.e., five).

An inspection of the row means-the mean alienation for each
level of PS—-does not indicate a corresponding linearity, or
at least the linearity is relatively rough. In the case of P,
N and PH (Tables 7, 9 and 10, respectively), there is a general
decrease to about PS value "7”, and then a slight increase in row
means for the values ”8", "9” and "10”. This indicates that those
people who rate themselves highest on the PS ladder are also
slightly more alienated than those in the middle-but still much
less alienated than those who rate themselves below the rung
"5" on the ladder. Of all the alienation sub—scales, SOI comes
closest to indicating a very rough form of curvilinearity

(Table 8). The row means in this case start fairly high, but

128

.n Aaoo. .oe . me .eea.o.. . Ne

 

 

 

 

Nm.e Na.m me.n Fm.e ...» mm.e m .Hoo
aN.N pan. MFN mam ome emN ma. Hence
FP.N AoowV maN ar.m4V mm n.aNV aw Ae.NmV we Ao..NV we Ao.o.V NN oFAnNNNV
mo.N AooaV so, AN.w.V N. Ao.NNV om Ao.wNV om Ae.MNV mN Am.m V or m
NF.N AooaV eNN Am.o.V om Am.eNV a» Am.mmV Po. AN.N.V Nm A..m V mN N
Fm.. nooFV mNN Aw.» V a. AN..NV me Ae.mmV ow Ae.eNV mm Ae.oaV eN a
MN.N AooeV NFN no.m4V em Am.eNV an Am.mNV Ne AN.NNV we Ae.m V N. e
em.N AooeV .mN Ae.m?V mm AN.omV mm An.me Na. A..m.V mm Am.e V e. m
em.N AooPV Nm Ao.NNV we Ae.mmV mN Am.MNV PN AN.N.V or Am.e V e e
NN.N AooeV mm Am.NmV e. AN.NNV N “n.a.V a AN.eFV e AN.N V a m
No.m AooaV Na “n.amV a Ae.mFV N Am.w V P Am.m V a Am.m V a N
Ne.N nooaV NP Am.mmV e Am.mmV e Am.m V a Ae.eeV N Am.w V F F
mm.N AooPV ma A».eeV N Am.m.V N he.mNV e Am.m?V N Ao.o V o c Asqu

M $3 2 ARV z 83 z 33 z ARV 2 $3 2 $223....
36m Hence e AnwamV m N F o AsoaV anemone
mmmzmmfismoaummngfimmsom

 

 

mmmammoHBHOZImmosmmoHnoscm hp msfidsspm «somonm .op canoe

129

increase until the third rung of the ladder (value 2), and then
-decrease fairly constantly until PS value 10. This curve does
not exhibit the slight increase for the last three values of PS
as the other tables did, which leads a slight curvilinearity to
the regression of SOI means for each level of PS. This may be
evidence for the separation of SOI from other forms of aliena-
tion. In any case, it would seem to be clear that alienation is
a relatively close correlate of one's perception of where he
stands in terms of achieving a best or worst possible life.
And, if it is, we would expect that PS will be related to our
independent variables in much the same way as alienation.

Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 detail the relationship of Future
Orientation to the various sub-scales of alienation. Future
Orientation (F0), as stated in the last chapter, is a measure of
the discrepancy between PS and one's estimation of where he will
stand on the ladder five years in the future-again between the
best and worst possible lives imaginable. Those persons whose
future is within one or two steps of their present were desig—
nated as "Status Quo" oriented; those whose future was higher
were designated "Optimistic", and those with the future lower
than their present were designated "Pessimistic". In order to
obtain mean F0 scores, these three categories were arbitrarily

assigned the follow'weightst
"Pessimistic" I 0, ”Status Quo" - 1, "Optimistic" - 2.

Chi squares for all tables were significant at the .029 level
or less. What is surprising, however, is that the row means

(mean alienation for each F0 category) are not linear, i.e.,

130

Table 111 Future Orientation by Powerlessness

POWERLESSNESS

 

     
  

Future

 

 

 

Pessimistic
(0) 33(31.1) 43(4o.6) 30(28.3) 106(100) .97
Status Que
(1) 231(38.8) 228(38.2) 137(23.0) 596(100) .84
Optimistic
(2) 229(3o.o) 326(42.7) 209(27.3) 764(100) .97
mots; 49303.6) 597(4o.7) 376(25.7) 1466(100) .92
001. X 1.40 1e47 1e48 1e45

 

 

x2 - 12.304, 8: - 4, .025 )1) > .01.

Table 121 Future Orientation by Social Isolation

SOCIAL ISOLATION
(Low) 0 1
%) N

 

   
   

(High) 2

N (%0

Future
Orientation

  
   

       

   

        

       

 

 

Pessimistic
(0) 21(19.8) 62(58.5) 23(21.7) 106(100) 1.02
Status Quo
(1) 173(28.7) 326(54.2) 103(17.1) 602(100) .88
Optimistic
(2) 159(20.8) 406(53.0) 201(26.2) 766(100) 1.05
Total 353(23.9) 794(53.9) 327(22.2) 1474(100) .98
Gale X 1e39 1e43 1e54 1e45

 

x2 .. 23.0, df - 4, p>.001.

Table 131 Future Orientation by Normlessness

 

 

NORMLESSNESS
Future (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total How
Orientation H W N t N t N W x
Pessimistic
(o) 17(16.0) 39(36.8) 50(47.2) 106(100) 1.31
Status Quo
(1) 166(27.9) 222(37.2) 208(34.9) 596(100) 1.07
Optimistic
(2) 169(22.1) 312(4o.8) 283(37.1) 764(100) 1.15
Tots; 352(24.0) 573(39.1) 541(36.9) 1466(100) 1.13
001. x 1.43 1.48 1.43 1.45

 

 

12 - 12e54’ df . 4’ .025>p).01.

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.80. A 2 moo; .o .. Ne $.91 NM
me.e Ne.. me.. me.. Fe.. mn.. M..Hco
oN.N AooPV awe. Am.e.V moN A..eNV .Nm Am.NmV one AN.N.V meN AN.» V e.. Hence
mN.N AooFV Nee AN.mFV we. AF.mNV mm. Ao.an NeN A..N.V om? Ae.m V on “NV
cascaaasao
mo.N AooaV eon Ao.m.V Ne Am.eNV sea Ae.0mV am. Am.aNV NNF Ao.o.V mm A.V
cad mavsvm
em.N AooaV no, A..m.V we Ao.mmV mm RN.omV Nm Ao.N.V o. Ae.e V m AoV
cascasasccm
M g s as s as a as e 93 e as a 83.838
scm ”sacs e AsmNmV m N a 0 Asch cusssa
mmmammmusmozummszmnnnmnaom

 

 

 

 

mucouseHsnozlmmesneeHsekom an scavevseaso enuesh as? eafies

132

e "Optimistic" are not less alienated than the "Pessimistic",
one would implicitly assume. Rather, the "Status Quo"

tegory in each and every case is the least alienated, with

e "Optimistic" and "Pessimistic" F0 categories having approxi-
tely equally alienation means. Inspection Of the column means
can F0 for each level Of alienation) adds little to the

neral interpretability Of the tables.

To some degree, the Durkheim-Merton rationale may be Operat-
g here. That is, those persons who perceive a change in the
ture-dwhich may cast doubt on the efficacy of the normative
stem—-develop alienation, whereas those who perceive an
cunt of stability in the future do not develop alienation.

this sense, F0 is similar to SM, in that the ”Stable" or
tatus Quo" group may be the least alienated, at least hypothet-
ally. This finding may also, however, be spurious and a
atistical artifact of our measurement device. In order to be
ther "Pessimistic" or ”Optimistic”, a person must have a
ore between two and eight, i.e., for "Optimism", a person
uld score no higher than sight on the PS ladder, in order for
m to have statistical ”room" to increase. And, this is a
wer score when compared to persons in the nine and ten ladder
nks, which in turn would give him a comparatively higher
ienation score. Approximately the same dynamic can work for
e "Pessimistic" persons. Further, we must note that the
jority of persons in the F0 tables scored in the "Optimistic"

tegory. Therefore, in order to have a resolute test of this,

s should control for PS in examining the relationship Of F0 to

 

133

alienation.1

In any case, it is clear that PS may be an integral part of
alienation, but that F0 is not; or at least F0 is partially inde-
pendent, and may be related to our independent variables in
different ways than alienation. It does form a definite measure
of future orientation. For these reasons, then, we would

suggest keeping F0 in our analysis.

First Order Relationships

Relationship of Average Status to Dependent variables

 

In this section, we shall examine the relationships of Average
Status tO the dependent variables, which are listed in Tables 15-
20. In these tables, AS is presented in its full ten-value
range, in order to give us as full an insight as possible. In
the later control tables, AS will be reduced to a five-value
range.

An inspection of Tables 15, 17 and 18 reveals that Average
Status is significantly related to P, N, and their combination,
PM, with all chi squares having a probability of .001 or less.
This relationship is generally linear, and inverse, with each
higher AS level having a lower mean alienation than lower AS
levels. The only exception to this general finding occurs in
the ninth AS level (8), where the mean alienation is somewhat
above the inferred regression line.

Social Isolation, on the other hand, is not significantly
related to AS, although the relationship is in the predicted

direction, i.e., inverse. Again, this is an independent vali-

 

134

Table 151 Average Status by waerlessness

1

 

     
  

 

 

  
  
    
  

 

 

 

Powaansssnass
Average (low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Haw
Status N (V N (%9 N (%) N (%J x

0 6 41 28.5 82 56.9 144 100 1.42

1 2 54 37.5 48 33.3 144 100 1.04

2 5 72 49.7 36 24.8 145 100 .99

3 46 28 6 69 42.8 46 28.6 161 100 1.00

4 41 27.7 72 48.6 35 23.7 148 100 .96

6 65 37.4 70 40.2 39 22.4 174 100 .85

7 78 49.4 53 33.5 27 17.1 158 100 .68

8 47 34.6 61 44.8; 28 20.6 136 100 .86

(High) 9 70 51.8 53 39.3 12 8.9 135 100 .57

Total 506(33.5) 617(40.8) 389(25.7) 1512(100) .92
2

X - 143e22, d: ' 18’ P<eoo1e

Table 161 Average Status by Social Isolation

 

SOCIAL ISOLATION
(High) 2 Total Row

Low) 0 1 ..
N (no N (%1 N (%0 N 6%) x

15(1o.3) 88(6o.3) 43(29.4) 146(100) 1.19
31(21.5) 83(57.7) 30(20.8) 144(100) .99
32(21.9) 86(58.9) 28(19.2) 146(100) .97
35(21.5) 91(55.8) 37(22.7) 163(100) 1.01
41(27.5) 75(so.3) 33(22.2) 149(100) .95
43(25.7) 89(53.3) 35(21.0) 167(100) .95
44(25.1) 92(52.6) 39(22.3) 175(100) .97
49(31.o) 75(47.5) 34(21.5) 158(100) .91
39(28.5) 73(53.3) 25(18-2) 137(100) .90
35(25.9) 73(54.1) 27(2o.o) 135(100) .94

364(23.9) 825(54.3) 331(21.8) 1520(100) .98

Average (

 

 

(Low) 0

QmWhWN-i

(High) 9

Total

 

 

 

X2 - 27e66, df . 18, P e17 P)e°5e

135
Table 17: Average Status by NOrmlessness

 

 

NORMLESSNESS
Average (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Hey
Status N (%J N (%0 N (%9 N (%9 x
(Low) 0 7 4.9 40 28.2 95 66.9 142 100 1.62

1 18 12.7 50 35.2 74 52.1 142 100 1.39

2 23 15.9 48 33.1 74 51.0 145 100 1.35

3 35 21.5 64 39.3 64 39.2 163 100 1.18

4 31 21.1 56 38.1 60 40.8 147 100 1.20

5 42 25.2 75 44.9 50 29.9 167 100 1.05

6 63 36.0 62 35.4 50 28.6 175 100 .93

7 54 34.2 68 43.0 36 22.8 158 100 .89

8 40 29.2 60 43.8 37 27.0 137 100 .98

(High) 9 43 31.9 64 47.4 28 20.7 135 100 .89
Total" 356(23.6) 587(38.8) 568(37.6) 1511(100) 1.14

 

 

x2 - 147.35. or - 18, p(.001.

daticn of our scaling efforts and further indication that Social
Isolation is a somewhat separate and independent area of content,
at least with respect to alienation and stratification.

Finding a relationship between our version of the alienation
scales, and Average Status lends further weight to the conten-
tion that we are measuring the same area of content that has been
measured in other studies Of alienation. That is, many studies
cited in Chapter I reported relationships between status or class,
and alienation, although the operationalizations were in many
cases somewhat different than ours. Thus, our current finding
validates these scales, and.therefore makes this current study
more or less in direct line with the previously cited studies.
And, if our theory (which is to some degree based upon these
studies) holds up, then our versions of alienation should be

related to Status Inconsistency and Social MObility.

136

..oo.v.c .NN s as .Nm..mm. 1 Ne

 

 

 

.N.N Aoo.V com. Am.e.V N.N Ae.NNV Nam AN.NNV ems AN.N.V eNN he.N V 4.. Hccoe

NN.. Aoo.V mm. AN.. V N Am.m.V NN Am.NeV Nm AN.NNV Nm Ae.m V m. m AsNNNV

em.. Aoo.V Nm. Am.m V N Ao.NNV em AN.emV Ne AN.NNV Nm A..N V .. N

0N.. Aoo.V NN. Ao.N V .. AN.N.V NN Am.NmV mm Am.NNV Ne AN.o.V N. N

NN.. Aoo.V cN. AN.N V .. AN.NNV Ne AN.NMV en Ao.m.V mm A..N.V .N N

o..N Aoo.V NN. AN.o.V N. MN.eNV .e Am.mmV mm AN.NNV Nm AN.N V .. m

om.N Aoo.V Ne. A..N.V NN A..0mV es Am.NNV Ne hN.m.V 0N AN.N V N. c

NN.N Aoo.V .N. Am.e.V eN Ae.omV me Av.omV Ne “n.a.V NN aN.N V v. m

oe.N Aoo.V on. A..0NV NN AN.NNV .e An.NNV .e he.N.V NN Am.m V N N

NN.N Aoo.V Ne. AN.NNV NN Am.NNV mm Am.omV Ne Am...V N. Am.m V m .

.o.m Aoo.V .e. AN.NMV NN AN.NNV Nm Ae.N.V NN he.N V m “4.. V N o AsoHV
[ NJ“

M E z E z E z E a E z E s .33...

36N Hapoe e AsNNNV N N . 0 Asqu chscsa

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmfiZwmmuEmOZImmmammmqmmaom

 

 

 

mmoSmmoaBAoZlmmosmmoasosom hp mspovm emanc>4 .mN canoe

137

Table 19 documents a significant relationship between AS and
PS (the chi square has a probability of .001 or less) with the
higher AS levels having generally higher PS means. The rela-
tionship is not, however, perfectly linear. In fact, the
lowest PS mean occurs not at the lowest AS level, but at the
third level (value 2). It might also be noted that this is
the level at which Status Inconsistency reaches a peak (Table 1).
Perhaps this is an indication that SI is affecting the PS means.
In any case, there is general validation of the notion that
one's perception of his present situation is——like alienation-
affected by his Average Status.

Table 20 documents a weak but significant linear relationship
between AS and F0, with the lower AS levels tending to have
slightly less persons in the "Optimistic" category than the
higher AS levels. That is, persons at the higher AS levels
tend to have a more Optimistic outlook than do others. Given
this relationship, we must now ask what the relationship of F0
is to alienation (remembering that F0 and alienation are not
related). It may be that all (F0, PS, etc.) are separate

facets of an AS alienation, which is not independent Of AS.

Relationship of Status Inconsistency to Dependent Variables

 

In this section, we shall examine the relationship of Status
Inconsistency to the dependent variables of alienation, PS and
F0. These are contained in Tables 21-26. We reiterate that
this section does not constitute a test of our hypotheses per se,

but forms a background against which to cast other tables

138

 

 

 

    

     
   

     

   

  

AecssassooV ..oo. on .om .. Ne .NN..NN. .. Nu
“n.a.V NNN AN.N V NN AN.N V NN AN. V N. AN. V N. Ao..V N. Nance
AN.N V .. AN.N V N Am.. V N AN.. V N .0. V o .0. V o m Anm.NV
Ao.ONV NN AN.N V m Ac. V 0 AN. V . AN. V . .6. V o N
.m.N.V 4N AN.N V e .0. V 0 Ac. V o .0. V o .0. V o N
A..N.V on Ae.m V N AN.. V m “N. V . .0. V o .N. V . N
AN.NNV me AN.N V N “N.. V N .0. V o .0. V 0 AN. V . m
AN.NNV mm Ae.m V N A..e V N .0. V 0 AN. V . .N. V . e
AN.cNV on AN.N V .. .m.N V 4 AN. V . .N. V . .m.NV e m
AN.NNV mm .m.N V N. .N.N V N AN. V . .N. V . AN.NV e N
AN.N.V NN Ao.N V o. Am.c V N A..N V m .N.N V c A..NV m .
A..N.V NN AN...V N. AN.N V N A..N V m .N.N V e .N. V . o AsQHV

E z E z E z E a E a E z 8......
m o m N N o oBQHV omoaebd
NZHQZNNN szmmmn

 

 

 

modemspm psomenm Mp asecem emsso>< .m. canoe

139

 

 

 

 

NN.N Aoo.Vo.m. AN.N.V NNN Ao.N V No. NN.N.V NNN .AN.N.V NNN A..e.V N.N Hence

NN.N Aoo.me. .....V N. Am.m V N AN.NNV mm AN.NNV Nm AN.N.V N. N AsmamV

oo.N Aoo.VNm. AN.N V N. AN.N V .. AN.NNV .m AN.NNV cm Am.m.V N. N

NN.N Aoo.VNN. AN.N.V .N AN.N V N. AN..NV em AN.NNV Nm Am.m.V «N N

...N .oo.VNN. AN.N.V mN AN.N V N. AN.N.V mm Ao.N.V NN AN.N.V NN N

NN.N Aoo.VNN. AN.o.V N. Ao.N V o. NN.N.V mm NN.N.V NN AN.N.V NN N

NN.N Aoo.VNe. Ao.N.V NN Am.o.V N. AN.N.V NN AN...V N. Am.o.V N. e

NN.N Aoo.VNN. AN.N.V mN Am.e V N Ao.m.V .N .N...V m. AN.e.V NN m

NN.N Aoo.VeN. AN.N.V 0N AN.N V N AN.N.V NN AN.N.V N. AN.N.V oN N

NN.N .oo.VNN. AN.N.V NN Am.N V N. AN.N.V NN Am.N V N. Ae.m.V N. .

NN.N Aoo.VNc. AN.0NV on ...N V N AN.N.V NN AN.e VfN An.N.V N. o Aaqu
M E a E z E a E a. E a E z .33...
aoN accoe o. ANN.NV m N N N chscsa

 

Daggem Bammmm

 

 

 

Avmsswpcoov mewvcmpm pummmsm an mdempm mmmno>¢ .m. manna

140

Table 20; Average Status by Future Orientation

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION

Average Pessimistic Status Quo Optimistic Total Row
Status (0) (1) (2)
N (%D N (%) N (%) N (fi)

>fl

 

 

 

(Low) 0 1510.7 56 40.0 69 49.3 140 100 1.39
1 1611.8 61 44.8 59 43.4 136 100 1.32

2 13 9.5 59 43.1 65 47.4 137 100 1.38

3 12 7.6 73 46.2 73 46.2 158 100 1.39

4 9 6.2 73 50.0 64 43.8 146 100 1.38

5 9 5.6 64 39.7 88 54.7 161 100 1.49

6 10 5.8 65 37.8 97 56.4 172 100 1.51

7 9 5.8 58 37.2 89 57.0 156 100 1.51

8 6 4.6 47 35.6 79 59.8 132 100 1.55
(High) 9 7 5.3 44 33.1 82 61.6 133 100 1.56
Total 106 ( 7.2) 600 (40.8) 765 (52.0) 1471(100) 1.45

 

 

 

0c1. i 3.71 4.30 4.81

2 I 30.84, at .18, e05>p) .01.

Table 211 Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness

 

romamssurss
Status (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total R_o_w

Inconsis. N (79 N (%) N (75) N (7‘) x

53 36.0 51 34.7 43 29.3 147 100 .93
61 38.9 66 42.0 30 19.1 157 100 .80
39 29.5 46 34.9 47 35.6 132 100 1.06
56 36.8 62 40.8 34 22.4 152 100 .86
37 25.1 70 47.6 40 27.2 147 100 1.02
54 34.4 62 39.5 41 26.1 157 100 .92
54 39.4 52 38.0 31 22.6 137 100 .83
50 29.1 75 43.6 47 27.3 172 100; .98

A
g
O

00-.) came-um...

