‘4- \‘ \/ OI n38 IV“. ‘ ‘O .5. r:‘.\ PERSC‘ This dié a .5 :srx'mity stE‘J :Ifl‘w Mons. A s Jtework for t‘* . ‘ . 11"". Mu: ‘ .* - OL COIIE‘ s‘ " '4 fi'fi‘ 1“ uik. 1‘ fl auerna I}. '~° c=re derive v ( (Z, 2th. «ukt‘lra‘ ( 3::- ¥ and rahm. 5&CS are . “inlty s u ‘~l al‘ '11] .‘h ‘1518 of Q Sta‘ $fi53‘ ; ‘ “ficao . ' LEW \, wen \. C a. t‘ on“: ‘\ uni“ “ \‘ Q; V‘ZE 0 "1‘ ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY STATUS SYSTEMS UPON PERSONAL APPRAISALS OF LIFE CONDITIONS by M. Joseph Smucker This dissertation is an inquiry into the relevance of cxnmnunity status systems for personal appraisals of life <:onditions. A single proposition provides the conceptual framework for the inquiry; the proposition is that the degree of correspondence of community status rank with appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which alternatives other than the status system are avail- able for the appraisals. Four corollaries to the prOposi— tion are derived from evidence in the literature that four key structural characteristics of communities influence the nature and range of the alternatives. The structural charac— teristics are: (l) the degree of community autonomy, (2) the community size, (3) the economic affluence of the commu- nity and (4) the nature of the division of labor within the community. These characteristics are then applied to the analysis of status systems in the communities of La Lucha, Costa Rica; Lewiston, Michigan; and San Miguel, Guatemala. All three communities are relatively autonomous and are of small size. They differ, however, in their economic levels ‘ I gzc the .18th ;a:xha there 1:25 around a Lmeabove the 22372 the subs; Lita: within ti”. . I :‘r-yaon 3‘ thJbLural é; ., "2. Y‘v— ._ C ~Q ‘ ‘.\:5 of CA . \l 14.. m ‘0 ‘tce Ste “:;r up“ Pnl\ - *».c“' g‘fQ M ‘v #3."; v s ' U “Grlat‘. 3:: . thv Lt.e St :A». ‘4‘ n.‘ ‘ t3 DE er \- 3f.. ~\‘E‘Ja“.‘~ 4.L St §.‘ \\“cv‘ \k‘a a re - A is \~;S 1“ s ‘ear7x '~ 2‘ ~.:‘. ‘k 7" N ‘“ &:~' vh‘ v5 * ‘N a 3.; C" A m y. - k 0. ‘1‘: \ M. Joseph Smucker and time nature of the division of labor within them. Within La Inniha there is a clearly defined, division of labor orga— nized.around.a central work organization. Its inhabitants live above the subsistence level. Inhabitants also live above the subsistence level in Lewiston but the division of labor within the community is diffuse and lacks the degree of structural articulation characteristic of La Lucha. San Miguel is a peasant community with a very limited division of labor, whose inhabitants live at the subsistence level. The portrayal of the status systems of the three communities are based upon the mean of all rankings each household head received from every other household head. The range of possible rankings was limited to a ten—point scale. The status systems are then analyzed in terms of their relative clarity and the relationship of selected back- ground variables to their definitions. The relationships are: analyzed through the use of correlation techniques. The status systems of La Lucha and Lewiston are found to be equally clearly defined but they differ in terms of relevant status assigning criteria. Achievement related criteria are most relevant to the status system in La Lucha. Criteria contributing to the "public ideology" are most relevant in Lewiston. In San Miguel, the status system is less clearly defined. The criteria most important for status assignment are ascriptive. All of the status-assign- ing criteria eXplain the most variance in the status system q‘r Ia 'Vfl‘n ; .u = $9.; 1 L ~. ' 1 _ .cflar‘xCe EXCL; . It wa; .; ‘1 Q a . «gray ElatEV. . pq‘s‘a‘ ‘ u {be H \,. ‘-.-~~ l. : :‘[.lia~“‘d w - o :3: lfl'mv M18203 a“ I \2- ‘ “‘ k ”“4: “:4»;. 'fl ‘ T..e if \ "x? l‘ h M.. ‘.R .w ’ St:t. ‘ .\~ 3 u SJ, l at‘.~ Mb Svstcw ‘3 “L HUD . I1 3 , iS‘w a ~££S of S "P- AL : “life. \ ‘ Strzh H‘ d- ‘ C 3:55.. ‘\5 ~r‘1 .., r~ u; a‘ 4| 5:. 1‘31: M. Joseph Smucker in La Lucha, followed by Lewiston, with the least amount of variance eXplained in San Miguel. It was expected that the status scale would be most highly related to the appraisal scale in La Lucha and least related in San Miguel. The relationship in Lewiston was exPected to be between these extremes. The eXpectations regarding the ordering of the communities are met. However, in all three communities the relationships are weak. The status—assigning criteria which are especially relevant for the personal appraisals are achieved in La Lucha, ascribed in Lewiston and those contributing to the public ideology in San Miguel. The low degree of relevance of the status systems for personal appraisals is eXplained on the basis of the four corollaries to the proposition. Using the corollaries as an interpretive framework, the structural characteristics of the communities are held to have independent effects upon the status systems and the personal appraisals. What impact status systems do have for the personal appraisals is depen— dent upon a configuration of community structural character- istics of small size, a high degree of autonomy, an economic living standard above subsistence, and a clearly defined structural articulation among positions within an extensive division of labor. Analys tides additior. relationships . 2;;raisals of M. Joseph Smucker Analysis of the perceptions of the inhabitants pro- vides additional support for the interpretations of the relationships between the status systems and personal appraisals of life conditions. 5—! hi". 1313 H H LQK ~.\LJ in [3‘ 'THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY STATUS SYSTEMS UPON PERSONAL APPRAISALS OF LIFE CONDITIONS BY M. Joseph Smucker A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1967 2:132. Clear. 233‘. were the 1. \ w‘ ‘1 ‘ , '1'“? ' . art] 1'18! 2:2 9911063 c I an E 1E statarttehtg 1:. the diSSc; 5... 0f the 6, 3.313353% 6 its a“ ‘ ..'.:Slcal tr. C .:~‘ ‘ .firleg t“: ‘.x 532:5.“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A host of persons contributed both directly and indirectly to the develOpment and completion of this disser- tation. Clearly, however, those persons who contributed most were the members of my advisory committee. These were Dr. Jay W. Artis, Dr. William H. Form, Dr. James B. McKee and Dr. William A. Faunce, chairman of the committee. To Dr. Faunce, I owe a special debt of gratitude, particularly for his uncanny ability to quickly cut through accumulated irrelevancies in pursuit of the crucial issues in conceptual and methodological problems. I also appreci- ated his generosity in making time readily available for the many periods of consultation. I am also grateful to Dr. Form who made available to me departmental facilities during the final stages in writ- ing the dissertation. Without his generosity, the comple- tion of the dissertation would have been delayed far beyond the present date. But more than this, I wish to acknowledge the influence of Dr. Form's sociological perspective in the classical tradition (although we may differ in our positions regarding the limits of this perspective), not only in the formulation of the dissertation problem but also in my general or ientat ion . ii I 8153 V‘ NM ‘afc’éee thr o -g .. r‘ 55. cements .. to those pro-c: The 1x :fltiCularlfiy i AL In add Lack ' . 'JbL‘. 5‘13 {018$ . z» ' ~ . as. leEZted .2” s‘: ES'riptiQ ,_ . i . ..... graphi" .13 .s and ‘ I also wish to acknowledge the influence of Dr. McKee through his stimulating lectures and also his insight- ful comments during personal discussions; discussions which served to remind me that sociologists are themselves subject to those processes which they seek to understand. The influence of Dr. Artis is also appreciated, particularly in his emphasis upon the importance of purpose rather than form in the use of analytic techniques. In addition to the advisory committee members I also wish to eXpress my appreciation to Dr. Frederick Waisanen in both his roles as stimulating scholar at Michigan State and as gracious host during my stay in Costa Rica° I am indebted to the many persons who were so generous in making available research data drawn from the communities. In addition to Dr. Faunce, who directed the larger research project of which this dissertation is a part, I am indebted to Dr. Joseph Spielberg who made available his field research notes on Lewiston and his ethnographic description of San Miguel. I am also indebted to Senora M. B. Bozzoli de Wille of the Centro de Estudios Sociolo- gicos y Antropoligicos, Universidad de Costa Rica, whose ethnographic description added greatly to my own observa- tions and understanding of the social behavior in La Lucha. I wish to eXpress my appreciation to Senor Jose' Figueres for permitting research to be carried out in iii .3 ' 43* 9.3 l a nd iv . r iaci 1 .it La T :- uuc l I “in" I". j Lino I . N F EQIE” .iati on §. La Lucha, and to the generosity of Senor Alvaro Montes de Oca in facilitating the collection of data there. I am grateful to the team of interviewers with me in La Lucha, for their tolerance of an ignorant "Norte- americano." Finally, I particularly want to eXpress my appreciation to the people of La Lucha, for their patience and generosity during my stay there. iv TO THE NIGHTINGALE Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appraisals of Life Conditions . . . Analytic Procedure . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH ISSUES IN COMMUNITY STATUS SYSTEMS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Issues . . . . . . . Models of Analysis . . . . . . . Techniques of Analysis . . . . . Types of Evaluation . . . . . . Structural Characteristics . . . . . Community Autonomy . . . . . . . Size of Community . . . . . . . Economic Level . . . . . . . . . The Division of Labor . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMUNITY STATUS SYSTEMS AND APPRAISALS OF LIFE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Absolute and Relative Appraisals . . Variations in Orientation Toward the Work Role . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for the Relationship Between Community Status and Appraisals of Life Conditions . . . . . . . . . A Proposition with Corollaries . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytic Procedure . . . . . . . . . The Research Setting . . . . . . . . vi Page [—4 HCDUJH 13 15 15 20 23 26 27 29 39 47 53 56 56 57 61 65 67 73 75 75 76 77 9. a ‘ Vit: ter La] Chapter Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . The Four Structural Characteristics The Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Procedures . . . . . . . The Community Status System . . . . Appraisal of Life Conditions . . . . Status—Assigning Variables . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. THE THREE COMMUNITIES: VARIATIONS IN REstCH S ITES . O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lewiston, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . The Physical Environment . . . . . . History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Economic Base . . . . . . . . . Social Patterns . . . . . . . . . . The Community Ideology . . . . . . . La Lucha, Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . The Physical Environment . . . . . . History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Economic Base . . . . . . . . . Social Patterns . . . . . . . . . . The Community Ideology . . . . . . . San Miguel, Guatemala . . . . . . . . . The Physical Environment . . . . . . History of the Community . . . . . . The Economic Base . . . . . . . . . Social Patterns . . . . . . . . . . The Community Ideology . . . . . . Summary Observations and Implications . VI. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS AND THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL STATUS UPON APPRAISALS OF LIFE CONDITIONS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Influence of Structural Characteris- tics Upon the Status Systems . . . . . Clarity of the Status Systems . . . Variables Contributing to Status Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions of Respondents Regarding Status Assignment . . . . . . . . The Community Elites . . . . . . . . Summary of the Findings . . . . . . vii Page 83 83 84 86 86 89 91 95 98 99 99 101 101 102 103 107 110 111 111 112 114 123 131 135 135 138 138 142 147 152 167 167 168 170 173 180 185 191 Ziagter 33’ 51.1.”: ‘ITV ' ~i. CORCLf r? U) (I) A»? 9—4 ‘ {'2 :J‘ g H (D ‘) (D (D :1 n :‘:‘ v A U i 1 ,‘ n~~‘0\:‘ paDLIV" L ‘.‘ Chapter Appraisals of Life Conditions . . . . . . The Association of Mean Status Rank with the Appraisal Scale . . . . . . The Relevance of Status—Assigning Variables to the Appraisals of Life Conditions . . . . . . . . . . Total Impact of the Background Vari— ables Upon Appraisals of Life Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents' EXpressions of Appraisals of Life Conditions . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Methods and Their Limitations . . . . Survey of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Suggested Hypotheses . . . . . General Implications . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 192 195 206 210 219 231 237 237 238 240 253 257 259 The re’ criterT 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES The relevance of size of community to criteria involved status assignment . . . . . Principle areas of employment . . . . . . . . Summary of implications from the ethnographic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community means and inter—quartile ranges of standard deviations of individual mean status ranks O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Mean standard deviations of extreme status ranks O O C O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Partial and multiple correlation coefficients between mean status rank and selected variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zero-order correlation coefficients of selected variables with mean status rank . . Percentage response citing given reason for high and low status placement . . . . . . . . Percentage reSponse citing given reason for assigning elite status . . . . . . . . . . . Ratio of median occupational, educational, and income levels of community elites to median occupational, educational and income levels of all household heads . . . . . . . . Medians on mean status rank, perceived status rank, and appraisal of life conditions . . . Correlation coefficients between mean status rank, perceived status rank, and appraisals of life conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 35 115 166 171 172 175 177 184 187 190 203 204 ii Parti: anpra SELECi EffeC'l and pi aopra: Correj variaL scale Corre] variah scale Correl Vdriat scale Correj Variak Scale Peres: mest ; Percel least Table Page 13. Partial correlation coefficients between appraisals of life conditions and selected variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 14. Effects of classes of achieved, ascribed, and public ideology variables upon the appraisal of life conditions scale . . . . . . 209 15. Correlation matrix of selected background variables and appraisal of life conditions scale in La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 16. Correlation matrix of selected background variables and appraisal of life conditions scale for the non-retired group in Lewiston . . 215 17. Correlation matrix of selected background variables and appraisal of life conditions scale for the retired group in Lewiston . . . . 216 18. Correlation matrix of selected background variables and appraisal of life conditions scale in San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 19. Percentage of responses citing things liked most about the town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 20. Percentage of responses citing things liked least about the town . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 21. Responses to the definition of success . . . . 227 22. ReSponses to central life interests . . . . . . 230 23. Frequency distributions of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions in La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 24. Frequency distribution of occupation in La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 25. Frequency distribution of income level in La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 26. Frequency distribution of education in La LuCha O I O O O I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 272 Q I . ‘h e .mu. m LI. 6.) (Y) (A! \J (A) (1) pl“. ‘AJ k") C") Freq3: chose: Freq:; menti; La L31 membe: Frqu; FIEng in La FIEng FIQquE reside FrEQue for th Freque pechi Candi: LEWist FIEQui peICe: C0261 LEWiS Table 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Frequency distribution of number of times chosen as a friend in La Lucha . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of number of times mentioned as someone others visit in La LuCha O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Frequency distribution of organizational membership in La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of sex in La Lucha . . Frequency distribution of marital status in La LuCha O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Frequency distribution of age in La Lucha . . Frequency distribution of length of residence in La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of mean status rank for the total sample in Lewiston . . . . . . Frequency distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for the total interview sample in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for the non—retired sample of Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for the retired sample of Lewiston Frequency distribution of occupation in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of income in Lewiston Frequency distribution of education in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of number of choices as friend in Lewiston . . . . . . . . xi Page 273 273 273 274 274 274 274 275 275 276 276 277 277 278 279 Table 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Frequency distribution of number of times mentioned as someone others visit in LeWiston O O O O C O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Frequency distribution of organizational membership in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of sex in Lewiston . Frequency distribution of age in Lewiston . Frequency distribution of marital status in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of length of residence in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distributions of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisal of life conditions in San Miguel . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of occupation in San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of income level (land units) in San Miguel . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of education in San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of number of times chosen as a friend in San Miguel . . . . . Frequency distribution of number of times mentioned as someone others visit in San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distribution of sex in San Miguel Frequency distribution of marital status in San Miguel O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Frequency distribution of age in San Miguel Frequency distribution of length of residence in San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 279 280 281 281 282 282 283 284 285 285 286 286 286 287 287 287 n .. o .4 I LIST OF FIGURES Population composition of Montmorency County for the years 1940, 1950 and 1960 . Distributions of total sample and interview sample on mean status ranking in Lewiston Distributions of total sample and interview sample on mean status ranking in San Miguel Distributions of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions in La Lucha . . . . . . . Distributions of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions of Lewiston interview sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions in San Miguel . . . . . . Distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for retired sample in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for non-retired sample in Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Page 106 182 183 197 198 199 201 202 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Frequency Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . 270 B. Interview Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Lewiston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 La Lucha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 xiv al 133‘ , . N "Ll: 5'+P ‘5“ RA ring t I “Aw-3 S ~~_ Soc criter' is a . .h. ..~§ 0c \“‘ 7~ ~‘ CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction This dissertation is an inquiry into the relevance of community status systems for individuals' appraisals of their conditions in life. Three small communities provide the setting for the inquiry: a Costa Rican factory town, a relatively isolated town in Michigan, and a Guatemalan ladino peasant community. Preliminary to dealing with the central issue, the characteristics of the community status systems are analyzed. Attention is then directed toward comparing the degree of relevance of the three status systems for the personal appraisals of life conditions. Social strata within small communities, as well as the criteria involved in defining them have been amply studied, but comparatively little attention has been directed toward establishing whether there are certain common struc— tural characteristics which influence the nature of the community status system. Further, even less attention has been directed toward establishing the degree of relevance of community status systems to the individual member's assess- ments of his life conditions. The ideas involved here are as aid as so. ships await I The 2 Literature k: ., ‘ ”I... 1 in... can De 333' 3f the cd size of the c | I ‘ ' '4- 'RWY: an i';:'r.'ri the es s." A ‘fig 4 Charact ”:1 . u._“'zed " 4 ‘. ". Stat-a. Q' L «3 FEB Re :3:'-‘~ 3! ‘OUChed C ‘t: ‘h‘. . ethI-ac‘ \ 1“,; \iy‘rlCal . ‘~ J» £3.th ”y amsold as sociology itself, but these particular relation- ships await further analysis. The approach of this study is to first draw from the literature key structural characteristics of communities which can be viewed independently of their status systems. Four characteristics are derived: (1) the degree of auton- omy of the community from the larger social system; (2) the size of the community; (3) the economic affluence of the community; and (4) the nature of the division of labor within the community. The three communities which are the focus of this research vary on one or more of these struc- tural characteristics. Variations in status systems are analyzed in terms of these characteristics. Operating from this analytic base, the final, and most crucial step in this research is the analysis of variations in the relevance of status systems for the appraisals eXpressed by individual Community members. This chapter covers the key concepts involved in the explanatory framework within which the major problem areas are couched. The process of analysis, involving a continu- ing interaction between the eXplanatory framework and the empirical justifications, comprises the balance of the dissertation. Cont fgll wed Wet esmy'as archical 0rd terns sue. a iiierarchical. to”status 8; kb . ":I'S COP" dALL . “:1 ‘ it“ :13»? u :5“ “um-Ed 2 :3 Si .3: 5- Gert ‘:::- l I n I N k: \ .3 ‘ ‘Q A q ‘ 1.. .21 ‘ H s. 3 21 ('1 Status Contemporary stratification theorists who have followed Weber's conceptualizations have employed the term "status" as a means of distinguishing a unique mode of hier- archical ordering: that based upon social honor.l Related terms such as "status group" and "status situation" indicate hierarchically defined positions. Contemporary references to "status symbols" may be viewed as an elaboration of Weber's conceptualizations.2 A different approach to the concept of status is represented by the theorists bearing the legacy of Linton. Status in this orientation refers to position, regardless of the social evaluation assigned to it. Thus Linton defined "statuses" as "polar positions in . . . patterns of recipro- cal behavior."3 They represent collections of "rights and —¥ 1"In contrast to the purely economically determined 'class situation' we wish to designate as 'status situation' every typical component of the life fate of man that is (Emermined by a specific, positive or negative social esti- mation of honor." Max Weber, "Class, Status and Party," in IL H. Gerth and.C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: §§says in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, Galaxy Book, 1958), pp. 186-187. 2In distinguishing class from status, Weber noted that "'classes' are stratified according to their relations to the production and acquisition of goods; whereas 'status groups' are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special 'styles of life.'" Ibid., p. 193. 3Ralph Linton, The Study_of Man (New York: Appleton— Century, 1936), p. 113. flies.” T3: | tifie enact Kin; issdivests 2911. For E 1‘13," ndhe 35 these are the actual be reevaluativ Status and [C Goods 3‘ n ‘5‘ .1... . A .. iasltb b‘qt a duties." These are distinguished from "roles" which refer to the enactments of the rights and duties. Kingsley Davis' elaboration of Linton's formulation also divests the term status of any inherent evaluative con- tent. For Davis, status is equated with position and "iden- tity," and he defines it in terms of rights and obligations as these are related to other statuses. Role is defined as the actual behavior performed by a person in a given status. The evaluative dimension is subsequently considered sepa— rately with the terms "prestige" and "esteem" related to status and role respectively.l Goodenough notes that sociologists who have viewed status as merely a positional term (a term divested of social ranking) treat it not as a collection of rights and duties but as "categories or kinds of person [sic]."2 He points out that some confusion obtains in attempting to use lKingsley Davis, Human Society (New York: MacMillan Co., 1949), pp. 83-189. 