43 26.4 ‘ 74' 45.4 46 28.2 163 100 1.02
(High) 9 59 39.9) 59 39.9 30 20.2 148 100 .80

 

Total 506 (33.5) 617 (40.8) 389 (25.7) 1512(100) .92
x2

 

 

 

 

. 30e3, d: - 18, e05)P) e025e

\‘1
n e e
s r e
K).
a c .
kl
1.1 a. #1
a. \11 a

141

Table 22: Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL ISOLATION

Status (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Hgy

Inconsis. N (7.) N (%) N (%) N (7.4) 1
(Low) 0 37 25.0 79 53.4 32 (21.6 148 100 .97
1 37 23.6 81 51.6 39 (24.8 157 100 1.01
2 30 22.6 71 53.4 32 24.0 133 100 1.02
3 34 22.1 89 57.8 31 20.1 154 100 .98
4 37 25.0 74 50.0 37 25.0 148 100 1.00
5 41 25.9 75 47.5 42 26.6 158 100 1.01
6 32 23.2 76 55.1 30 21.7 138 100 .99
7 32 18.5 104 60.1 37 21.4 173 100 1.03
8 44 27.0 94 57.7 25 15.3 163 100 .88
(High) 9 40 27.0 82 55.4 26 17.6 148 100 .91
Total 364 (23.9) 825 (54.3) 331 (21.8) 1520(100) .98

x2 - 15.96, a: - 18, .75>p> .50.
Table 23: Status Inconsistency by Normlessness
NOHMTHSSNHSS

Status (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total ng

Inconsis. N (76) N (76) N N (7.) x
(Low) 0 34 23.1 64 43.6) 49 33.3 147(100) 1.10
1 51 32.7 55 35.3 50 32.0 156 100 .99
2 34 26.2 44 33.8 52 40.0 130 100 1.14
3 28 18.6 68 45.0 55 36.4 151 100 1.18
5 .49 31.0 56 35.5 53 33.5 158 100 1.03
6 36 26.1 56 40.6 46 33.3 138 100 1.07
7 31 ‘709 68 3903 74 42e8 173 100 1e25
8 32 19.8 61 37.6 69 42.6 162 100 1.23
(High) 9 34 23.0 53 35.8 61 41.2 148 100 1.18
Total 356 (23.6) 587 (38.8) 568 (37.6) 1511(100) 1.14

 

 

x2 - 28.4, or - 18, .1)p .05.

\l

\1 1

142

.ON. ANANN. .NN s .3

a e '
NN NN NM

 

 

 

 

.N.N .oo.VeoN. .N.N.V N.N .N.NNV NNN AN.NNV NNN .N.N.V NNN .N.N V 4.. Hs.oe

N..N noo.VNN. .N.N.V NN no.NNV Nm Ae.omV Ne .N.N.V NN .N.N.V N. N AnN.NV

NN.N noo.VNN. Ao..NV em ...NNV NN .N.NNV NN Am.N.V NN .N.N V N N

NN.N .oo.VNN. .N.N.V NN .N.NNV Ne .N.NNV NN .N.N.V Nm .N.N V o. N

No.N .oo.VNN. AN.o.V N. .N.NNV Nm AN.NNV .N .N.0NV NN .N.N V N. N

c..N Aoo.VNN. ...N.V .N .N.NNV Nm AN..NV oN N..NNV NM AN.N V e. N

NN.N noo.VNe. .N.N.V NN .N.NNV Ne .o.emV 0N .N...V N. N..N V N e

NN.N .oo.VON. .N.N V m. NN.NNV NN .N.NNV Ne .o.N.V NN .N.N V N N

NN.N Aoo.VNN. .N.N.V N. .N.NNV NN .N.NNV NN .N.NNV NN .N.N V N N

NN.. Aoo.VNN. NN.N.V N. .N.NNV Nm .N.NNV NN .N..NV em .N.N.V N. .

N..N noo.VNe. AN.N.V NN Ao.eNV NN .N.NNV Ne .N.N.V NN AN.N V e. o AsoaV
M E a E a E a E z E z E z .3288
SON anooe N ANNHNV N N . o Aaqu unsc.m

nmmzmmfisNozummmmefimmeoa

 

 

 

 

mmosmmoassomlmmommmOHsosom Mp homepmwmsocsH mapspm .VN canoe .

143

 

 

 

 

NN.NsocV .NN. «naoN. ...N s be .NN.NN ... Ne
NN.N.V NNN .N.N V NN .N.N V NN .N.o N. .N.o V N. “0.. V N. Hcsca
Ao.N.V NN NN.N V .. .e.. V N No.0 V 0 No.0 V o Ae.. V N N AsmamV
N..NNV NN .N.N V N .N.N V N .N.. V N .N.o V . AN.. V N N
.N.N.V NN N..N V N .N.N V N No.0 V o AN.. V N NN.. V N N
NN.N.V NN .N.N V o. .N.o V . AN.. V N AN.o V . .N.N V N N
NN.NNV NN NN.N V N “N.N V 4 No.0 V o no.0 V o “N.o V . N
NN.N.V NN NN.N V N. Ao.N V N .o.o V o .N.o V . AN.o V . e
...NNV NN NN.N V N NN.N V e NN.o V . “N.o V . AN.o V . N
.N..NV NN NN.N V N Ao.N V e .N.N V N .N.N V N No.0 V N N
AN...V N. NN.N V e .N.N V N AN.o V . .N.. V N .N.o V . .

NN.N.V NN .N.N V .. Ao.N V N .N.. V N NN.o V . Ao.N V o 0 Asqu
E a E z E z E z E z E a .8888
N e N N . o AscaV anscsn

02H9249m BBHMMQM.

 

 

 

msaussvm «demean an homepagesoosH unseen .mm capes

144

 

 

 

 

NN.N .oo.Vo.N. NN.N.V NNN N..N V No. “N.N.V NNN NN.N.V NNN ...N.V N.N Ncsoe

oo.N Aoo.VNN. .N.N.V NN NN.N.V N. .N.N.V N. no.N.V NN .N.N.V N. N ANNNNV

0N.N .oo.VON. .N.N.V NN .N.N V N. NN.N.V NN .N.N.V NN AN.o.V N. N

0N.N Aoo.VNN. N..N.V NN AN.N V .. NN.N.V NN Ao.N.V .N .N.N.V NN N

0N.N Aoo.VNN. ...N.V N. NN.N V N AN..NV NN .N.N V N. .N.N.V NN N

NN.N Aoo.VNN. NN.N.V NN Ao.N V .. NN.N.V NN NN.N.V NN AN.N.V 0N N

NN.N Aoo.VNN. .N.N.V N. A..N V N. .N.N.V NN .N.N.V 0N .N.N.V NN N

ON.N Aoo.VNN. AN.N.V NN .N.N V N .N.N.V 0N .N.N.V NN .N.N.V NN N

0N.N Aoo.VNN. “N.N.V N. .N.N V N NN.N.V NN Ao.N.V 0N “N.N.V N. N

o..N Aoo.VNN. NN.N.V NN .N.N V o. NN.NNV NN NN.N.V NN NN.N.V NN .

0N.N Aoo.VNN. AN...V N. NN.N V N NN.N.V NN .N.N.V NN .N...V N. o .aqu
M. E z E z E a E z E z E a .3888.
aoN Nasoe o. ANN.NV N N N N n:.c.m

 

UZHQZdEm BZMmEmm

 

AnceszsooV mewcsspm pcomonm Mp NosONNNNSOOOH msvspm .mm manna

145

Table 261 Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION

Status Pessimistic Status Que Optimistic Total Row
Inconsis. (O) (1) (2)
N

N (96) N (9%) N (76) 3?

 

 

A

(Low) 0 12 8.6) 50 36.0 77 55.4 139 100 1.47
1 13 8.4 67 43.5 74 48.1 154 100 1.40
2 6 4.6 48 36.9 76 58.5 130 100 1.45
3 9 6.0 65 43.3 76 50.7 150 100 1.45
4 10 6.8 55 37.7 81 55.5 146 100 1.49
5 9 5.8 63 40.9 82 53.3 154 100 1.47
6 8 5.9 51 37.8 76 56.3 135 100 1.50
7 14 8.3 66 39.3 88 52.4 168 100 1.44
8 15 9.7 77 49.7 63 40.6 155 100 1.31
(High) 9 10 7.2 58 41.4 72 51.4 140 100 1.44

 

Total 106 ( 7.2) 600 (40.8) 765 (42.0) 1471(100) 1.45

 

 

 

 

x2 . 16.70, or -18, .75)p 3.50.

utilizing controls. As background, then, we shall use the full
ten-value range Of Status Inconsistency in examining these
relationships.

Only one Of these tables contains a statistically significant
relationship (Table 21), and none contain a patterning of rela-
tionships which would allow any theoretical interpretation.
There are few differences in the row means as one inspects the
various levels of SI. Generally, it would appear that SI has
little effect upon alienation. ‘We would argue, however, that
this is due to the confounding effect Of Average Status, and
that in the tables relating SI to alienation, while controlling

for the effect of AS, a significant relationship will obtain.

Relationship Of Social Mebility to Dependent Variables

Tables 27-32 detail the relationship Of Social Mobility to
alienation, and to Present Standing and Future Orientation. An

146

Table 27: Social Mobility by Powerlessness

 

 

 

 

POWERLESSNESS
Social (low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total 32w
Mobility N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) X
Down 52 (43.0) 48 (39.7) 21 (17.3) 121 (100) .74
Stable 294 (30.9) 392 (41.2) 266 (27.9) 952 (100) .97
Up 127 (38.6) 132 (40.1) 70 (21.3) 329 (100) .83
Total 473 (33.7) 573 (40.8) 357 (25.5) 1402 (100) .92

 

 

x? . 6.08, df - 4, .25) p) .10.

Table 28: Social Mobility by Social Isolation

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL ISOLATION
Social (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total 29w
Mobility N (76) N (73) N (91») N (’4‘) X
Down 28 (23.0) 73 (59.8) 21 (17.2) 122 (100) .94
Stable 226 (23.6) 523 (54.6) 209 (21.8) 958 (100) .98
Up 91 (27.7) 160 (48.6) 78 (23.7) 329 (100) .96
Total 345 (24.5) 756 (53.7) 308 (21.8) 1409 (100) .97

 

x2 - 6.08, or - 4, .25>p 5.10.

Table 291 Social Mobility by Normlessness

 

 

 

 

NORMLESSNESS
Social (low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total ng
Nobility N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) x
Down 29 (24.0) 54 (44.6) 38 (31.4) 121 (100) 1.07
Stable 205 (21.5) 366 (38.4) 382 (40.1) 953 (100) 1.19
Up 101 (30.7) 127 (38.6) 101 (30.7) 329 (100) 1.00
Total 335 (23.9) 547 (39.0) 521 (37.1) 1403 (100) 1.13

 

 

x2 .. 16.7, df - 4, .OOS)p).OO1.

147

Q

..oo. ANANoo. .N .. ..e .NN.NN .. Ne

 

 

 

 

oN.N Aoo.V NNN. NN.N.V NN. NN.NNV NNN A..NNV NNN .N.N.V .NN NN.N V No. fleece
NN.N Aoo.V NNN .N.N V NN NN.NNV NN No..NV No. “N..NV NN .N.N V NN as
NN.N Aoo.V NNN NN.N.V NN. NN.NNV .NN .N.NNV oNN ...N.V .N. NN.N V oN cancen
No.N .oo.V oN. .N.o.V N. NN.NNV NN .N.NNV 0N .N.NNV NN AN.N V .. neon
M E a E e E e E e E e E a has;
pom Naece N ANN.NV N N . 0 Asqu NsNoom
mmazequnmozlnmszmmnqmmsoa

 

 

 

 

mmeemueNshOZTOueenueNaesem he MPNNNnoa Neuoom .om canoe

148

.NN. AN SN. .8 u we .N.NN .. Na

 

.oo.V NN.N.V NN.NV NN.N.V NN.N.V .N.N.V NN.N.V NN.NV .N.NV .N.oV AN.oV AN.oV
NN.N ooN. NoN .o. NNN N.N NoN NNN NN NN o. .. N. fleece

 

.oo.V Ao.N.V NN.NV ANN N.V .NN N.V NN.N.V .N.N.V NN.NV AN. NNV ANN oV AN. .oV .N.oV
No.N NNN NN .N NN . as

Aoo.V .N.N.V ...NV NN. N.V .N. N.V NN. N.V .N. N.V Ac. NV NN.NV AN. oV “ON .V A...V

 

 

 

 

NN.N oNN NN. NN NN. NN. NN. NN. NN NN N o. cashew
.oo.V AN...V NN.NV NN.N.V NN.N.V ...N.V NN.NNV AN.oV NN..V Ao.oV .N.oV .N..V
NN.N .N. N. N. N. NN N. .N . N o . N neon
M E e E2 rm: EN EN EN E2 E2 Es Es En E e 3:32.
son fleece o. N N N N N N N N . o Nc.oom
ANNNNV oanzNNm Nznmnmm .aqu

 

 

msNNsseN escnchm an N..NNpos Hc.oom ..N canoe

149
Table 32: Social Mobility by Future Orientation

 

 

 

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION
Social (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total ng
Nobility N (70) N 0%) N (%) N (%> x
Down 9 7.4 62 é51.3 so é41.3) 121 100) 1.34
Stable 71 7.7 369 39.9 485 52.4; 925 100) 1.45
Up 19 6.0 127 (39.9 172 (54.1 318 100) 1.48
Total 99 (7.3) 558 (40.9) 707 (51.8) 1364 (100) 1.45

 

 

 

 

x2 .- 7.37, at - 4, .05>p> .10.
inspection of these tables reveals that SM is significantly
related to P (Table 27), N (Table 29) and to their combination
PN (Table 30), but not to SOI (Table 28). Those statistics
which are significant have probabilities of .005 or less.

In these three significant tables, it would appear that the
"Stable" group is in all cases the most alienated, in that this
group has the highest row means-or mean alienation. And, in
all cases, there is less difference between the "Up" and "Down"
groups than between the "Stables” and any other group. This
finding partially supports those of Meier and Bell in that the
"Up" SM group is less alienated than the "Stable" group. Our
finding that the "Stable" group is the most alienated, however,
contradicts Meier and Bell's findings.2

Another interpretation of this set of tables, though, is that
Average Status is confounding the relationship of Social Mobility
to alienation. That is, from Table 2 we note that the "Stable"
group had the lowest AS, and the "Up" SM group has the highest
status. These notions, coupled with the previous finding of a

relationship between AS and alienation, may account for the

150

relationship of Social Mbbility to alienation. If this is the
case, then we should expect that this relationship will dis-
appear when a control for AS is introduced into the relationship
of SM and alienation.

We would also comment on the lack of a relationship between
Social Isolation and Social Mobility. If this relationship is,
in fact, confounded by AS, then we may be seeing again the lack
of a relationship between AS and SOI.

Tables 31 and 32 illustrate the relationship between SM, and
PS and F0 (or better, the lack of a relationship because neither
of these tables develops a significant chi square. With respect
to Table 31, however, we might notice that the PS means for each
category of SM do, in fact, correspond to the order which would
have been predicted by referring to the AS mean for each SM
group. That is, the ”Stable" group has the lowest AS mean and
the lowest PS mean; and the "Up" SM group has the highest AS
mean and the highest PS mean. With respect to Table 32, however,
this is not the case-the F0 means do.ggt_folloW’the order that
would have been predicted by referring to AS means.

In summary, it would appear that SM is related to alienation,
but that this relationship may be accounted for by reference to
the AS contamination of each level or category of SM. If this
is in fact true, then these relationships would disappear when
controlled for AS; if there is any true relationship of SM to
alienation, then it should remain when the AS control is intro-

ducedo

151
Second Order Controlled Relationships

Average Status Relationships

 

In this section, we shall examine the relationship of Average
Status to alienation, etc., while controlling for Social Mobility
and Status Inconsistency. In these controls, as well as the
remaining controls inthis chapter, the values of AS and SI are
collapsed from the ten-value range presented in previous tables,
to five- and three-value ranges, respectively. Again, this is
done in order to keep the number of cells in the over-all
tables within an interpretable range, and also to assure suf-
ficient N in each cell to allow legitimate interpretation.
Tables 33-38 describe the relationship of AS to the dependent
variables while controlling for SM, and Tables 39-44 describe
the relationship of AS to the dependent variables while
controlling for SI.

Tables 33, 35 and 36 indicate that the original relationship
of AS to P, N and PN is not disrupted by the control for SM.

In each case, there is a generally inverse linear regression

of alienation means (row means) on A5, for each level of SM.
The only consistent exception to this pattern occurs in the
"Up" control category, where at the second level of AS, the row
mean is higher than one would expect-there is an increase in
the mean rather than a decrease consistent with the general
linear regression. we would take these patterns as confirming
a relationship between AS and alienation.

Table 34 documents the lack of a relationship between AS and

Social Isolation. This corresponds to the original finding in

152

Table 33: Average Status by Powerlessness at Each Level
of Social Mobility

 

Social

POWERLESSNESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mobility Average (101120 1 (High) 2 Total R21!
Control Status N %) N (%) N (9‘) N (7°) X
(Lo) 0 4 30.8 6 46.1 3 23.1 13 100) .92
1 12 40.0 11 36.7 7 23.3 30 100g .83
Down 2 14 42.4 14 42.4 5 15.2 33 100 .73
3 17 50.0 12 35.3; 5E14.7 34 100; .65
(Hi) 4 5 45.5 5 45.5 1 9.1 11 100 .64
(Lo) 0 51E21.8 76 32.5; 107 45.7 234 100 1.24
1 60 27.4 103 47.0 56 25.6 219 100 .98
Stable 2 61 32.6 81 43.3 45 24.1 187 100 .91
3 67 38.1 69 39.2 40 22.7 176 100 .85
(Hi) 4 55 40.4 63 46.3 18 13.3 136 100 .73
(Lo) 0 3 27.3 5 45.4 3 27.3 11 100) 1.00
1 6 20.0 14 46.7 10 33.3 30 100 1.13
Up 2 19 27.5 33 47.8 17 24.7 69 100 .97
3 48 45.3 38 35.8 20 18.9 106 100 .74
(Hi) 4 51 45.1 42 37.2 20 17.7 113 100 .73
Table 34: Average Status by Social Isolation at Each Level
of Social Mobility
Social ( ) socle ISOLATI?N )
Mobility Average me 0 1 High 2 Total 3gp
Control Status N (70 N N (9%) N (3%) x
(Lo) 0 3 23.1 753. 8 3 23.1 13 100 1.00
1 4 12.9167 7 6 19.4 31 100 1.06
Down 2 10 30.3 957 6 4 12.1 33 100 .82
3 8 25.5161.8 5 14.7 34 100 .91
(Hi) 4 . 3 27.3545 4 3 27.3 11 100 1.00
(Lo) 0 36 15.2 137 58. 3) 62 26.4) 235 100 1.11
1 51 23.1 122 55. 2 48 21.7 221 100 .99
Stable 2 57 30.3148.4 40 21.3 188 100 .91
3 49 27.7 252.0 36 20.3 177 100 .93
(H1) 4 33 24.1159.1 23 16.8 137 100 .93
(Lo) 0 32 7.3 6 54.5 2 18.2 11 100 .91
1 103 3.3 653 3 4 13.4 30 100 .80
Up 2 1217.4 652.2 21 30.4 69 100 1.13
3 292 “.4? b§45 3; 29 27.3 106 100; 1.00
(Hi) 4 373 2.7 447 8 22 19.5 113 100 .87

 

 

 

 

 

153

 

 

 

mm. 00. m.. n.0m 0m e.mv me ..0m em 0 ..mv
mm. 00. 00. 0.mm em 0.0m mm 0.0e me n
N... 00. mm ...m 0m 0.0m mw ..0m 0. m 00
>0.. 00. on e.gn p. m.mm 0. 0.0. m .
00.. 00. .. n.0m e n.0m e v..~ m 0 .600
mm. 00. pm. N..N mm ..0e 00 ..mm we 0 Aemv
em. 00. ... ...N me 0.0m mm m.mm mm m
m... 00. 00. 0.0m 00 e..e .. 0.- .e N napepm
mm.. 00. .NN 0.0e mm m.mm 0. 0.0. we .
mm.. 00. «mm ..mm .m. 0.mm 0. m.. .. o .600
00.. 00. .. m..m m e.me m m..m m e Aemv
00.. 00. em e.m~ 0. m..e e. «.mm 0. m
00.. 00. mm N..N . 0.0m 0. m.em 0 N neon
.m. 00. .m ..0m m. ..0m m. 0.N~ . .
00.. 00. m. 0.0m 0 ...e m «.0 . 0 .600
m E z 03 e g z E 2 8:3 33:8
gem fleece m Aemfimv . 0 .3800 emceeee a»...pes
He.eem
unonmmOHSHOz

 

 

 

 

 

hpaaapos Hofioom mo Hoboq noun pd uncannoaanoz hp usvdpm owdnobq .mn canoe

154

 

 

 

00.. .00. 0.. ...N 0 0.0N 00 N..0 Ne 0.0N .N ..m .. e “.00
0... 00. 00. 0.0 0 0.0N 0N 0.00 00 0..N 0N 0.N. 0. 0
NN.N 00. 00 ..0 0 ..00 .N ..0N 0. v... N. ..0 0 N 00
.0.N 00. 00 0.00 0. A0.0¢ N. 0.0. 0 0.0. 0 0.0 . .
00.N 00.V .. .0.0. N .0000 e 0.00 e 0.0 0 ..m . 0 .600
.0.. M00. 00. ..0 0 ..0. 0N 0.00 00 0.0N 00 0.0 N. e ..00
00.. 00. 0.. 0.. 0. 0..N 00 0.00 0. 0..N 00 ..0 0. 0
NN.N 00. 00. 0.0. 0N 0.0N 00 0.00 00 0... N0 0.. 0. N 6.00.0
0N.N 00. 0.N 0.0. «0 0.0N .0 0.N0 .. 0... 00 0.0 0. .
N0.N 00. .0N m.N0 0. 0.00 0. 0.0N 00 0.0. 0N ... 0 0 .600
00.N 00. .. ..m . .0..N 0 0..N 0 0.00 e 0.0 0 0 ..00
m... 00. 00 0.0 0 ..0. m 0.00 0. 0.0N 0 ..0. m 0
.m.. 00. 00 ..m 0 N.0. 0 «.Ne e. 0.00 0. 0.0 . N 0560
o..N 00. 00 ..0. 0 ..0N 0 N.0N . ..0. 0 ..0. 0 .
.0.N 00. N. 0.0 . 0.00 . 0.0N 0 0.0 . 0.0 0 0 .600
N 0 Z 0 z 0 Z 0 Z 0 z o z mflvdam HOHuhoo
000 meoe w.~00.0v ..00 AEN “.0 . .mVAeeAV omene>< 00.00062
00.660

 

mmMmeHHEMOZIMmHmeQHmmBDm

 

 

 

 

09.3302 Hufioom Ho 02.3 noum pd mmocmmoasnohelmmonnmoanokom .00. magnum omunobd .mm 000.09

Table 371 Average Status by Present Standing

155

at Each Level of Social Mobility*

 

 

 

Social MObility Average Mean
Control Status Present Standing

(Lo) 0 5.77

1 6.61

Down 2 6.63

3 7.24

(Hi) 4 7.64

(La) 0 6.52

1 6.57

Stable 2 6.67

. 3 7-19

(Hi) 4 7.13

(Lo) 0 6.73

1 6.40

Up 2 7.10

3 7.17

(Hi) 4 7.40

 

 

 

 

*
Because of the extreme length of the full table, only the
means are presented here.

Table 381 Average Status by Future Orientation at Each Level

of Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

Social FUTURE ORIENTATION
Mobility Average Pessimistic Status Optimistic Total Row
Control Status (0) Quoé1g (2) __
N (76) N 76 N (96) N (76) J!
(Lo) 0 7.7 8 61.5) 4 30.8 13 100 1.23
1 16.1 12 38.7 14 45.2 31 100 1.29
Down 2 6.2 19 59.4 11 34.4 32 100 1.28
3 2.9 19 55.9 14 41.2 34 100 1.38
(Hi) 4 0.0 4 36.4 7 63.6 11 100 1.64
(Lo) 0 10.7 90 40.2 110(49.1) 224 100)1.38
1 8.9 96 45.1 98 46.0 213 100 1.37
Stable 2 4.9 79 42.9 96 52.2 184 100 1.47
3 7.0 59 34.3 101 58.7 172 100 1.52
(Hi) 4 5.3 45 34.1 80 60.6 1132 100 1.55
(Lo) 0 0.0 7 70.0 3 30.0 10 100 1.30
1 3.9 14 53.8 11 42.3 26 100 1.38
3 5.7 41 38.7 59 55.6 106 100 1.50
(Hi) 4 5.4) 36 32.4 69 62.2 111 100 1.57

 

 

 

156

Table 391 Average Status by Pewerlessness at Each Level
of Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

St POWERLESSNESS
atus
Inconsis. Average (Law)0 W1 (High) 2 Total ng
Control Status N (70) N (%) 1106) x
0 22 16.8 030. 5 69 52.7 131 100 1.36
1 10 31.2 546.9 7 21.9 32 100 .91
(low) 2 16 42.1 36. 8 8 21.1 38 100 .79
0 3 37 41.1 640. 0 17 18.9 90 100 .78
4 68 46.9 840. 0 19 13.1 145 100 .66
0 23 30.7 925 3 33 44.0 75 100 1.13
1 32 25.8 645 2 36 29.0 124 100 1.03
1 2 48 29.8 049- 7 33 20.5 161 100 .91
3 61 43.3934 7 31 22.0 141 100 .79
4 37 40.2 245- 7 13 14.1 92 100 .74
0 18 21.9 36 43.9 28 34.2 82 100 1.12
1 41 27.3 70 46.7 39 26.0 150 100 .99
(High) 2 36 31.0 50 43.1 30 25.9 116 100 .95
2 3 45 44.6 38 37.6 18 17.8 101 100 .73
4 12 35.3 14 41.2 8 23.5 34 100 .88

 

 

 

Table 40: Average Status by Social Isolation at Each Level
of Status Inconsistency

SOCIAL ISOLATION

(Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Row
N (70 N (90 N (7") N(%) X

40 30.3

 

    
  

Status
Inconsis.
Control

      

    

        

132 100 1.16

7 21.915 46.9 10 31.2 32 100 1.09
(Low) 10 26.3 257.9 6 15.8 38 100 .89
0 31 34.4 43 47. 8 16 17.8 90 100 .83

31 21.2 146 100 .96

56 6 20 26.36100
57. 27 21.4 126 100 1. 00
49. 40 24.7 162 100 .99
E4 g ; 1422100; .99
5 100 .91
2100 .99

.97

.91

.96

.76

100
100
100
4100

151
116

(High)
2 101

 

A
#UN-IO #WN-to #041me
«hm-b
10.11»
MAM/WWW
—b
a.)
O O O
4:...
WWWVWVW
(Dal-P-
omw

 

 

 

 

157

 

 

 

Pm. Aoow 4m Am.mmv m 0.0mv a, m.mmv a 4

6m. Moor we? >.wm mm m.mm pm P.4m mm m m

mc.. 00? ma? r.mm m4 m.o¢ av 0.0m mm m Asmflmv

mm.v Moor In, 0.64 45 e.>m on m.mr cm a

mv.P 00? mm m.mm m4 m.om mm o.Fr m 0

am. oowv mm m.NNW Fm m.r¢ mm m.mmw mm 8

mm. 004 m4? m.~m mm n.44 mm 0.4m 44 m

NP.F 00. cm. 4.6mM mm m.mv ow «.NNM mm N F

mm.c 004 mm. 8.86 mm m.~m we m.mF mm a

Pm.v cop fir m.wm m4 w.~m mm v.m v o

um. 00? 84? 8.4m mm m.~v mm F.mu .8 8

mp. cow om o.om m? m.~m 4m m.~¢ mm m 0

mm. co, mm m.mm or m.mm e. m.mm v? m Agogv

4m. ooFW Pm Mm.mmw m o.mm m m.mv 4. F

No.4 00. mm? >..m m» m.wm pm 6.6 V N? o

m E 2 g a g z 93 z 8436 3:68

30m Hmpoe m hamfimv F o ABQHV omdno>d .mfimsoosH
mspupm

mmmzmmmqsmoz

 

 

 

 

 

hosopmwmcoosH unpopm mo Hoboq soda as mmosmmoasnoz an mapdwm omsuo>4 ..w canoe

158

 

 

 

Fm.F ooFW4m m.m F m.mm m N.F4 4F n.4m a Am.m m 4
mm.F ooF FoF m.m oF m.mF 4F 4.mm mm F.m~ on m.m m m m
NN.N ooF mFF o.mF mF 4.mm 4m 4.Fm mm m.mF Fm 4.4 m N Asmfimv
mm.m 00F 00F 0.0m on o.mm m4 4.4m 44 c.4F 4N 4.4 oF F
mm.m ooF mm N.4m mm 4.mm FN 4.Fm 4m «.4 4 4.m m o
mm.F ooF mm m.4 4 4.4m mm 4.mm on «.NN mm o.~F FF 4
mm.F ooF F4F 4.m w n.4m pm 4.4m 4m 4.mF 4m m.m 4F 4
4m.m 00F 04F 4.4F mm 4.4m mm m.Fm om F.wF mm 4.m m N F
mm.m ooF 4NF m.mF mF n.mm 44 4.44 4m m.mF mF m.4 4 F
OF.N 00F 44 o.mm 4F 4.4m mm 0.4m om m.oF m 4.F F o
44.F ooF m4F 4.m m P.0N cm F.m4 F4 «.4m mm 4.4 FF 4
F~.F ooF om n.4 4 o.om mF 4.4m Fm 4.4m mm 4.4F mF m o
mm.F 00F 44 m.m m 4.Fm NF 4.4m FF o.Fm m «.mF m N ésQHV
om.F ooF Fm m.NF 4 m.mF 4 4.44 NF m.mm 4 m.~F 4 F
mm.m ooF FNF 4.mm m4 F.4m N4 F.mF mm o.FF 4F A4.N m o

m 33 2 as 2 as 4 as 4 44v 2 443 z .334. 8.348
30m Hayes 4 Asmflmv m w w o Agoqv omdnobd .mamsoocH

mspupm
mmmzwmmaamoznmmmzmmmqmmsom

 

 

 

hosopmfimsoosH nspwpm mo Ho>on scum pd moosmmoHaHoZImmosunoanotpm hp napopm omdnobd .Nv canoe

 

159

Table 431 Average Status by Present Standing
at all Levels of Status Inconsistency

 

Status Inconsis.
Control

Average

Mean

Status PRESENT STANDING

 

”

 

(Low) 0

(High) 2

#wm-so #UJN-fio #UN-‘O

6.44
6.03
6.71
7.18
7.21

6.37
6.54
6.80
7.16
6.85

6.73
6.54
6.90
6.72
7.44

 

 

 

 

Table 44: Average Status by Future Orientation at Each Level

of Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION

Status Average Pessimistic Status Optimistic Total Row
Inconsis. Status (0) QuoE1g (2) ._
Control N (%) N 94 N (7.) N(%) x

0 16 12.7) 51%40.5 59(46.8 126 100; 1.34

1 2 6.7 13 43.3 15 50.0 39 100 1.43

(Low) 2 1 2.61 19 50.0 18 47.4 38 100) 1.45

0 3 5 5.7 27530.7 56 63.6 88 100; 1.58

4 7 5.0) 55 39.0 79 56.0 141 100 1.51

0 6g 8.3) 32(44 5) 34(47.2) 72(100) 1.39

1 9 7'31 53é43.1; 61149.6; 123E100? 1.42

1 2 9 5.7 66 41.5 84 52.8 159 100 1.47

3 8E 5.7g 60é42.9; 72é51.43 140E1003 1.46

4 4 4.4 23 25 3 64 70.3 91 100 1.66

o 9 11.5 34(43. 6 35 44.9) 78 100) 1.33

1 14 9.9 66 £46. 5 62 43.6 142 100 1.34

(High) 2 8 7.3 52 47 3 50 45.4: 110 100; 1.38

2 3 6 6.0 364 36. 0 58 58.0 100 100 1.52

4 2( 6.1) 13(39 4) 18(54.5) 33(100) 1.48

 

160
Table 16, and again indicates the possible separability of SOI

as a component of alienation, with respect to AS.

Table 37 depicts the relationship of AS and Present Standing.
In this table, we have presented only the mean PS for each AS
level, at each level of SM, rather than the full eleven-value
PS range. This was done because the original table with all
eleven values contained 154 cells, and.with some cells contain-
ing few or no N, making the full table of doubtful value. In
any case, inspection of the means allows one to make sufficient
interpretations. Inspection of these means reveals patterns
which are similar to those presented in Table 19. Generally,
there is an increase in PS means with each increase in AS
level, at each level of SM. The only exception occurs at the
second AS level in the "Up" SM category, where the PS mean
dr0ps below that which one would have expected based upon the
general linear increase. Generally, the relationships are
much more "linear" than in the original table.

Table 38 characterizes the relationship between AS and
Future Orientation. Again, there is a generally linear rela-
tionship, with each AS level having a higher F0 mean, and a
higher percentage of persons in the "Optimistic" category than
any lower AS level. This relationship is present at each level
of the SM.control. we would take this as evidence that AS is
related to F0, irrespective of any effect that SM might have
upon F0.

Tables 39, 41 and 42 indicate that AS is related.to P, N and

PN, at each level of control for Status Inconsistency. Again,

161

each level of AS has a lower alienation mean than the next higher
AS level, and the inverse linear relationship remains. Table 40
indicates that there is a general inverse linear regression for
SOI, but the magnitude of the differences between the various SOI
means are very small, which would lead us to state that again,
there is no relationship between AS and SOI.

Table 43 indicates that AS is related to PS, at each level of
control for SI. Again, the relationship is linear and direct.
The only exceptions are at the high and low consistency levels,
where the relationship is slightly curvilinear, with the lowest
AS level having a higher PS mean than the next highest AS level.
Given the general linearity of the rest of the PS means, however,
we would interpret this as a linear relationship.

Table 44 indicates a direct relationship between A8 and F0,
at each level of SI. Generally, there are higher percentages
of persons in the "Optimistic" category at the higher AS levels,
than at the lower AS levels, at each level of SI. We would
interpret this to mean that AS is related to F0, irrespective
of any influence that SI might exert.

In summary, it would appear that Average Status is consistently
related to alienation, as indexed by the alienation sub-scales—-
as well as by Present Standing and Future 0rientation—-and that
the effect of SI and SM on AS is little or none. we would also
note that 501 seems to be somewhat independent index of aliena-
tion, at least as far as AS is concerned. It may be that SOI

indexes a form of alienation that is characteristic of some other

more or less "specialized" population, but it is definitely not

r,

 

162

characteristic of high or low Average Status.

We might note that the control for SM—-at least at the "Up"
category——tends to produce a deflection in the linear regression
of alienation means at the second, or lower-middle, status level.
This is also the level at which Status Inconsistency "peaks" in
its relationship to Average Status, so that perhaps the Social
Mobility control allows SI to exert its effect in selected places
upon the AS scale. This may be borne out in examining later
tables depicting the relationship of SI to alienation, while

controlling for AS and SM simultaneously.

Status Inconsistency Relationships

 

Tables 45—50 characterize the relationship of SI to alienation,
at each level of SM. An inspection of these tables reveals,
briefly, that there is no consistent pattern, and therefore,
absolutely no relationship between SI and alienation. The only
possible exception is the Table 48, where a linear, direct rela-
tionship between SI and PN appears. Examination of Tables 45 and
47 (for P and N, separately), however, reveals that neither of
these component tables indicate a linear relationship; further,
they appear to create an impression of linearity due to mutual
canceling out of differences. That is, when Tables 45 and 47—-
which make up Table 48—-are taken separately, they indicate no
consistent relationship; when they are fused as they are in
Table 48, it would appear that they spuriously create an impres-
sion of linearity. we would argue that all three tables must

have a consistent linear pattern to constitute "proof" of a

Table

Social
Eobilit
Control

I!

Ibwn

Stable

W

Tabl

80c1
1101211
Cont:

DQWI

Stab:

163

Table 451 Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness at Each Level
of Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

POWERLESSNESS
Social
Mobility Status (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total ng
Control Inconsis. N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) X
(Lo) 0 15 44.1 17 50.0 2 5.9 34 100 .62
Down 1 27 51.9 16 30.8 9 17.3 52 100 .65
(Hi) 2 10 28.5 15 42.9 10 28.6 35 100 1.00
(Lo) 0 95 33.7) 100 35.5 87 30.8 282 100) .97
Stable 1 106 29.0) 163 44.7 96 26.3 365 100; .97
(Hi) 2 93 30.5 129 42.3 83 27.2 305 100 .97
(Lo) 0 33 41.8 32 40.5 14 17.7 79 100) .76
Up 1 49 39.2 45 36.0 31 24.8 125 100; .86
(Hi) 2 45 36.0 55 44.0 25 20.0 125 100 .84

 

 

 

Table 46: Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation at Each Level
of Social Mobility

 

 

 

Social SOCIAL ISOLATION
Mobility Status (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total ‘Bpw
Control Inconsis. N (93) N (7%) N W?) N X
(Lo) 0 9 26.5 20 58.8 5 14.7 34 100 .88
Down 1 12 22.6 29 54.7 12 22.7 53 100 1.00
(Hi) 2 7 20.0 24 68.6 4 11.4 35 100 .91
(Lo) 0 68 23.9 144 50.7 72 25.4 284 100 1.01
Stable 1 89 24.2 195 53.0 84 22.8 368 100 .99
(Hi) 2 69 22.6 184 60.1 53 17.3 306 100 .95
(Lo) 0 22 27.8 39 49.4 18 22.8 79 100 .95
Up 1 32 25.6 60 48.0 33 26.4 125 100 1.01
(Hi) 2 37 29.6 61 48.8 27 21.6 125 100 .92

 

 

 

soaaanos Hoaoom so Ho>oq some so mmocomoassoz be bozoFmchoosH asaosm amt oases

164

 

 

 

No.F Foon mNF A4.mmV N4 FN.mmv 44 AN.FmV mm N Famv
mm. Foon mNF AN.NNV 44 F4.F4v Nm F4.mNV Fm F as
am. Foon ma AF.va mN AN.mmV Fm A~.F4v mN o Foqv
Nm.F Foon mom AN.~4V 44F A4.44v 4FF F4.va 44 N FFmv
NF.F Foon 444 F4.mmV F4F Fm.mmV 44F Am.FNv ow F ospaFm
ao.F FooFV FmN Fm.4mv 4m F4.~mV 40F Am.4NV m» o Fonv
40.F Foon mm F4.NNV oF F4.m4v 4F FN.NNV m N Famv
NF.F FooFV Nm A4.4MV NF Fm.N4v NN FF.va NF F asap
mo.F Foon 4m F4.va oF AF.44V mF Am.4NV m o Foqv
m as a S a S a as a .3384 2.28
36m Haaoa N Aswamv F o Agony asFaFm A sPFMFnos
as com

 

mmmzmmmnsmoz

 

 

 

 

hpfiafinoz aswoom no Ho>oq seem as unosuuoaanoz hp hosopmwmsoosH nspupm .>¢ canoe

 

huwdflnofi Hsfioom ho Herod «Foam 90 mmmcmm®HEH021mm02mmmfihmkonw Nan koflmpmflmmoonflu mswmfim. um“. mNnmau

165

 

 

 

mo.N FooFV 4NF Fo.NFV 4F Ao.4NV 44 FN.FNV 4m A4.NNV 4N F4.oFV «F N FFmV
mo.N FooFV mNF A4.m V F “4.44V m4 F4.mNV Fm Fo.ONV 4N F4.oFV 4F F a:
4m.F FooFV NF F4.m V m Fm.mNV 4N FN.mmV Fm AF.4NV NF A4.F V 4 o FogV
4m.N FooFV 4cm A4.mFV 04 Ao.mNV 4F AN.N4V mm “4.FFV mm F4.m V FF N AamV
NN.N AooFV 44m Ao.4FV Fm FF.FNV FoF Fo.4mV FmF Fm.FFV m4 Ao.m V 4F F onaFm
FF.N FooFV mFN A4.4FV 44 Fm.NNV 44 A4.NmV Fm AF.mFV mm Fo.m V 4N o AQNV
mN.N FooFV mm Fm.4FV m Am.NNV 4 Fo.04V 4F AF.FFV 4 FF.4 V N N FFmV
oo.N FooFV F4 F4.FFV 4 Am.FNV FF F4.mmV FF F4.FNV FF A4.FFV 4 F neon
44.F FooFV 4m Fm.m V N Fm.4NV m Fm.4NV m Fm.NmV FF F4.4 V m o FonV
44 44V 2 $3 a 44V 2 FeV 2 as 4 FeV zmlmataooshw F9348
tom FaFoe 4 FsNFmV m N F o AsoaV asaapm sFaFFpos
mmmzmmsqsmoznmmmammmqmmaom 7 Hoaoom

 

 

 

 

 

hpaflpos stoom Mo H243 soon as noosmnoHaHozlunosuuoHsotom ho. honopnansoofi” napsvm .24 39.49

H -l

166

Table 49: Status Inconsistency by Present Standing
at Each Level of Social Mobility

 

 

 

Social Mobility Status Mean
Control Inconsis. PRESENT STANDING

(Lo) 0 7.09

Down 1 6051

(Hi) 2 6.94

(Lo) 0 6.76

Stable 1 6.72

(Hi) 2 6.84

U4)0 7J6

Up 1 7.14

(Hi) 2 6.82

 

 

 

 

Table 50: Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation
at Each Level of Social Mobility

 

 

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION
Social Status Pessimistic Status Optimistic Total Row
Nobility Inconsis. (0) Quo g (2) ._
Control N (%) N V N (%) N C%) X
(Lo) 0 1( 2.9) . 19(55.9) 14(41.2) 34(100) 1.38
Down 1 2( 3.8) 27(50.9) 24(45.3) 53(100) 1.42
(Hi) 2 6(17.6) 16(47.1) 12(35.3) 34(100) 1.18
(Lo) 0 23( 8.4) 106(39.0) 143(52.6) 272(100) 1.44
Stable 1 26( 7.3) 139(38.8) 193(53.9) 358(100) 1.47
(Hi) 2 22( 7.5) 124(42.o) 149(5o.5) 295(100) 1.43
(Lo) 0 3( 3.9) 26(38.3) 49(62.8) 78(100) 1.59
Up 1 7( 5.7) 50(41.0) 65(53.3) 122(100) 1.48
(Hi) 2 9( 7.6) .51(43.2) 58(49.2) 118(100) 1.42

 

 

 

.a
7 n
T e

.2

and

I

mus

167

relationship. And they do not.

Tables 51—56 detail the relationship of SI to alienation,
when controlling for AS. According to our original hypotheses,
AS confounds the expected relationship of SI to alienation.
Therefore, in this set of tables, there should be a relationship
between SI and alienation. But, as with the previous tables,
there are no indications whatsoever of a relationship. An
inspection of the row means for each level of SI, at each control
level of AS, reveals no consistent patterning which can be taken
as evidence for the existence of a relationship. We are forced
to conclude, then, that there is no relationship between SI and
alienation.