2Ward H. Goodenough, "Rethinking 'Status' and 'Role,'" in Michael Banton (ed.), The Relevance of Models for Social .Anthropology_(New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), pp. 1- 24. States Goodenough, "All writers who do not treat status as synonomous with social rank do much the same thing, in- <:luding Merton . . . in his important refinement of Linton's :formulation. All alike treat a social category together ‘flith its attached rights and duties as an indivisible unit caf analysis, which they label a 'status' or 'position' in a social relationship." Ibid., p. 2. the term ir. 52:1: attrib, ‘. 1 51535513". “ M r 'r- a . 7 A u: r a " h ‘3‘: O“~‘y\ ‘ '9 ‘ “3|. t D ‘: l‘fi I a i". “j c "1“ 'C. 1 l N ~‘NT‘QI ld ., “ :32, “5 ll.‘ W 0:18' S .' EQNQA . ‘54 j. ‘ I¥t 01 D9031 i'§‘.‘ . Le‘ Q .‘"01:% - “ z-jtimg “it E "13 ‘0 and 1 3‘w‘ do . 1 the term in this manner.1 One is likely to become ensnared in an endless search for the rights and obligations of "per- sonal identities" when in fact these are not likely to have such attributes. Goodenough illustrates the problem in a discussion of the relationship between father and son: The status of the social identity "father" in this relationship is delimited by the duties he owes his son and the things he can demand of him. Within the boundaries set by his rights and duties it is his privilege to conduct himself as he will. How he does this is a matter of personal style. We assess the father as a person on the basis of how he consistently exercises his privileges and on the degree to which he oversteps his status boundaries with brutal behavior or economic neglect. But as long as he remains within the boundaries, his personal identity as a stern or indulgent parent has no effect on what are his rights and duties in this or any other relation- ship to which he may be party.2 In the eXplanatory framework of this study, the evaluative connotation of status is adhered to. In his dis- tinction among the terms, "class" (economic determinants of 1Ibid., p. 2. "For example, my brother is my brother whether he honors his obligations as such or not." Goodenough thus notes that where the evaluative component is lacking, Specification of the rights and duties becomes extremely problematic. 2Ibid., p. 4. Goodenough distinguishes between "social identity" and "personal identity" as follows: "A social identity is an aSpect of self that makes a difference in how one's rights and duties distribute to specific others. any aspect of self whose alteration entails no change in 110w peOple's rights and duties are mutually distributed, .although it affects their emotional orientations to one axnother and the way they choose to exercise their privileges, lmas to do with personal identity but not with social iden- tity." Ibid., pp. 3—4. Stra directlg' is not, ‘ Prouertv such 53 social acquisi . 3 disgua: gain it Conve Wholly dg being ide officer, mined b! While the‘ | f? (I) t—fi .v -. because t all IEIEV mm3€duce "life chances"), "status" (social honor) and "party" (polit— ical influence), Weber noted the following: Stratificatory status may be based on class directly or related to it in complex ways. It is not, however, determined by this alone. PrOperty and managerial positions are not as such sufficient to lend their holder a certain social status, though they may well lead to its acquisition. Similarly, poverty is not as such a disqualification for high social status though again it may influence it. Conversely, social status may partly or even wholly determine class status, without, however, being identical with it. The class status of an officer, a civil servant, and a student as deter— mined by their income may be widely different while their social status remains the same, because they adhere to the same mode of life in all relevant reSpects as a result of their com- mon education. Weber applies the term "social status" to an effective claim of positive or negative privilege with respect to social prestige so far as it rests on one or more of the following bases: (a) mode of living, (b) a formal process of educa- tion which may consist of empirical or rational training and the acquisition of the corresponding modes of life, or (c) on the prestige of birth, or of an occupation.2 Social status in Weber's terms involves the trans- lation of different sets of rank-assigning criteria into social honor. Social honor is based upon a value system (different from Weber's view of the rationality of the market 1Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic 0:92? Igization, trans. and ed. by Talcott Parsons (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), (paperback edition), p. 428. 2 Ibid., p. 428. sstem. In esters of ; 51011232112 0"; 1 As : for the H Only ver the acq; relative faVOIEd. economic by State fOIEgro-_; naked cl icance a and 9307.: dO'w'f) of leads, i: str “ “‘ “Churf 7"“ V N“. ‘uigov‘tdh‘ . «.‘Ed 8 ‘s :L 1th t futre“ “ ‘thlo'l system. In Weber's view, status and class are two distinct systems of evaluation; it is possible for one to be pre- dominant over the other: As to the general economic conditions making for the predominance of stratification by "status," Only very little can be said. When the bases of the acquisition and distribution of goods are relatively stable, stratification by status is favored. Every technological repercussion and economic transformation threatens stratification by status and pushes the class situation into the foreground. Epochs and countries in which the naked class situation is of predominant signif— »icance are regularly the periods of technical and economic transformations. And every slowing down of the shifting of economic stratifications leads, in due course, to the growth of status structures and makes for a resuscitation of the important role of social honor. The index most used by contemporary researchers in the analysis of status delineations has been occupation or the work role. At the macroscopic level, this has occurred not only in the analysis of American society but also in other industrialized societies. But while work-related activity is required of men in all societies, its importance as a criterion of social evaluation is not likely to be universally the same.2 Indeed, even within industrialized 1Max Weber, "Class, Status and Party," in H. H. (Berth and C. wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New YOrk: Oxford University Press, Galaxy Book, 1958), pp. l93-l94. 2It should be clearly understood that I am not con- <:erned.with the similarity of ranking of occupations in (different cultures, but with the relative importance of cxzcupation as a criterion employed in social evaluations. smieties t:- :o't he views A Co: at}: two chie societies there is some evidence that relative to other criteria, work and related achievement variables may be of less importance in social ranking. The social context in which this is most likely is the small community, which can- not be viewed as simply a microcosm of the larger society. A community may be defined as "an inclusive group with two chief characteristics: (1) within it the individ- ual can have most of the eXperiences and conduct most of the activities that are important to him, and (2) it is bound together by a shared sense of belonging and by the feeling among its members that the group defines for them their distinctive identity."1 The community represents a rela— tively stable social system within which the individual actor is identified in a holistic, multirole fashion. A preliminary problem of this research will be to ascertain the nature of status systems in such social settings. Appraisals of Life Conditions The concern with social evaluation has had a long tradition of interest in American sociology and indeed, ‘within.American society itself. Status appears to be a éhdving motive of the American populace, an engaging theme lLeonard Broom and Philip Selznich, Sociology (New Snark: Harper and Row, 1963). "Group" as defined by the aruthors refers to "any collection of persons who are bound txagether byga distinctive set of social relations." Ibid., p. 31. far its now :::.er.tator:‘ GliCkS I Leanixport “Rains stri SEW of the zetators fr. :dBell he? e Z { rs researc‘ 156110.131 Q.‘ ..ZE" for hi: From , v for its novelists and an intriguing polemic among its social commentators. Despite the eXperiences of the George Babbitts, Sammy Glicks and Willie Lomans,l it is assumed that status is an important determinant of satisfaction with life. "Status striving," "status anxiety" and "alienation" are but a few of the terms now incorporated in common parlance. Com— mentators from De Tocqueville to Velen, to Riesman, Whyte and Bell have pictured Americans as preoccupied with favor- able social recognition. The term "appraisals of life conditions” refers in this research, to the degree to which the individual is sat- isfied with his life however he may interpret that satisfac- tion. Operationally defined, it is the assessment of the individual of his standing in relation to the "best possible life" for him. From the sociologist's point of View the assumption that status is an important determinant of satisfaction with ones life is not unfounded. It appears quite reasonable to 1Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt (New York: Harcourt Brace and.Co., 1922); Bud Schulberg, What Makes Sammy Run (New ‘Ybrk: Modern Library, 1952); and.Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman (New York: The Viking Press, Compass Books, 1958). 2Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy_in America (New TYOrk: Random House, Vintage Books, 1945); Thorstein Veblen, {The Theory of the Leisure Class (New YOrk: The New American ILibrary, Mentor Book, 1953); David Riesman, with Nathan <3lazer and Reuel Denney, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale [university Press, 1950); William H. Whyte Jr., The Organiza- tion Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1956) and Baniel Bell, The End of Ideology (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962) especially pp. 117-118 and 123. assume, to. lead, that ;osition it. his conditi 3‘39. Qute . F U‘: a I ~L. ‘QNtl “1: H. s .e :5a “0" 10 L a :3 . “Ll: “u, -- v.1 _ r5 I l {a .I S I 5‘. 0h '~~‘r 10 assume, following the intellectual tradition of Cooley and Mead, that the more favorably evaluated an individual's position in the community the more favorably he will define his conditions in life. The reverse is also likely to be true. Qute obviously this assertion must be qualified: we must take into account the degree of consensus regarding evaluations in a given community. The less the degree of consensus the weaker the link between any measure of social evaluation and the individual's assessment of his life con- ditions. It is one thing to consider community-oriented evaluations of others and quite another to consider self- oriented evaluations of one's own life conditions. Even where consensus is relatively high regarding status assign- ment in a community, if there is a broad range of criteria contributing to the status system, individuals may well assess their conditions in life on the basis of the criteria rather than upon the status system per se.1 Indeed it is likely that an important dimension involved in the apprais- als is not only the assessment of favorable or unfavorable 1It is on this point that critics have challenged the continuum hypothesis of stratification. Gordon notes that the continuum theorists have not clearly distinguished ‘vhether the status order itself is viewed by the respondents (as a continuum or whether "the separate constructs overlap sc>much and have so little agreement that the objective <:omposite result may be regarded as a continuum." Milton Chardon, Social Class in American Sociology (New York: bmcGraw-Hill, paperback, 1963), p. 186. "(1‘3" {7. ll vbat . 1.. relevant cr Litediate 1y I :5: :munit' .ize condit; :3! the 89:: Q 3‘“ “'r; E'Ed 1.“. 5‘ lsolat ' rrt. M. 1:.‘;‘;-i" . z ,. "31‘3" “ital . C .,~« .3‘Qs" Enu‘ a‘d t‘ . C ‘A \ 3“ 11 "standing" on these criteria but also the definition of the relevant criteria themselves. The questions then that immediately emerge are the following: Under what conditions is community status likely to be relevant for appraisals of life conditions? What criteria are likely to be important for the appraisals of life conditions? Are the criteria employed in both types of evaluation systems the same? If so, are they of similar importance for both the evaluative systems? Answers to these questions lead ultimately to a consideration of those structural characteristics which influence the nature of status systems. Analytic Procedure The three communities which provide the data for this analysis consist of a peasant community in Guatemala; a small factory community in Costa Rica; and a small commu— nity in Michigan whose economy is based primarily upon a moderate tourist trade. Each of the communities is rela- tively isolated from the larger societies of which they are a part. The steps in the analysis follow the order of the remaining chapters. Chapters II and III are devoted to the theoretical and methodological issues in community status systems and appraisals of life conditions respectively. The Inethodological procedures employed in this study are de- suzribed in Chapter IV. Ethnographic descriptions of the craasities 12 communities are presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI presents the results of the analysis of the quantitative data. The conclusions and implications of this study comprise Chapter VII. CHAPTER II RESEARCH ISSUES IN COMMUNITY STATUS SYSTEMS Introduction ‘The idea that for all social systems there exist social evaluations resulting in some type of hierarchical ordering of persons is a sociological commonplace. Sociol— ogists usually view this ordering as dependent upon a differ- ential distribution of those attributes which are scarce and which are desired by a given pOpulation. Such an ordering therefore rests upon at least a minimal degree of consensus among individuals within a given social system regarding desirable attributes and the degree to which these are possessed by persons or groups. While the conceptual develOpments about social rank- ing have typically begun with consensus formation or "value orientations" of a given community, the research process has usually been in reverse order. That is, after ranked posi- tions have been identified, a search is initiated for the defining attributes of those positions. The result is an array of findings based upon "objective" indices defined by the researcher, which may or may not be publicly recognized 'by the respondents. The relation between these indices and 13 the perCEp’ stady is n: adequately asteristics twokinds o The asst recog: Perceptions as“, in a; 3'" have b. 1315-1 eval 11:; V b «55 most fr: . ‘n :1 “MESS, the a. . .s easi’ taskl 14 the perceptions and interpretations given by subjects under study is not at all clear. It is dubious whether one can adequately analyze the nexus between social structural char- acteristics and individual perceptions if only one of these two kinds of data is employed. The researcher, in characterizing a social system, must recognize that his portrayal is dependent upon his own perceptions which may result in tenuous assertions. Too often, in analyses of ranking systems, indices of social rank have been taken as definitions of social rank.l This has most frequently occurred in studies where the context in which evaluations are made have not been Specified. Never- theless, the avoidance of the pitfalls of operationalism is no easy task. One can, perhaps, reduce the magnitude of the prOblem by incorporating a variety of research techniques, and thereby establish cross-checks upon the validity of his assertions. Such a multifaceted approach is used in this study. In this chapter the concern is first directed toward the methodological issues which are influential in structuring 1See Leonard Reissman's critique of the tendency to use occupation as a defining prOperty of social class. .In Class in American Society_(New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1959), pp. 160-164. For detailed discussion of this as well as related problems in the study of community stratification, see Harold Kaufman, Otis D. Duncan, Neal Gross and William Sewell, "Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of Social Stratification in Rural Society," Rural Sociology, XVIII (1953), 12-24. the "reaiit scientist. toward ext: Jaracteris no. I; V ‘ hastr inf‘ ‘ ‘k ‘: V 1., I .. ".1 s : Squste' A SE: 2st r 5“ e] ‘ . t S13H~ ‘J'tb. I.“ lie ':.-. “"11"” 15 the "reality" of community status systems for the social scientist. Secondly, the focus of inquiry is directed toward extracting from the literature the key structural characteristics which appear to influence community status systems. Methodological Issues Models of Analysis In the analysis of community status systems both unidimensional and multidimensional models of analysis have been employed. The unidimensional model employs two methods in portraying a status system. The first involves the selec- tion of a single dimension which is viewed as either of greater influence than other dimensions in the assignment of status rank, or its influence is held to be precisely the same as other dimensions, and thus is representative of the entire system.1 A second method of this approach is based upon a sum of the relative weights of each of the rank-assigning dimen- sions. The result is a single composite index of social ranking. Critics of the first method have attacked the tendency of its proponents to equate the dimension with social rank (or "social class") rather than view it merely lKaare Svalastoga, "Social Differentiation," Hand- book of Modern Sociology, ed. by R. E. L. Faris (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), p. 536. 153195 111‘; C111 lq;e L" List failed 16 as an index.1 But the sharpest criticisms have been directed toward those who have used composite indices. The issues involved have been brought to light in the now classic critique by C. Wright Mills of Warner and Lunt's work, The Social Life of a Modern Community.2 The gist of Mills' criticism is that by combining the separate indices of social stratification, Warner and Lunt failed to meet one of the crucial problems of eXplana- tion in stratification--that of determining the nature of the relationship among the status-assigning dimensions. For example, Warner and Lunt first considered using only economic wealth as a primary index of social class but then drOpped it when they discovered that it did not eXplain in enough detail the status structure of "Yankee City." By eliminat- ing the economic dimension in this manner, Mills holds that Warner and Lunt failed to explore the nature of its influence; i.e., under what conditions and to what segments of the pOpu- lation it was of more or less importance. The same criticism of course, can be stated with respect to other status-assign- ing dimensions. 1See for example Reissman, Op. cit., pp. 160—162. 2C. Wright Mills, "The Social Life of a Modern Community," American Sociological Review, VII (1942), 263-271. W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Community, Vol. 1, "Yankee City Series" (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941). See also Ruth R. Kornhauser, "The Warner Approach to Social Stratification" in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1953), pp. 224-255. . I . . 1 a c _ v 0 mu .1 .C a i .11 "a l d a w“ 3 .mid. RN 2 DU 9. e V1 t e 11 a i . n . . «C I 1-. . an .1. C. S 0 Di 3 S .1 r u 0» .l X 1‘ .l A» a . ”a." O “A“ d a 0» Ln“ 8 s T. n t A: I; t 5L a!“ i a» a: nan u.» a u PA. 3» #1. .?~ 6|» 2v 1 . -\~ Cb .\ a :I N4} — AB -1 t n An.- H: u... n . a a» u u .. :5 u a ~: .A- I“ c» O. can“ b. 1. AH .~ a Hit .- 17 DeSpite these criticisms, unidimensional models have been widely employed in noting both behavioral and attitudi- nal correlates of what is interpreted to be a social status system.l Multidimensional models of stratification--in which the identities of and distinctions among the dimensions are maintained--have been employed more as descriptive rather than eXplanatory devices. Thus, most researchers in employ— ing this model have been content to simply enumerate the dbmensions which enter into social ranking from the sub- ject's point of View. The dimensions have been identified quite consistently as including wealth and consumption patterns.2 Additional dimensions include the degree of 1For a review of recent studies, see Irwin W. Miller, "Nodular Models: A Technique for Articulating Stratifica- tion and Personality Systems" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1964). Miller's review considers studies of "adjustment variables," "achievement variables" and "self-concept variables." Ibid., pp. 7—19. See also Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power, A Reader in Social Strati- fication (New Ybrk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1953), Part III, "Differential Class Behavior," pp. 271-370. See also their second edition, Class, Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative PerSpective (New York: The Free Press, 1966), Part IV, "Differential Class Behavior," pp. 353-500. 2W. L. Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Status System of a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942); James West, Plainville U.S.A. (New YOrk: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1945); Arthur Gallaher, Jr., Plainville: Fif- teen Years Later (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961); and.August B. Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1949). activ ity 1 mi C113: disensions ditezsions 1393513813 : ‘2. terms of high status in s‘,‘ 4. 1s“ the aSS¢ tart diaens :smmt y a. “N ‘ ‘Q I . .43», 1 n ““‘fiL A. _ iv ’5“ Q \*L. ‘. 18 activity in community organizations,1 religious worthiness, moral characteristics, and education;2 occupation, behavior and personal appearance: ethnicity, kinship and place of residence;3 and hard work and self-improvement.4 Sociologists have expended less effort in ascertain— ing the relative degrees of importance of status-assigning dimensions than they have in simply noting the range of dimensions employed. There have been exceptions to this, however. Duncan and Artis were able to order ten dimensions in terms of their relative importance for the assignment of high status rank within the community, and eleven dimensions in the assignment of low status rank. The three most impor- tant dimensions for assigning high social rank were money, community activity and religious involvement. The three lHarold Kaufman, "Prestige Classes in a New York Community" in Bendix and Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1953); Otis Duncan and Jay W. Artis, "Social Stratification in a Pennsylvania Rural Community," Bulletin 543, The Pennsylvania State College School of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State College, 1951; and John R. Seeley, Alexander Sim and Elizabeth Loosley, Crestwood Heights (New York: Basic Books, 1956). 2Duncan and Artis, 0p. cit. 3W. Wheeler, Social Stratification in a Plains Community (Minneapolis: Privately printed, 1949); and West, op. cit. 4Arthur J. Vidich and James Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1960). | 735'. impor' 331511111, 1‘ accupation :er town n) 10"»: with 2 St: We hear: laid and ar. “‘“c inc} “51.:ch 1 “"11. 19 most important dimensions for assigning low social rank were poverty, immorality and irresponsibility.l Westby found that in comparing three communities, occupation was a more important dimension in a single fac- tory town and one with several industries than in a third town with no large industry.2 Stirling found in a Turkish village that age was more important for simple deference behavior, but wealth in land and animals was of primary importance in wielding authority.3 Loomis et al. compared "salient" dimensions in a Costa Rican village with those in an hacienda.4 For the village, the important dimensions were authority and power, kinship relations, prOperty holdings and personal attributes. Within the hacienda, salient dimensions included authority and influence, age, sex, and marital status. Also included were wealth, family and friendship groups, and office in the formal organization. 1Duncan and Artis, op. cit. 2David L. Westby, "A Study of Status Arrangements in Three Michigan Communities" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology. Michigan State University, 1962). 3Paul Stirling, "Social Ranking in a Turkish Vil- lage," British Journal of Sociology; IV (1950), 31-44. 4Charles P. Loomis, J. O. Morales, R. A. Clifford, and O. E. Leonard, Turrialba: Social Systems and the Intro- duction of Chang§_(Glencoe: Free Press, 1953). j ' ' . £0.31": ae S. we | (4 iii’EStigatg Sign or (ii: associat 10;; 52?. “flying \ . l ‘20“ V I I.S l h ‘ 3 \33 P“. we a1 ‘.~ w d 20 Techniques of Analysis Typically three techniques have been employed in the analysis of community status systems.1 These are (l) the objective approach, (2) the reputational approach, and (3) the subjective approach. In the objective approach, the investigator ranks a given population according to the dimen- sion or dimensions he has chosen. He thereupon notes the association of this ranking with behavioral or attitudinal correlates. Those criteria most frequently used in this approach are occupation, income and education. The criteria, however, are more relevant to the analysis of class as Weber defines the term. That is, the indices result in a means of ordering persons or groups of persons without implying a conscious awareness of the ordering by the persons them- selves. The reputational approach involves the ascertainment of social ranking from the point of view of the respondent which is thereupon reinterpreted within the researcher's conceptual framework. Usually, relatively few persons are selected as "judges" to do the social evaluation of other persons in a given community. In some instances there may also be an evaluation of the dimensions employed in the rank- ing, with a hierarchical ordering of these. The combined 1Richard T. Morris, "Social Stratification" in Leonard Broom and Philip Selznick, Sociology (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 176-217. ascertain j relation 17 am: A. “av-F.