In summary, and at least for the first order controls, we
must reject our original hypotheses of significant differences
between various levels of Status Inconsistency with respect to
alienation. There appear to be few, if any differences. Control-
ling for the effect of AS upon SI does not produce the expected
relationship, and, therefore, we conclude that SI has no effect

on alienation.

Social Mobility Relationships

 

Tables 57-62 detail the relationship of SM to alienation,
while controlling for the effect of SI; and Tables 63—68 detail
the relationship of SM t0 alienation while controlling for the
effect of AS. An inspection of Tables 57, 59 and 60 reveals

that——in 8 of 9 cases-it is the "Stable" group which has the

highest level of alienation. This finding, of course, may be

mapmpm emanates mo 44:64 seem Fm mmtzmmthqacn :4 5.11414 11111 4 1.4.1. it 1:15

168

 

 

 

44. 44F 44 4.4N 4 N.F4W 4F 4.44 NF N 444V

4F. ooF N4 F.4F 4F F.44 N4 N.o4 F4 F 4.FsmNmV

44. 44F 44F F.4F 4F o.o4V 44 4.44 44 o Aqu

4F. ooFW F4F 4.FF 4F 4.F4W 44 4.44 44 N FNNV

4F. ooF F4F o.NN F4 F.44 44 4.44 F4 F 4

4F. ooFV om 4.4F FF o.o4V 44 F.F4 F4 0 Aqu

4a. ooF 4FF N.FN o4 F.44 on o.F4 44 N FNNV

Fm. ooF F4F m.oN 44 F.44 44 4.4N 44 F N

4F. 44F 44 F.FN 4 4.44 4F F.N4 4F c Fqu

44. 44F 44F o.4N m4 F.44 oF 4.FN F4 N AFmV

4o.F ooF 4NF 4.4N ‘44 N.n4 4m 4.4N N4 F F

Fm. ooF N4 N.FN F 4.44 4F N.F4 4F 4 Fqu

NF.F ooF N4 N.44 4N 4.44 44 4.FN 4F N ANmV

4F.F ooF 4F 4.44 44 4.4N 4F F.44 4N F o FaonV

44.F ooF F4F F.N4 44 4.44 44 4.4F NN o Fqu

m as s as a ARV a 3 z ..aaaoeaa 8:84

:64 NaFoa N FNNFNV F o Apqu aSFeFm eseoem
omdnobd

44424434448

 

 

 

 

 

4544.43 owonobd no debug soda so noose-oasokom .3. 424332303” 85st ...m canon.

gvfipm OWUHOurdN MO HObOA Scam Fwd EC4+1r<1b ..

169

 

 

 

4F. 04F 44 F.4FV 4 F.F4 4F AN.44W 4F N 444V
F4. ooF N4 4.FFW 4F 4.44 N4 MF.4N 4N F 4 ASNNNV
44. 44F 44F N.FN F4 4.44 4F 4.4NV F4 4 Fqu
44. ooF FoF 4.4F ON 4.44 F4 4.4N 4N N 444V
44. ooF N4F F.4N .F4 N.F4 F4 F.4N 44. F 4
44. 44F 04 4.FF 4F 4.F4 44 4.44 F4 4 Aqu
F4. ooF 4FF 4.4F NN 4.44 N4 4.FN N4 N 444V
44. SF N4F F.4N 04 4.44 04 4.4N N4 F N
44. 44F 44 4.4F 4 4.F4 NN 4.4N 4F c Aqu
F4. ooF F4F 4.4F 4N 4.44 44 4.FN 44 N 444V
oo.F ooF 4NF 4.FN FN N.F4 NF 4.FN FN F F
4o.F ooF N4 N.F4 oF 4.44 4F 4.FN F o FoaV
44. ooF N4 4.4F 4F F.F4 44 F.FF 4F N 444V.
4o.F ooF 4F 4.4N ON 4.44 44 F.FF 4F F 4 Asqu
4F.F ooF N4F 4.44 44 4.44 4F 4.4F 4F c FoaV
.4 S a S a 44 z 44 a ..524 42.43
364 Napoe N 44444V F 4 Faqu oapapm 494444
amenabd

 

ZOHE<AOMH AdHoom

 

 

 

 

mavsvm omsnobd no Hoboq soon as soapsfiouH Howoom hp hodovnansooSH navsvm 4mm canoe

@444?“me Thu-oeuvre k1 r1111...

 

170

 

 

F4. MooF 44 M4.4NW 4 Mo.44w FF 4.4NW 4 N 444V

F4. ooF N4 4.NN FN 4.F4 44 4.44 44 F 4 FNNNNV

F4. FooF 44F 44.4NV 44 F4.F4V 44 F.4NV F4 4 AoNV

44. MooF FoF F.4NW 4N m4.44 F4 MF.44 44 N 444V

44. ooF N4F 4.FN 44 4.F4 44 4.F4 44 F 4

4F. FooF 44 44.4NV 4F A4.F4 44 FN.N4 44 o Aqu

4F.F MooF 4FF F.44V 44 4.44W F4 4.4Nw 4N N 444V

NF.F ooF F4F F.44W 44 4.44 oF 4.NN 44 F N

44. FooF 44 4.4N oF 4.44V 4F 4.44V 4F 4 AoaV

44.F ooFV F4F 4.44W 4F 4F.F4V 44 4.4FW FN N 444V

4N.F ooFW 4NF 4.44 44 A4.F4w F4 4.4F 4N F F

F4. ooF F4 4.4NV 4 Ao.4N 4 N.44V 4F 0 464V

44; 42 N4 M444w44 4.44 N Moi 4 N 34V

F4.F ooF 4F 4.44 N4 4.F4 4N 4.4 4 F 4 Faqu

N4.F ooF 4NF 4F.F4V 4F 4.4N F4 44.4 NF 4 Fqu

4 44V 4 44V 4 44V 4 44V 4 .3385 48448

som 444oe N ASNNNV F o AnogV 624444 444444

omsnobd

444244442442

 

 

 

 

 

mspsvm omsnobd no Hoboa soda as noosauoassoz hp honopuHuQOOSH navdpm .mm @4949

 

mSQGPm dehm>< MO H0>®Q

2044444

n%.: uqqcaaflH—IE‘V\Lp

{t'a‘ul“ lull

‘I4C

‘Iu

(F‘ap‘E

171

 

 

 

F4.F 00F 44 M4.N F M4.4N 4 N.F4 4F 4.4N 4 4.4 N N 4444

N4.F ooF N4 4.4 4 4.4N NN 4.N4 44 N.FN 4N 4.NF FF F 4 444444

44.F 04F 44F 44.4 4 AF.4N o4 F.N4 F4 N.4N 44 4.F FF o 4044

44.F ooF FoF 4.4 oF 4.4F 4F 4.44 44 F.4N 44 4.4 v4 N A444

44.F ooF F4F F.4 4 N.4N F4 F.44 44 4.4F 4N 4.4 W4F F 4

FF.F 04F 04 4.4 4 0.0N 4F 4.44 F4 4.4N NN F.4F 4F 0 4°44

NN.N Moon4FF 4.4F 4F 4.4N 44 M4.F4 44 M4.4F FN 4.F 4 N n4mv

4N.N 00F 44F 4.4F 4N 4.4N 44 4.F4 04 F.4F 4N 4.4 4 F N

44.F 444F444 4.4 N 4.F4 NF 44.4N FF Ao.NN 4 N.4F 4 4 4°44

44.N ooFW44F 0.0N444 0.4NWN4 4.4N 44 40.4FW4N AF.4 oF N 4444

44.N ooF 4NF 4.4Fw4F 4.44 44 4.FN 44 A4.4F 4F m4.4 4 F F

04.F ooFVF4 4.NF 4 4.NFV4 F.44 NF 44.NNvF 4.NF 4 0 4°44

N4.N AoonN4 AF.44V4N 44.4NVFN 4F.F4 4N 44.4 4 AF.4 4 N 4444

0F.N Moon4F Mo.4NwFF A4.F4W4N Mo.FN 0N A4.oF 4 M4.F F F 0 43444

44.N ooF FNF 4.44 44 AF.44 N4 F.4F 4N Ao.FF 4F 4.N 4 o Aoqv

m E 4 Q; 4 as 4 444 2 g z 444 z .5884 42448

404 44404 4 444444 4 N F 0 44044 424444 454444
mmdnm><

 

mmflmequMOZImmmzmmmnmmaom

 

 

4:444m mmwno>4 Mo Hm>mq noun 44 44mammoaaHOZImmmnmmoHnmspm.49 hocopmfimnoqu mspdpm .4m @4949

 

 

 

A‘v’erag

172

Table 55: Status Inconsistency by Present Standing
at Each Level of Average Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Status Mean
Control Inconsis. PRESENT STANDING

(Lo) 0 6.44

(Hi) 2 6.73

(Lo) 0 6.03

1 6.54

(Hi) 2 6.54

(Lo) 0 6.71

1 6.80

(Hi) 2 6.90

(Lo) 0 7.18

1 7.16

(Hi) 2 7.22

(Lo) 0 7.21

(High) 4 1 6.85

(Hi) 2 7.44

 

Table 56: Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation
at Each Level of Average Status

 

 

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION
Average
Status Status Pessimistic Status Optimistic Total ng
Control Incon. (O) Quoé1) (2) N (%) .X
N (72) N /O N (%)
(Lo)0 16(12.7; 51(4o.5) 59(46.8) 126€1oo) 1.34
(Low)0 1 6( 8.3 32( 4.5) 34(47.2) 72 100) 1.39
(Hi)2 9(11.5) 34(43.6) 35(44.9) 78(100) 1.33
(Lo)o 2( 6. 7) 13E43.3) 15(50.o) 30(100) 1.43
1 135 7.3) 53 43.1) 61(49.6) 123(100) 1.42
(Hi)2 9.9) 66(46.5) 62(43.6) 142(100) 1.34
(Lo)o 1( 2.6) 19(5o.o) 18(47.4; 38(100) 1.45
2 1 9( 5.7) 66(41.5) 84(52.8 159(100) 1.47
(Hi)2 8( 7.3) 52(47.3) 50(45.4) 110(100) 1.38
(Lo)0 5( 5.7) 21(3o.7) 56(63.6) 88(100) 1.58
3 1 8% 5.7) 60(42.9) 72(51.4) 140(100) 1.46
(31)2 6 6.0) 36(36.o) 58(58.0) 100(100) 1.52
(Lo)o ' 7< 5.0) 55(39.o) 79(56.o) 141(100) 1.51
(High)4 1 4( 4 4) 23(25.3) 64(7o.3) 91(100) 1.66
(Hi)2 2( 6.1) 13(39.4) 18(54.5) 33(100) 1.48

 

 

 

 

 

Fable

 

Status
Inconsi:
Control

“
M

(Low)o

lab

Statu
#31004 c

43..

173

Table 57: Social mobility by waerlessness at Each Level

of Status Inconsistency

 

POWERLESSNESS

 

 

 

 

Status
Inconsis. Social (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Raw
Control Mobility N (fi) N (A) N (t) N (fi x

Down 15E44.1; 17 50.0?8 $é 5 9) 34(100) .62
(Low)O Stable 95 33.7 100 35.5 0.8) 87 100; .97
Up 33(41.8) 32 40.5) 14(17. 7) 79(1oo .76
Down 27551.9) 16 30.8g9 917.3) 52(1oo) .65
1 Stable 106 29.0) 163 14.7 96 26.3) 365(1oo) .97
Up 49(39.2) 45 36.0) 31 24.8) 125(1oo) .86
Down 1o(28.6) 15(42.8) 1o(28 6 35(100) 1.00
(High)2 Stable 93€3o.5) 129 42.3) 85227 2 305 100) .97
Up 45 36.0) 55(44.0) 25 7o 0 125(100) .84

 

Table 58: Social Mobility by Social Isolation at Each Level

of Status InconsistenCy

 

SOCIAL ISOLATION

 

Status

Inconsis. Social (Low) 0 1 (High) 2 Total Now

Control Mobility N (%) N (N) N (%) N (%) x
Down 9(26.5) 20(58.8) 5(14.7) 34(100) .88
(Low)0 Stable 68(23.9) 144(50.7) 72(25.4) 284(100) 1.01
Up 22(27.8) 39(49.4) 18(22.8) 79(100) .95
Down 12(22.6) 29(54.8) 12(22.6) 53(1oo) 1.00
1 Stable 89(24.2) 195(53.o) 84(22.8) 368(100) .99
Up 32(25.6) 6o(48.0) 33(26.4) 125(100) 1.01
Down 7(2o.o) 24(68.6) 4(11.4) 35(1oo) .91
(High)2 Stable 69(22.6) 184(60.1) 53(17.3) 306(100) .95
Up 37(29.6) 61(42.8) 27(21.6) 125(100) .92

 

 

 

 

aunt? 1.1!

 

 

\ I
n 1 3 _ i .... 1 l
x 1
i a a 4 n O a
x 11
i v .- C

174

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N4.F Aoon 4NF 44.444 N4 ”N.44V 44 AN.F4V 44 44

N4.F Aoon 444 4N.F4v 44F 44.F4v 4FF A4.4FV F4 o44444 N 444444

44.F 444F v 44 44.4NV 4F 44.44V FF A4.NNV 4 egon

44. Foon 4NF F4.4Nv 44 44.F4V N4 44.4Nv F4 44

FF.F Aoon F44 44.444 F4F 44.444 44F 44.FNV 44 444444 F

NF.F Aoon N4 44.44V 4F 44.N4V NN F.4NV NF eaon

F4. Aoon 4F AF.4NV 4N AN.44V F4 4F.F4v 4N as

F4.F Foon F4 44.444 F4 4F.F4V 44F A4.FNV 4F o44e44 ,4 Aaoqv

44.F A44FV 44 44.4NV 4F AF.44V 4F F4.4NV 4 neon

M 84 2 34v 2 A43 2 44V 2 44444434 494454

gem 444oe 444444 N F o Agoqv He4oo4 .444cooaH
444444

444444444442
hocopmamnoocH mdpdpm Mo Hoboq nomm 44 mmocmmoaanoz an 44444903 Hwfloom .mm @4949

175

 

 

 

44.N Aoon 4NF 44.NFv4F 44.4Nv44 4N.FNV44 44.NNV4N 44.4Fv4F A:
44.N 444Fv 444 44.4F444 44.4N44F AN.4FV44 A4.FFv44 44.4 VFF 444444 N4444mv
4N.N Aoon 44 44.4Fv4 44.NNV4 _ 44.4444F 4F.FF44 4F.4 VN asoa
44.N Aoon 4NF 44.4 vF 44.44444 44.4N4F4 44.4Nv4N 44.4Fv4F 4:
4N.N 444Fv 444 44.4FVF4 “F.FNVFoF 44.44VF4F 44.FF444 44.4 44F 444444 F
44.N 444FV F4 44.FFv4 44.FNVFF 44.44VFF 44.FNVFF 44.FFv4 .eaon
44.F Aoon 4F 44.4 44 44.4N44N “N.44VF4 “F.4NV4F 44.F v4 44
FF.N Aoon 4FN 44.4Fv44 44.NNV44 44.N4VF4 4F.4Fv44 44.4 v4N 444444 443o4v
44.F Aoon 44 44.4 4N 44.4Nv4 44.4Nv4 44.N4VFF -44.4 44 auon
m 443 z 444 z 444 z 444 z 444 z A44 4 44444424 42448
Bo4 444oe 4 44444V 4 N F 4 Aso4v 444oo4 .4444o644
444444

 

mmfizmmflqfimOZImmEHmmagom

 

 

 

 

hocopmfimcoonH mapepm mo Hoboq snow 44 444:44048402144mammoanokbm hp

444444os 444664 .44 44444

176

Table 61: Social mobility by Present Standing
at Each Level of Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

Status Kean
Inconsistency Social

Control Mobility PRESENT STANDING

Down 7.09

(Low) 0 Stable 6.76

Up 7016

Down 6.51

1 Stable 6.72

Down 6094

(High) 2 Stable 6.84

 

 

 

 

Table 62: Social Mobility by Future Orientation at Each
Level of Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION
Status Pessimistic Status Optimistic Total Row
Incon. Social (0) Quoé1) (2) ._
Control Mobility N (fé) N 'o N . (‘73) N (%) X
Down 1( 2.9) 19(55.9) 14(41.2) 34(100) 1.38
'(ng) Stable 23( 8.4) 106(39.o) 143(52.6) 272(100) 1.44
Up 3( 3.9) 26(33.3) 49(62.8) 78(100) 1.59.
Down 2( 3.8) 27(50.9) 24(45.3) 53(100) 1.42
1 Stable 26( 7.3) 139(38.8) 193(53.9) 358(100) 1.47
Up 7( 5.7) 50(41.o) 65(53.3) 122(100) 1.48
Down 6(17.6) 16(47.1) 12(35.3) 34(100) 1.18
'(High) Stable 22( 7.5) 124(42.o) 149(50.5) 295(100) 1.43
2 Up 9( 7.6) 51(43.2) 58(49.2) 118(100) 1.42

 

 

177

 

 

 

44. M44Fw 4FF M4.4Fw 44 M4.44W 44 MF.44W F4 44

44. 44F 44F 4.4F 4F 4.44 44 4.44 44 444444 4 A4444v

44. 444FV FF 44.4 V F 44.444 4 44.44V 4 4444

44. 44Fv 44F 4.4F 44 4.44 44 4.44 44 44

44. 44FW 44F 4.44 44 4.44 44 F.44 44 444444 4

44. 44F 44 4.4F 4 4.44 «F 4.44 4F 4444

44. 44F 44 4.44 4F 4.44 44 4.44 4F 44

F4. 44F 44F F.44 44 4.44 F4 4.44 F4 444444 4

44. 44F 44 N.4F 4 4.44 4F 4.44 4F 4444

4F.F 44Fw 44 4.44 4F 4.44 4F 4.44 4 44

44. 44F 4FN 4.44 44 4.44 44F 4.44 44 444444 F

44. 44FV 44 4.44 4 14.44 FF 4.44 NF 4444

44.F 444FV FF 4.44w 4 44.444 4 44.44 4 44

44.F M44FW 444 4.44 44F M4.~4w 44 M4.Fm F4 444444 4 44444

44. 44F 4F F.4NV 4 F.44 4 4.44 4 4444

44 $3 4 4444 4 44$ 4 44$ 4 44444444 44.44444

444 44444 4 44444v F 4 4444v 444444 444444
onHo>4

4444444444444

 

 

 

 

 

mfivdvm omdnmhd no Ho>oq scam pd muoqmuoanokbm an 44444902

444444 .44 44444

 

178

 

 

44. 4FF 44.4F mm 4.44 44 4.44 44

44. 44F M4.4F 4N F.44 F4 F.44 444444 4 444444

44.F FF 4.44 4 4.44 4 4.44 4444

44.F 44F 4.4m 44 4.44 44 4.44 44

44. 44F 4.44 44 4.44 44 4.44 444444 4

F4. 44 4.4F 4 4.F4 F4 4.44 4:44

4F.F 44 4.44 F4 4.44 44 4.4F 44

F4. 44F 4.F4 44 4.44 F4 4.44 444444 N

44. 44 F.4F 4 4.44 4F 4.44 4:44

44. 44 .4F 4 4.44 4F 4.44 44

44. F44 .F4 44 «.44 «NF F.44 444444 F

44.F F4 .4F 4 4.44 F4 4.NF 4444

F4. FF M .4FW m 44.44 4 M4.44W 44

FF.F 44m .44 44 44.44 44F 4.4F 444444 4 44444

44.F 4F 4 .44V 4 44.44v 4 4F.44v 4444

M 4 4 443 4 44444444 4444444

444 44444 4 44444v F 444444 444444
03.425

444444444 444444

 

 

 

444444 4444444 44 44444 4444 44 444444444 444444 44 44444444 444444 .44 44444

179

 

 

 

on. Aoorv m". Am.om om v.mv mo ..om on no

mm. Moopw pm? MN.FN mm ~.mo no F.Nm on annopm o Anmnmv

00.? no? FF m.nm m o.mv m m.- m nson

mm. Aoopw mo. m.mmw om m.mm mm Ao.o¢w me no

om. Aoo. fin? N.FN mo o.mm mo Am.mm on annoom m

00., AOOFV on o.mmv or N..v v. Ao.mmv o. coon

Nr.. Moo, mm An.~m om .N.mm mm w.mm m? nn

m... 00? mm? Mo.mm mo v..v n» o.m~ .o annopm m

Fm. Aoo. mm N..N n m.¢m m? N.¢m m neon

no.n oowv om An.om n. m.mmV or 0.0. n no

mm.. ooww rum Mm.¢o mm m.mmw mp m.mn ow cannon .

oF.P co. Fm ~.mm m. n.am m? o.~m n soon

00., Aoopv Fr Mv.om o Mm.om o Mm.- n no

mm.. Moonv mmm ..mn pm. o.mm an m.» n. annunm o Agony

mv.. oopv Nn Ao.om o . A~.Fo m Am.w F nnon

m E z E z E z E a 3:303 H238

son nopon m flownmv P o Anonv nonoom msponm
owdno><

mmnnmmnnnmoz

 

 

 

 