“ 6. t‘ v. F3] in}; ‘7'H' 21 evaluations of persons, and,in those studies where differ- entially evaluated rank-assigning dimensions are taken into account, provide an overall picture of a community ranking system. Finally, the intent of the subjective approach is to ascertain at what rank the respondent perceives himself in relation to other persons in a given system. This approach has typically been used to study "class membership" and "class consciousness." Centers has been primarily respon- sible for its develOpment.l It bears some of the concerns of those drawing from a Marxist orientation. These three methods of analysis are each subject to their own unique epistemological problems. Objective tech- niques, may not so much characterize social status or class as to merely show the associations of constructed indices which have little to do with the "defined reality" of reSpon- dents. For example, Form and Stone found that among twelve indices frequently used by sociologists, only five were 1Richard Centers, "The American Class Structure: A Psychological Analysis" in R. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1947), pp. 299-311. jfijed by V.“ c :. .ement. u 7"_ ‘IN: ”av A}. ...~:. m ‘ tics of tin; J_‘vr-'. :cthu I ‘ In, V,‘ ( t It“ ‘ ~5‘r . ‘ us ~erQ C: I. A I‘Jh ‘ . “. Th :1 ‘ ‘03.- 1:719“ . 'Ku“.l:“cq .A ‘ d 4‘ TQM,‘ . "Ce 22 judged by reSpondents as important for "symbols in their fflacements and appraisals of others.” In the use of the reputational technique, the find- ings may be largely dependent upon the social characteris- tics of the judges. Kornhauser notes that the higher the social rank, the greater the number of rank delineations. Further, according to Kornhauser, the criteria of status assignment varies by status level. At the lower levels, designations of rank are based primarily upon money. At the intermediate levels, they are primarily in terms of money and morality. At the upper status levels, rank is more likely to be assigned on the basis of life-style and ances- try.2 Even if rank assignment is viewed as a function of the consensus of evaluations, it is not at all clear, as Duncan and Artis point out, whether the consensus of an individual or group's placement also includes consensus with respect to the dimensions employed.3 In addition, while per- sons at the extremes of the social rank hierarchy may be fairly easily identified, persons in the middle range are 1William H. Form, and Gregory P. Stone, "Urbanism, Anonymity, and Status Symbolism," American Journal of Sociol- ogy, LXII (1957), 504—514. Those indices judged to be impor— -bant were credit rating, education, family, race, and reli- gyion. Those not viewed as important included household :furnishings, income, occupation, organizations, clubs, type <3f house, clothing, and type of neighborhood. 2Ruth R. Kornhauser, "The Warner Approach to Social Stratification" in Bendix and Lipset, 0p. cit., pp. 224—255. 3Otis D. Duncan and Jay W. Artis, 0p. cit. «$4 N A U a ‘Q‘ ' «5 Svsi 4 taken and t . ‘5 i 5:161: 1'1 St 3.“: Of St 23 not. Indeed, Stone and Form suggest that the middle range may in fact be used by respondents as a residual category in which to place lesser-known persons. Finally in the use of subjective techniques, unless some referent point for evaluation is established the find— ings are extremely difficult to interprest unless one is content merely with a I'poll" of beliefs about social status. It is by now obvious that the "reality" of community status systems is in part a function of the perspective taken and the kinds of questions asked.2 Nevertheless, there are certain uniformities that emerge in comparing studies of community status systems, regardless of the vari- ations in perSpectives. These uniformities may be viewed as types of evaluated characteristics of community members. Types of Evaluations Irrespective of the techniques employed in the analysis of community status systems, three types of social 1Gregory P. Stone and William H. Form, "Instabil- ities in Status: The Problem of Hierarchy in the Community Study of Status Arrangements," American Sociological Review, IXVIII (1953), 149-162. 2"What we see," James McKee once wrote, I'we see from .a particular vantage point. The conceptualization may be 'brilliant, the insights numerous, and the eXplanation cogent and fairly inclusive, but it is nonetheless a perSpective snhich emphasizes some features of the social order and not <1thers." James B. McKee, "Status and Power in the Indus— 'trial Community: .A Comment on Drucker's Thesis," American Journal of Sociologx, LVIII (1953), 365. ssaluatio: based Upo: acteristi: ties are c (n 24 evaluations continually recur in the literature. These are based upon (1) ascribed characteristics, (2) achieved char- acteristics, and (3) the manner in which these characteris- tics are diSplayed. Couched in the Linton tradition, the first two types are involved in "status assignment“ while the last type is a part of "role-enactment." The term "ascribed" refers to those characteristics—- traits or positions—-with which individuals are endowed by birth; those which are unattainable by personal effort. What is inherent in the term "ascribed" is the idea that such characteristics are also reflected in the limits to the range of the individual's behaviors. For example, in the Indian caste system, the various divisions of labor were restricted to the different caste delineations which in turn were generationally maintained. The individual could not indulge in activities identified as outside his caste boundaries without suffering severe social sanctions. His behaviors were defined by the attributes of his family of origin. Sociologists have viewed achieved characteristics as those obtained through the actor's own volition. Put in the <:ontext of status (in the evaluative sense), to the extent 'that positions within a given social system may be filled by Ineeting prerequisites which are divorced from ascribed zittributes, evaluations are held to be based upon achieve— ment. ‘czeristic zatisn of 4P3: achie- snaracteri; ... ‘.n. "v‘ C4 and/ . ‘ inc": Nd ‘ ‘1 rs. CK, , ‘u 8 .l to “ tfie .0 1‘ 9‘ L “lay I NI ”iivn . “t"s . “x 25 The distinction between ascribed and achieved char- acteristics is not necessarily an exclusive one. The eval- uation of an actor's achievements is in fact invariably juxtaposed against his ascribed characteristics. For exam- ple, in industrialized societies primary emphasis is placed upon achieved characteristics. But the evaluation of these characteristics is immediately related to the ascribed characteristic of age. To be a corporation executive at 29 years of age is likely to provoke more adulation than being one at 49. But while these two classes of evaluative cri— teria are not wholly independent of each other, reference can be made to the predominance of one over the other in any given status system. Evaluations of individuals within the community are not likely to be limited to only those traits or positions which are either ascribed or achieved. The manner in which traits are displayed and positions are enacted also enters into the scheme of evaluation. While there would appear to be a wide range of referents against which display and enactment may be evaluated, those most important for the «community status system are likely to be the community as a xyhole and/or a particular trait or position. That is, dis- ;ilay and enactment may be judged in terms of the contribu- txion to the maintenance of an ideal image of the community cn: it may be judged in terms of the Specific criteria iJflnerent within a given identity or position. These two referents expertise, to the cor: mainte accent of Etphasis n. U . 1'- L‘porta Vm :E’Steus 13 9.. ¥ ‘Ve '. 1 “:4- . rm «\la airs n “ H “‘9 :‘Q - u \3'3Iylix : ‘rg K 1 \~ 9Ertn‘ r. B ‘ “Q Q I'- <7 bl“ ' 26 referents of evaluation may not have the Same consequences. A shrewd factory manager may be held in high esteem for his SXpertise, but he may also be evaluated lowly with respect to the community, if that eXpertise does not contribute to the maintenance of an ideal image of the community. In the account of "Springdale" by Vidich and Bensman, the public emphasis upon maintaining a favorable image of Springdale, toward supporting the "public ideology," appeared to exceed in importance the value of eXpertise per se.2 Structural Characteristics More fundamental in the analysis of community status systems is the influence of certain structural characteris- tics which may be viewed as conceptually independent of the status systems. Indeed, a consideration of these 1The individual himself may also serve as a referent point, where others are evaluated on the basis of their reSponses to him. Yet such an evaluation is likely to have only a minimal degree of impact to the community status sys- tem in relation to the referents based upon eXpertise or contributions to the ideal image of the community. In their study of Springdale, Vidich and Bensman note that covert personal evaluations and gossip "does not ordinarily affect 'the everyday interpersonal relations of people. . . ." See ‘Vidich and Bensman, 0p. cit., p. 45. 2Ibid., pp. 34-42. Neighborliness and equality are 'the public exPreSSions of the virtues of Springdale. The zauthors note that the "dirty mouth" ". . . commits the (Ljuble faux pas of being deliberately malicious and not cfloserving the etiquette of interpersonal relations and he i1; perhaps the most despited person in the community.“ Ibid., p. 37. character this stud use: the ‘ evidence tiers in t acpear to ab :Ltonomy, 0f labor a r 27 characteristics is crucial to the eXplanatory framework of this study. The justification for their inclusion is based upon the evidence marshalled from community studies. The evidence appears to be consistent regardless of the varia- tions in the techniques of inquiry. Four characteristics appear to be particularly salient, the degree of community autonomy, size of the community, the nature of the division of labor and the level of economic affluence. Community Autonomy Communities differ in the degree to which they mirror the value system of the larger society of which they are a part. Those who have chronicled the American scene have noted the increasing degree to which local power has been dissipated by non-local economic and political inter- ests. Schulz, and Clelland and Form have noted the bifurca- tion of economic from political elites as outside economic interests have been increasingly represented in the local community.1 Earlier, the Lynd'S, and.Warner and his asso- ciates have traced the changes that have occurred in the community status systems with the influx of nationally based 1Robert O. Schulze, "The Bifurcation of Power in a Satellite City," in Morris Janowitz (ed.), Community Polit- ical Systems (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1961), pp. 19-80. Donald A. Clelland and William H. Form, "Eco- nomic Dominants and Community Power: A Comparative Analysis," American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (1964), 511-521. associat‘. political govemer. cussing t} comm, tion with carriEd 0v: 5:“: 'u‘ A ‘. tr; H1 ‘3‘ .J.’ k" * ‘13: {\v \ h Ilsilek‘ Q I‘lEI: “h ard \ Ikv’ II“ C "181.4; I 28 associations.l Vidich and Bensman have cited the increasing political dependence of Springdale upon state and national governments.2 Stein has sounded the nostalgic note in dis- cussing the findings of different community studies. He sees the mass media of the larger segmented society stimulat- Aing a standardization of values and wants within the local community. Suburbs are most susceptible to this standardiza- tion with the symbols of status in the occupational world carried over into patterns of residence as well as patterns of social interaction in the local community.3 Reactions of community inhabitants to increasing encroachments of the larger social system differ. Stein rightly interprets the findings of Vidich and Bensman when he notes the almost desperate tenacity with which Spring- dalers cling to the belief in the autonomy of their commu— nity despite their increasing dependence upon national social institutions. He describes this as "institutionalized naivety." The exurbanites studied by Spectorsky on the other hand, maintained an "institutionalized cynicism" of being bound up in the rat-race at both the locations of work lRobert Lynd and Helen Lynd, Middletown in Transi- tion (New York: Harcourt-Brace and Co., 1937); and W. Lloyd ‘Warner and J. 0. Low, The Social System of the Modern Fac- tory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947). 2Vidich and Bensman, Op. cit. 3Maurice R. Stein, The Eclipse of Community_(New York: Harper and Row, Harper Torchbook, 1964). and 0f re; ‘ “:hod an bgu‘Hb ‘5. samplete t flrganizati itants as their way £9399 of 53.5.1- . ‘o a 1f" \E ' 33‘s?»- ‘~m a Ppe \ {E’ v- t.‘ ‘w ' “r11 I :L7: u \ :=-. “‘5 h, bVElA 4L '.' 2: “ Q \~‘ 29 and of residence. The inhabitants of ”Crestwood Heights" placed an emphasis upon keeping up "appearances“ of economic as well as social success. Finally, Stein notes the almost complete take-over of the community of Park Forest by an organizational ethos. Park Forest was viewed by its inhab— itants as simply a temporary living quarters for men on their way up the occupational status ladder. Clearly, the degree of autonomy of a community from the larger society has important implications for the community status system. The importance of community autonomy for the charac— teristics of the community status system is indicated partic- ularly well in the differences between the perceptions of Springdalers regarding their community and the inhabitants of Park Forest regarding their's. The status system of Park Forest, a suburb with a very limited degree of autonomy, appears to use characteristics of the larger society in local status assignment, namely occupationally related char— acteristics. In Springdale, on the other hand, the status system appeared to bear attributes unique to the community. Personal behavioral characteristics, as these contributed to the community welfare, were of particular importance. Size of the Community In his 1935 essay, "Honor and Social Structure," Hans Speier develOped the observation that "a man‘s honor neither Springs from his personality nor clings to his deeds. it (leper. s I an him and . rvasiver. firsons wi So. a 7"” @4015 in n \ b lunar. Thé "~11 “~19 and -:3qul€’fil 16 :r "J $- ' ~D..eLleSH ’~ § s z'hn‘. . §‘ -: ‘.‘_ Ling . :N.‘tp~ a; gag. \CLS O . I. ‘ 1“ ‘ ' ‘ :._ “SW‘ \, \.: K Nae C) 30 It depends upon other men who have the power to bestow honor on him and a will to pay it."1 According to Speier, the pervasiveness of the honor is dependent upon the number of persons willing to pay it. Social commentators have long noted the role of symbols in indicating what Speier called "claims" to social honor. The observations of American society by De Tocque- ville and later, Veblen, are classics in this regard. De Tocqueville, noting the contrast between "aristocratic societies" and "democracies" observed the greater concern for displaying evidence of "social advantages" in the latter. He attributed this to the "sameness that surrounds men in a democracy" and the transitoriness of any advantages which they may acquire. In aristocracies, on the other hand, social advantages are assured and men "do not dream of flaunting privileges which everyone perceives and no one 2 contests. . . . Veblen not only noted the significance of symbols of social rank but went on to observe that these symbols may differ according to the size of the social system. Viewing the conspicuous use of leisure and the conspicuous consump- tion of material wealth as two symbols of social status, lHans Speier, "Honor and Social Structure," Social Research, II (1935), 74—97. 2Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II (New York: Vintage Books (published jointly by Random House and Alfred A. KnOpf, Inc.), 1945), p. 237. ' ‘ ‘Jezien no pence 1r. I ‘ ‘5 -' {15596 50\ 1:11:01 of ' tionship L 533151 9V3 - \Q"- ":-~92tal a s‘ L Lies In .J I I“. SC» ‘I . ‘ I‘tsltvy 31 Veblen noted that both are equally likely to be of conse- quence in small communities but in larger more differen- tiated social systems, conspicuous consumption is the key symbol of social rank.l One of the most careful elaborations of the rela- tionship between the dependency upon status symbols for social evaluation and size of the social system has been authored by Erving Goffman.2 Equating "status" with both position and role, Goffman notes that the rights and obliga- tions of status are frequently ill-adapted for the require- ments of ordinary communication. One simply cannot carry around all the baggage of comprehensive assessment in all social encounters, eSpecially where these encounters are segmental and transitory. Consequently status symbols develOp as a Specialized means of displaying one's position, and these status symbols carry categorical as well as eXpres- sive significance. "Since status symbols facilitate communi- cation better than rights and duties, it is possible and 1Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: Mentor Books, The New.American Library, 1953), pp. 70-71. In regard to more highly differentiated commu- nities, Veblen states, "the means of communication and the mobility of the p0pulation now eXpose the individual to the Observation of many persons who have no other means of judg- ing of his reputability than the diSplay of goods (and per— haps of breeding) which he is able to make while he is under their direct observation." 2Erving Goffman, "Symbols of Class Status," Human Relations, X (1957), 294—304. necessary social si‘ witno'at av; 32 necessary for them to be distinct from that which they signify."l Social evaluations in segmental and transitory social situations are necessarily dependent upon symbols, without any possibility of relating these to the referents. The larger the social contexts, the more likely this becomes. In smaller social contexts these symbols are merely a part of the total range of criteria that enter into social rank- ing.2 The relationships that foster these different modes of evaluation may be characterized as follows: The neighbors of the small-town man know much of what is to be known about him. The metr0politan man is a temporary focus of heter- ogeneous circles of casual acquaintances, rather than a fixed center of a few well-known groups. So personal sn00piness is replaced by formal indifference; one has contacts, rather than relations, and these contacts are shorter lived and more superficial. The more people one knows the easier it becomes to replace them. 1Ibid., p. 296. The fact that these symbols may be diSplaced from their referents may render them of little value in social contexts where the required referents may be lacking or where the symbols may not be valued in the same manner as those referents originally eliciting the symbols. 2William H. Form and Gregory P. Stone, "Urbanism, Anonymity, and Status Symbolism," American Journal of Soci- ology, LXII (1957), 504—514. The authors note that in larger urban areas bestowal of status tends to be by infer- ence from symbols. In small towns on the other hand, the bestowal of status is based upon the "evaluation of rights and duties appropriate to social position and the relevant symbolism is basically symptomatic." Ibid., p. 504. 3William Dobriner, Class in Suburbia (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 207. more imp: sarily u: 3 E 305018. dl°30very imitates. A20119591 : 3:13:01 c 2ESL: 33 Gordon1 and Chinoy,2 view the status dimension as more important in small communities, in contrast to the larger American society where stratification is based pri- marily upon the class and power dimensions. But their view tends to overemphasize the separateness of the dimensions, at least from the individual's vantage point. From the per- spective of the individual it is more likely that the pres— tige hierarchy in a small community, represents a fusion of the two dimensions of class and power plus the behavioral characteristics of the status occupant. In transitory and segmental social encounters, class and power indicants are most easily represented by symbols—-consumption patterns, uniforms, and titles--while behavioral characteristics are less easily discerned under these conditions.3 This is Kahl's interpretation. He defines the "prestige hierarchy" as the synthesis of all relevant dimensions and goes on to point out that such an intensive hierarchy is possible only lMilton M. Gordon, Social Class in American Sociol- ogy (New Ybrk: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 31. 2Ely Chinoy, Society: An Introduction to Sociology (New York: Random House, 1961), p. 138. 3Behavioral patterns of course can become status symbols. The term "affected air" is used to denote the discovery that one does not occupy the position his behavior indicates. Further, symbols may themselves become referents. A colleague has noted the p0pularity of the "Barbie Doll" as a symbol of all that is desired in an American woman. But the doll in turn has become a referent for his daughter who desires clothing just like "Barbie.“ in the s. EDIE cie contexts tional c} sacial 5:, use is f3 5. re? verve :m, \ Co 3 ”Jr ‘05 a... ’4 d. we 0a “A N L‘s 34 in the small community setting.1 Svalastoga Spells this out more clearly albeit Simply. He notes that in small social contexts evaluations are likely to be based both upon posi- tional characteristics and personal attributes. AS the social system becomes larger and more highly differentiated, one is forced to rely upon only positional characteristics.2 Empirical support for the contentions regarding the relevance Of Size tO the dimensions employed in status assignment can be gained from a survey of twelve of the more frequently-cited American community studies. These are ordered by Size in Table l. Indicated in the table are the dimensions employed in status assignment. As the size Of communities increases, the number Of evaluative criteria decreases. Those criteria that drop out Of the evaluations are those related to per- sonal attributes, particularly "morality." The size Of the social unit also contributes to the degree to which schismS are tolerated, particularly as these may be based upon the formation Of status groups. Divisive- ness or overt eXpressionS Of it, especially when coalesced into two Opposing groups, cannot be tolerated if that unit is to remain viable. Vidich and Bensman, in their portrayal 1Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure (New York: Rinehart and Company, 1960), p. 21. 2Svalastoga, Op. cit., p. 538. Table 1. Ti ll Author of S‘ E West (1945) Gallaher (1;- (replicat: West's st Kaufman (194 Duncan and A] (1951) I vidiCh a “d Be (1958) Form (1945) 'rfheeler (194. H01]. ‘*lf‘~. 1 ‘BSne Table 1. 35 The relevance Of Size Of community to criteria involved in status assignment Author Of Study* Size Of Community Reported Criteria West (1945) Gallaher (1961) (replication Of West's study) Kaufman (1944) Duncan and Artis (1951) Vidich and Bensman (1958) Form (1945) Wheeler (1949) .Hollingshead (1949) 275 825 (apprOX-) 1,420 (approx.) 2,100 2,500 (approx.) 2,600 3,300 6,200 Location Of residence; farm technology; family lineage; wealth; morals; life-style. Consumption patterns; orga- nizational membership; moral behavior and accep- tance Of local behavioral standards. Formal and informal asso- ciation membership; atti- tudes on social issues; education; occupation; consumption patterns. Wealth; morality; educa- tion: organizational mem— bership and civic interest. Hard work; self-improvement; wealth; involvement in social activities. "Political powerful": occupation; organizational membership; increasing importance of length of residence; age; religion: size Of family. Wealth; education: commu- nity leadership; organiza- tional membership; reli- gious affiliation; ethni- city; family lineage; location of residence. "Economic functions" are "primary"; family; ethni- city; religion; political affiliation; education; activity in the community. ~— ~— Eeuthor of St; N Seeley et al. (1956) Warner and Lu (1942) 135d and WM (1929) Miner (196: 36 Table 1—-Continued Size Of Author of Study* Community Reported Criteria Seeley et a1. 15,205 Wealth display via member- (1956) Ship in exclusive clubs; location Of residence. Warner and Lunt 17,000 Consumption patterns; occu- (1942) pation; location Of resi- dence; Old family; cliques and association membership. Lynd and Lynd 35,000 Occupation, wealth; (1929) association membership. Dobriner (1963) 65,276 Occupation; association membership. *James West, Plainville, U.S.A. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945; Arthur Gallaher, Jr., Plainville 15 Years Later (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961); Harold Kaufman, "Prestige Classes in a New York Rural Commu— nity," Class, Status and Power, ed. by Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953) pp. 190- 203; Otis Dudley Duncan and Jay W. Artis, "Social Stratifica— tion in a Pennsylvania Rural Community," The Pennsylvania State College School of Agriculture, Bulletin 543 (State College; October, 1951); Wayne Wheeler, Social Stratifica— Egon in a Plains Community (Minneapolis: By the author, 1949); Arthur J. Vidich and Joseph Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society (Garden City: Princeton University Press, 1958); William H. Form, "Status Stratification in a Planned Community," American Sociological Review, X (October, 1945), 605-613; August Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth (New YOrk: John Wiley, 1949): John R. Seeley, Alexander Sim and Eliza- Jbeth.Loosley, Crestwood Heights (New York: Basic Books, 1956); W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Status System Of a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942); Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, Middletown (New YOrk: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1929); and William Dob- iéger, Class in Suburbia (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 3). of Soringdalt {an "pUbJ-ic l . l ences 1“ wea- J social interC: e: nomic ineqt as the great ' is thus Super 1 A calc it is p05? another W1 standard 1 calculus a. hard work, actual eva. are insepal is a relati The people of E divisions withi Should ical rivals gossip quit "hatching a sion direct rivals are 37 of Springdale, describe the almost fanatical adherence to the "public ideology Of equality." They report that differ- ences in wealth, for example, are not "publicly weighed and evaluated as the measure Of the man" and that in "everyday social intercourse, it is a social faux pas to act as if economic inequalities make a difference."1 Work is viewed as the great "social equalizer," the hard—working poor man is thus superior to the lazy rich man. A calculus exists and is employed by which it is possible to evaluate one man against another with respect to how well or poorly the standard is fulfilled. The chief items in this calculus are in the order Of their importance, hard work, self improvement and money. In any actual evaluation these three items Of judgment are inseparable since any Specific evaluation is a relatively unconscious act. The peOple of Springdale are also preoccupied with potential divisions within the community. Should two individuals assumed tO be polit— ical rivals be seen together tOO frequently, gossip quite quickly has it that they are "hatching a deal" or are in some form Of collu— sion directed at a third party. If these same rivals are not seen together (drinking coffee, passing time on a street corner) for a long period of time, this fact provides grounds for Speculations concerning a "serious rift" between them.3 lVidich and Bensman, Op. cit., pp. 41—42. 2Ibid., p. 50. 31bid., p. 112. The . permissible i heated in th‘4 Coleman. In cern of membe incontrast t“ remark that " reations amo nerable to 51;; 21:5." Withi 38 The fact that size is an important determinant of permissible cleavages within a social group is further docu- mented in the study of work groups by Lipset, Trow and Coleman. In attempting to explain the apparent lack of con— cern of members in small work groups for political matters in contrast to members Of larger work groups the authors remark that "the physically close but relatively involuntary relations among printers in the small shOps are highly vul- nerable to such potentially divisive issues as union poli- tics."l Within their work groups it is important for men, to maintain good informal relations with one another. In order to preserve these relations, there is likely to be pressure exerted among members Of the small group to "reduce their interest or involvement in activities and attitudes which are peripheral to the group's own functioning and which may place a strain on solidarity.2 Moreover, the reduction of interest or involvement is far easier and less dangerous to Obtain than the insistence upon absolute con- sensus over different political issues. In terms of the work group, "what is a matter of relative indifference is . 3 . not a source of internal cleava e." Men in such work 9 lSeymour Martin Lipset, Martin Trow and James Coleman, Union Democragy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and.Co., Anchor Book, 1962), p. 186. 2Ibid., p. 187. 3Ibid. groups may h the group t}? This is not where volunt: social suppo: likely to be In 5: system the gr of traits and social systerr| hols themselu small social : 9% the degr play 0f tra its :tcrea Siflgly social Systet ‘Qn 5'» 0310 m i C LE“: 39 groups may hold differing Opinions, but in the context of the group the eXpreSSionS Of these are kept at a minimum. This is not likely to be the case in larger work groups where voluntary friendship choices are possible and where social supports for varying types Of political attitudes are likely to be found. In summary, it appears that the larger the social system the greater the dependence upon only symbolic display of traits and positions for social evaluation. As the social system decreases in Size the referents of these sym- bols themselves become evaluative criteria. Further, in small social systems evaluations are most likely to be based upon the degree to which cleavages are minimized. The dis- play Of traits and the enactment of positions must become increasingly consistent with the ppblic ideology_as the social system decreases in Size. Economic Level Social relations among community members who exist at a subsistence level are typically fraught with suspicions and mistrust. Such relationships most frequently occur in the peasant community. Inhabitants Of these villages live lPolitical innovators in Springdale were more likely to be unsuccessful than successful precisely because of their threat to the status quo. Reactions of these peOple were either to withdraw from the "public scene" or to simply leave the community. See Vidich and Bensman, Op. cit., p. 286. at the Sum“ upon agricul‘ oriented Wt" 393ng FOSter portrayals 05 :he viabilitl' elaborate SYS Econ; the inhi asa result 01 ll)'- They C or garties involu- they are limit ships occur in tommities ma £1 form 0 tintly for our the . ' garties in 40 at the subsistence level, have an economy which is based upon agriculture, have a cash mode of exchange, and are oriented toward a larger market town. The writings of George Foster have perhaps been most influential in recent portrayals of the peasant community. According to Foster, the viability Of such a community is dependent upon an elaborate system Of interlocking "contractual agreements" among the inhabitants. These agreements are initiated only as a result of Specific needs of the individual or his fam- ily. They consist Of performing favors for one Of the parties involved and are reciprocal in nature. Typically, they are limited to the dyadic level. While dyadic relation- ships occur in one form or another in all societies, peasant communities may be distinguished by their prevalence as the primary form of interpersonal relationships and, more impor- tantly for our concern, the personal security orientation of the parties involved.1 Foster maintains that as a consequence of the sub— sistence mode of existence wealth is seen in zero-sum terms; a fixed amount to which each must guard his Share. The riches of one inhabitant are thus viewed as a consequence Of 1Articles Of Foster's which are most germane to the issues are the following: "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Society," Human Organization, XIX (Winter, 1960-1961), 174-178; "The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Struc- ture of a Mexican Peasant Village," American AnthrOpologist, LXIII (December, 1961), 1173-1192; and "Peasant Society and the Image Of Limited Good," American Anthropologist, LXVII (April, 1965), 293-315. theeXploita ixk. Forth gerded carr. ens life; i; and in evalu: others and 5.; be the predor; Spiel 2:502 the inte Eating upon i for the Prese: 41 the exploitation Of others, or at best, as a result of sheer luck. Further, the notion of fixed "portions" which must be guarded carries over into almost all aspects of the villag- er'S life; in friendship patterns, in conceptions of health and in evaluations Of personal attributes. Suspicion of others and security for the self and family unit appears to be the predominant orientations in interpersonal relations.1 Spielberg takes some exception to Foster's emphasis upon the integrative functions Of the dyadic bonds.2 Com- menting upon his research which provides part of the data for the present analysis, he faults Foster for failing to take into account the integrative functions Of existing 1There is evidence to suggest that the referent of security appears to dwindle in Size from the kinship group to the nuclear family as simple subsistence economies become transformed into more complex economies. This observation has been made by Forde and Douglas. They use the terms "subsistence" and "primitive" interchangeably tO refer to economies where goods are not produced eXpressly for sale. Where these economies emerge into more complex forms, where goods 3£g_produced for sale and where there is increased dependence upon the vagaries Of markets, the security orien- tation becomes increasingly focused upon smaller subsistence units. See Daryll Forde and Mary Douglas, "Primitive Econo— mies" in George Dalton (ed.), Tribal and Peasant Economies: Readings in Economic Anthropology (Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press, 1967), pp. 13-28. 2Joseph Spielberg, "San Miguel Milpas Altas: An Ethnographic Analysis of Interpersonal Relations in a Peas- ant Ladino Community Of Guatemala" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Department Of AnthrOpology, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1965). For additional commentary directed toward Foster's first work dealing with dyadic bonds in peasant societies, see Oscar Lewis, "Some of My Best Friends Are Peasants," Human Organization, XIX (Winter, 1960-1961) and in the same issue, Julian Pitt—Rivers, "Interpersonal Relations in Peas- ant Society: A Comment." institutions tions as int “a thorough workings of _ caned do not of social or; Posts "reconsider t sized and des guish betwe er unequal stat; ¢_ \ ADI-mail, eXDl 42 institutions. But Foster does not deny the role of institu— tions as integrative mechanisms, rather, he points out that "a thorough description and a profound understanding of the workings of institutions which are evident enough to be named do not add up, by themselves, tO a structural analysis of social organization Of the community."1 Foster suggests an analytic model by which to "reconsider the institutionalized roles which can be recog— nized and described, with the underlying principal which gives the social system coherence."2 He goes on to distin— guish between symmetrical contracts (between peOple of un- equal status) and asymmetrical contracts (between peOple of unequal status); between informal, implicit arrangements and formal, eXplicit arrangements with the latter taking place in recognized institutional contexts such as marriage, god- parenthood, buying and selling prOperty and Often involving more than two peOple, although hardly ever encompassing what may be termed corporate activity. Given these conditions, Of economic scarcity foster- ing a suSpicion toward others and a security orientation for the self, the community status system appears to be based almost wholly upon personal behavioral characteristics rather than upon "positions." Indeed, Foster Observes, lFoster, "The Dyadic Contract: . . . ," Op. cit. p. 1174. 2 Ibid., p. 1173. I "A person w}: restore the form of ritu fiestas). relatively h; is traded for 3’ personal as t0 personal U) goliteness is 3955 (one is 1 The ac 43 "A person who improves his position is encouraged . . . to restore the balance through conspicuous consumption in the form of ritual extravagance (such as sponsoring costly fiestas). . . . His reward is prestige which is viewed as relatively harmless. Prestige cannot be dangerous Since it is traded for dangerous wealth."l Prestige is thus defined by personal attributes. Those attributes least threatening to personal security are the most highly evaluated. Aloof politeness is valued over agressiveness and even friendli- ness (one is never certain when the intimacies of friendship can become weapons in the destruction Of personal security). The activity of work appears to be irrelevant to the assignment Of social approbation. Much of the literature is replete with instances where members Of peasant villages view work as important only insofar as it provides them with O I 2 O I O O a measure of economic security. According to this View, it 1Foster, "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good," Op. cit., p. 305. 2In addition to the citations listed in Foster's work, see Elman Service and Helen S. Service, Tobati: A Paraguayan Town (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954); William Madsen, The Virgin's Children: Life in an Aztec Village Today (Austin: University Of Texas Press, 1960); Jacob Fried, "Social Organization and Personal Secu- rity in a Peruvian Hacienda Indian Community: Vicos," American Anthropologist, LXIV (1962), 771-780. The work role may be interpreted in unique ways how- ever. The Reichel-Dolmatoff's found that while there is "no pride in work, no dignity in effort“ the term "work" had Special meaning. Manual labor is to be avoided. But per- sons who are political administrators, school teachers, and truck drivers, for example, do not "work." Work was asso- ciated with occupations in which the incumbent was in an SEIVES a S a the relatio: apparent to occupation i connections Exis essarily r881 ing PEISonal others, Olav; rem“ Crite eXlStS . Whe 663end9nt . Up: nale for the \ iifierior S0c REich ity O 1013 (JTLLVEI. S 44 serves as a means for meeting social obligations.l Further, the relationship between work and wealth is not always apparent to the community member and occupying a prestigeful occupation is likely to be viewed as a consequence Of kin connections or of luck° Existence above the subsistence level does not necé essarily result in wealth, or the activity of work supplant- ing personal behavioral characteristics in the evaluation Of others. Obviously however, the use of these economically related criteria is most likely where a surplus Of wealth exists. Whether or not these criteria are important is dependent upon how the wealth is distributed, and the ratio- nale for the distribution. These can take on a variety of inferior social status relative to his employer. Gerado and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff, The People Of Aritama (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). 1For a discussion of reciprocal forms of labor, see Charles J. Erasmus, "The Occurrence and Disappearance Of Reciprocal Farm Labor in Latin.America" in Dwight B. Heath and Richard N. Adams (eds.), Contemporary Cultures and Societies of Latin America (New York: Random House, 1965), pp. 173-199. Also see Marshall D. Sahlins, "On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange" in Michael Banton (general ed.), Egg Relevance of Models for Social Anthrgpology (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), pp. 139-236, especially pp. 158-170. Conditions under which men are likely to engage in corporate activity and the types of corporations which are formed is the research focus of Stanley H. Udy, Jr., "Pre- industrial Forms of Organized‘Work" in Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feldman (eds.), Labor Commitment and Social Changg in DevelopingyAreas (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960), pp. 78-91. guises.l W: vidual aggrs. the intent o tance of per terms of its“ Polanyi has ; that in prim; the value at: ti“ t0 the c Worth .2 \ l a“ hash vccuuulated r bOCletieS is ‘lirlety of f0 :1flr‘fg’ etc. il..h101t(s) r or 7Q ~ Writs ( - Rand‘n crib 3%” f9 Nash! p. 45 guises.l Wealth and work may be important indices for indi- vidual aggrandizement in capitalistic societies, but it is the intent of communistic societies to degrade the impor— tance Of personal wealth and tO evaluate work activity in terms of its contribution to the total community. Further, Polanyi has marshalled evidence to support his contention that in primitive societies which have a surplus of wealth, the value attached tO work is also in terms Of its contribu— tion to the community welfare and not in terms Of individual worth.2 lNash notes that a common device for insuring that accumulated resources are used for social ends in primitive societies is the "leveling mechanism." This may take a variety of forms such as large feasts, the potlach, gift- giving, etc. This "scrambling Of wealth," as Nash calls it, “inhibit(s) reinvestment in technical advance, and this prevents crystallization Of class lines on an economic base." Manning Nash, "The organization Of Economic Life," in Dalton, Op. cit., p. 9. 2Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964), pp. 43—64. Polanyi's thesis is a refutation of the belief that man is economically motivated. He marshalls evidence tO Show that prior tO the emergence Of politically stimulated market economies--as Opposed tO the existence of isolated market places-—the SO-called "profit- motive" was non-existent. He characterizes such societies as having no motives for gain with "the absence Of the prin- ciple of laboring for remuneration; the absence Of the prin- ciple Of least effort; and eSpecially Of any separate and distinct institution based on economic motives." Ibid., p. 47. In support Of his view he cites Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (London: George Rutledge and Sons, 1932); and Raymond Firth, Elements of Social Organization (London: Watts and Company, Ltd., 1951). The caste-like lnsuch soc: obviously lo 33‘1" vary in in his study aeluation 0 Within the _l_a 3:70!) wOIk, ES Ville was pla Bunze indians 0f 0" I: COHtIast t of attaining LTsortance of :55 further b lStiCS are li 46 The distribution Of wealth may be controlled by caste-like divisions, based upon ascribed characteristics. In such societies, the value Of work-related activity is obviously low in differentiating the castes. But castes may vary in terms Of the importance placed upon work. Tumin, in his study, Caste in a Peasant Society, Observed a high evaluation Of work activity among lower caste Indians. Within the ladino caste, a negative evaluation was placed upon work, e3pecially manual labor, and a high prestige value was placed upon land ownership.1 Bunzel discovered the same phenomenon among the Indians Of the "loma barrio" in Chichicastinago, Guatemala. In contrast to the ladinOS, hard work was valued as a means of attaining the security Of wealth.2 The relatively high importance of work within the Latin American Indian cultures has further been cited by Tax and by Stein.3 In summary, only behavioral, personalistic character— istics are likely to be important evaluative criteria in communities existing at the subsistence level. Above the lMelvin Tumin, Caste in a Peasant Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952). 2Ruth Bunzel, Chichicastenago: A Guatemalan Village (Seattle: University Of Washington Press, 1952). 3Sol Tax, Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Community, Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social AnthrOpology Publication NO. 16 (Washington, D.C.: Govern— ment Printing Office, 1953). William W. Stein, Hualcan: Life in the Highlands Of Peru (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961). subsistence likely to 5. evaluations be dependent H the rationa; M A cc been with t}: 139 « Howeve; tional Critei congruem W1 from his rese taining the c' related orgar :"ie tw 47 subsistence level, the work role and indices Of wealth are likely to serve as additional criteria for interpersonal evaluations. Their relative importance however appears to be dependent upon the distribution Of the surplus wealth and the rationale employed tO legitimize the distribution. The Division Of Labor A central concern among stratification theorists has been with the rOle Of the division Of labor in social rank- ing. However, it is important tO bear in mind that posi— tional criteria related tO the work role may or may not be congruent with the community status system. McKee, drawing from his research, has pointed out the importance of main- taining the distinction between power delineations in work- related organizations and the status system Of the community. The two may not coincide.1 The distinction between non-differentiated and highly differentiated societies consistently appears through— out the typological tradition.2 The best known characteriza- tion of this distinction is tO be found in Durkheim's "mechanical" and "organic" solidarities.3 A society kept 1James B. McKee, Op. cit., pp. 364—370. 2See the discussion Of this tradition by John C. McKinney and Charles P. Loomis, "The Typological Tradition" in Joseph S. Roucek (ed.), Contemporary Sociology (New York: PhilOSOphical Library, 1958), pp. 557—582. 3Emile Durkheim, The Division Of Labor in Society (New York: The Free Press Of Glencoe, 1964). viable by m»; limited divi allegiance o conscience . " is likely to non-work rel: 3.3515911 by the aural order. likely to be f‘i‘lctionally 48 viable by mechanical solidarity is one in which there is a limited division Of labor and in which there is a strong allegiance of its members to a moral order--the "collective conscience." Obviously in such a society, the status system is likely to be based upon personalistic criteria and upon non-work related characteristics. These are likely to be judged by the degree tO which they support the existing moral order. Under such conditions the status system is likely to be relatively unstable, owing to an absence Of functionally demarcated positions, and resting upon the vagaries Of personal behavior. Only leadership roles are likely to remain constant. In a society manifesting "organic solidarity" via- bility is maintained by functional interdependence Of its components. These components are defined by a division of labor. In such a society, social evaluations would most likely be based upon the position an individual occupies within the social system Egg the degree to which he adheres to the existing moral order. However, the importance placed upon adhering to the moral order under conditions of mechan- ical solidarity is greatly lessened in Durkheim's character— ization Of organic solidarity. This is illustrated by the nature Of the systems Of sanctions existing for the two types of solidarity. Under conditions Of mechanical soli- éhrity, "repressive laws" are brought to bear against the ébviant actor. The individual is defined as deviant through his failure tions. he is privileges. violator is s prompted by E unit in socie Allegiance to taining the VI tivity of the Durkh‘ 38. in part, Of population solidarity is call and in M Sin: :19. Such (.W c513 Cc :1‘..pragma‘ti “as at 49 his failure to adhere to the moral order. Under such condi— tions, he is punished by the removal Of certain rights and privileges. Under conditions of organic solidarity the violator is subject tO "restitutive laws." These laws are prompted by a desire tO keep the individual a functioning unit in society.1 They are corrective and rehabilitative. Allegiance to a moral order is Of less importance tO main- taining the viability Of such a society than is the produc— tivity of the individual in his work role. Durkheim viewed the emergence Of organic solidarity as, in part, a function Of an increase in the concentration of pOpulation. However his discussion of this type of solidarity is based upon a social unit which is relatively small and in which functional differentiation is relatively Simple. Such a community is likely tO have a high degree Of consensus over its status system. However, where functional differentiation is more complex and where there is a low degree Of articulation Of the positions, consensus over status assignment is likely tO be reduced.2 Such a legal system implies a Shift from a moral order based upon the traditionally defined status quO to an emphasis upon rational norms; norms directed toward achiev- ing pragmatic goals by the most efficient and effective means at one's diSposal. "Structural articulation" refers to the range Of positions formally defined by, and dependent upon, the enact- ment of any given position, as well as the inclusiveness Of the definitions and dependencies. The position Of foreman in a factory, for example, is a position defined both by management and workers, and one upon which both are depen— dent. The inclusiveness of the definitions and dependencies Jellimited, however, to the factory setting. W85 cormunities existed! a 5 He EXPECted I social ranki ni;ltiple‘faC consensus W3 esized relat multi-industl the latter . of two large he found evil sensus on sté formed in the clearly, f on ti. :- nu n in the 9.’ “~80 The j Pattern of .l'v'ely high {'3 Obtain ‘Eplex and .0 . be formed 50 Westby compared the status systems of three Michigan communities: a town where no major industrial plants existed, a Single-factory town, and a multiple-factory town.1 He eXpected to find the highest degree of consensus in social ranking in the Single-factory town followed by the multiple-factory town and the non-industrial town. While consensus was far higher in the industrial towns, the hypoth- esized relationship between the single-factory town and the multi-industry town did not hold; consensus was higher in the latter. But when Westby took into account the presence of two large State institutions in the Single factory town, he found evidence that these detracted from the overall con- sensus on status assignment. Indeed, greater consensus was formed in the ranking Of those persons involved in the more clearly, functionally differentiated industrial organization than in the state institutions employing white collar work- ers. The point to be emphasized is that to the degree the pattern of functional differentiation remains clear, a rela- tively high degree Of consensus in social ranking is likely to obtain. Where, however, that differentiation becomes complex and diffuse, a lowered degree Of consensus is likely to be formed. lWestby, Op. cit. key roli tional < these it for more context \ differen , .19“ udCiEn Kl“gsley Increase greater effected 35139 801 Erie largr IVEIEtt ( 3?} and : i47~763 ngplex' I a'ld‘Jals ( CODE t0 1 52C}: ter; . r 615':er ' ‘ :s-Lx Ml: .“‘~-70: Eds nay I i' ~\e:‘ \l "1‘ ‘ l) H , I I‘ll (D u) - (‘1‘ (1' (I) (I) 51 In industrialized societies, occupation plays the key role in social evaluations, but the complexity of posi— tional differentiation may either require a grouping of these into larger classes Of positions for evaluation, or for more refinement, a knowledge Of the organizational context in which positional Obligations are carried out.1 1It is by now a commonplace Observation that social differentiation increases with an increase in technological efficiency as well aS increased pOpulation size. See Kingsley Davis, Human Sociepy (New York: Macmillan, 1961). Increased differentiation, in turn, is likely to result in a greater range Of criteria by which social evaluation is effected. Hughes, in 1945, interpreted American society as being somewhat unique in its great range Of "statuses" and the large number Of "status-determining" characteristics. Everett C. Hughes, "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status," American Journal Of Sociologx. L (1945), 353-359. Elman R. Service, in his article, "Kinship Terminol— ogy and Evolution," American Anthropologist, LXII (1960) 747-763, develOps the notion that as societies become more complex "status terms" (terms which denote a class of indi- viduals occupying a Single position in the social system) come to reflect different classes Of referents. He sees such terms evolving from "familistic—egO—centric" to "non- familistic-sociocentric" referents. Non—familistic termi- nologies emerge with the advent of sociO-economic classes and political and bureaucratic Offices. Service maintains that rather than one system Of status terms becoming more complex, new structures Of status terms emerge, contributing to the increasing overall complexity Of terminologies. There appear to be limits to the range of cognitive discriminations members of a social system can handle. Anthony F. C. Wallace, in attempting to understand why there has been no change in semantic complexity Of kinship taxono- mies while the overall complexity of terminologies has in- creased in industrialized societies, has provided evidence that for the most part, there is a limit Of Six binary choices within any one kinship system. The various combina- tions result in sixty-four independent semantic labels (two, to the Sixth power). In addition to the kinship terminol- ogies, Wallace suggests that this "26 rule" applies to other folk taxonomies as well. Anthony F. C. Wallace, "On Being l a o (y- it com: JO t t o: v . exists, “haul . corn)“ ‘V LIZ“ nit , t i f 0 A: G» O a t 2.. L» a: .5 u d u .1 .