 

mapdpm omwno>4 no Hmboq nomm pd mmocmmoaanoz an hpaflfipoa Hdnoom .mm oapde

 

 

180

 

 

 

mw.P Aoonvmpn An.m Vm Am.mwvom Am.~mvmn Am.mmvnm A>.m vnn no

nw.n Aoovwomn An.m vm An.mnvom An.onvmm Ao.mmvwm Am.m vm. onnopm n Anmnmv

mo.m Aoon Fr Ae.m VF Am.~mvm Am.nmvm Am.omvn Ao.o vo noon

mn.. Aoonvoow Aw.m Vn Ao.mmvmm Ao.mmvmm Am.nmvmw Am.mnvmn . nn

mm.r Aoonvonn Am.» vnn no.nmwwm Am.mmvon Am.nmwwm An.m Won onnnpm m

mn.n Aconvnm Am.w vm An.nn m Am.wmvmw Am.mm w A~.nn m noon

NN.N Aoonvmo A».m vo MF.mmVnm An.omwmn An.nnvmn An.w Wm nn

NN.N Aoonvmmn Ao.nnvom m.nmvon Am.om mo Am.n.vmm Ac.» m. onnnpm m

pm.n Aoonvmm An.m Vm Am.mrvm An.mnvnn Am.omVo. Ao.m V? nnon

nm.m Aoon om m.mm on Ao.onvmn o.onvm Am.mnwn An.m W? n:

ww.m Moon arm m.mr nm Mm.mwwrm n.mmwnn Mn.nn mm Am.m m, onnnpm n

on.m no? on n.0, m n.mm m «.mm P n.onvm A>.onvm noon

mm.m floor Pr Am.mnvm An.omvn Mn.mmvn Ao.o Vo Ar.m n n:

mm.m Moon rmm Mm.mmwm> Mm.0mWon m.nmvmm Mm.onvmm An.r n onnopm o Agony

no.m oor NF n.w F m.mm n Ao.nmvm m.m V? Ao.o o neon

m E z E z E z E n E z E z 323% 3350

son nonon n Anmnmv m N F o Anonv nonoom onpnpm
mmmno><

mmnzmmnnnnoznmmnnmmnnmnnon

 

 

 

 

 

mapmpm ommnobd mo Ho>oq nomm pm mmozmmoaanozlmmonmmoanokpm hp hpwanpofi

HdHOOw a mm OHPGB

181

Table 67: Social Hobility by Present Standing
at Each Level of Average Status

 

 

 

Average Status Social Mean
Control Mobility PRESENT STANDING

Down 5.77

(Low) 0 Stable 6.52

Up 6073

Down 6.61

1 Stable 6.5?

Up 6.40

Down 6.63

2 Stable 6.67

Down 7.24

3 Stable 7.19

Down 7.64

(High) 4 Stable 7.13

Up 7.04

 

 

 

 

Table 68: Social Mobility by Future Orientation at Each

Level of Average Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FUTURE ORIENTATION
Average Social Pessimistic Status Optimistic Total Row
Status Nobility (o) QuoE1) 2) __
Control N (96) N %) N (96) N (7.) 1:

(Low) Down 7.7 8 61.5 4530.8 13 100; 1.23

0 Stable 24 10.7 90 4o. 2 110 49.1 224 100 1.38

Up 0 0.0 770.0 3(30. 0 10 100) 1.30

Down 5 16.1 238. 7) 14(45. 2 31(100) 1.29

1 Stable 19 8.9 645.1; 98(46. 0 213E100 1.37

Up 1 3.9 453. 8; 11(42. 3 26 100) 1.38

Down 2 6.2 959.4 11 34. 4 32 100 1.28

2 Stable 9 4.9 $42.9 96 52. 2 184 100 1.47

Up 6 9.2 $44. 6 3o 46. 2 65 100 1.37

Down 1 2.9) 55 9) 14 41. .2; 34(100) 1.38

3 Stable 12 7.0;? 934 3g1o1 58. 7 1725100 1.52

Up 6 5.7 138. 7) 59 55. 6) 106 100) 1.50

Down 0 0.0 436.4) 72 63. 6 11§1oo 1.64

(High) Stable 7 5.3 534.1 802 60. 6 132 100 1.55

4 Up 6 5.4 632.4 69(62. 2 111(1oo 1.57

 

182
due to the effect of AS. Tables 58, 61 and 62 reveal no consis-

tent patterns. Our conclusion, then, is that SM may be related
to alienation, but that this pattern may also be accounted for
by AS.

An inspection of Tables 63—68 reveals that no consistent
relationship exists between SM and alienation when AS is control-
led. When taken in context of the previous set of tables, it
becomes obvious that AS accounts for the previous relationship of
SM to alienation, i.e., because "Stable" persons are also the
ones with the lowest AS. This pattern is retained, however, at
the lowest level of status. (At the lowest level of status,
those persons who are "Stable" are the most alienated, when,
given the control for AS, we would not expect this.) It may be
that those persons in this lowest AS stratum who are downwardly
mobile remember what it was like (when they were kids), and those
who are upwardly mobile think that they will get out, and, there-
fore, do not become alienated. This is not, however, borne out
in Table 68, where the low AS "Stable" persons have the highest
ipercentage of people in the "Optimistic" category, whereas——
if our speculations are correct—awe should expect that the "Up"
SM group would have the highest percentage. It may be, then,
that this "exception" is only a chance exception.

In summary, we must note that of all three independent vari—
ables, it is clear that AS is the only one that is consistently
related to alienation, and that if the other two variables (SM

and SI) are related to alienation, it is due to the confounding

133

effect of AS. Before we can state definite conclusions, how-
ever, we should examine the third order tables to see if the

above relationships-—and the lack of relationships-—obtain.

Third Order Control Relationships

Introduction

 

In this section, we shall examine the relationship of each of
our three independent variables to our dependent variables, while
controlling for the other two, e.g., we shall examine the AS
relationships while controlling for SM and SI simultaneously,
etc. Because each of these tables will produce 45 rows and,
consequently, a huge number of cells (495 cells in the case of
PS), we shall present only the row means, or the means of the
dependent variable for each level (row) of the independent
variable and its controls.

In creating these tables, we might note that it is only
necessary to create one "set” of tables for each independent
variable. For example, using AS as the primary control and SM
as the secondary control, is (with respect to the order of SI)
equivalent to using SM as the primary control and AS as the
secondary control. That is, shifting primary and secondary
controls does not alter the arrangement of rows in the SI-
dependent variable sub-table (see Figure 1). For these reasons,
then, only one set of tables will be presented, for each
independent variable.

In terms of analysis, we shall inspect each sub-table, i.e.,

the table listing the relationship between the independent

184

Figure 1: Two Tables Illustrating Similarity of
Various Control Variable Arrangements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable Dependent Variable
AS SN SI 0 1 2 SN AS SI 0 1 2
o 1 2 3‘\ o 1 2 3
D 1 4 5 6 0.. 1 4 5 6
2 7 8 91f '7 2 7 8 9
o 10 11 12 (o 28 29 30)
O S 1 13 14 15 1 1 31 32 33
2161718 /2 343536
0 19 2o 21 0
U 1 22 23 24 D 2 1
2 25 26 27 2
o 28 29 30 o
D 1 31 32 33 3 1
2 34 35 36 2
O 37 38 39 0
1 S 1 4o 41 42 4 1
2 43 44 45 2
0 46 47 48 91:00
U 1 49 50 51
2 52 53 54
etc.

 

variable and the dependent variable at each level of the two con-
trol variables taken together. Then, we shall attempt to make
some statement referring to the presence or absence of a consis—
tent pattern throughout all or a majority of the sub-tables. That
is, if a table contains nine sub-tables (as does the AS-dependent
variable, controlled for SI and SH), then a consistent pattern
should ideally be present in all nine of the tables; we shall
modify this, however, and expect only a "large majority" of con-
sistent patterns throughout the sub-tables. Obviously, the

analysis will also be subject to other types of judgments, e.g.,

185

linearity, size of differences, etc. We shall endeavor to present

these as explicitly as possible.

Average Status

 

Tables 69-74 list the relationship of Average Status to the
dependent variables at each level of Status Inconsistency and
Social Mobility. This control set produces nine sub-tables,
each sub-table listing the relationship of AS to a dependent
variable. An inspection of these sub—tables reveals that in the
majority of cases (from five of nine to seven of nine sub-
tables), there is a very general linear relationship between
AS and alienation, both in terms of the sub-scales and in
terms of PS and F0. This does not, however, hold true for
Social Isolation, where in only one of the nine sub-tables does
a linear relationship hold true. Otherwise, no consistent rela-
tionship patterns exist between AS and SOI.

The creation of a table with 45 rows, however, also raises
the possibility that some of the rows will have a relatively

small N.3

This is, in fact, true, and two rows have zero
frequencies: "Low" SIé—"Up" SX—-"1" AS and "High" SI-—"Down" 51,.
"High" AS. Others have frequencies as small as one, two, three
or four (Table 69). A very small N produces a relatively high
amount of variance, and an unstable estimate of the true popu-
lation mean. When row means based upon an N of five or less

were dropped, and then the linearity of the remaining means was

inspected, it became apparent that a vast majority of sub-

tables exhibited a general 1inearity—-in most cases around

186

Table 691 Average Status by Powerlessness Means with Controls
for Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status Social Average POWERLESSNESS

Inconsis. Mobility Status Total leans
(low)o 4 1.00

1 2 .50

Down 2 4 .75

3 16 .56

(High)4 8 .50

(Iow)o 106 1.34

1 26 .85

(Low) Stable 2 25 .72
0 3 5o .82
(Hieh)4 1 75 .68

(Low)0 I 1 2.00

1 l o .00

UP 2 4 075

3 l 17 1.06

(High)4 57 .65

(lew)o ‘ 4 .75

1 15 .87

Down 2 17 .47

3 13 .54

(High)4 3 1.00

(Low)0 l 63 1.16

1 83 1.01

1 Stable 2 1 103 .98
3 1 73 .88

(Hish)4 1 43 .77

(an)0 3 .67

1 10 1.40

Up 2 25 1.00

3 47 .77

(High)4 i 40 075

(low)o 1 5 1.00

1 I 13 .85

Down 2 ' 12 1.08

3 5 1.20

(High)4 7 o .oo

1 110 .99

(High) Stable 2 4 59 .88
2 3 53 .83
(High)4 i 18 .83

(Low)0 7 1.00

1 20 1.00

3 42 ‘ .57

(Hieh)4 . 16 1 .94

 

 

 

 

187

Table 70: Average Status by Social Isolation Means with
Controls for Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility

 

SOCIAL ISOLATION
Means

Status Social Average
Inconsis. Mobility Status

 

 

8‘
EL
0

.75
1.00
1.00

.75
1.13

Down

(High)

 

A
8‘
3L

1.19
1.08
.88
078
.95

(Low) 0 Stable

(High)

 

5‘
EL

1.00

.00
1.00
1.06

(High) .91

 

5‘
3L

1.50
1.19
.71
1.08
.67

Down

(High)

 

(Inn) 1.10
.94
.98
.96

.98

1 Stable

(High)

 

5‘
EL

1.00
1.00
1.20
1.06

.83

Up

(High)

 

.80
.92
.92
1.00
.00

(Low)
Down

(High)

 

,\
5‘
EL

1.00
1.00
.80
1.02
.72

(High) 2 Stable

(High)

 

.86
.70
1.10
.90
.81

(Low)

 

 

 

-b&MrO-hC)4>LHPO-*C>4>LflhD-‘c)4>LMnD-bc>4>LuhD-bC)4>LHDO-bc>4>b’hD-fic>4>LuhO-*C)4>Luro-b

(High)

188

Table 711 Average Status by Normlessness Means with Controls
for Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status Social Average NORMLESSNESS

Inconsis. Mobility Status Means
(Low) 0 1.75

1 .50

Down 2 .75

3 1.00

(High) 4 1.00

(Low) 0 1.49

1 .73

(low) 0 Stable 2 .88
3 078

4High) 4 .86

(Low) 0 2.00

1 .00

3 .65

. (High) 4 1.07

1 1.31

Down 2 .94

3 1.00

(High) 4 1.00

(LOW) 0 1049

1 1.25

1 Stable 2 1.17
3 .93

(High) 4 .93

1 1.60

3 096

(High) 4 .80

(Low) 0 1.00

1 1.08

Down 2 1008

3 1.00

(High) 4 .00

(Low) 0 1.58

1 1.37

(High) 2 Stable 2 1.22
3 1.11

(High) 4 .94

(Low) 0 .86

1 1.40

Up 2 1.18

3 .74

(High) 4 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

189

Table 72: Average Status by Powerlessness—Normlessness Means
with Controls for Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility

 

Status Social Average Pcwerlessness-
Inconsis. Mobility Status Normlessness Means

 

 

(Low) 0 2.50
1.00
2.00

1.75
2.00

 

2.86
1.81
1.84
1.66

1.79

(Low) 0 Stable

 

4.00

.00
1.50
2.00
1.91

Up

 

3.00
2.33
1.71
1.69
2.33

 

2.65
2.30

1 Stable 2037

1.91

 

2.67
3.30
2.16
1.96
1.73

Up

 

2.60
2.00
2.33
2.20

.00

Down

 

2.91
2.37
2.10
2.17
1.67

(High) 2 Stable

 

2.29
2.65
2.33
1.52
2.19

2
3
4
O
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
O
1
2
3
4
O
1
2
3 2.05
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
Up 2
3
4

 

 

 

 

 

190

Table 73: Average Status by Present Standing Means with
Controls for Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status Social Average Present Standing

Inconsis. Mobility Status Means
(low) 0 6.25

1 6.50

Down 2 6.00

3 7.31

(High) 4 7.75

(Low) 0 6.45

1 6.08

(low) 0 Stable 2 6.56
3 7.18

(High) 4 7.23

(Low) 0 8.00

1 .00

Up 2 8.75

3 6.94

(High) 4 7.11

(Low) 0 3.75

1 6.44

Down 2 6.65

3 7.08

(High)_4 7.33

(low) 0 6.57

1 6.64

1 Stable 2 6.55
3 7.18

(High) 4 5-75

1 6.90

3 7.28

(High) 4 6.83

(low) 0 7.00

1 6.85

Down 2 6.82

3 7.40

(High) 4 .00

(Low) 0 6.59

1 6.63

(High) 2 Stable 2 6.93
3 7.20

(High) 4 7.56

(low) 0 6.57

1 6.15

3 7.14

(High) 4 7.31

 

 

 

191
Table 74: Average Status by Future Orientation Means With
Controls for Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility

 

Status Social Average FUTURE ORIENTATION
Inconsis. Mobility Status Means

 

 

(Low) 0 1.00
1.50
1.00
1.44
1.63

1.37
1.44
1.40
1.58
1.46

2.00

.00
1.50
1.59
1.59
1.50
1.44
1.47
1.23
1.67

1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0 1.38
1 1.37
2 1.51
3 1.44
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4

Down

 

(Low) 0 Stable

 

Up

 

 

1 Stable

1.71
1.00
1.44
1.29

1.49
1.60

1.20
1.08
1.09
1.60

.00

1.40
1.36
1-44
1.56
1.56

1.29
1.35
1.41
1.48
1.40

 

Up

 

 

(High) 2 Stable

 

Up

 

 

 

 

 

1 1111'! 5

192

seven of nine possible tables, with SOI excepted, of course.

An inspection of the various levels of control across the
various major tables also reveals that-~with one exception-
"error", or sub-tables in a level which did not fit our predicted
linear pattern Were relatively randomly scattered and not concen-
trated in any one level of control. The exception was for the
"High" SIé-"Down" SM sub—table which produced a linear relation-
ship only with respect to Present Standing, and even then, line-
arity was based upon only two means, with the other three dropped
for containing five or less cases. One might also note that there
were only 34 persons at this level of control, so it may be a
"deviant" case.

We would conclude, then, that AS is related to alienation, at
all levels of control for SI and SM. We would note, however,
that there is a relatively large amount of variance in these
linear patterns, and that no statistical significance testing
was done. If such a statistical test should be devised, it
might prove that these generally linear patterns were only
spurious, and insignificant. Until such a test is developed,
however, we would maintain that the relationship does, in fact,

exist.

Status Inconsistency

 

Tables 75-80 depict the relationship of Status Inconsistency to
the dependent variables while controlling for Average Status and
Social Mobility, simultaneously. This control set produces 15

sub-tables, with each sub-table listing the relationship of SI

111

193

Table 75: Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness Means with
Controls for Average Status and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status POWERLESSNESS

Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(LOW) 0 1.00

Down 1 .75

(High) 2 1.00

(Low) 0 Stable 1 1.16
(High) 2 1.15

(low) 0 2.00

(High) 2 1.00

(LOW) O 050

Down 1 .87

(High) 2 .85

1 Stable 1 1.01
(High) 2 ~99

(km)0 .00

(High) 2 1.00

(Low) 0 .75

Down 1 .47

(High) 2 1.08

(km)0 .75

2 Stable 1 1.00
(High) 2 .68

(LOW) O .72

(High) 2 .98

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

194

Table 75: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status POWERLESSNESS
Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(L9W) 0 .56
Down 1 .54
(High) 2 1.20
(LOW) 0 .82
3 Stable 1 .88
(High) 2 .83
(Low) 0 1.06
(High) 2 .57
(low) 0 .50
Down 1 1.00
(High) 2 .00
(Low) 0 .68-
(High) 4 Stable 1 .77
(High) 2 .83
(LOW) 0 065
Up 1 .75
(High) 2 (L .94

 

 

 

195

Table 76: Status Inconsistency by Social Isolation Keane With
Controls for Average Status and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status SOCIAL ISOLATION

Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(low) 0 .75

Down 1 1.50

(High) 2 .80

(km)0 1A9

(Low) 0 Stable 1 1.10
(High) 2 *1.00

(LOW) 0 1.00

(High) 2 .86

(Low) 0 1.00

Down 1 1.19

(High) 2 ~92

. (low) 0 1.08

1 Stable 1 094
(High) 2 1.00

(low) 0 .00

(Low) 0 1.00

Down 1 .71

(High) 2 .92

(Low) 0 .88

2 Stable 1 098
(High) 2 .80

(10W) 0 1.00

(High) 2 1.10

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

196

Table 768 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status SOCIAL ISOLATION

Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(law) 0 .75

Down ' 1 1008

(High) 2 1.00

(Low) 0 .78

3 Stable 1 .96
(High) 2 1.02

(low) 0 1.06

Up 1 1.06

(High) 2 .90

(km)0 1J3

Down 1 .67

(High) 2 .00

(low) 0 .95

(High) 4 Stable 1 .98
(High) 2 .72

(Low) 0 .91

Up 1 .83

(High) 2 .81

 

 

 

 

 

197

Table 77: Status Inconsistency by Normlessness Means with
Controls for Average Status and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status NORMLESSNESS
Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(lbw) o 1.75
Down 1 1.67
(High) 2 1.00
(Low) 0 1.49
(low) 0 Stable 1 1.49
(High) 2 1.58
(Low) 0 2.00
(High) 2 .86
(low) 0 .50
Down 1 1031
(High) 2 1.08
(low) 0 .73
1 Stable 1 1025
(IOW) 0 .00
(High) 2 1.40
(Rm)O {5
Down 1 .94
(High) 2 1.08
(low) 0 .88
2 Stable 1 1.17
‘ (High) 2 1.22
(Low) 0 .75
Up 1 1.08
(High) 2 1.18

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

i 1...!

11.