\ . hidip lited I a‘ b 52 A final source Of confusion in assessing status in communities characterized by organic solidarity is the fact that the moral order is never entirely eliminated. Indeed, it comprises the "public ideology" of the community, dis— cussed earlier. We noted before that the smaller the commu- nity, the more important the maintenance Of a public ideol— ogy. Under such conditions, where a division of labor exists, the enactment Of a work role is likely to be eval- uated not only in terms Of the requirements Of the work rOle itself, but alSO in terms Of its support Of the "public ideology." For example, the manager of a factory in a one— factory town, who is able to increase the volume Of sales is likely to be highly evaluated by members Of the town, both upon carrying out his positional Obligations and upon con- tributing to the economic welfare of the community. Far less consensus in ranking of that same manager is likely tO obtain in a multi-industry town, where his success is asso- ciated with the loss Of business for another factory in the same town. In this instance differences in evaluations will vary widely depending upon the allegiances of community Just Complicated Enough," Proceedings Of the National Academy of Sciences, XLVII (1961), 458—464. With higher degrees of complexity, the cognitive problem of maintaining distinctions appears to be solved by regrouping classifications into larger classes. The con— struction of these classes is in part a function of the nature Of the audience Of evaluation. For example, while the term "scientist" may be adequate for the lay public, "nuclear physicist" becomes a more appropriate status term among scientists. gathers" structur diViSiOn that S‘dC FYI-.339!) made. Ht relation: relevano fare of 1 y if” p . 3‘ N“t .. an \ . ad, 1‘; 9“ 53 memberS-—allegiances made diverse by the complexities of the structural differentiation. To summarize the discussion on the relevance of the division of labor to community ranking systems, we may posit that such a division provides the basis for relatively permanent positions upon which stable evaluations may be made. However, unless there is a relatively clear-cut relationship among these positions, and unless there is some relevance Of the enactment of these positions for the wel- fare of the community as a whole, the ranking system is likely to be relatively ambiguous. Further, if positional enactments become mutually antagonistic, additional blurring of the overall community status system will likely occur. Summary While the characterizations Of community status systems may be partly a function Of the method of inquiry, there remain certain uniformities in research findings. One of these is the fact that the criteria Of evaluation can be broken down into three types: those which are ascribed, those which are achieved, and those which contribute to the maintenance Of the "public ideology" Of the community. (A second and more important constant that remains throughout the literature on community status systems is the influence of certain structural characteristics upon the rmture Of status systems. These are: (l) the degree of autonom size of and (o) evaluat 54 autonomy of the community from the larger society, (2) the Size of the community, (3) the level of economic affluence, and (4) the degree of complexity Of the division of labor. Individuals residing in communities are likely to evaluate other individuals at least to some degree. But the degree to which consensus is formed among individuals regard- ing the evaluations is dependent upon the autonomy and Size of the community. Further, in autonomous communities which are small, personalistic criteria are of crucial importance in the evaluations. Stability in the evaluations is not likely to be Obtained except where there is a division of labor, the positions Of which are structurally articulated in a clear pattern. Further, under such conditions the positions themselves contribute additional criteria in the evaluation Of persons. Finally, the economic level Of the community pro- vides the preconditions as to whether a division Of labor is even possible. Corporate existence at the subsistence level precludes the emergence Of a high degree Of labor differentiation. But a highly develOped division of labor may not necessarily follow from a higher standard of living- The economic level also appears to influence the types of personal attributes most desired in a community. Under conditions of economic scarcity where security for self and suSpicion Of others occurs, those attributes most ' \ .ignly v These at inhabita conic an zero-sum 55 highly valued are aloofness and polite social distance. These attributes are far less desired in small towns whose inhabitants exist at higher economic levels where the eco- nomic and social worlds are less likely tO be defined in zero-sum terms. . ma .e til ont. R b act f CHAPTER III COMMUNITY STATUS SYSTEMS AND APPRAISALS OF LIFE CONDITIONS Introduction "Appraisals of life conditions" in this thesis refers to the degree to which the individual is satisfied with his life, however he may interpret that satisfaction. The term "conditions" refers to those referents which may contribute to the degree Of satisfaction. These may include factors contributing to the current living standard as well aS those contributing to favorable or unfavorable social acceptance. An initial assumption is that the community status system is likely to be an important referent for the individ- ual in the process of appraising his life conditions. Yet it may be only one of several referents involved in this process. To assume otherwise is to view the individual as concerned pply with social recognition; with favorable evaluations from others. It will be the thesis of this chapter that the community status system may merely inter- vene in a more fundamental relationship; that existing 56 between the and the mar conditions The this chapte fomalizat; sion. This tural chare sition wit) An either abs: absOlute t: last like): (Ghee are ] 57 between the structural characteristics Of the communities and the manner in which individuals appraise their life conditions. The dynamics Of the appraisals are first examined in this chapter. Following this, the chapter concludes with a formalization Of the implications stemming from the discus- sion. This formalization takes into account the four struc- tural characteristics and is presented as one general propo- sition with four corollaries. Absolute and Relative Appraisals An individual may appraise his life conditions in either absolute or relative terms. Appraisals made in absolute terms, irreSpective Of the conditions of others, is most likely under the extreme case where needs of subsis- tence are problematic. Personal concerns with social status, under these conditions, are likely to be important only inso- far aS a given status rank is instrumental in mitigating the severity Of subsistence needs. For example, a village Offi- cial may be paid in kind for his services. But this payment may also be a form of recognition of his higher status rank by the rest of the village inhabitants. It is more usually the case that appraisals of life conditions depend upon judgments that are relative in nature; relative to real or imagined characteristics of others. The relative nature of such judgments encompasses what Merton has lab occur u consens with ev app-rais conditi Eppears ajiproac ' a. ' Ill (“f l I :4 HI (1) .I O n .‘x‘ (D rt (1) H. ‘7 (n a... (D ‘ ._J ' LII 'IV ’1 . t- ' w I—'/ L-j u" m f—J 58 has labeled "reference group theory."1 Such judgments may occur under conditions which may be described aS either consensually supportive or fractionated. In our concern with evaluative judgments the analysis of the dynamics Of appraisals of life conditions is Obviously much easier under conditions of high consensual validation. Indeed this appears to provide a primary point Of departure for Mead's approach to the analysis of human behavior. Mead points out in his discussion of the field Of social psychology that "the behavior Of the individual can be understood only in terms Of the behavior of the whole social group of which he is a member, Since his individual acts are.involved in larger social acts which go beyond himself and which implicate the other members of that group."2 The starting point in the analysis of human behavior for Mead is with an account Of the social characteristics of the group; 1Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 225—386. Karl Marx once Observed: "A house may be large or small, as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling. But if a palace arises beside the little house, the little house Shrinks to a hut." Karl Marx, "Wage-Labor and Capital" in Selected Works, Vol. I (New York: International Publish- ers, 1933). Cited in Seymour M. Lipset, "Political Sociol- ogy," Neil J. Smelser, Sociology: An Introduction (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), p. 451. 2Anselm Strauss (ed.), The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, 1959), pp. 133—134. individi istics .' groups a document individr 5001013 3 ll) 59 individual behavior is thereupon related to these character- istics.1 The relationship between delimited homogeneous groups and individual members' perceptions has been well documented. The approach has typically been to relate individual perceptions tO the perceptions of others within the group, or to salient characteristics Of the group.2 What has been Of less concern is the relationship of these perceptions to different aspects of internally differen- tiated groups. In those cases where this has been of inter- est, the methodology has been based primarily upon only individual perceptions without attempting to relate these to social structural characteristics as determined by the lIbid. "We attempt, that is, to eXplain the conduct of the individual in terms of the Organized conduct of the social group, rather than to account for the organized con- duct of the social group in terms Of the conduct Of the separate individuals belonging to it." Ibid., p. 134. 2See, for example, Manford H. Kuhn and Thomas S. McPartland, "An Investigation of Self Attitudes," American Sociological Review, XIX (1954), 68-76; Frank Miyamoto and Sanford Dornbusch, "A Test of Interactionist Hypotheses of Self-Conception," American Journal of Sociology. LXI (1956), 399-403; Richard Videbeck, "Self-Conception and the Reac— tions Of Others," Sociometry, XXIII (1960), 351-359; G. M. Vernon, "Religious Self Identification," Pacific Sociological Review, V (1962), 40-43; and S. Clark McPhail, "Self Iden- tification with a Specific Context of EXperience and Behav- ior" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociol— ogy, Michigan State University, 1965). research Durkheim diversitj diversitj tions. t 60 researcher.l While the emphasis upon individual perceptions is appealing in its simplicity and plausible in its empiri- cal proofs, it becomes unwieldy in attempting to understand the determinants Of what is perceived.2 Such an approach, Durkheim Observed, can lead the researcher to "assume the diversity Of types without being able to identify them."3 Our concern with "diversity Of types" is with the diversity of types of individual appraisals Of life condi- tions. The literature on the function and meaning of work lIllustrative studies include, Glen Rasmussen and Alvin Zander, "Group Membership and Self-Evaluation," Human Relations, VII (1954), 239-252; Carl J. Couch, "Self- Attitudes and Degree of Agreement with Immediate Others," American Journal of Sociology, LXIII (1958), 491—496; Wynona Smutz Garretson, "The Consensual Definition Of Social Objects," Sociological gparterly, III (1962), 109-113; Carl W. Backman, Paul F. Secord, and Jerry R. Pierce, "Resistance to Change in the Self-Concept as a Function of Consensus Among Significant Others," Sociometpy, XXV (1963), 102-111; and John L. Sherwood, "Self-Identity and Referent Others," Sociometry, XXVIII (1965), 66-81. Exceptions to this approach--where comparisons were made among different social contexts—-inc1ude: Thomas McPartland and John H. Cummins, "Self-Conception, Social Class and Mental Health," Human Organization, XVII (1958), 24-29; Manford Kuhn, "Self-Attitudes by Age, Sex, and Pro- fessional Training," Sociological anrterl , I (1960), 153-159; and Charles W. Tucker, Jr., "Occupational Evalua— tion and Self Identification" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1966). 2Problems Of relating attitudinal variables are dis— cussed in depth by Wylie in her treatment of the research problems of "phenomenologists." Wylie notes that such an approach cannot specify antecedent variables, but rather rests upon "response-response" association. Ruth C. Wylie, The Self Concept (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), pp. 6-22. 3Emile Durkheim, Suicide (New YOrk: The Free Press, of Glencoe, 1951), p. 147. in con wide r work r the app 61 in complex societies such as the United States indicates a wide range of possible variations in the extent to which the work role, as one social context, is likely to enter into the appraisals. Variations in Orientation Toward the Work Role It is not difficult to understand the primacy of the work role for influencing individual perceptions and affect- ing life styles in industrialized societies. By definition, such a society is one characterized by a high degree Of structural differentiation based upon impersonal legal- rational norms. Further, such structural characteristics are likely to provide a primary source Of social approbation, particularly where the functional relationships remain salient. The consequences of this functional differentiation is perhaps most dramatically demonstrated by Inkeles' cross— cultural, secondary analysis.1 Included in his data is evidence that similar patterns Of attitudes and perceptions among Similar statuses in industrial organizations exist regardless of the historical ethos of the industrial society. Further, Inkeles found a nearly complete agreement Of ranking 1Alex Inkeles, "Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to EXperience, Perception and Value," American Journal Of Sociology. LXVI (1961), 1—31. ‘T‘F'VW‘ ..__.',, . '.._. the so of lif the We role e such a 50C ial diSCOK Ersl t life i 62 of occupations in comparing the different cultures. Finally, a positive relationship was found between job Satisfaction and the rank of the occupation. If satisfaction in the work role is a function Of the social rank Of that role, does this mean that appraisals of life conditions are also a function Of the social rank Of the work role? If it does then this implies that the work role entirely structures the individual's life space. If such a meaning cannot be inferred then this means that other social contexts may structure the individual's life Space and subsequently influence the appraisals Of his life condi- tions. If this is true then quite Obviously the individual exercises some selectivity in the referents that he employs in assessing his life conditions. A wide range Of alternative referents for assessing life conditions exist in modern complex industrial societies. That different contexts are called into play in personal appraisals of life conditions is given credence by studies of the nature of involvement in the work role. Dubin, in a study involving 491 factory workers, discovered that for 76 percent of the total number Of work- erS, the work role did not constitute a generalized "central life interest."l Orzack, on the other hand, found an almost lRobert Dubin, "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the 'Central Life Interests' of Industrial Workers," Spcial Problems, III (1956), 131-142. complete nurses--r :ercent ' "central “hearts-or define li Work as a tional te 63 complete reversal in the pattern for his sample of 150 nurseS--a higher-ranked occupational group. Seventy-nine percent viewed their work role as providing a generalized "central life interest."l Mack, in his study, found salesmen to be primarily "means-oriented" with a greater tendency than bankers to define life goals in monetary terms. Bankers tended to view work as an end in itself and defined life goals in occupa- tional terms.2 Friedmann and Havighurst, in summarizing the find- ings of four occupational groups, concluded that steel workers and coal miners placed primary value upon wages and the routine features of work as well as upon the derivation of self-respect from within the work group itself. Skilled craftsmen were more likely to value work as a source of self- respect and the respect Of others. This self-respect carried beyond the work place into the larger community. Sales clerks indicated work had meanings of desired routine, associations with others and meaningful "life eXperience." Physicians viewed their work role as a public service and emphasized extra—economic aSpects Of the work role.3 1L. H. Orzack, "Work as a 'Central Life Interest' of Professionals," Social Problems, VII (1959), 125-132. 2Raymond Mack, "Occupational Ideology and the Deter- minant Role," Social Forces, XXXVI (1957), 37-44. 3Eugene A. Friedmann and Robert J. Havighurst, The Mpaning of Work and Retirement (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1954). work as a of employ farming a view jobs in "worki. our conce: as o.e ‘\of for the a. one of ma: aPP'rEtisal T1 trance 0f ‘ 64 Farmers, in a study by Morse and Weiss, viewed their work as a total way of life. Further, among their sample of employed men, the authors found that those involved in farming and "middle class" occupations were more likely to View jObS as important for non-economic reasons than those in "working class" jobs.1 In drawing out the implications of these studies, our concern iS with the conditions under which the work role as one of many contexts serves as a crucial referent point for the appraisals of life conditions. It represents only one of many alternatives that could be employed for such appraisals. Two conditions may be noted that affect the rele- vance Of a given social context for appraisals of life con— ditions: the prestige attached to the context and the requirements for involvement within it. The two may not be the same. Bankers, physicians, nurses, craftsmen and farm- ers may differ in the prestige accorded them, but they are similar in requiring a considerable amount of skill and/or time in enacting their roles. They are thus more likely to utilize their work roles as primary referents for appraising life conditions than are factory workers, salesmen, Sales clerks, steel workers and coal miners. 1Nancy C. Morse and R. S. Weiss, "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job,“ American Sociological Review, XX (1955), 191-198. tionsl life r of eve lively ViEWec r318 a tign’ 65 Implications for the RelationshipyBetween Communitnytatus and Apppaisals of Life Conditions The relevance of the above discussion for the rela- tionship between a community status system and appraisals of life conditions is that in Situations in which a wide range of evaluative contexts are available, the two evaluative scales are likely to be only minimally related. Under such conditions the individual may seek to extend a favorable evaluation to other contexts or he may compartmentalize his perceived evaluations, Or he may possible withdraw psycho- logically from the entire system.1 The status level one occupies in a community and the involvement in a work role in an industrial society may be viewed in analogous terms. It is possible for both the work role and the status rank to serve as referents for evalua— tion, indppendent Of the criteria entering into their defi- nitions. Similarly the criteria may serve as referents of evaluation independent Of the position which they define. For example, a plumber may appraise his life condi- tions relatively highly in contrast to a ditch-digger, but 1Evidence for both extension and withdrawal are furnished by Lenski. See Gerhard Lenski, "Status Crystal- lization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status," American Sociological Review, XIX (1954), 405—413, and "Social Participation and Status Crystallization," American Sociological Review, XXI (1956), 458-464. he ha} of the persor concur itpose 66 he may wish he were more adept at reading blue-prints, one of the criteria defining a good plumber. Analogously, a person ranked relatively highly on social prestige in the community may not value that high ranking if a low income imposes undue economic hardship upon him. Precisely what contexts an individual will choose for his appraisals remains an elusive problem. Indeed, Merton raised the question relating to a Similar problem 16 years ago, "how can we characterize the structure Of the social Situation which leads to one rather than another Of these several group affiliations being taken as the Signif- icant context?"l Merton further raised the question whether "self-appraisals and appraisals of institutional arrange- ments involve Similar mechanisms Of reference group behav- ior."2 According to Merton, it is important to discover the differences between the structure of those social Situations fostering invidious personal comparisons where the legiti- macy of the structure is left unqgestioned, and those social Situations in which the legitimacy Of the structure permit- ting such comparisons is questioned. It is not the intent of this thesis to attempt to discover these differences. In this study we are, however, inquiring into those structural lMerton, Op. cit., p. 239. 21bid., p. 240. charac ious i pprai integr 67 characteristics which contribute to the relevance Of invid- ious interpersonal comparisons for the individual's personal appraisals. In general, it seems likely that the more highly integrated the community the greater the degree of agreement upon the relative status levels of individuals, and also the greater the degree Of agreement with respect to the criteria entering into the assignment of status. Under such condi- tions the possiblity of employing criteria which are inde- pendent Of each other is less and, therefore, a close rela- tionship between social status and appraisals of life condi— tions is likely. TO the degree that these conditions do not obtain, the relationship between the two evaluative systems is likely to be tenuous. A PrOppsition with Corollaries We may bring the above Observations to bear in formalizing our eXpectationS regarding the relevance of community status systems for personal appraisals Of life conditions. For this, we may view the particular status rank Of the individual as a potential referent for his appraisals. Accordingly, the following prOpOSition with four corollaries is derived: Proposition.--The degree of correspondence Of commu- nity status rank with appraisals Of life conditions is spend the st betwee tions 33 a s 68 dependent upon the degree tO which alternatives other than the status system are available for the appraisals. This prOpOSition is derived from the premise that the greater the number Of referents by which an individual may appraise his life conditions, the less the impact Of any single referent upon the appraisals. First corollary.--The degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals Of life condi- tions is dependent upon the degree to which the community, as a social system, is autonomous from the larger society. Regardless Of the clarity of the status system in the community, it is likely to be Of little relevance for appraisals of life conditions to the degree that the commu- nity itself is invidiously compared with other social sys- tems. This is most likely to occur where there is very little autonomy of the community from the larger society. Thus, for the inhabitants of Park Forest, most of whom were reported to be upwardly mobile, appraisals are likely to be based as much upon what it means to be a resident of the community as upon the status level within the community. Where the community provides the context for the total life Space of the individual, the community status system is far more likely to be relevant for his appraisals. Degree of community autonomy then iS one factor determining the presence of alternatives by which life conditions may be assessed. betve‘ tions large, status Recalj irport tige. Withir 69 Second corollary,--The degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life condi— tions is dependent upon the complexity Of the status system. Two structural characteristics, taken together, largely determine the degree Of complexity of the community status system: Size and the nature Of the division of labor. Recall that the smaller the Size Of the community the more important are personal attributes in assigning social pres— tige. To the degree that there exists a division of labor within the small community, evaluations are based upon positional attributes pips_personal attributes. The pres- ence of positional criteria may foster a more stabilized status system, but the number Of evaluative dimensions is increased, thus increasing the complexity in the status assigning process. Further, to the degree that the posi- tions are not clearly defined in their functional relation- ships, complexity in the status system is even more increased. The additional criteria employed in status assignment and the blurring of functional relationships increased the number Of alternatives for appraising life conditions. In large communities, the importance Of personal attributes in status assignment is less. Positional attri- butes become of greater importance for the status system. Where there is a clearly defined division Of labor, the status system is relatively stable and well defined. Where no clear—cut functional relationships exist, the status betwee tions orient tions the if 70 system becomes more complex. Evaluations are based not only upon the position but also upon the context within which the position is enacted. Third corollary.