 

 

198

Table 77: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status NORMLESSNESS
Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(Low) 0 1.00
Down 1 1.00
(High) 2 1.00
(Low) 0 .78
3 Stable 1 .93
(High) 2 1.11
(Low) 0 .65
Up 1 .96
(High) 2 .74
(low) 0 1.00
Down 1 1.00
(High) 2 .00
(Low) 0 .86
(High) 4 Stable 1 .93
(High) 2 .94
(Low) 0 1.07
(High) 2 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

La;

199

Table 78: Status Inconsistency by Powerlessness—Normlessness
Means with Controls for Average Status and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status POWERLESSNESS—
Status Mobility Inconsis. NORMLESSNESS Means

(hm)0 250

Down 1 3000

(High) 2 2.60

(Low) 0 2.86

(Low) 0 Stable 1 2.65

(High) 2 2.91

(Low) 0 4.00

Up 1 2.67

(High) 2 2.29

(Low) 0 1.00

Down 1 2.33

(High) 2 2.00

(Low) 0 1.81

1 Stable 1 2.30

(High) 2 2.37

(low) 0 .00

UP 1 3.30

(High) 2 2.65

(low) 0 2.00

Down 1 1.71

(High) 2 2.33

(Low) 0 1.84

2 Stable 1 2.37

(High) 2 2.10

(hm)0 150

(High) 2 2033

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

Table 78: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status POWERLESSNESS—
Status Mobility Inconsis. NORMLESSNESS Means

(Low) 0 1.75

Down 1 1.69

(High) 2 2.20

3 Stable 1 2.05

(High) 2 2.17

(Low) 0 2.00

Up 1 1096

(High) 2 1.52

(low) 0 2.00

Down 1 2.33

(High) 2 .00

(Low) 0 1-79

(High) 4 Stable 1 1.91

(High) 2 1.67

(low) 0 1.91

Up 1 1073

(High) 2 2.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 79: Status Inconsistency by Present Standing Means with
Controls for Average Status and Social Mobility

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status PRESENT STANDING
Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(low) 0 6.25
(High) 2 7.00
(Low) 0 6.45
(Low) 0 Stable 1 6.57
(High) 2 6.59
(Low) 0 8.00
Up 1 5057
(High) 2 6.57
(low) 0 6.50
Down 1 6.44
(High) 2 6.85
(Low) 0 6.08
1 Stable 1 6.64
(High) 2 6.63
(Low) 0 .00
Up 1 5.90
(High) 2 6.15
(Low) 0 6.00
Down 1 6.65
(High) 2 6.82
(Low) 0 6.56
2 Stable 1 6055
(High) 2 6.93
(Low) 0 8.75
Up 1 7.52
(High) 2 6.68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

202

Table 79: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status PRESENT STANDING

(Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(LOW) 0 7.31

Down 1 7.08

(High) 2 7.40

(low) 0 7.18

3 Stable 1 7.18
(High) 2 7.20

(Low) 0 6094

Up 1 7.28

(High) 2 7.14

(LOW) O 7075

Down 1 7033

(High) 2 .00

(low) 0 7.23

(High) 4 Stable 1 6.76
(High) 2 7.56

(LOW) O 7011

Up 1 6.83

(High) 2 7.31

 

 

 

 

 

203

Table 80: Status Inconsistency by Future Orientation Means
with Controls for Average Status and Social Mobility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status FUTURE ORIENTATION

Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(Low) 0 1.00

Down 1 1.50

(High) 2 1.20

(LOW) O 1037

(Low) 0 Stable 1 1.38
(low) 0 2.00

(High) 2 1.29

(Low) 0 1.50

Down 1 1.44

(High) 2 1.08

1 Stable 1 1.37
(High) 2 1.35

(Low) 0 .00

(IOW) 0 1.00

Down 1 4.47

(High) 2 1.09

(low) 0 1.40

2 Stable 1 1.51
(low) 0 1.50

(High) 2 1.41

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

204

Table 80: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Social Status FUTURE ORIENTATION

Status Mobility Inconsistency Means
(High) 2 1.60

3 Stable 1 1.44
(High) 2 1.56

(Rm)0 159

Up 1 1049

(Low) 0 1.63

Down 1 1.67

(High) 2 .00

(low) 0 1.46

(High) 4 Stable 1 1.71
(Low) 0 1.59

(High) 2 1.40

 

 

 

 

 

205

‘MJEldependent variable. An inspection of these sub-tables
reveals no consistent patterning in these relationships. With
the possible exception of Table 77, no table contains more than
three sub-tables (of 15 possible) which run in the predicted
direction. In Table 77, which indicates the relationship of SI
to Normlessness, there are six of fifteen sub;tableS'which run
in the predicted direction, with the lowest level of SI also
having the lowest alienation mean, etc. This linearity does
not, however, carry over into Table 78, which depicts the rela-
tionship of SI and the combined form of PN. Removal of means
based upon five cases or less is not possible here, because this
would leave one with only two means, which by definition would
give one "linearity". Therefore, we are forced to conclude

that there is no relationship between SI and alienation.

Social Mobility

 

Tables 81-86 characterize the relationship of Social Mobility
to the dependent variables at all levels of Average Status and
Status Inconsistency. This control set produces fifteen sub—
tables, each indicating the relationship of SM to a dependent
variable. An inspection of these sub-tables reveals no consis-
tent patterns. In the original first order tables, there were
indications that those persons in the "Stable" group had higher
alienation; however, this relationship disappeared when AS was
controlled for at the second order, and it appears to disappear
in these third order tables also. Some indications Show that

the "Down" group might be the least alienated; however, further

 

206

Table 818 Social Mobility by Powerlessness Means with
Controls for Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social POWERLESSNESS

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 1.00

(Low) 0 Stable 1.34

Up 2.00

Down .75

(Low) 0 1 Stable 1.16
Up .67

Down 1.00

(High) 2 Stable 1.15

Down 005

(Low) 0 Stable .85

Up .00

Down .87

1 1 Stable 1.01
Down 085

(High) 2 Stable .99

Down 0 75

(Low) 0 Stable .72

Up .75

Down .47

2 1 Stable 098
Down 1.08

(High) 2 Stable .88

Up .98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

 

 

 

Table 81: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social POWERLESSNESS

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down .56

(Low) 0 Stable .82

Up 1.06

Down .54

3 1 Stable .88
Up .77

Down 1.20

(High) 2 Stable .83

Up .57

Down .50

(Low) 0 Stable .68

Up .65

Down 1.00

(High) 4 1 Stable .77
Up .75

Down .00

(High) 2 Stable .83

Up .94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

208

Table 821 Social Mobility by Social Isolation Means with
Controls for Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social SOCIAL ISOLATION

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 075

(Low) 0 Stable 1.19

Up 1.00

Down 1.50

(Low) 1 Stable 1.10
0 Up 1.00
Down .80

(High) 2 Stable 1.00

Down 1.00

(Low) 0 Stable 1.08

Up .00

D0“ 1019

1 1 Stable 094
Down 092

(High) 2 Stable 1.00

Up .70

mwn 1000

(Low) 0 Stable .88

Up 1.00

Down .71

2 1 Stable .98
Up 1.20

Down 092

(High) 2 Stable .80

Up 1.10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

209

Table 82: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social SOCIAL ISOLATION

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 075

(Low) 0 Stable .78

Up 1.06

Down 1.08

3 1 Stable 1.96
Down 1.00

(High) 2 Stable 1.02

Up .90

Down 1.13

(Low) 0 Stable .95

Up 091

Down 067

(High) 1 Stable .98
mwn .00

(High) 2 Stable .72

Up 081

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

210

Table 83: Social Mobility by Normlessness Means with
Controls for Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social NORMLESSNESS

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 1075

(Low) 0 Stable 1.49

Up 2.00

Down 1067

(Low) 1 Stable 1.49
Down 1.00

(High) 2 Stable 1.58

Up .86

Down 050

(Low) 0 Stable .73

UP 000

Down 1031

1 1 Stable 1.25
Up 1.60

Down 1.08

(High) 2 Stable 1.37

Down 1075

(Low) 0 Stable .88

Up .75

Down .94

2 1 Stable 1017
Down 1.08

(High) 2 Stable 1.22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

211

Table 83: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status 7 Social NORMLESSNESS

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 1 000

(Low) 0 Stable .78

Up .65

Down 1 .00

3 1 Stable 093
Up .96

Down 1.00

(High) 2 Stable 1.11

Up .74

Down 1.00

(Low) 0 Stable .86

Down 1 .00

(High) 4 1 Stable .93
Up 080

Down .00

(High) 2 Stable .94

Up 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

212

Table 84: Social Mobility by Powerlessness—NormlessneSS Means
with Controls for Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social POWERLESSNESS-
Status Inconsistency Mobility NORMLESSNESS Means
Down 2.50
(Low) 0 Stable h 2.86
Up ( 4.00
Down 3.00
(Low) 0 1 Stable 2.65
Up 2.67
Down 2.60
(High) 2 Stable 2.91
Up 2.29
Down 1.00
. (Low) 0 Stable 1.81
Up .00
Down 2033
1 1 Stable 2030
Up 3.30
Down (I 2.00
(High) 2 Stable 2.37
Down 2.00
(Low) 0 Stable 1.84
Up 1.50
Down 1071
2 1 Stable 2037
Down 2033
(High) 2 Stable 2.10
Up 2033

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

213

Table 848 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social POWERLESSNESS-
Status Inconsistency Mobility NORMLESSNESS Means
Down 1.75
(low) 0 Stable 1.66
Down 1.69
3 1 Stable 2.05
Down 2.20
(High) 2 Stable 2.17
Down 2.00
(Low) 0 Stable 1.79
Down 2033
(High) 4 1 Stable 1091
Up 1073
Down .00
(High) 2 Stable 1.67

 

 

 

 

 

214

Table 85: Social Mobility by Present Standing Means with
Controls for Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social PRESENT STANDING

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 6.25

(Low) 0 Stable 6.45

Down 3075

(Low) 0 1 Stable 6.57
Down 7.00

(High) 2 Stable 6.59

Up 6.57

Down 6.50

(Low) 0 Stable 6.08

Up .00

Down 6.44

1 1 Stable 6.64
Down 6.85

(High) 2 Stable 6.63

Up 6.15

Down 6.00

(Low) 0 Stable 6.56

UP 8.75

Down 6.65

2 1 Stable 6.55
Up 7.52

Down 6.82

(High) 2 Stable 6.93

Up 6.68

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

215

Table 851 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social PRESENT STANDING

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 7.31

(Low) 0 Stable 7.18

Up 6.94

Down 7.08

3 1 Stable 7.18
Up 7.28

Down 7.40

(High) 2 Stable 7.20

Up 7.14

Down 7-75

(Low) 0 Stable 7.23

Up 7.11

Down 7033

(High) 4 1 Stable 6.76
Up 6.83

Down .00

(High) 2 Stable 7.56

UP 7031

 

 

 

 

 

216

Table 86: Social Mobility by Future Orientation Means with
Controls for Average Status and Status Inconsistency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social FUTURE ORIENTATION

Status Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 1.00

(Low) 0 Stable 1.37

Up 2.00

Down 1.50

(low) 0 1 Stable 1.38
UP 1.00

Down 1.20

(High) 2 Stable 1.40

Up 1.29

Down 1050

(Low) 0 Stable 1.44

Up .00

Down 1.44

1 1 Stable 1037
Up 1044

Down 1 008

(High) 2 Stable 1.36

‘ Up 1.35

Down 1.00

(Low) 0 Stable 1.40

Up 1050

Down 1047

2 1 Stable 1051
Up 1029

Down 1.09

(High) 2 Stable 1.44

Up 1041

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued)

217

Table 86: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Status Social FUTURE ORIENTATION

Status .Inconsistency Mobility Means
Down 1.44

(Low) 0 Stable 1.58

Down 1.23

3 1 Stable 1.44
Down 1.60

(High) 2 Stable 1.56

Down 1.63

(Low) 0 Stable 1.46

Up 1.59

Down 1.67

(High) 4 1 Stable 1.71
Up 1.60

Down .00

(High) 2 Stable 1.56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[..--“I

[1 p

218

inspection reveals an approximately equal number of tables where
the "Down" mobile group is m2§t_alienated, as well as more or
less random relationships. Again, as in the previous SI tables,
it is impossible to remove those levels which contain five or
less cases, because this would result in linearity by definition.
We are forced to conclude, then, that there is no relationship
between Social Mobility and alienation that cannot be accounted

for by reference to AS.

Conclusions

Generally, this analysis found that the three independent
variables of SI, AS and SM were inter-related, even when one
variable is controlled for. This was taken as evidence for the
necessity of control in any analysis attempting to utilize these
three variables, and a validation of our previous attempts to
demonstrate this need for control, logically.

An examination of the relationships among our dependent
variables-principally that of PS and F0 to P, N, PN and SOI—-
indicated that both PS and F0 were related to our alienation
sub-scales, but in different manners. First, SOI maintained
a Significant but curvilinear relationship to PS and F0, which
was taken as some evidence for the separability and independence
of SOI from other sub-scales of alienation. Second, PS was
directly related to alienation, whereas F0 maintained more of
a curvilinear relationship. We interpreted this to mean that
PS is part and parcel of our alienation phenomena, but that F0

is somewhat different. However, this interpretation could not

219
be fully tested in this analysis.

An examination of our three independent variables, in terms
of their relationship to the various indexes of alienation,
indicated that AS was stably and consistently related to all but
SOI. This was taken as evidence of (1) the separability of SOI,
and (2) validation of our measures of alienation, i.e., that
they are somewhat similar to those used by other persons, who
also found alienation related to various measures of average
status or social class. Finding that AS is directly related
to F0 also casts doubt on our previous interpretation of the
nature of the relationship between F0 and alienation. At this
point, it would appear that FO-at least in terms of its rela-
tionship to AS--is of a somewhat similar character as our other
alienation sub-scales. Finally, SM and SI were not generally
related to alienation. The only consistent finding which
emerged from these tables was that the "Stable" SM group was
in almost all cases the most alienated. However, it was
reiterated that these 'lack' of relationships were to be
expected, and not regarded as a test of hypotheses.

The second order controls, however, must be regarded as
partial tests of our hypotheses. These tables indicate that
AS is related to alienation, but that AS and SI are not.

The previously found relationships of SM to alienation is
apparently accounted for by the effect of AS on SM.

This general finding was supported by the third order tables,

where AS was again related to alienation, whereas SM and SI

220

are not.

With reference to our initial hypotheses, then, we are
forced to reject them. We are left with the task of explaining
the relationship of AS to alienation in some terms other than
the traditionally used Durkheim—Merton rationale. This shall

be the task of our final chapter.

FOOTNOTES —— CHAPTER III

1. Unfortunately, this type of control was not planned as
a part of the original analysis, and the extreme amount of
advance planning necessary for computer analysis made it
difficult to do after the analysis plans were built into
the computer.

2. Dorothy L. Meier and Wendell Bell, "Anomia and Differential
Access to the Achievement of Life Goals," American Sociologipal
Review, 24 (April, 1959), 189-201.

3. These totals are given in Table 69; because they remain

the same for all other tables in this sequence, they are not
repeated.

221

CHAPTER iv
CONCLUSIONS
The basic problem of this thesis revolved around the

Durkheim-Merton rationale underlying the theory of anomie,
and its utility in explaining class differentials in anomie
and other types of behavior labeled as pathological or
adaptations to anomie. Basically, we argued that if this
rationale did, in fact, account for the above-mentioned
correlations-by reference to various structurally generated
discrepancies-then it also should create correlations between
alienation and other structurallyibased sources of discrepancy,
i.e., status inconsistency and social mobility. Hypotheses
to this effect were deve10ped. Ourtheoretical stance, then,
gave us two alternatives, dependent upon whether these hypoth-
eses were or were not rejected. First, if the hypotheses were
not rejected, the theoretical interpretation would be that the
Durkheimelertcn rationale was once more validated and extended
to a new substantive area. Secondly, if the hypotheses were
rejected, the theoretical alternative would then be to devise
a scheme which would explain alienation, as well as the corre-
lations of alienation and average status, in terms other than
that of the discrepancy rationale. At the same time, this
theory must also explain the correlation between average status

and pathological behaviors, and previous findings of correlations
222

 

223
between status inconsistency, social mobility, and pathological

behaviors.

As was obvious in Chapter III, our hypotheses were not con-
firmed; therefore, the second alternative must be taken. In
so doing, we shall first consider previous critiques of aliens-
tion and anomie theory, as they apply to any basic restructuring
of anomie and social class theory. Then, we shall set about con-
structing a somewhat different approach to this matter. In this
different approach, we shall consider alienation, stratification,

mobility and pathological behaviors.

Critiques of Anomie Theory

As stated previously in Chapter I, most critiques of anomie
theory do not take to task the basic mechanisms by*which anomie
(or anomia) develop-i.e., the discrepancy between that which is
expected and that which is achieved. Rather, the major sugges-
tions are that researchers lock for sources of discrepancy other
than the very general discrepancy occurring between mass-culture
goals, and societyuwide means of access to these goals. There
is behind these criticisms a notion that each particular group,
community, or organisation has its‘g=3_set of culturally pre-
scribed goals (or better, gggroulturally specified goals), as
'well as its own stratification system which determines means
of achieving those goals. A quote from James Short and his study
of delinquency and gang boys in Chicago will perhaps exemplify

this general type of critique;

Detailed observation of particular behavior episodes
suggests that . . . the conception of social structure

re

224
which is basic to the [anomia] paradigm must be broad-

ened to include situations which are more immediate to

the boys, such as local community norms and Opportuni-

ties, and normative and status considerations within

the group, in addition to the abstract conceptions of

Opportunity structures and status deprivations.1

Our comment on this type of critique of anomie theory would
agree somewhat with that of Cohen, namely that it produces an
atomistic and individualistic view of man, a view that is dis-
tinctively non-sociological.2 It places the brunt of "develop-
ing" anomie wholly "upon” the individual, in that he must first
internalize certain social or cultural values (or sub-cultural
or sub-sub-cultural values) which stand outside of him; go
through a period of psychic conflict; develop anomie; and then
act in an adaptive manner. It does not consider behaviors as
a product of social relationships, but as individual preperties.

Rather than elaborate in this vein, which is essentially a

reduction to more and more microscopic levels, we would assume
that this view has sufficient proponents. It will be our choice
to deve10p (hopefully) a relatively new and different theory
'which approaches the problem via a concern with "societyawide”

theory-—perhaps an oblique approach in current sociology.

Suggested Theory

 

Ib shall begin our explanation not with an understanding
of anomie or alienation per se, but rather with an understanding
of the nature of ”social class” and its correlates. This, we
hope, will allow us to then explain the function, or consequences,
of alienation within this theory. Further, we hope that it shall

also be possible to examine mobility, etc.

225

We would argue that ”class" constitutes not an aspect of
social structure, or a part of a unidimensional or monolithic
structure, but essentially different structures having different
cultures. These different class groupings must be articulated
by reference to some sort of common mechanism. Class, then, is
not a continuum, with more or less ordinal rankings along it, but
a set of different nominal distinctions. That these various
nominally distinguished groups happen to correlate with ordinal
measures (e.g., education, income, etc.) is a matter to be
explained, not to be taken as given, and therefore used as
indexes of a unidimensional social class variable. Literally,
we will argue that ”alienation” is nothing more or less than a
part of a lower-class belief system.

This approach begins with the work and conceptualisaticns of
Herbert Cans, who argues that the lower class is an isolated
social system which exists within, but not as a part of, the
urban milieu.3 He argues that the lower class is characterized
by a ”village” style of life, with the most important groups
being the neighborhood and the peer group. That is, these are
the major groups in the lower-class person's life, and they dom-
inate his view of the world. The lower-class view of the world
has as its mainstay, personalism-a personalistic orientation.
By personalism, Cans refers to the styles of relating to other
objects and people in terms of their appeal or meaning to the
person rather than to any abstract characteristics of the object

itself. By personalism, Cans also refers to seeing other persons

 

 

226

as more or less "whole" persons, rather than persons occupying
a particular role. One interprets (and therefore understands)
the actions of other persons by referring to the particular
relationship that one has with the other.

Cans goes on to discuss the way in which these lower-class
persons participate in the various institutions which surround
the lower-class person, i.e., school, jobs, buying practices,
etc. Although the lower—class person participates in these
institutions, Cans indicates that it is in a manner that is
radically different from the middle class. He argues, for
example, that the lower class view their jobs not as careers,
or as a phenomena which is valued in and of itself, but more as
a means of getting sufficient cash to come back into the neighbor-
hood.4 In other words, those things that are important for the
lower class are found in his neighborhood and his peer group.

Lower-class man, then, with his extreme neighborhood and
peer group orientation, his personalistic orientation, and his
minimal (and somewhat forced) participation in the major urban
institutions, exists in a Gemeinschaft village located in the
Gesellschaft urban milieu. This, in turn, produces a form of
isolation from the rest of society. In his treatment, Cans
devotes little explicit attention to the way that this stratifi-
cation system is maintained, or to the place of the middle class
in the society. And, his discussions of the institutional life
of the lower-class person are, to some degree, dominated by the
lower-class person's view, to the exclusion of the middle-class

functionaries view.

1'

("‘1

be

227

Sjoberg, Brymer and Farris have extended Gans' view of the
lower class somewhat and have developed a conceptual schema
which contains general mechanisms which create and maintain
the stratification system and the isolation of the lower class.5
Generally, they argue that ”bureaucratic systems are the key
medium through which the middle class maintains its advantaged
position vis—a—vis the lower class."6 In effect, they are
reversing the classic model of the relationship of bureaucracy
and class. Rather than argue that social class creates differ-
ential participation in bureaucratic organizations, they contend
that bureaucratic organization, as a central feature in modern
industrial society, creates differential participation in organi-
zations, which in turn creates and maintains a stratification
system. Implicit in their presentation is the assumption that
the major portion of American life proceeds through bureaucra—
tized organizations, e.g., employment, education, government,
buying, etc.

Staffing arrangements in bureaucratic organizations frequently
place those least qualified persons in "hardship” or lower-class
areas, so that loweraclass clients receive the least possible
benefits of the organisation and, consequently, very few skills
with which to escape the lower class. Bureaucracies, out of a
necessity to maintain a successful image of themselves, vis-a-vis
their supporters, frequently select those persons who are most
likely to succeed rather than all persons who legitimately might

participate in the organisation. That is, the organization must

x2

228

exhibit a certain amount of goal attainment if it is to continue
to succeed, so it selects as clients those persons who are most
likely to succeed. And, these are very seldom lower-class persons
(or, at least those persons who cannot succeed in the organization
do not get the organisational benefits). Finally, the extreme
specialization of any particular bureaucratic organisation-both
as an organisation among organizations and within the organiza-
tion-makes it somewhat difficult for organizational function-
aries to view any particular client or production unit in a
holistic fashion. Moreover, it prevents the bureaucratic func-
tionary from taking the perspective of a client and from under-
standing the client's view of his own problems. Literally, the
specialized organisational functionary may not even be able to

see any problem from the lower-class persons' perspective. we
would argue that this contributes to a maintenance of lower
classness.