--The degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life condi- tions is dependent upon the degree to which community- oriented and self-oriented systems of interpersonal evalua- tions are fused together. Recall that the smaller the community the greater the importance for supporting a public ideology of tranquil— ity and equality. This appears to be a consequence of the requirement to deny the existence of cleavages and divisive- ness. This further reinforces the importance of personal attributes in interpersonal evaluations in the small commu- nity. But Vidich and Bensman have noted that underlying the publicly exPressed criteria of evaluations are the private assessments. There thus exist two systems of evaluations. The community-oriented system based upon criteria which sup- port or detract from the public ideology of the community, and the self-oriented system which comprises a covert assess- ment by the individual of his conditions relative to those of his neighbors.1 1This distinction appears to be related in some ways to Merton's distinction between two types of reference groups: the "normative type" which "sets and maintains standards for the individual" and the "comparison type" which "provides a frame of comparison relative to which the individual evaluates himself and others." See Merton, Op. cit., p. 283. 33st 1 71 Covert evaluations in the private Sphere appear to be relatively independent of public eXpressions of evalua- tion. Within this sphere the authors of Small Town in Mass Society note that "Springdalers tend to emphasize the nega- tive and competitive qualities of life."1 The tendency is to express this in economic terms. "The image of the sharp trading farmer, the penny-wise homemaker and the thrifty country folk is reflected in reverse in this concern with the state of other peOple's finances and possessions."2 Further, the authors note that "these and similar statements . . . serve the function of enabling a person to calculate his relative financial standing. They are encountered almost everywhere in private gossip, but remain unspoken and hidden in ordinary public situations."3 The fusion of these two systems of evaluation is most likely in small communities having a clearly defined and extensive division of labor legitimizing inequalities within the community. This fusion limits the range of alternatives by which life conditions may be appraised. Under such conditions the degree of correspondence between the status system and appraisals of life conditions is likely to be relatively high. 1Arthur J. Vidich and James Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1960), p. 43. 21bidol pp. 43-44. 31bid., p. 45. articu a less tincti likely the p11] invidig lEgitir heWee; tions j eCOnomj 72 The two systems are most likely to be distinct under conditions in which no structure legitimizes inequalities. This is most likely to occur where the relationships of functional roles are diffuse with no clear structural articulation among them. It is also likely to occur, but to a lesser extent, where there is an absence of functional dis- tinctions. In this latter case, public evaluations are likely to emphasize personalistic criteria contributing to the public ideology of equality and tranquility, but covert invidious comparisons are likely to remain. There are no legitimate means to publicly eXpress these comparisons. Fourth corollary.—-The degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life condi- tions is dependent upon the degree to which problems of economic subsistence have been resolved. The status system in a community in which nearly everyone lives at the subsistence level will have relatively little impact upon the individual's appraisals of his life conditions. Appraisals will likely be in absolute terms, centered upon the problems of remaining alive. The problem of economic subsistence is never com- pletely solved, however. Even persons in relatively afflu— ent societies must pay attention to sustaining themselves and their family. Further, individual requirements for subsistence are likely to be higher in more affluent societ import ence o outwei. it rem..- 73 societies.l Thus economic related criteria will be of importance for appraisals regardless of the level of afflu- ence of the community. However, its importance will far outweigh considerations of status in those communities where it remains uncertain whether subsistence needs will always be met. It is, of course, important to keep clear, at this point, the distinction between economic considerations as status-assigning criteria and economic considerations as problems of subsistence. We are concerned here only with the latter. Summary Appraisals of life conditions may be in either absolute or relative terms. (The two may not be mutually exclusive, however.) In approaching the problem of ascer- taining which referents are most likely to enter into appraisals we have sought to avoid relying upon data which is derived from only the perceptions of respondents. Rather, the attempt was made to relate these perceptions to identi— fiable structural characteristics. 1For example, where the majority of a given social system can afford automobiles, public transportation facil— ities are likely to decline. This results in a conversion of the automobile from a luxury item to a necessity for those requiring transportation. 3". lit 3. roles i illustr individ the ind those w als wer the mos apprais- COCCEpti 74 An examination of differing orientations to work roles in a complex industrialized society served as an illustration of the variations in the contexts employed by individuals in appraising their life conditions. Viewing the individual as exercising selectivity in his referents, those work roles most likely to be important in the apprais— als were those that were most prestigous and those requiring the most amount of skill and/or time. Of crucial importance for our purposes is the degree to which the range of alternatives is restricted in the appraisals. Based upon this premise, the implications for the relationship between community status systems and appraisals of life conditions were formalized into one prOp- osition and four corollaries. These provide the principal conceptual framework directing the focus of inquiry. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHODS Introduction The approach of this research is aimed toward eXplanation rather than prediction.l It is an eXploratory rather than a confirmatory study. As such, it is designed to generate hypotheses rather than to confirm them. Never- theless, the basic prOposition with four corollaries pre- sented in Chapter III provide guidelines for the inquiry. 1The distinction between eXplanation and prediction is not made by Hempel and Oppenbeim. Arguing from a formal deductive model they maintain that "an event is eXplained by subsuming it under general laws, i.e., by showing that it occurred in accordance with those laws, by virtue of the realization of certain Specified antecedent conditions. . . . The eXplanation of a general regularity consists in subsuming it under another more comprehensive regularity, under a more general law." Thus predictions, derived from general laws, and eXplanations are identical in form. C. G. Hempel and P. Oppenheim, "The Logic of EXplanation," Philos— ophy of Science, XV (1948), 135—175. Cited in Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964), p. 339. Kaplan argues, however, that an eXplanation is derived by showing that on the basis of what is known an event could not have been otherwise. This "element of neces- sity" is not necessarily a causal one but can be a logical one. Thus Kaplan is able to observe that "eXplanations pro- vide understanding, but we can predict without being able to understand, and we can understand without necessarily being able to predict. It remains true that if we can predict suc— cessfully on the basis of a certain eXplanation we have good reason, and perhaps the best sort of reason, for accepting the eXplanation." Ibid., p. 350. 75 eXplanat What def the obse A: eXpla on its a this res chapter portraya resolvec‘ 76 In the analysis at hand, events are observed and eXplanations are offered for the occurrence of these events. ‘What defines a plausible explanation is the degree to which 'the observed event can be related to commonly held axioms. A11 eXplanation that is plausible may further be evaluated CH1 its ability to cancel out rival systems of eXplanation. The groundwork for the logic of eXplanation used in ttiis research has been laid in Chapters II and III. This cruapter deals with crucial problems in establishing a valid 3pcxrtrayal of the empirical world and how these problems are resolved in the present research endeavor. Analytic Procedure This research deals with three types of attributes: (1.) attributes of the communities designated as "structural Characteristics," (2) attributes of the population within 'tlute communities based upon aggregate judgments of social 3r€irik and (3) attributes of individual members of the commu- nity. These last attributes are comprised of individual Perceptions of the community, of the community status system arléi the personal appraisals of life conditions. The analysis begins with a description of the three colImmunities in which similarities and differences in struc- tural characteristics are noted. These characteristics are then viewed as independent variables against which character- iStics of the community status system are analyzed. The Chara: indep« the d indiv study Sente brief {EEir 77 characteristics of the status systems are next viewed as the independent variables, and the inquiry is then focused upon the degree to which the status systems eXplain variations in individual appraisals of life conditions. The Research Setting Three communities are the focus of inquiry in this study. More intensive descriptions of them will be pre- sented in Chapter IV. It is sufficient here to present a brief sketch of their characteristics and the rationale for their choice . The three communities were selected on the basis of their small size--all have less than 1,000 inhabitants--and their relatively high degree of autonomy. Their selection was further based upon variations in the nature of the divi— sion of labor within them and the variations in their levels 015 economic affluence. These characteristics were juxta— Posed against variations in the dominant values of the 30C ieties in which they were located. Lewiston is a small town located in north central Mi<2higan. Its economic base is primarily tourism. While the economic level of many of the inhabitants is low, the to‘Nl’l's pOpulation as a whole exists well above the subsis— teI‘lce level. Within the town there are no work organizations inVolving more than a few people. The largest proportion of heads of households are either self-employed or retired. There a tional doctor, communi diffuse the urb apparen SHOES, lgated differe tOWn's “P011 0: With t}. moved t enough sonal e 78 There are employer-employee relationships and clear occupa- tional differences are apparent, eSpecially betwen the town doctor, the banker, the businessmen and the rest of the community. However, these relationships are functionally diffuse and are not structurally articulated. Even though the urban, industrial values of the larger society are apparent in the importance placed upon occupational differ- ences, their impact upon interpersonal evaluations is mit- igated by the lack of any organization legitimizing these differences. A further suppressing effect results from the town's small size which serves to eliminate the need to rely upon only positional criteria for interpersonal evaluations. With the exception of a few retired people who have recently moved to town, nearly everyone knows everyone else well enough for a wide range of criteria to enter into interper- sonal evaluations. The rationale, then for the inclusion of Lewiston in the study is thus based upon its distinction as a community lacking structural supports for the maintenance of urban, industrial values in a society in which these Values are predominant. La Lucha, Costa Rica, represents an industrial town within a largely non-industrialized society. Its inclusion in this study is specifically because of these characteris- ticS. It is a small factory town located in the highlands of Costa Rica. Nearly all of the heads of households in the Village were peasants at one time or are children of peasants. They turi the in t gratl are: 79 They are now employed in a rcpe, bag, and fiber rug manufac- turing plant or as field workers providing raw materials for the factory. The manufacturing Operations involve modern machinery and there is extensive division of labor which includes unskilled laborers, machine tenders, skilled trades— men, clerical workers, first and second level supervisors, a general factory manager and the factory owner. Both the employees of the factory and those who work iIl the fields are involved in a well structured, highly inte— grated work organization in which functional relationships are clearly specified. While the town is small enough to permit functionally diffuse relations among persons of unequal occupational status, the formal structure of the Work organization provides a context for these relations to be dominated and legitimated by differences in occupational and related criteria. San Miguel is a small ladino, peasant community located in Guatemala. Access to the village is possible only by a three-quarter-mile footpath leading up a steep incline just off the highway between Guatemal City and Antigua. The economic base of the community is subsistence le\Iel agriculture although there are a few skilled tradesmen who work in the nearby town of Antigua and a few day labor- ers who work on coffee plantations or on road construction in the area. The village for the most part, however, is a tradi teri: 4 C F“ (1‘ .- r.- anotl ships the c iti95 desc1 tion indu; ‘ .' 5 ‘03. l 80 traditional peasant community located in a society charac- terized generally by an absence of industrial-related values. Within the community, instances of one villager employing another are rare. There are, in fact, no sustained relation- ships outside the nuclear family. The social structure of the community, with the exception of some patterned activ- ities related to the church and village government, is best described as atomistic, involving little more than a collec- tion of separate households. In summary, all of the communities are small and all Eire relatively autonomous from the larger society of which 1:hey are a part, although in comparison, Lewiston is prob- zibly the least autonomous of the three. Lewiston represents a: non-industrialized community in an industrialized society. 1;a Lucha is an industrialized community in a non-industrial- iJZEd society. San Miguel may be characterized as a non- iJudustrialized community in a non—industrialized society. Ifime inhabitants of both Lewiston and La Lucha live above the Stflosistence level but the division of labor in Lewiston is functionally diffuse while in La Lucha it is clearly defined arléi structurally articulated. In San Miguel there is very little division of labor and almost all of the inhabitants exist at the subsistence level. Guiding the analysis is the single proposition and tile! four corollaries. Recall the statement of the proposi- tixorn "the degree of correspondence of community status rank V the de tem a: IESpon life c commun societ autOno 0f the COIIES 81 rank with appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which alternatives other than the status sys- tem are available for the appraisals." The corollaries are expected to apply to the communities in the following manner. The first corollary states that "the degree of cor— respondence between community status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which the community, as a social system, is autonomous from the larger society." All three communities are viewed as relatively autonomous although Lewiston is likely the least autonomous of the three. The second corollary states that "the degree of <:orrespondence between community status rank and appraisals c>f life conditions is dependent upon the complexity of the sstatus system." San Miguel likely has the simplest status ssystem since the only criteria possible are personalistic, busing either ascribed or else contributing to the public iéheology. The status system of La Lucha is likely more <3Cunplex, not because of the lack of clarity in the status SYStem itself, but because of the liklihood of achieved (:rfiiteria, related to the positions in the work organization, be ing a class of criteria added to the personalistic attri- hliltes contributing to the status system. The status system (”E- Lewiston is eXpected to be the most complex of the three. Both personalistic and positional criteria are involved but there is no central ordering of the positions. This results in a l The li ment. 82 in a low degree of structural articulation of the positions. The likely result is a reduced consensus over status place- ment. The third corollary states that "the degree of cor— respondence between community status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which commu— nity-oriented and self-oriented systems of interpersonal evaluations are fused together." The two systems of eval- ‘uation are likely to be most diSparate in Lewiston followed loy San Miguel, and most highly fused in La Lucha. The <:orollary is based upon the assumption that personal evalua- t:ions occur in any social setting, but that these can be Eyublicly acknowledged in a small community only if legit- iJmacy is assigned to an ordering of the positions. Legit- iJnacy of ordered positions is most likely to occur where a saingle work organization dominates the community thus pro- viding structural supports for the hierarchical ordering. Nt) such organization exists in Lewiston. The community of IE3 ILucha, however, is clearly dominated by a work organiza- txiCJn. If San Miguel is a typical peasant community, person- alistic evaluations likely dominate. Yet as we shall see, iJlILabitants of such communities typically have a security or ientation for themselves while harboring suSpicions toward 0t11ers. Under such conditions a diSparity in self-oriented and community-oriented evaluative systems is likely to occur. corre of 11. problt carol: of ecc lucha pOpula level, 83 The fourth corollary states that "the degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which This problems of economic subsistence have been resolved." corollary applies most directly to San Miguel where problems of economic scarcity are an everyday concern. Neither La .Lucha nor Lewiston can be described as having a wealthy jpopulation but the inhabitants do live above the subsistence level. Data Collection Two major techniques were employed in gathering data for this study: ethnographic surveys and formal interview- :irgu The former technique provided detailed descriptions of cfluaracteristics of the villages. The latter technique etlicited data focused Specifically upon pOpulation and ideividual attributes within the villages. 13363 Four Structural Characteristics The four structural characteristics with which we are Concerned, provided, in part, the criteria for the selection (If ‘the communities. The differences between the communities iJl 'terms of these characteristics were further ascertained bY' (ethnographic techniques which will be more fully described irl (Ihapter V. Degree of autonomy was defined largely by geographic isolation and by the limited amount of interaction hers nitie shdl 84 between members of the communities and the larger Societies. Size of the communities was limited to under 1,000 pOpula- tion thus increasing the likelihood of some degree of knowl- edge of each community member by every other member. Num- bers of family units differed considerably among the commu— nities, but differences in size of the families resulted in Similar total population figures. (Family units in San Miguel, for example, are two to three times larger than those in Lewiston.) The relatively small Size of the commu- nities also served to minimize variations caused by sub- «groups, characteristic of larger social systems. Economic affluence of the communities was ascer- 'tained by average income. In San Miguel this was defined in 'terms of amount of land that was cultivated. In Lewiston 23nd La Lucha, cash income was employed; yearly income in ];ewiston and monthly income in La Lucha. Evidence of luxury items and condition of dwellings served as supplementary stnandards. The nature of the division of labor was deter- IniJned by both job and occupational Specifications and the degree to which they were ordered in clearly defined func- t ional relationships . 332£§Samples The attempt was made to gather information from all 1“Dusehold heads in all three communities. In La Lucha. Costa Rica, there were 102 household heads as well as a n be hacie heads Inter‘ with . the f. 85 number of long-term residents of a dormitory owned by the hacienda of which the town was a part. A random selection of 25 percent of these persons were added to the household heads, making a total of 111 persons in the overall sample. Interviews conducted by trained Costa Ricans were completed vvith all but six of this number, resulting in 105 persons in the final sample . Formal interviews were conducted with a random sample of 123 of 265 household heads in Lewiston, Michigan. In addition, a brief census-type interview was conducted with all but eleven of the remaining household heads. Two samples are thus involved in the analysis of Lewiston; 254 household heads for which background information is available and a subsample of 123 of these from whom considerably more infor- mation was gathered . In San Miguel, Guatemala, it was possible to inter- view only 49 of the 80 household heads. There were 31 refusals due largely to a misinterpretation by some of the Villagers of the researchers' intentions. Census type data Were, however, available for all of the 80 households. This resulted in two samples; the 80 household heads and the sub- saInple of 49 for whom information is complete. Most of the 31 refusals were from one area of the cOl'tu'uunity (the upper barrio). AS a group they have attri- bUtes similar to the interviewed sample except for length of residence and frequency of choice as friend and frequency of mehti views 86 mentions as someone others visit. Compared to the inter- viewed sample, the non-respondents are Slightly over- represented as long-term residents and are less likely to be chosen as friends or as persons others visit. (See Appendix A, Tables 48 through 57 for distributions on back- ground variables in San Miguel.) Translation Procedures Assuring equivalence of meanings is a constant prob— lem in cross-cultural research. Added to the problems involved in translations between standard forms of languages are variations in idioms within a Single language. In the course of constructing the interview schedules, questions were put in terms relevant to each of the local communities. Before the final schedule for each community was completed, the items were checked for validity of meaning with actual residents of the community or with persons thoroughly famil— iar with it . T£ Community Status systems AS part of the formal interviewing process, each reSpondent was asked to rank all household heads in his community on a ten-point status scale. Prior to this rank— ing, questions relating to reasons for assigning status to meI'u‘bers of the community had been asked. Within this con- text, a large figure of a ladder was presented to the reSpondent with the following instructions: e J ~.1\rhq : I N; with Phras Ere “ity, Sake l § 87 Now we would like you to use the ladder once more. Here is a larger picture of the ladder and here are some cards with names of people in (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel) on them. There are numbers on the backs of the cards. Would you first go through the cards and pick out one of the persons you were thinking of as being at the tOp of the ladder in (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel) and one of the persons you were thinking about as being at the bottom. If the names are not there please give me the names and we will add them to our list. When you have located them, please put them on the picture of the ladder and give me the numbers on the back of the cards. Also, pull out your own card and put it at step ___ of the ladder as you did before. Now we would like you to go quickly through the rest of the cards and put each person on the step of the ladder that indicates their standing in the community. Just tell me the number on the back of each card and the step number where it goes. Ybu may find others you want to put at either top or bottom. The picture of the ladder portrayed a status scale VVigth the top, or tenth step, indicating highest status and ‘tlie first step indicating lowest status in the community. 1?}1rases used to indicate status level by the interviewer VVEare "standing in the community," "prestige in the commu— rlj:ty," "amount of respect in the community," "most or least looked up to," or "rated or ranked in the community." The names of all heads of households were included in the cards tl'iat were sorted on the ladder. There were two exceptions to the general ranking Procedure. In Lewiston, because of the large number of 'hCNasehold heads, the cards were randomly divided and each reSpondent rated only half of the total. In San Miguel. (ha of‘ rat' 88 Guatemala, there is a high rate of illiteracy thus pictures of heads of households were used in the sorting process rather than the names. When the rating was completed, the respondent was zasked to look through the cards he had placed at the top of tihe ladder and indicate why these people had high standing 111 the community. A similar procedure was used for people ‘MTIO had been placed on the middle steps and on the bottom steps of the status ladder. The community eliteS.