The lower-class person, who has little knowledge of the various
informal and formal ways and byuways of bureaucratic functioning,
is then called upon to negotiate with that highly specialised
lower echelon person who is most rulebound—-and has little
latitude in dealing‘with problems. And, if social problems are
functionally inter-dependent, this means that the lower-class
person must first negotiate a ”deal" with the most rulebound
person, and secondly, coordinate the various specialized func—
tionaries and organisations to fit his particular needs. The

middle-class person, by virtue of his middle classness and his

229

knowledge of bureaucratic modes of Operation (derived from
working in other bureaucracies) can go to a higher level
functionary who has more latitude, and who can deal more
effectively with any particular organizational problem that
the middle-class person may have.

The lower-class notions of personalism run head-on into
the bureaucratic norms of impersonality and universalism. There-
fore, when a lower-class person "gets something” from an organi-
zation, he is likely to assume that it is because he had a per-
sonal relationship with the functionary; if he does not, rather
than ascribing it to failure to meet an impersonal formal rule,
he is likely to ascribe it to "fate", ”luck”, or "chance”.

This inability of the bureaucratised organisation to cope
with the lower-class person-—and vice versa—-creates a vicious
cycle of ”circular causation”, to use Hyrdahl’s term, which
operates so as to create a relatively large amount of social dis-
tancs between the middle and lower classes-or more aptly, the
lower class and the rest of society.7 In other words, the ability
of operating in a bureaucratic arganisation (or conversely, the
ability of an organisation to respond to all types of persons)
creates and maintains at least one class system which is isolated
from the rest of the ongoing society. lore characteristics and
elements of this theory will become apparent later.

it first glance, the tenative theory under consideration would
seem to be similar to those of Warner and Hollingshead.when they
refer to class as representing a ”style of life”, and to Oscar

Lewis' conceptualisation of a ”culture of poverty”.8 Closer

I.

L-\

230

inspection, however, reveals some crucial differences. The
biggest difference does not lie in the cultural content or
belief system described by these authors, for they would agree
with our observations. Rather, the difference would seem to
lie in the mechanisms whereby such a system is maintained or
the logical order to such a system when counterposed with

the other "cause or effect“ variables.

Hollingshead, for example, would appear to view social class
as primary, and differential participation in major institutions
as a resultant of social class. This is nowhere more clear than
in his work, Social Class and.lental Illness, where chapter after
chapter is devoted to ”the differential use of treatment facili-
ties."9 In terms of a dynamic, or a mechanism whereby class is
created and.maintained, Hollingshead would appear to rely upon
a relatively vague notion of ”cultural transmission“, or ”like
father, like son.” Lewis, while devoting much time to an.
insightful description of the cultural habits of poverty strickp
ened people, likewise pays little attention to the dynamics.
creating and maintaining this culture. Generally, it would
appear that he would subscribe to a definition of culture which
views it as a form,of adaptation to an environment, in this case
a hostile environment.10

Our suggested theory resembles Seaman's theory, in our mutual
reliance upon bureaucracy as an important factor in developing
”alienation”.1‘ Seeman, however, does not discuss the role of

social class as an intervening variable standing between bureauc-

racy and alienation, or for that matter, social class as a

231

variable. Presumably, because of his "mass society” leaning,
he would assume that'sll persons participating in modern life
are subject to the whims of bureaucracy, and therefore to
alienation. we might note, however, that his research has been
carried out on, primarily, lower— and.working-class subjects,
if we can judge from the occupations of his subjects, e.g.,
those in a reformatory, working in the lower echelons of a
state hospital, or in labor unions.

In summary, we are suggesting that stratification is created
not by having education, money or a high prestige job, but by
differential ability to participate in bureaucratic systems, as
well as actual differential participation in these organisations.
This differential participation creates-—at least for the present
analysis-two major groups: those who can and do, and those who
cannot and do not. The former are middle class, and the latter
are lower class.

Stratification, then, is a matter of a relationship——or the
lack of a relationship—-betwesn a person and an organisation
entity, rather than an individual attribute. Because‘gl;
persons must come into some kind of contact with bureaucratised
organisations in his life span, bureaucracy can then operate to
maintain stratification systems. Lastly, we might note that
considering bureaucracy as the primary determinant of stratifi-
cation places this theory firmly in a larger theoretical context
(namely, the theories regarding societal evolution from folk to

urban to urban-industrial as a consequence of technological

innovations.) Presumably, bureaucracy is one of the primary

I‘

232

innovations which allowed industrialism to develop.12 With this
general and partial theory, let us re—examine the variables of
alienation-anomie, the Durkheim—Merton rationale, status incon-
sistency and social mobility, as well as the pathological
behaviors attributed to social mobility, status inconsistency

and lower classness.

Alienation and Anomie

 

In terms of the simple correlations of various types of
attitude scales purportedly measuring "alienation” or "anomia”,
'we would argue that these are manifestations of aspects of the
lower—class belief system. Rather than measuring "despair“, .
as suggested by Heier and Bell, and Nettler, we would argue
that they represent the consequences of a confrontation between
a personalistic point of view, and impersonalistic bureaucra-
cies."3 It would seem more appropriate, then, to label this
phenomena ”fatalism" rather than despair, in that a fatalistic
imputation is the mode of handling such incomprehensible events
in a lower—class personalistic system.14 One might suggest,
at this point, that if the statements making up our (and other's)
alienation scales had had as referents events revolving around
a lower-class neighborhood way of life, there might have been
much less alienation in the lower class. In fact, it may be
that in this case the middle class would have been more alien-
ated.

we might also comment on the lack of a relationship between

the Social Isolation scale scores and Average Status. These

I‘D

233

questions were phrased in terms of personal friendships, and
feeling ”all alone in the world.” Given the lower-class orien-
tation to neighborhood and peer group, it is hard to see how a
lower-class person could‘ggg£_be without personal friendship
ties. As Gone points out, the lower-class person has his
primary existence in these peer groups.

In summary, alienation or anomia, as indicated by various
scales measuring powerlessness or normleesness, may be thought
of as characteristic of a lowerbclass belief system. This does
not, however, rule out the possibility of a more restricted
conceptualization of alienation, particularly as used by
Nettler and Hajda.1S This conceptualisation would deal
primarily with the rejection of “culturally accepted goals”,
and is, to some degree, synonymous with Merton‘s designation
of "retreatism" as a form of adaptation to anomia.

With respect to the discrepancy rationals underlying anomia,
we might note that such a rationale is predicated upon the
almost total acceptance of the culturally specified goals by
a group, and, to the degree that we have argued for the
presence of separate class and, thereby, cultural systems, it
would be logically difficult for this complete consensus to
occur. To this point, we are arguingHwith Hyman, when he
attempted to demonstrate that various classes did‘ggg have a
consensus‘with respect to goals.16 Of course, Horton's class
reply argued that only a significgnt number must have internalized
these culturally specified goals in order for a significant

17

amount of lower-class anomia, etc.

 

 

/‘

"“'.o.

"I

234

We would suggest a different resolution to this problem,
and ask how it is that a lower class can have a multitude of
goals, i.e., both "middle-” and "lower-“class goals, and.what
effect this has. In our theory, we noted that the middle
class is (as a group) in more or less control of the various
bureaucracies with which a lower—class person must at some
point in his life deal-showever effectively. it the same
time, the lower-class person locks to the neighborhood and
peer group for his values and his life satisfaction. It would
appear, then, that the lower-class person must interact with
‘bglh_lcwer- and middle-class persons, and to some degree have
adequate knowledge about the values of both. The middle-class
person, however (because of his advantaged position, which
allows him to dictate the terms of his various negotiations
with the lower class), does not necessarily have to take into
account the values of the lower-class person. That is, the
middle-class person does not have to take into account the
lower-class person's values in order to pursue a successful
career. In fact, it would appear more likely that he must
attend to the values of the organisation for which he works,
which is very likely to be middle class.18 If this is true,
than, we should expect that when confronted with a range of
values, the lower class will espouse more than will the middle
class.

This is to some degree supported by Short in a study compar-

ing the responses of middle- and lower-class adolescents to

235

various "middle-" and "lower-“class objects using a semantic
differential technique.19 Objects which might be classified
as "lower” or deviant-e.g., 'dcpe addict', 'pimp', etc.-
were almost uniformly negatively evaluated by the middle class,
and were neutrally or positively evaluated by the lower class.
"Middle-class” objects-e.g., 'stable job', 'teachers', etc.-
were equally positively evaluated by both middle- and lower—
class adolescents. How, then, can this seeming contradiction
exist?

One possibility is suggested by Hyman Rcdman, who has
developed the conceptualization of the ”lower-class value
stretch”.20 Basically, Rodman argues that agreement with a
wide range of values among the lower class is both functional
for the lower-class’s environment (i.e., the middle-class
bureaucracies), and accompanied by a lower degree of commitment
to either sets of values. Literally, Badman is suggesting that
the apparent discrepancy or contradiction is a product of a
middle-class point of view, and that for the lowerbclass person,
such a contradiction does not exist; it is a fact of life.

In effect, than, we are suggesting that what may be a dis-
crepancy may exist only in the perspective of the investigator
and, therefore, cannot be automatically assumed. If a discrep-
ancy were in fact perceived.by an individual, an anemic situation
might result. However, this will have to wait further investi—

gation.

(C

H...—

’6

236

Social Mobility,_iverage Status and Status Inconsistency

Iith respect to the three structural variables, we must first
note that our suggested theoretical system places primary
emphasis upon one's relationship with bureaucratic systems.)
Traditional indexes of social class or average status (and
the derived concepts of status inconsistency and social mobil-
ity) must then be interpreted'within this framework. For
example, an occupation, per se, is usually carried out within
a more or less bureaucratised framework, so that in order to
hold a job, or advance to ”higher" jobs, one must have some
degree of skill at operating within a bureaucratic framework.
And, those jobs which require more skills (bureaucratic or
otherwise) are usually attributed higher prestige, pay, etc.
One must also attend.to the 'education‘ variable, which, in
this framework, would seem to have a dual effect. First, one
must frequently have a certain level of education in order to
hold a position in a bursaucaatic organisation. Second, those
persons who work in purportedly non-bureaucratic settings are
usually persons who are “professionals“ (doctors, laeyers, etc.)
although even this is changing more and.more rapidly. And,
in order to obtain professional legitimacy, one must pursue a
relatively long and arduous career through the educational
system, which in turn requires a certain amount of bureaucratic
skills in and of itself. So, even for the professional, a
certain amount of bureaucratic skills is necessary, so that

bureaucratic ability may be a highly important factor which

I"

237

leads to other "indexes" of social class, e.g., money, etc.

Social mobility also takes on a different cast when viewed
in this perspective, particularly in terms of the ”causes" of
mobility. Although Lipset, in his compendium on mobility in
industrial society, recognized that “educational attainment
is a major determinant of career patterns”,21 he does little
to clarify or explain the particular mechanisms by which
education operates so as to produce mobility, eg., "children
from lowwstatus families do not have as much chance to stay
in school as those from high-status families . . . If an
individual comes from a working-class family, he will typically

receive little education or vocational advice."22

That is,
Lipset assumes that education is a key to mobility, but seems
to assume that it operates to create mobility in such simplis-
tic terms as vocational guidance, dropping out for economic
reasons, etc. Further, ”poverty, lack of education, absence of
personal 'ccntacts’, lack of planning and failure to explore
fully the available job Opportunities that characterise the
working-class family are handed down from generation to genera-

23 we would also note that all of these reasons are

tion.“
somewhat individualistic in that they specify a failure of the
individual as a reason for lack of mobility.

Education, in our theoretical schema, would imply not only
learning of substantive studies, but also learning a series

of bureaucratic skills, which are transferable to other bureauc-

racies, and which would presumably, increase the success one

238

might enjoy with those other bureaucracies. Because the
educational system is one of the most heavily bureaucratised
in modern society, and because every individual must at some
time or other come into contact with it, the educational
system is thus‘gpgn_to all, yet the most crucial and difficult
of all to get through.

A myriad of mechanisms operates to differentiate between
lowert and middle-class persons as they move through this
educational bureaucracy.24 First, we might note that the
educational system is definitely a middle-class institution,
if for no other reason than its staff. The lowest echelon
person in an educational system is typically the classroom
teacher, and she usually is required to have at least a
college degree, and her occupational prestige is ranked in
the middle to the upper-middle class. This in itself would
make it difficult for the teacher to take the role of the
lower-class pupil. Further complicating the matter is the
notion that lower-class areas are frequently known as 'hard-
ship' areas, and the worst or least experienced teachers are
assigned to these areas (or are unable to get out), so that
the lower-class child is confronted not only'with someone who
is middle class, but who is also the least qualified to handle
his case. And, because the lower-class parent has had little
experience withlggy‘bureaucracies, he is unable to negotiate
with the school system on behalf of his child.25

One might also note, however, certain factors in the educa-

239

tional system which serve to reinforce mobility patterns.26
Once a child is implicated in the educational system, and
experiences some degree of success in it, he is drawn away
from the neighborhood and the peer group and the ties which
tend to hold him in the lower class are loosened. iOperating
here, too, is the attitude of an out-of-schcol peer group to
one of their members who is still in school. Generally, the
student is the subject of some derision, and is given the label
of a “square“; after a sufficient amount of time, the peer
group begins to reject him, which leaves the student nowhere
to go but back to the school for his social ties and reference
group. Literally, the one who is mobile may be the deviant

in the lower class.

This general interpretation is supported by Gans in his
discussion of mobility.27 He notes that those persons who
leave the tightly knit neighborhood peer-group system are
often viewed as 'traitors‘ or 'betrayers' of the correct way
of life. A further distinction is added by his differentiation
between group mobility and individual mobility. Group mobility
usually has structural sources, e.g., the entrance of a new
ethnic group on the scene, which moves the previous lower-
class ethnic group up one occupational notch, or a period of
rapid economic expansion, which allows everyone in this group
to move up at once. In these 'group mobility. situations,
there is little definition of each other as heretics. This

would only occur with respect to individual mobility.

240

With respect to status inconsistency, this theoretical
framework has little to offer. We note, however, that status
inconsistency is predicated upon a definition of status in
terms of multiple ordinally ranked dimensions. And, we have
suggested that class is not a ranked order, but a nominal
order, so that status inconsistency may be a spurious concept
in a nominal system. Somewhat more positive, however, might
be the suggestion to inspect various dimensions of status in
terms of the degree to which they are either important or not
important in structuring a person's relationship to bureauc-
racies. That is, we might inspect various combinations of
status dimensions to see if they might not form particular
“types” with a particular organisation, or kind of organisation.
Low ethnicity, for example, might create a peculiar kind of
relationship to an organisation which might not be created by

low education, etc.

Pathological Behaviors

 

The pathological behaviors which are associated with class,
and to some degree with social mobility and status inconsistency
and which are interpreted as stemming from anomie, must also
be reinterpreted‘within the light of our suggested theory. ‘le
would argue-as previously stated-that behaviors, pathological
or not, are products of peculiar kinds of relationships between
persons. Following Becker, we would note that someone, or some
organisation, must first define deviance, in order for it to

exist.28 The question would be to ask what kinds of relation-

241

ships between lower-class persons and bureaucratic organiza-
tions obtain so as to produce more definitions for deviance
for the lower class than for the middle class.

Our theoretical framework would suggest two possibilities:
first, that there is little actual difference in rates of
commission of deviant acts between lower- and middle-class
persons, but that the rate of definition by persons in positions
to define is much higher for the lower class than for the
middle class; and, second, following the notions of cultural
differentiation, it may be that the lower class views as
normal certain activities which are viewed by the middle
class as deviant; this then produces conditions which lead
to a higher rate of deviance or pathological behavior.

That there may be little or no class differential in
commission of deviant behaviors is partially supported—-at
least with respect to Juvenile delinquency-by a survey of
delinquency studies using selfereports as the measure of
delinquency. In this survey Hardt and Bodine state that:

lany studies have failed to demonstrate any associa-

tion between the socie-economic status of Juveniles
and.the incidence of delinquent behavior.

That is, using the Juvenile's own report of his delin-
quent behavior, rather than official records or statistics,
leads to the finding that there are little or no differences
between the classes with respect to delinquent behavior.
However, when official statistics are used, a large difference

is evident.

h

242
How this comes about has been suggested by Piliavin and

Briar, in regard to delinquency, who note that a Juvenile is
much more likely to be picked up, as well as carried further
into an ”official career” by police officers, if the person
exhibits those characteristics defined by police officers as

30

"deviant". These characteristics include many characterisn
tics which could also be defined as lower class, e.g., sloppy
dress, bad language, etc. Other types of studies, for other
areas of ”pathology" are also available.31
There is also the possibility that (given a large degree
of cultural separation and isolation) what one class values,
another class will consider deviant. And, if a group of
people tend to define an activity as ”normal", it is likely
that they will carry it out in more or less dpublic” situations,
which increases the likelihood that it will be observed by
those persons who are charged with making definitions of
deviance based upon middle-class standards, i.e., the police,
educators, etc. Walter Miller has suggested this general
line of argument of his article, "Lower Class Culture as a

Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency".32 Others supporting

this view are Rodman, Becker, Finestone and Lindesmith.33
With respect to the tenative associations between social
mobility and pathological behavior, we can only put forth a
suggestion. First, we would note that these associations have
been sometimes contradictory, and that, in this thesis, no

association was found between social mobility and alienation,

so perhaps there exists no reason for such an adaptation to

243
exist.34 It may be, however, that distinguishing between
group and individual mobility might be of aid. Gans suggests
that those persons who are mobile as a group are not subject to
any strain stemming from leaving the peer group, for everyone
in the peer group advances at the same time as new ethnic
groups enter the labor force, or as new areas of the economic
system open up.35 Presumably, the same mechanisms could
operate with respect to group downward mobility. ‘With respect
to individual mobility, however, and especially upward indivi-
dual mobility, the individual must literally leave the neighbor—
hood and the peer group. And, he must suffer the rejection
tendered him by his previous neighbors and peers. This may,
in turn, produce a form of strain, which (while not neces-
sarily a discrepancy) might lead to some form of adaptation
or pathological behavior, especially mental illness or

36

neurosis.

Conclusions and Proposals for Future Research

ls have tested a set of hypotheses couched in relatively
traditional sociological theory and have found them to be
rejected. Then, we have suggested two alternative paths:
first, further forays and elaborations of the traditional
theory itself, and secondly, development of a new theory.
By personal inclination, we would suggest that the second
alternative places sociological theory much more firmly in
the larger context of how societies develop and are held

together.

_-..--

244
As for research, it would seem that there are several

areas which take precedence at once. We have suggested that
the middle class utilises a bureaucracy in order to maintain
its advantaged position: yet, there is very little direct
evidence to support this contention. This, in turn, immedi-
ately raised the question of the place of an ”upper” class
in this schema, and its mechanisms of maintenance.

Also, the majority of examples in this paper are taken
from the writer's own experiences and research in the field
of delinquency. This would seem to point up the effect of
bureaucracies in other areas of deviance, as well as the life
cycle. For example, how does the adult come to be defined as
mentally ill? Or as a criminal?

Lastly, there would seem to be an area of exploration in
terms of the operation of the bureaucracy itself, and perhaps
areas of modern life which are not yet (or are only minimally)
bureaucratised. Accompanying such a study might be a compari-
son of client oriented bureaucracies with non-client oriented
organisations. In any case, it is clear that much more empir-
ical work must be done before this suggested grandiose theory
can bear the explanatory fruit which will contribute to our

understanding of the nature of social order.

FOOTNOTES -’CHAPTER IV

1. James F. Short, Jr., "Gang Delinquency and Anomie,”
Anomie and Deviant Behavior, Marshall B. Clinard (ed.),

(Glencoe: The Free Press, 1964), p. 116.

2. Albert K. Cohen, "Toward a Theory of Deviant Behavior:
Continuities Continued,“ Paper read before the American

Sociological Association Annual Hosting, Los Angeles,
California, August, 1963.

3. Herbert Gans, The urban Villagers (New York: The Free
Press, 1965).

4. In this regard, Gans occupies a similar position to that
of Robert Dubin, "Industrial Worker's Ibrlds,” Social
Problems, 3 (January, 1956).

5. Gideon Sjobert, Richard A. Brymer and Buford Farris,
"Bureaucracy and the Lower Glass,” Sociolc and Social
Research, 50 (April, 1966), 325-337.

6. Ibide’ Fe 325'

7. Gunnar lyrdal, Economic Theo and Uhder-Develo d

Regions (London: Gerald Ducksorth and Co., 1957), pp.16-20.
8.‘l. Lloyd‘Warner, it al., Democracy in Jonesville (New York:
Harper, 1949). as well as other of his writings; August R.
Hollingshead and Frederick C. Redlich, Social Class and Mental
Illness (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1953): and Oscar Lewis,

Th: thldrgn 9f Sanchez (New York: Random House, 1961): Five
Families (New York: Basic Books, 1959).

9. Here we are using Hollingshead only as an example of a
traditional approach. Many others could also have been used.

10. Oscar Lewis, _o_p_. cit.

11. Melvin Seeman and John I} lvans, "Alienation and Learning
in a Hospital Setting," Americgn Sociological Revigw, 27
(December, 1962), 772-782: lelvin Seeman, "Alienation and
Social Learning in a Reformatory," American Journal 0
Sociology, 69 (lovember, 1963). 270-284; and Arthur G. Real
and Melvin Seeman, ”Organisations and Powerlessness: A Test
of the Mediation Hypothesis,“ American Sociolc lo 1 Review,
29 (April, 1964). 216-226.