——Respondents were also asked t:c> designate two types of elites, those best representing cieasirable attributes in the local community and those best zaIDle to represent the community interests to representatives c>ff the larger Society. Characteristics of the former type c>ff elite, the "localites," were viewed aS emphasizing those Eitrtributes most important in local status assignment. The Cijsstinction between these elites and the characteristics of the latter type, the "cosmOpolitanS" were viewed as an index <>i5 a sense of uniqueness from the larger society. The local elites were identified by the following Que st ion : Suppose a ceremony were to take place dedicating a new park1 in the town. AS part of the ceremony 1In La Lucha, three names for the new plaza currently be ing constructed were solicited. In San Miguel, the respon- dents were asked for three names for a laundry area in the ‘Vlfillage. Honoring peOple by assigning their names to areas off these kinds was a common practise in the villages. TEESO ’—J owin (pH-(n :J‘rftr' 89 it is to be named after one of the members of the community. What three members would you choose as candidates for this honor? Following this question respondents were asked the :reasons why the names had been selected. The cosmOpolitan elites were identified by the fol- l owing quest ion : Suppose some high government official were com- ing to (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel), let's say to (watch the Memorial Day Parade, observe Arbor Day Ceremonies). Suppose he wanted three local peOple to Sit in the reviewing stand with him. If you were doing the choosing, which three would you pick? Following this question respondents were asked the reasons why the names had been selected. Zkgzpraisal of Life Conditions A ten step scale was used to measure the relative lLervel at which the respondent appraised his life conditions: Here is a picture of a ladder. Suppose we say that the t0p of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom represents the worst possible life for you. Where on the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time? FC>llowing this question the step number indicated by the reSpondent was recorded. Definitions of personal succeSS.--To determine how ‘tfme respondent defines success for himself and thus indicate it! what evaluative terms he appraises his life conditions, the following question was asked: Foll thou hear 90 The phrase "getting ahead in the world" means different things to different peOple. What would you have to do to feel that you had gotten ahead or were a success? 1?ollowing this question respondents were asked if they 1:hought most peOple in the community "would agree with this meaning." Central life interest.--Prior to asking the question rwagarding personal success, respondents were asked to indi- (:Eite those "things" that were of utmost importance to them. {Priis question was designed to tap a dimension quite distinct :fzrom definitions of personal success. Not every respondent Insiy'view the factors contributing to his personal success as of utmost importance. So far we have been asking you questions mostly about other people. Now we would like to get some information about you. Different people regard different kinds of things as important in life. When you think about what really mat- ters to you, what would you say are the central interests in your life? 133. addition to obtaining several unranked responses to this question, respondents were asked to indicate which one of the responses was most important to them. Evaluation of the community.--Two questions designed 'tCD ‘tap the respondent's evaluation of the community were asked. What are the things you like most about living in (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel)? What are the things you like least about living in (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel)? The sic 91 These questions were designed to indicate a broader dimen— sion in the appraisals of life conditions, namely an eval- uation of the community of which the respondent is a member. Status-Assigning Variables A variety of background variables were used in the .larger research project of which this dissertation is a part. These were selected for their potential relevance to the community status systems. They were obtained for the total samples in all three communities. These variables may be classified as achievement—related, ascribed, and those vari- ables contributing to the "public ideology." The variables and their indices are aS follows: A ch ievement-Re lat ed Var iables Occupational prestige.-—In Lewiston, occupations Were ordered by North-Hatt scale ratings. These were then collapsed into nine categories. At or near the t0p of the Scale were occupations such as medical doctor, minister, banker. Store and motel owners, and contractors were in- cluded in the middle levels of the scale while at the bottom were unskilled laborers. Occupations in La Lucha were ordered in terms of the authority structure of the work organization. Twelve categories of occupations were employed, ranging from \ 1Distributions on these variables are presented in Appendix A . a. f la} se; foi C. «3 1 P. e «N\ A: 92 professionals and top managers, to office workers and Skilled labor, down to apprentices, farm and general main- tenance laborers . In San Miguel, because of the narrow range of occupa- tions present it was necessary to use a functional classifi— cation similar to the Edwards Scale. Only four categories were possible. At the lowest rank were placed unskilled farm laborers. These were followed by unskilled non-farm laborers. Farmers responsible for cultivating land--both self-owned and communally owned--were ranked next highest, followed by skilled workers such as masons, truck drivers and bakers. Income.--Monthly monetary wage rates was the index for income employed in La Lucha. In Lewiston, the amount of annual money income was used. Since cash income is not a good index of wealth in San Miguel, size of total land- holding (both land that is owned and amount of cultivated Conununal land) was used. Education.--Number of years in school was used in a l 1 three communities . A scribed Variables Age Sex Marital status.-eAlthough this variable cannot be 39en as ascribed in the same sense as biologically determined rank resi attr 93 attributes, it may be so viewed in the sense of certain eXpectations directed toward the individual within a given period of his life. In La Lucha and San Miguel, marital status was ranked with legal marriage and widowed highest, followed by unmarried, then common-law marriage and finally the separated and divorced. In Lewiston, currently married and widowed was ranked highest followed by unmarried, then divorced. Length of residence in the community.--Length of residence in the community may also be viewed as an ascribed attribute in the sense that the number of years the individ- ual remains in the community are merely accumulated rather than achieved. Number of years provided the index for this variable. Variables Contributing to the Public Ideology It was observed in Chapter II that maintenance of a Public ideology of tranquility and equality is an important c‘—'C>mponent of small community life. It was further observed that this ideology is eXpressed both in terms of the pres- eI'lce of desirable personal attributes of others as well as the activity directed toward the support of the welfare of the total community. To tap this dimension, the following three variables were derived: V‘ M u it: 50 S e a r 94 Frequengy of choice as a personal friend.--Based upon the notion that relative frequency of choice of friend indicated relative personal pOpularity in the community, respondents were asked to give the names of their three closest friends. The resulting number of choices each per- son received comprised a scale of frequency of being chosen as a personal friend. The Specific question asked the reSpondents was the following: If you had to pick just three peOple, who would you say were your three closest friends in (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel)? Number of times mentioned as someone others visit.-- Being visited may indicate friendship. It may also indicate persons to whom others turn for advice, aid or consultation. Such a person is likely to be viewed as a valuable contribu— tor to the community welfare. The scale designed to measure this variable was constructed in the same manner as that mea sur ing friendship choice: Which families in (Lewiston, La Lucha, San Miguel) would you say you visit most often? Organizational membership.-—For Lewiston, membership in the variety of associations appeared to be a strong indi- cation of involvement in the emphasis upon maintaining the Public ideology. Indeed the "No-Knockers" club which has existed for many years in Lewiston serves the Specific pur- pose of de-emphasizing dissensions within the community. In La Lucha, while the few organizations that exist did not empha ularl of con based belong COHEUI 95 emphasize these eXpressive functions, membership, partic- ularly in the Savings association, was viewed as an index of community members who were responsible citizens. The scale used to tap organizational membership was based simply upon the number of associations the respondent belonged to. In San Miguel the almost total lack of formal community associations precluded the use of this scale. Data Analysis The research presented here is not meant to merely describe three communities. Rather, it is oriented toward ascertaining and eXplaining relationships among several types . of attributes . The intent of the analysis is to derive general principles relating to selected characteristics of community life. The analysis centers upon inter—community comparisons rather than comparisons within each of the communities. Using such an approach we are sacrificing, to some extent, important intra-community variations that may affect the accuracy of the overall portrayals of the communities. Yet the choice of relatively small communities for the focus of the study is designed to minimize these internal variations. No statistical tests of Significance are used in this re search. Such tests are typically employed to charac— terize certain attributes of a population, based upon find- 1$193 from a sample. They are also used in making decisions te te re fr rep 96 regarding associations of variables; whether or not such associations are to be attributed to other than chance occurrence. The rationale for the absence of statistical tests of significance in this study is that first, no pre— tensions are made that the three communities comprise a representative sample of all communities. If generalizing from the findings is of concern, a more valid means is by replication of the study rather than by such tests of sig- nificance. Until there is replication, the content of the data analysis must be evaluated on its plausibility. Secondly, we are more concerned with the consistency in the pattern of relationships among variables than with 'the size of single relationships. Thus, as we Shall See in tflne actual data analysis, single relationships between two \nariables may be very slight, but taken in concert with other variables and with other relationships, a clear pat- tern may emerge. Specific mention should be made regarding the use of oqieestatistical technique in this analysis; correlational arnalysis. A key advantage of this technique is that one need not sacrifice cases in ascertaining the effects of a SiJngle variable while controlling for the effects of others. chvever, correlation analysis assumes interval Scales. Fquther, it is built upon a linear model and does not allow thfi! researcher to ascertain whether or not different values 0f (Ins variable may vary in its association with different Vi .‘ (D L I C... ', (2’ F A L. LA) N I 97 values of another variable, often one of the key aims of multivariate analysis. Interval scales cannot be assumed in the measures employed in this data analysis. However, the use of corre- lational analysis is justified on the following grounds: first, eXploratory analyses revealed that statistical pro- cedures which assume only nominal or ordinal scales yielded association measures comparable to correlation analysis. Yet the limited number of cases in the samples precluded employing these procedures for multivariate analysis.1 Use of the correlation technique circumvents this problem, although information is lost regarding possible curvilinear relationships. Secondly, we are more concerned with the :relative, rather than the absolute Size of the coefficients. Phence the absolute value of the correlation coefficients is rust of crucial concern in most instances in the analysis. 1In the exploratory analyses two methods were ennployed, Pearson's contingency coefficient "C" and.Goodman alld.KIUSkal'S,A~. The latter is based upon a model of o$>timal prediction based upon the difference between knowl- eeéhge of the class of the individual other than the class ‘flkiich is being predicted versus no knowledge of the indi- Vidual's classification. See Leo A. Goodman and William H. Klruskal, "Measures othssociation for Cross Classification," %>urnal of the American Statistical Association, XLIX (1954) , 32-764. hit the imp of 98 Summary The overall approach of the analysis is step-wise, beginning with ethnographic descriptions of the three commu- nities, relating this information to the characteristics of the status systems and finally, noting variations in the impact of these status systems upon individual appraisals of life conditions. The basic prOpOSition with the four corollaries, presented in Chapter III provide the focus for this approach. The Specific variables employed in the analysis have loeen identified. The overall approach to data manipulation sand analysis has been presented. Remaining are the presen- 'tation of the ethnographies of each of the communities and tflme analysis of the data from the formal interviews. CHAPTER V THE THREE COMMUNITIES: VARIATIONS IN RESEARCH SITES Introduction Brief ethnographies of the three communities are presented in this chapter. They are designed to set the stage for further analysis, and to contribute to the valid- ity of more formalized methods of data interpretation. Too (often research conclusions rest upon inferences that may be far removed from the context of the data. Credibility does rust insure validity. Ideally, valid interpretations of scxcial processes require the use of a variety of techniques by which results may be cross-checked. The ethnographies to frillow are not to be viewed as merely perfunctory descrip- tixons. They are intended to be integral components of the re search process. Each ethnography will be presented as a separate UIIity. It will include a description of the physical envi- rOrnment; a brief history of the community; a description of true economic base of the community; a description of the Tmare salient social patterns; and a statement of what 99 100 appears to be the major belief system or ideology which serves to legitimize the social order of the community. Descriptive data for the community of Lewiston, Michigan, were gleaned from field notes made available by Joseph Spielberg of the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University. Spielberg gathered these notes during a period of residence in Lewiston from May to September, 1963. This ethnographic survey was conducted as part of a project directed by Professor William A. Faunce; the project upon which this dissertation is based. The major source of descriptive data regarding La Lucha, Costa Rica, was provided by Senora M. B. Bozzoli de Wille of the Centro de Estudios Sociologicos y Antro- poligicos, Universidad de Costa Rica. In addition to her ‘very complete report, information was gathered during my rwesidence there from December 5 to December 20, 1964. While timere, I interviewed household members who were systemati- cnally chosen among the different clusters of residences “nithin the community. Further information was gathered by Cfloserving daily routines, by questioning the Costa Rican iJnterviewers regarding their impressions and understanding <>f the village Social life, and by casual conversation with CHJmmunity residents. This was done both with and without tile services of an interpreter. prc Thi int Mar Eton and M.»- Lit lOl Descriptive material for San Miguel, Guatemala was provided by the Ph.D. dissertation of Joseph Spielberg. This detailed work is based upon field observations and interviews conducted by Spielberg during the periods of March to August, 1962 and December 1963 to May 1964.2 Lewiston, Michigan The Physical Environment Lewiston is located in the southwest corner of metmorency County in north-central Michigan. Two hundred and sixty-five households are located in the village and its immediate environs. At the southern edge of Lewiston lies LEast Twin Lake. To the west and south is the larger, West flkMin Lake. The smaller lakes of Wolf Lake and Little Wolf Ifiake lie to the southeast of Lewiston. The total areas “filich the town services extends roughly ten miles to the n 1Joseph Spielberg, "San Miguel Milpas Atlas: An Eflihnographic Analysis of Interpersonal Relations in a Peas- arrt Ladino Community of Guatemala" (unpublished Ph.D. disser— tirtion, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State Univer- Sity, 1965) . 2During this first period, Spielberg was conducting fiJeld work for Professor Richard N. Adams of the University 015 Texas. During the second period of residence Spielberg “His accompanied by Professor William A. Faunce, director of true project upon which this dissertation is based. Faunce and Spielberg maintained residence in nearby Antigua. From tilis base, visits to San Miguel were made almost every day. It: was also during this second period that the formal, Structured interviews were conducted. Faunce and Spielberg ‘mere assisted in this by eXperienced interviewers from Guatemala City. north, miles t Histori- by a lt‘; name is holders mill anc age basi into le‘ Sd'wmill the " lum as being PiOIieers were lar in the f 0:1 “30 t 102 north, eight miles to the east, Six to the west and five miles to the south of the community. History The town of Lewiston was begun and develOped in 1892 by a lumbering firm: the Michelson-Hanson Company. Its name is derived from Lewis Jensen, one of the original stock holders. Two mills were established at Lewiston: a saw mill and a planning mill. East Twin Lake served as a stor- age basin for the logs until they were ready to be processed into lumber by the mills. The area surrounding Lewiston was traversed by .narrow-guage railroads used for transporting logs to the saomdll and for transporting the lumber south. The era of tflne "lumbering days" is pictured by the present residents as being one of boistrous lumber-jacks and hard-working prioneers. The buildings of Lewiston during these early days “were largely crude structures, housing the men that worked iri the forest. Work was plentiful, with the mills Operating Orl two twelve-hour shifts. By 1911, the Softwood resources were exhausted. It “His at this time that the Michigan Home Colony Company moved irl and acquired approximately 25,000 acres of cut-over land, VWith.another 50,000 acres under option to purchase. This Ckmnpany attempted to attract farmers to its lands by adver- ‘tising them as particularly valuable for livestock production. (fl Howeve this t into t1 still I. buildir 1928 wh 0f only small I first e: HOWEver tourism The v11: lated t: 103 However, it was not wholly successful. It was also during this time that about eight to ten Finnish families moved into the area to begin farming. Many of their descendents still live in Lewiston, but are now primarily engaged in the building trades. A hardwood lumber company continued to operate until 1928 when it also left the community, leaving a pOpulation of only eighty persons. Between the years 1925 and 1930 a small resort trade began. It was during this time that the first efforts were made to develop some of the lake frontage. However, it was not until after the Second World‘War that tourism became a principal economic activity in Lewiston. The village may now be characterized as a relatively iso— lated tourist town which is also a locus for retirees. Principal tourist attractions are its well-stocked lakes and, to a lesser extent, hunting. (The Economic Base There are two basic sources of livelihood in Lewis- txon; the tourist trade and the requirements of the sizable rtetiree segment of the community pOpulation. Of the two, tflne tourist trade provides the largest volume of business. Economic activities contributing to this trade include pro- Viding goods and services. Some of those who are retired are able to perform some of the services such as lawn care arui light repair work. Less directly related to the tourist trade develo Period the vol Decembe "aCtual; deflts" a tOllrist ThOSe Wh of their 104 trade are the construction enterprises and real estate develOping schemes. Specific business enterprises include a bank, a grocery store, a hardware and lumber company, several small shOps, gasoline stations and four bars, one of which is part of a hotel. As would be eXpected, business activity is greatest during the Spring and summer months, with the peak period in July and August. Contrary to most urban areas, the volume of business is lowest during the month of December. The town has been described by one respondent as "actually two towns." In the summer the "permanent resi- dents" are involved in considerable work activity while "the tourists play." In the winter there is very little work. Those who haven't left for employment elsewhere Spend most of their time participating in both informal social activ— ities and in voluntary associations. Contributions to the local economy by the group of :retirees appears to be somewhat minimal. These peOple make tn; about one—third of the local pOpulation. Most of them fuave been wage earners during their active lives, hence, tlieir current income remains relatively low. Seventy-five Percent of them subsist only on social security payments. 53cune of these people often become problems for the local Welfare board, especially during the winter months. HOSpit not ad the ec by som a moot gish so there touris been u reason The yo after ‘ senior Lewist of the is no induc e1 105 HOSpitalization and other forms of emergency care are often not adequately met by the social security payments. DeSpite the minimal contributions of the retirees to the economic life of Lewiston, efforts continue to be made by some business interests to attract more retirees. It is a moOt point whether they will stimulate ansotherwise slug- ggish economy. Nevertheless, according to some informants there is occurring a slow transition from Lewiston, the tourist town, to an "old retired people's town." Efforts to attract industry to Lewiston have so far been unsuccessful. Poor transportation facilitiesris one reason for this. The other is the absence of a labor pool. The young peOple of Lewiston tend to leave the community after high school graduation. Of seventy-five graduating seniors in the years 1956 to 1963, only nine resided in Lewiston at the time of the ethnographic survey. The cause of their leaving completes the cycle; with no industry there is no inducement to stay, and with no labor pool there is no inducement for industry to invest in Lewiston. The out—migration of the young people from Lewiston reflects a trend which has been occurring in all of Mont- mOrency County. This is illustrated in Figure l where the Population characteristics in 1940 are compared with those 111 1960. In observing the figure we need only note, for our Purpose, the constriction in 1960 of the proportion of 20 to 44 year age groups in contrast to the comparatively even @fiHNHZ UHMEOh Ll 3:1. Onwmin oat: mQSOHO wmfi mmmflwm “M“ mMHNHZ mQZOHO oeoEmm Ohms ONO: OOQ VWAHHZ UHOEOK QVQN 106 Acmnmmumomaazv =cmmwnuwz mucsoo muconoaucoz How Emumoum ucwEmOHm>oa OwEOaOOm Hamuo>0= Amoma mean .mmuuHEEOU .<.m.¢ muasoo XOGOHOEusOS ma cmnmmmum uuommmv "EOHM mamas «.ooma cam omma .ovma muses on» How mucsoo mOSmHOEuCOE mo cowuwmomeoo sowumasmom .H muzmam mum nso Rm Rm nso wmm Rm so Sm m.¢ e.m _ m Home: o.m m.m m when: m. ¢.m m.e m.m o.m arm e.m H.m mum _ e.m m.m _ o.¢ s.m «Hues ~.m o.m «Hues m.e s.m H.e o.e mauma H.¢ ¢.¢ manna ~.m .s.m 64 l T Rs 3.3 Aim o-~ emuom N.m H4 .H.dm_ mmumm ~.m o.m mmnmm m.~ m.m e.m m. emIOm ~.m o.m emuom o.m m.m H.m m.m mmumm e.m v.m mmumm m.m m.m m.~ m.m sauce o.m e.m «ence m.~ w.~ m.~ ~.m meume o.m ~.m meume o.~ m.~ m.m m.m _ emuom H.m m.m emuom «.mmvm m.~ m.m _ mmumm e.mo.m. mmumm mese.m m.~ o.m emuoo mess.~ solos .fim.m «.mto. o.m mount m.H .m- worms e.s w .4 ¢.H I i o.m salon ¢.H .m.s euros ms.o. - - mm.o o.ahnmwu o.~ +ms o.H 6.H +ms m.owHNm 6.H oesmuz .eiv msmmnz manage ommsuz mmsmnz monouo emsauz only. omomnz wamfimm coma mam: mo< mHmEmm omma mam: mom mHmem oema mam: out-mi number terist new ir rather HESS P‘ growthll new buE SOCial 107 lepe contributed by this group to the overall population characteristics in 1940. The smaller number of persons in these age groups in 1960 represents a continuing process of out-migration in this area. Meanwhile, in Lewiston, the number of retirees is increasing. In addition to the changes in the pOpulation charac- teristics, Spielberg reports another reason for the lack of new industry coming to Lewiston. There appears to be a rather ambiguous stand taken among the more prOSperous busi— ness peOple of Lewiston. While they desire more economic growth, at the same time they appear to be suSpicious of any new business endeavors. The encouragement that is offered to new businesses is not without reservations. Social Patterns Daily routine.