12. H. R. Gerth and C. Iright Mills (eds. and trans.), From
lax Webgr (New York: Olford University Press, 1946): Gideon
Sjoberg, The Pre-Industrigl Cit; (Glencoe: The Free Press,1960).

245

246

13. Dorothy L. Meier and Wendell Bell, ”Anomia and Differential
Access to the Achievement of Life Goals," American Sociological
Review, 24 (April, 1959): 189-202: and Gwynn Nettler, "A Measure
of Alienation," American Sociological Review, 22 (December,
1957). 670-677.

14. Other sources documenting this more or less fatalistic orien-
tation may be found in Frank Riessman, Jerome Cohen and Arthur
Pearl (eds.;, Mental Health of the Poor (New York: The Free
Press, 1964

15. Nettler,‘gp. cit., and Jan Hajda, ”Alienation and Into-
gration of Student Intellectuals,” American Sociolc ical Review,
26 (October, 1961), 758-777.

16. Herbert H. Hyman, ”The Value Systems of Different Classes:
A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Strati-

fication,” Class Status and Power, (eds.) Reinhard Bendix and
Seymour H. Lipset (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953), pp. 426-442.

17. Robert I. Horton, Social Theo and Social Structure, revised
edition (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957).
18. Sjoberg, Brymer and Farris,.gp. cit.

19. Robert A. Gordon, James 1". Short, Jr., Desmond S. Cartwright,
and Fred L. Strodtbeck, "values and Gang Delinquency: A Study

of Street Corner Groups,” American Journal of Sociolc , 69
(SCPtubCr’ .1963), 109'128e

20. Hyman Rodman, “The Lower—Class Value Stretch,“ Social Forces,
42 (December, 1963), 205-215. .

21. Seymour I. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Nobility in

Igdustrial Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1960), p. 197.

22. Ibid.
23. Ibide, Pe 198s

24. Only a few of these mechanisms can be mentioned here. Others,

as well as an analysis of other institutional operations with

respect to the lower class, will be presented in a manuscript

in preparation by Richard A. Brymer and Gideon Sjoberg,
"Bureaucracy, Community and the Lower Class”.

25. Sjoberg, Brymer and Farris, c ..gig. Also of interest here
are the reasons for which a child leaves school. Most often,
economic reasons are given. Yet, a survey of the "dropouts"
themselves indicates that first, many of them have.positive
feelings about the school, and second, few of them get jobs
after dropping out. Their reasons for leaving school were that
the school 'bugged’ them, etc. These findings might support
the contention that the term ”dropout” has been coined by
educators, and is used to place the responsibility for leaving.-
school upon the child, and thereby remove any blame from the

..-.

e
, e
I
t ......
F e
' 2
t I
C
" 7‘

247

from the school, which also would allow the school to retain
its ”successful“ image. See various articles in Arthur B.

Shostak and William Gomberg, New Pers ctives on Povert
(Englewocd Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965).

26. Materials presented in this paragraph were derived from
the files of the Wesley Community Youth Project, Wesley

Community Centers, San Antonio, Texas, where the author is
currently research sociologist.

27s OMB, m age, Chapter 8.

28. Howard 8. Becker, The Outsiders (New York: The Free
Press, 1963).

29. Robert H. Hardt and George I. Bodine, Develo ent of
Self-Re rt Instruments in Delin uenc Research (Youth
Development Center, Syracuse University, 1965), p. 13.

30. Irving Piliavin and Scott Briar, "Police Encounters with

Juveniles," American Journal 2f Sociology, 70 (September,
1964), 206-214.

31. Thomas J. Scheff, Bein lentall Ill: A Sociolc ical Theor
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1966): Hollingshead and
Redlich, 33. $1.: Riessman, Cohen and Pearl, 33. 9_1_t_.:
Shostak and Gomberg, 21. .933. . .

32. Whlter Killer, “Lower Class Culture as a Generating
Milieu of Gang Delinquency,” Jgurnal 2f Social Issues, 14(1958).

33. Rodman, 32. 22.208 Becker, o . 933.; Harold Finestone,
"Cats, Hicks and Color," Social Problems, 5 (July, 1957);
Alfred B. Lindesmith and John Gagnon, ”Anomie and Drug
Addiction," in Clinard, £2. $0, PP. 158.188e

34. Lipset, o .‘g£§., p. 71, notes that "while the notion that
the socially mobile are more likely to be prejudiced against
ethnic groups than the stationary has become rather common,
the available evidence is quite ambiguous and cautions against
any simple interpretation.“

 

35s 6.1118, 2.2. .91-is, Chapter 8e

36. Of all the various consequences of social mobility, mental
illness is perhaps the most prevalent. See, for example,

A. B. Hollingshead, R. Ellis and 3. Kirby, "Social lobility
and Rental Illness,” American Sociolc ical Review, 19 (October,
1954), 577-584, Evelyn Ellis, "Social Psychological Correlates
of Upward Social Mobility Among Unmarried Career Women,"

American Sociological Revigz, 17 (October, 1952), 558-563.

 

e
f
.-.-.l.
I.
1!
c
.
a
‘3
D

e
t
. 0
1r
0

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angell, Robert C. "Preferences for Moral Norms in Three Areas,"
American Journal of Sociology, 67 (Hay, 1962), 650-660.

Becker, Howard S. The Outsiders. New York: The Free Press, 1963.

Bell, Wendell. ”Anomie, Social Isolation, and the Class
Structure,” Sociomotry, 20 (June, 1957), 105-116.

Benoit-Smullyan, Emile. ”Status, Status Types, and Status

Inter-relations,“ American Sociological Review, 9
(April, 1944). 151-161.

Blau, Peter. "Social lobility and Interpersonal Relations,"
American Sociological Review, 21 (June, 1956), 290—295.

Bogardus, Emory. ”Race Reactions by Sex," Sociology and Social
Research, 43 (July-August, 1959), 439.441.

Bordua, David J. "Juvenile Delinquency and 'Anomie': An
Attempt at Replication," Social Problems, 6 (Winter,
1958), 230-238. "'""""‘""""""'""’

Brymer, Richard A., and Sjoberg, Gideon. ”Bureaucracy,
Community and the Lower Class.” Ianuscript in preparation.

Cantril, Hadley. ”Hopes and Pears for Self and Country,”

Americgg Behavioral Scigntist, 6 (October, 1962), Supplement.

Cartwright, Desmond S. “A Iisapplication of Factor Analysis,"

American Sociological Review, 30 (April, 1965), 249-252.
Clark, John P. "Measuring Alienation Within a Social System,”

hgrican Sgciologicgl song, 24(Deoember, 1959), 849-852.

Cloward, Richard A. "Illegitimate leans, Anomie, Deviant

Behavior," ggeriogg Sociological Review, 24 (April, 1959),

e and Ohlin, L. I. leinguenoy and Oppgrtunity.
New York: The Pres Press, 19 0.

Cohen, Albert R. "The Sociology of the Deviant Act,"

Americ Sociolc c 1 Rev ew, 39 (February, 1965),
5 (footnote 1).

 

248

z‘l

-.
.. .-. -
a

5%
x

I
...” t
I "
0
e
‘
i
0
Q.
a G 0‘.
e
I.
e
. C.‘ -.
e . Y
K

--.o~

...-<e

‘_.._s-L

249

. "Toward a Theory of Deviant Behavior: Continuities

Continued." A paper read before the American Sociological
Association Annual leetings, Los Angeles, California,
August , ‘963.

Curtis, Richard. "Occupational Nobility and Hembership in
Formal voluntary Association,” American Sociolc ical
Review, 24 (August, 1959): 346:343.

. "Occupational Mobility and Union.lembership in

Detroit: A Replication,“ Socigl Forces, 38 (October,
1959). 69-71.

Dean, Dwight. ”leaning and.leasurement of Alienation,”

American Sociolc ical Review, 26 (October, 1961),
753-755.

Dubin, Robert. 1”Deviant Behavior and Social Structure:
Continuities in Social Theory,” Americgg Sociological
Review, 24 (April, 1959): 147-164-

. ”Industrial Worker's Worlds," SocialProblems,
3 (January, 1956). ""

Durkheim, Smile. The Division of Labor in Society. Trans-
lated by George Simpson. New York: The Free Press, 1947.

 

. Suicide. Translated by John A. Spaulding and George
Simpson. New York: The Free Press, 1951.

Ellis, Evelyn. ”Social Psychological Correlates of Upward
Social lcbility Among unmarried Career Women," American

Sociologigg; Revieg, 17 (October, 1952), 558-563.

Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Coggitive Dissonance. Ivanstcn,
Illinois: Roqueterson, 1957.

Feuer, Lewis. ”What is Alienation: The Career of a Concept,"
in Sociology on Trial. Edited by laurioe Stein and
Arthur Vidich. Inglewood Cliffs, H.J.:Prentice-Hall,
Ince, 1963e

Finestone, Harold. ”Cats, licks and Color," Social Problems,
5 (July. 1957). ""'""'""‘

Gallup Organisation, Inc. Be t to the De tment of Sociolggy
35d Anthropglogz. lichigan State University. Princeton,
New Jersey, March, 1964.

 

Cans, Herbert. The Urban Villggers. New York:The Free Press,1965.

O
Q. l . . -
—l . g vvvvvvv
F, :
I O
.f F.
-N---- t
e " t r!
C
t "" ‘0 0 t
- ..' -. _. t?
O

eeeeee

I
. _
1‘ . .
Fe 1...
r
, D
O r'
..... ° C
0‘..- - O
o C
. I Q
l‘. .............. A...
.......... . 1
O Q.
E. ‘ v
- e
e rgO
Q ‘ 1

.1- Q.

coo-...

250

Gerth, H. H., and Mills, C. Wright (eds. and trans.) From Max
Weber. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.

Geschwender, James A. “Status Inconsistency, Cognitive Disso-
nance and Social Change." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Sociology, Michigan State University,1962.

Goffman, Irwin W. ”Status Consistency and Preference for
Change in Power Distribution,” American Sociological
Review, 22 (June, 1957), 275-281.

Gordon, Robert A., Short, James B., Jr., Cartwright, Desmond S.,
and Strodtbeck, Fred L. "Values and Gang Delinquency: A
Study of Street Corner Groups," American Journal of
Sociolc , 69 (September, 1963), 109-12 .

Greenblum, Joseph, and Pearlin, Leonard I. ”Vertical Mobility
and Prejudice: A Socio—Psychological Analysis," in
Class, Status and Power. Edited by Reinhard Bendix and
Seymour Lipset. New York: The Free Press, 1953.

Hajda, Jan. ”Alienation and Integration of Student Intellec-

tuals,“ Americgg Sociological Review, 26 (October, 1961),
753-777.

Hardt, Robert H., and Bodine, George B. Developgent of Self-
Repgrt Instruments in Delinguency Rgsearch. Youth
Development Center, Syracuse University, 1965.

Hollingshead, A. B., Illis, H., and Kirby, B. ”Social Mobility
and Mental Illness,” American Sociological Review, 19
(October, 1954): 577-5 .

, and Redlich, P. C. Social Class nd Mental Illness.
New York: John Wiley, 195 .

Hughes, Everett. "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status,"

Agerican Journgl of Sociology, 50 (March,1945), 353-357.

Hyman, Herbert H. Survey Design ggd Analysis. New York:
The Free Press, 1955.

. “The value Systems of Different Classes: A Social
Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Strati—
fication,” in Class, Status, 53d Power. Edited by
Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Lipset. New York: The
Free Press, 1953.

Jackson, Elton F. "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress,”

American Sociolggicgl Review, 27 (August, 1962), 469—480.

Q
9 O
.T
Ie
. r- r.
O
" -
O
. ...... ‘ ”
1x
5:
C s
7,, Q
. - .-
O
. Q
Q t

251
Jackson, J. M. "A Simple and More Rigorous Technique for

Scale Analysis," in A Manual for Scale Anal sis Part
III. Montreal: McGill University, 1949. (Mimeographed.)
Killian, Lewis M., and Grigg, Charles M. ”Urbanism, Race,

and Anomia," American Journal of Sociology, 67 (May,
1962), 661-665.

Kornhauser, Arthur, Sheppard, Harold L., and Mayor, Albert J.
When Labor vot... New York: University Publishers, 1956.

Kcrnhauser, Ruth. "The Warner Approach to Social Stratifi-
cation," in Class Status and Power. Edited by Reinhard
Bendix and Seymour Lipset. New York: The Free Press,

1953.

Landecker, Werner S. ”Class Crystallization and Class

Consciousness,” American Sociological Review, 28 (April,
1963). 219-229.

Lasarsfeld, Paul. ”Interpretation of Statistical Relations
as a Research Operation," in The Langgggg of Social
Research. Edited by Paul Lasarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg.
New York: The Free Press, 1955.

Lemert, Edwin M. “Social Structure, Social Control and
Deviation," in Anomie ggd Deviant Behgvior. Edited
by Marshall B. Clinard. New York: The Free Press, 1964.

Lenski, Gerhard E. "Social Participation and Status Crystal-
lization,“ Americ Sociolc ical Revi , 21 (August,
1956). 458-464.

. “Status Crystallization: A Non-vertical Dimension

of Social Status,” American Sociological Review, 19
(August. 1954). 405-513.

Lewis, Oscar. The Childrgn of Sggches. New York1Random House,
1961.

. Five Families. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
Lindesmith, Alfred B., and Gagnon, John. ”Anomie and.Drug
Addiction," in Anomie ggd Deviant Behavior. Edited by
Marshall B. Clinard. New York: The Free Press, 1964.

Lipset, Seymour M., and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility in

Igdustrial Socigty. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 19 O.

F
O s
Q. Q
0
.,_ I

Q
s
. p
' f

.
t.
,_ t
e “’1
I
I
a

e
O
I
Q
e
C
I ,
1
. ...

........

I.

252

MaoIver, Robert M. The Ramparts We Guard. New York:
The “Quill” Co., 19500

McClosky, Herbert, and Schaar, John H. “Psychological

Dimensions of Ancm ," American Sociological Review,
30 (February, 1965 , 14, 19.

McDill, Edward L. ”Anomie, Authoritarianism, Prejudice and
Boole-Economic Status: An Attempt at Clarification,"
Social Forces, 39 (March, 1961), 230-245.

, and Ridley, J. C. ”Status, Anomia, Political Alien-
ation and Political Participation," American Journal of
Sociology, 68 (September, 1962), 205-213.

McPhail, Clark. "Dogmatism, Religiosity and Alienation.”
unpublished research report, Department of Sociology,
Michigan State University, 1962.

. ”Self Identification Within a Specific Context of
Experience and Behavior.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1965.

Meier, Dorothy L., and Bell, Wendell. ”Anomia and Differ-
ential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals,"

Aucricgg Sociological Review, 24 (April, 1959). 189-202.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Revised ed. New York: The Free Press, 1957.

Middleton, Russell. ”Alienation, Race and Education,"
Americas Sociologicii Revigg, 28 (December, 1963),
973‘97 .

Miller, Walter. ”Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu
of Gang Delinquency," Journal of Social Issu s, 14(1958).

Misruchi, E. H. ”Social Structure and Anomie in a Small

City " Amgrican Sociologicil Review, 25 (October,
1960 , 645-654.

. . Success ggd Oppgrtunity: A Stuiy of Anomie.
New York: The Free Press, 1964.

Myrdal, Gunner. Economic Thgory 52d Under-Developgd Regions.
London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1957.

Neal, Arthur G., and Rettig, Salomon. "Dimensions of Alien-
ation Among Manual and Non-Manual Workers,” American

Sociological Review, 28 (August, 1963), 599-60 .

. it.
e Q ' C
s ..... Y
.1 .1“, r.
s Q U
- "‘ er 1. ' ......
v v e e e
e r "I i r! t . -..
e (I e
9 Y
O ff
s e e
. r,
—' 9 Q ' Q.
T-
9
- Fr Ft : ....... . .. .
. s
. f. 2 .
9 " ' t
v '1' ’ ........... . - . .
. _
e
Ik 1.. . f
5 — e s Q
e t. .. .-. V
e _ Q
. ‘ 37-
. 1‘. .
....... - — 0 0 J .v
I r(. z
c Q -e
Q ~

253

, and Seeman, Melvin. "Organizations and Powerless-
ness: A Test of the Mediation Hypotheses,” American

Sociological Review, 29 (April, 1964), 216-226.

Nettler, Gwynn. ”A Measure of Alienation,“ American
Sociological Review, 22 (December, 1957), 675:677.

 

Pearlin, Leonard I. "Alienation from Work: A Study of
Nursing Personnel," American Sociolc ical Review,
27 (June, 1962), 314-326.

Phctiadis, John B., and Bigger, Jeanne. “Religiosity,
Education and Ethic Distance,” American Journal of
Sociology, 67 (May, 1962), 666—672.

Piliavin, Irving, and Brier, Scott. ”Police Encounters
with Juveniles," American Journal of Sociolc , 70
(September, 1964), 206—214.

Rhodes, Albert L. "Anomia, Aspiration and Status,"
Social Forces, 42 (May, 1964), 434—440,

Riessman, Frank, Cohen, Jerome, and Pearl, Arthur (eds.)
Mental Heilth of the Poor. New York: The Free Press,
1964.

Ringer, B. B. , and Sills, P. L. ”Political Extremists in
Iran " Public Opinion ggggtcrly, 16 (Winter, 1952-
19535 : 6 9.7010

Roberts, A. H., and Rokeach, M. ”Anomie, Authoritarianism,
and Prejtdice: A Replication " American Journal of

Sociology, 61 (January, 1956 : 355v35 .

Rodman, Hyman. ”The Lower—Class Value Stretch,” Social
Forces, 42 (December, 1963), 205-215.

Rosenberg, Morris. Occupgtion igd Valugs. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.

Sampson, Edward E. "Status Congruency and Cognitive Con-
sistency,“ Socicmetyy, 26 (June, 1963), 146-162.

Scheff, Thomas J. Beigg Mentally Ill: A Sociologicil Theory.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing OOe’ 1966e

Seeman, Melvin. ”Alienation and Social Learning in a Reform-

ator ,” Amerigan Journal of Sociology, 69 (November,
1963‘! 270’2 4e

._______. "Antidote to Alienation-Learning to Belong,"
W. 3 (May-June. 1966). 35-40.

O
I e t
e "' ' r Q Q
‘. s Q
s ”'1 Q r o
5‘ D Q t. 2
Q
- " 2 f c Q , , -
e v Q Q
s ‘ ’ t
- 1" t r 2
r ' ' 9
' — " p Q ' ....r .....
o ‘ Q Q Q Q
. ...... ...
. i
s s Q Q 9 ' Q
2 T Q , ,',', ...... . ..... f
of "’ Q r
(~ 0 Q C. ’ Q
. IQ ‘
a ‘" t 1' t ' l‘ t .......
9. " ° 9
e 1‘" t T r 1 l .....
I e .. ‘ _ _ 0 Q
. T ,
e r” F e r g 9 - Q 1
______ _.:. ..‘ s Q
s so
a
s g _. Q
o _" Q
"' e

254

, and Evans, John W. "Alienation and Learning in
a Hospital Setting " American Sociolc ical Review,
27 (December, 1962 , 772-782.

 

Short, James B., Jr. "Gang Delinquency and Anomie,” in
Anomie and Deviant Behavior. Edited by Marshall
Clinard. New York: Free Press, 1964.

Shostak, Arthur B., and Gomberg, William. New Perspectives
on Poverty. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1965.

Simmel, Georg. ”The Metropolis and Mental Life," in The
Sociglogy of Georg Simmsl. Translated by Kurt H. Wolff.
New York: The Free Press, 1950.

Simmons, J. L. "Some Intercorrelations Among 'Alienation'
Measures," Social Forces, 44 (March, 1966), 370—372.

Simpson, Richard L., and Miller, B. Max. "Social Status and
Anomia,” Sociyl Problems, 10 (Winter, 1963), 256-264.

Sjoberg, Gideon. The Preindustrial City. Glencoe: The Free
Press, 1960.

, Brymsr, Richard A., and Farris, Buford. "Bureauc-
racy and the Lower Class," Sociolc and Social Research,
so (April. 1966). 325-337.

Srcle, Leo. "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An
Exploratory Study,” American Sociolc ical Review, 21
(December, 1956), 270-2 4.

Struening, Elmer L., and Richardson, Arthur R. "A Factor
Analytic Exploration of the Alienation, Anomie and
Authoritarianism Domain,” American Sociolc ical Review,
30 (October, 1965), 768-775.

Tumin, Melvin M., and Collins, Roy C. "Status Mobility and
Anomie: A Study in Readiness for Desegregation,”
’

British Journal of Sociology, 10(1959 253—267.

Turabian, Kate L.' A Manual for Writgrs of Term Paggrs, Theses
and Dissertations. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1956.

U. 8. Bureau of the Census. General Population Characteristics:
126 .

Waisanen, Frederick B. "A Notation Technique for Scalogram

Anal sis," Sociological Quayterly, 1, No. 4 (November,
1960 , 245-252.

255

. "Stability, Alienation and Change,“ Sociological
Quarterly, 4, No. 1 (Winter, 1963), 18—32.

Warner, W. Lloyd,.ggngl. Democracy in Jonesville. New York:
Harper, 1949.

, and Lunt, Paul S. The Status System of a Modern
Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942.

Watson, Walter B., and Barth, Ernest A. T. "Questionable
Assumptions in the Theory of Social Stratification,”

Pacific Sociological Review. 7 (Spring, 1964), 10-16.