--Businesses in Lewiston are open seven days a week during the tourist season. Activity in the central business area is at its highest in the mornings. Tourists, at this time, are engaged in ShOpping, visiting, and sitting at the local drugstore soda counter. In the afternoons there is a noticeable Slack in activity. At this time tourists are engaged in fishing, swimming or other leisurely pursuits. In the evenings the town again gains a heightened state of activity as many people come to congre- gate in the local bars. ident: refer? Swedis l locatiI wealth centre Widely along touris ther d' active Within the Co: ment or "the me by SOCi t0“ and men" CO. Some in less Co: taintaiI Len visto: 108 Residence_pgtternS.--There appears to be no easily identifiable ecology of residence in the town. There are references made, however, to the families of Finnish and Swedish ancestry who live to the east of town. The more wealthy Lewistonites occupy homes either in more desirable locations near the lakes or in areas set apart from the central part of town. Those with less income appear to be widely scattered--occupying modest homes and cabins both along the lakes and within the town prOper. Social differentiation.--Distinctions are made among tourists, summer residents, and permanent residents. Fur— ther distinctions are made between retirees and the younger active Lewistonites. There also exist three or four cliques within the community. While there is some disagreement over the composition of the less prestigeful ones, there is agree- ment over who make up the most prestigeful clique. It is "the money group." Four or five families are held together by social bonds, an ancestral lineage tied closely to Lewis- ton and joint financial and real estate ventures. The second major clique appears to be "the business- men" comprised of all those owning business establishments. Some informants somewhat unkindly referred to them as "ruth- less competitors." This is the group that some informants maintain are Opposed to letting new business ventures into Lewiston. Finnl‘ ently social by two PeOple“ these t one inf him as 1 beCaUSe Ace°Idir as C 0mm highest who 50p DfLe‘Visl 109 Other cliques that were identified included "the Finnlanders" or "the east settlement." These people appar— ently tend to be quite cohesive, both politically as well as socially. Finally, a "church clique" was identified, headed by two women active in the Congregational Church. Spielberg makes an interesting observation in his field notes regarding the criteria employed in status assign- ment. He sees evaluations based upon two different orienta- tions: self—oriented and community—oriented. Those which are self-oriented were eXpressed in phrases such as "he helps me," and "he has given me work." Those evaluations which eXpress a community orientation are illustrated by the expressions, "he is.outgoing," "he does a lot of things for peOple" and "an all-around Joe." The distinction between these two orientations is significant in that according to one informant, one may personally dislike someone, but view him as being high on the status ladder in the community because of services rendered to the community as a whole. According to Spielberg's field notes, reSponses categorized as community oriented appeared to be most utilized for the highest rankings. Persons occupying these ranks were those who appeared to be most important in the business endeavors of Lewiston. The C0 pEOple= to the examplt . . | familiq raise y , F EHVlroj air . II Village ton ind their S I inClude ins Chi} local oi Americarl Club. attache is PUbli he me e ts is po$812 Or they F picture 110 :he Community Ideology Lewiston residents view themselves as friendly peOple--pe0ple who would "give the shirts off their backs" to their fellows in need. The female owner of one bar, for example, cooks a meal every Christmas for those men without families. The village is described as a "good place to raise your children." People appear to love the natural environs that surround the village; to breathe the "clean air." Older persons claim that the youth hate to leave the village, but must do so because of economic necessity. The large number of voluntary associations in Lewis- ton indicates the degree to which the residents exercise their sociability. Among some twenty-one associations are included the Chamber of Commerce, the Lions Club, the Curl- ing Club, The Masons, the No Knockers, the Eastern Star, localorganizations of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, the Metropolitan Club and a Farm and Garden Club. Friendliness in Lewiston does not mean emotional attachment, fondness, or liking a person. It means that one is Publicly polite; that he should say "hello" to the persons he meets. Not to speak is to invite open criticism. But it is Possible for people who stop to chat, to "hate each other or they may be extremely jealous of the other." The friendliness of Lewiston is thus only half the pi(nil-ire. It is the "public ideology." Underneath lies the "goss made, tiate obtai maint to ke been parad ing be lll "gossip culture" through which invidious comparisons are Inade, jealousies are stimulated and power plays are ini- tiated (such as the attempt to keep one tavern owner from obtaining a year-around liquor license). One informant Inaintained that the main motivation behind the gossip was to keep others from being too successful. Not everyone has Ibeen able to c0pe with the public ideology—gossip culture paradox. Examples were given by informants of peOple leav- ing because of this.1 La Lucha, Costa Rica '_I'_he Phys ical Environment The community and hacienda of La Lucha is located in true province of San Jose; approximately 32 miles southwest of the national capital city of San Jose. The trip requires atnaut one hour by car from San Jose and about an hour and a half by bus. Access to the hacienda is by the Pan American Highway which rises in elevation from approximately 3500 feet to nearly 6000 feet at La Lucha. A dirt road leads off thifiB highway to La Lucha and other communities. The entrance to the community is on the north side of a range of mountains “Part of the Talamanca range. From the entrance, the road . lThis discomfort was expressed to me in the course of interviewing a retired couple. The wife insisted that had She known the gossip was so "vicious" she and her hus- band would never have settled in Lewiston. descends t rcpe, ba ;, ;u workers' hr Cascadin ; the largas reservoits nishes a C0 plant. 7111 f‘E‘Ctory Ind homes , 112 descends to a valley of about 5200 feet in altitude where a r0pe, bag, and fiber-rug producing complex is centered. Surrounding the factory complex are high hills. The workers' homes are clustered in the valleys and level areas. Cascading down the hills are numerous streams and rivulets, the largest of which is the Tarrazu River. A system of reservoirs about 500 feet above the factory complex fur- nishes a constant supply of water for the hydroelectric plant. This plant is the sole source of power for the factory and for the electricity produced for the village homes. A seldom used community center is located in the northeast section of the factory area. It was here that the researchers resided. Further up the hill from this building is the present general manager's home. Continuing toward the southwest is a gas and oil supply center, the restaurant, the twine and rope factory, the general store, and the carpenter shop. Across an Open eXpanse is the bag and floor mat factory, behind which is the hydroelectric plant and the vehicle repair garage. Still further back, across the river is located a refuse dump and a clearing for a projected saw- mill. History The hacienda of La Lucha was bought in 1928 by the present owner, Jose' Figueres. Previous to this it was owned by E idents whc the purcha' hacienda. 1000. Ace increase '1 a number 0 panded Ope and mania At rope-making 919Ctric p1 former owns I‘EfOI‘eStrat Sistence Cr 113 owned by Enrique Munoz. According to one of the three res— idents who recall the change of ownership, at the time of the purchase, approximately eight families lived on the hacienda. It is estimated that the total pOpulation now is 1000. According to an informant, most of the pOpulation increase is due both to natural causes and the migration of a number of families into the hacienda as the factory ex- panded Operations. The present pOpulation is highly stable and marriage patterns tend to be endogamous. At the time of purchase, there was only a small rcpe-making plant powered by water flow. A small hydro— electric plant served the electrical requirements of the former owner's house. At the time, exploitation of timber had denuded many of the hills. Under Figueres' ownership, reforestration was begun in those areas not devoted to sub- sistence cr0ps. The cabuya plant is currently the main crop of the hacienda. This plant furnishes the raw material for manufacturing rope. La Lucha gained national publicity as a result of Figueres' leadership in the revolt of 1948 against an imposed government. .The first skirmish took place near the village on the Pan American Highway. The entire revolt lasted two months, March and April, during which time, La Lucha was abandoned by almost all of the inhabitants. It was at this time that government tr00ps burned the rope- factory and the manager's house. F: was replac eXpanded t electric p tric power output of One can p1-t tWisters, and Japan . The ,. M 114 Following the end of the revolt, the small factory was replaced by a larger plant. In 1957 operations were expanded to include a bag and mat weaving factory. A hydro- electric plant was installed to furnish the necessary elec— tric power. New modern machines were imported for increased output of rOpe and rOpe products as well as bag production. One can presently see modern machinery--carders, fiber twisters, looms, etc.--from the United States, Great Britain and Japan. The Economic Base The principle areas of employment in La Lucha with the number of peOple employed therein are shown in Table 2. Factory and field labor account for the employment of most of the residents in La Lucha. Field labor, as well as the other major divisions of labor, are oriented almost exclusively toward the factory with the consequence that the community bears many of the characteristics of a company town. Most of the families supplement their income by growing their own vegetables. Those living in more isolated areas often have a few pigs, some chickens and perhaps a milk cow. A few persons process some charcoal which they sell. One family is in charge of a tortilla-making machine but its products have a very low demand. Families may also earn extra money by weaving shopping bags in their own homes from material furnished by the factory. Area of Enj K m Office p Machinis Machine Machine Harvestex General 1 Road Wor} “he carpenter ehiCle é ElECtriC SCh001 t6 tore ( RestaUran 115 Table 2. Principle areas of employment Number of Persons Area of Employment (approximate) Factornyelated Office Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Machinists and skilled . . . . . . . . . 28 Machine tenders, weaving section . . . . 98 Machine tenders, rope-making section . . 77 211 Field Related Harvesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 General field workers . . . . . . . . . . 91 Road work and maintenance . . . . . . . . 21 139 Other Carpenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Vehicle drivers and apprentices . . . . . 18 Electric plant maintenance . . . . . . . 3 School teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Store (family enterprise) . . . . . . . . 2 Restaurant (family enterprise) . . . . . 3 55 Total 405 Ti buildings producing ”Peli'hous are broug‘n continuous ing proces are then f. for the pr 0f one ban Pr0ducing (111(2ng IOE of these n factory me addition, 116 The factory.--The factory consists Of two large buildings. One, the Cordeleria houses the twine and rOpe producing machines and the machine shOp. The other, the Telar’houses the bag and mat weaving looms. The raw fibers are brought to the Cordeleria where they are formed into continuous skeins as they are cleaned and carded. The card- ing process involves six separate Operations. The skeins are then fed into "twisting" machines which produce twine for the production of various widths Of rope. To one side Of one bank of the twine producing machines are the rOpe producing machines. These consist of elaborate devices pro- ducing rOpe as thick as one inch in diameter. To the side of these machines is a well-equipped machine shop where factory machines are repaired and new parts are made. In addition, field machines for the extraction Of cabuya plant fibers are produced both for local use and for sale or rent. .Near the back wall of the Cordeleria is an elaborate machine which forms hanks of heavy twine. These are pro- duced for banana plantations and are marketed in this manner to permit a faster means Of tying together bunches of bananas. Finally, at the end Of the building is a bank of twisting machines, producing twine to be used by the weaving mill, or Telar. The Tglgg'houses the bag and mat weaving looms, sew- ing machines, a steam press, a bag printing machine, a dying room for dying twine for floor mats, and storage areas. At the entra twine int there is spools of Following bY 12 you two looms, each, 810 ing the we Courtesy, In CirCular l to ComPlet tWQ large 1 had not be: the low der 1» these loom. 117 the entrance of the building are two machines which wrap the twine into huge drums for supplying the looms. In addition, there is a bank of twine winding machines which produce spools of twine for the woof of the bag weaving process. Following these machines, there are 21 "flat" looms attended by 12 young men. Nine of these men are each responsible for two looms, while three are responsible for only one loom each. Slogans are painted on each of these machines remind- ing the workers of the benefits of COOperation, efficiency, courtesy, etc. In addition to these flat looms there are four circular looms which weave bag material in tubular form. This results in the requirement of only one seam to be sewn tO complete the finished bag. Following the bag looms are two large floor mat looms which at the time of the study had not been in Operation for three months. This was due to the low demand for these relatively eXpensive mats. Beyond these looms, is the huge steam press. To the side Of it are rows of about 30 girls sewing bag seams with modern heavy- duty sewing machines. To the opposite side of the building is the dying room which is in the process of being eXpanded for dying twine to be used at another factory, also owned by Figueres. Different sections of the factory workers are employed at different hourly shifts. Most persons work 12-14 hours a day, deSpite a maximum work law in Costa Rica shop, one most othe one from to 12 mi between 1 8:00 a .m,, ends at mj Saturdays, Pr ing to den 4’000 Pour. is "banana are manufa onions , The hourly Wage of 10b dete TYpical Wdc leVElS' . 0 tress 118 of only eight hours per day with extra pay for overtime. In the carding sections, the weaving looms and the machine shOp, one shift Operates from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. For most other departments, there are two twelve-hour shifts, one from 12 midnight to 12 noon and the other from 12 noon to 12 midnight. For all shifts there is an hour lunch between 11:00 and 12:00. Fifteen—minute breaks occur at 8:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The work week ends at midnight on Fridays and 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays, depending upon the particular work shift. Production in the factory fluctuates slightly accord- ing to demand. Daily production averages amount to about 4,000 pounds Of rOpe, 10,000 pounds of twine, most of which is "banana" twine, and 4,000 bags. Different types Of bags are manufactured for different types Of products. These include coffee, beans, fertilizer, and to a lesser extent, onions. The workers are paid by the hour, or by a base hourly wage to which is added a piece-rate wage. The type of job determines the means by which the wage is determined. Typical wages range from .70 colones per hour at the lowest levels, to 1.75 colones at supervisory levels.l Seam- stresses earn a base pay of .50 colones per hour plus a 1The exchange rate during the period of field work was 6.6 colones per one U.S. dollar. piece rat fee of l A nent resi imately 2' La Lucha t men emplofil general eé t0 four ye the machin in Vocatio Th one Superv apprOXimatE search Of ( Ce] el'al manage nary prObh their lack in the Vex-3 persoual cl properly 01: the general Overall lay of 119 piece rate wage. Deducted from wages is a school support fee of 1 percent a week. Almost all of the workers in both plants are perma- nent residents of La Lucha. Exceptions to this are approx- imately 25 men and 14 single girls who come from outside La Lucha to work in the factory complex. Except for those men employed in the machine shOp, and the supervisors, the general education level appears to be quite low-—around two to four years of formal school. The majority of the men in the machine shOp, however, have had training in their skills in vocational schools outside of La Lucha. The labor force is highly stable. It is claimed by one supervisor that only three persons out of every one- hundred leave the plant in one year. On the other hand, approximately 2 to 3 persons per week come to the plant in search of employment. Certain unique problems were mentioned by the gen- eral manager with respect to factory employment. The pri- mary problem of the workers in the factory was seen to be their lack of education. This required training the workers in the very rudimentary habits of factory employment such as personal cleanliness, wearing shoes, and learning how to prOperly Operate and care for the machines. According to the general manager, new workers are first introduced to the overall lay-out of the factory. They are shown their areas .of responsibility and how to operate their particular machines. their own the work work habi into posi ever, for may not b Edge such levels , Fi ‘ labor are; Spraying g Crews, Th. Men may be There is a crops as w are Worked road CIEws who is res}: For a.m. to 5:0 Excluding v hatEly .90 120 machines. They are then left on their own to establish their own modes of adjustment to the machines. Throughout the work process the workers are watched for their skill and work habits. Efforts are made to move the promising workers into positions of more responsibility. Problems exist, how- ever, for workers may acquire high aspirational levels but may not have the necessary proficiency in fundamental knowl— edge such as reading and mathematics, to achieve these levels. Field labor.--Included in consideration as field labor are: (l) the cabuya leaf harvesters, (2) the weed spraying gangs and (3) the road maintenance and construction crews. This division of labor is not inflexible however. Men may be shifted to different jobs as the need arises. There is a manager who is in charge Of maintaining the cabuya crOps as well as harvesting the leaves. His reSponsibilities are worked out in COOperation with the general manager. The road crews are under the jurisdiction of a separate foreman who is reSponsible to the general manager. For the field crews the hours of work are from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with about a half-hour Off for lunch. Excluding vehicle Operators, the average wage is approx- imately .90 colones per hour. The hacienda has about 255 acres planted in cabuya. It produces between 20 and 30 percent of the raw products for the factory. (The remaining 70 to 80 percent is imported from Mexi Rica.) T‘ pineapple protrude. Six months harvest ing Ha l Off the 10V leaves are IlaChine CO rWolves a. Pounded on then waShe Operat ion 121 from Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti, and other parts of Costa Rica.) The cabuya plant itself reminds one of an overgrown pineapple plant. From a thick trunk, broad thick leaves protrude. These may attain a length as great as six feet. Six months are required for the leaf to reach maturity for harvesting. Harvesting of the cabuya is accomplished by cutting Off the lower leaves Of the plant with a machete. These leaves are then fed into a small electrically powered machine consisting of a drum with bars across it. This drum revolves at a very high speed resulting in the pulp being pounded out, leaving the strong fibers. These fibers are then washed and hung on twine lines to dry. The entire Operation takes place in the fields. In harvesting the cabuya the twelve upper leaves of the plant are always maintained to ensure its continued life. When the production of a plant diminishes, new plants are begun by transplanting the tOp portion of the Old plant. About three years are required for the new plant to produce leaves mature enough for harvesting. The average number of years of productivity of a plant is usually between 12 and 15 years. .Many of the plants on the hacienda are as old as twenty years. In addition to those men who harvest the cabuya, other men continually patrol the hills, spraying weeds that grow between the rows of cabuya. Road crews are also employed I ing out n existing 8 field lab and vehic they are r 0f invest] masons, ir while othe The Wage S 3.00 Colon the grOUp machine sh scale Vari for highly Ve and their iVeI- and aSSiStantS thEir aSSi Col Ones f0 for the ir 122 employed by the hacienda. These crews are engaged in blast- ing out new roads on the hillsides and maintaining the existing roads. Skilled labor.--In addition to factory workers and field labor, there are carpenters, machinists, mechanics, and vehicle drivers. The carpenters are employed wherever they are needed throughout the hacienda. During the period of investigation some were engaged, along with several masons, in constructing new additions to the weaving mill while others were engaged in constructing two small houses. The wage scale varies from .25 colones for apprentices to 3.00 colones for "master" carpenters. The average wage for the group is 1.58 colones. Machinists are employed in the machine shOp located in the rOpe-making mill. Their wage scale varies from .30 colones for assistants to 4.00 colones for highly skilled persons, with an average wage of 1.56 colones. Vehicle drivers include two farm tractor Operators and their assistants, two truck drivers, a caterpillar driver and his two assistants. Wages range from 2.75 colones for the caterpillar driver to .90 colones for assistants. There are also two vehicle mechanics, each with their assistants. Hourly wages are 2.50 colones and 2.00 colones for the mechanics and .90 colones and .75 colones for their assistants. time that Cartago, ( BY 6:30 t? faCtory, t Meanwhile, hills to t Shl fa“ for t: families i1 taurant' 0 8:10 the f. return to At area by th for milk_ imated ab 123 Social Patterns Daily routine.-—The factory area of La Lucha becomes alive with peOple shortly before the factory siren is sounded at six o'clock each week-day morning. It is also at this time that the bus takes on passengers for its daily run to Cartago, to return again at four o'clock in the afternoon. By 6:30 the factory is in full production. Outside the factory, two women sweep the clearings and pick up refuse. Meanwhile, the field workers make their way thrOugh the hills to their particular work locations. Shortly before eight O'clock children bring break- fast for the factory workers. For those workers who have no families in La Lucha, breakfast is sent from the local res- taurant, or one can get a snack at the general store. At 8:10 the factory siren again sounds for the workers to return to their reSpective jobs. At ten O'clock children congregate in the factory area by the general store to purchase the daily requirements for milk. It is brought by horse—back from the dairy located about 30 minutes walk up the hills. It is sold by volume, measured in soft drink, or beer bottles. The res- idents of La Lucha pay only half the price of the milk, with the hacienda management making up the difference in cost to the dairy Operator. When the siren sounds at eleven O'clock the workers leave their jobs for an hour long lunch break. Most of the workers too far In the a At this refreshm Six o'cl workers. While the last one . Tl dur ing the Children C‘ small burl We for trips and for So clearing a organize d ts . ams . D 1 On one Sun local Cath n. B see Serv In are held 0 Lecreation 124 workers return to their homes. For those whose homes are too far distant, the hour is spent on the factory grounds. In the afternoon, there is a ten-minute break at two o'clock. At this time most of the workers gather around the store for refreshments and local gossip. A ten-minute break Occurs at six O'clock when the local children again bring food to the workers. Finally at nine O'clock one shift of work ends while the rest of the workers have a ten-minute break--the last one until their shift ends at twelve O'clock. The field workers remain at their job locations during the entire work day. Just prior to the meal periods, children deliver lunches to them. These are carried in small burlap "saddle" bags slung over the shoulder. Week-ends are the periods for sleep and relaxation, for trips to Cartago to buy the coming week's provisions, and for soccer games on the plaza which is located on a clearing above the factory area. On Sunday afternoons, organized teams from outlying communities may play the local teams. Different age groups make up the different teams. On one Sunday of each month, church services are held in the local Catholic Church located at one end of the soccer field. These services begin at four o'clock in the afternoon. In addition to the above week—end activities, dances are held on Saturday and Sunday evenings, beginning at 6:30 and lasting until 11:30 or 12:00. These take place in the recreation hall located above the weaving factory. The Sunday e of perso. dancing dominoes young me. the OppOS also held tern appe and a Mex RE ‘ made up 01 SCElttered the houses' chased by of the fac Week is pa in these 6 chase of t According 125 Sunday evening dances attract a considerably larger number of persons than those held on Saturday nights. Besides the dancing there are groups of young men involved in playing dominoes and throwing dice. There is also a bar where the young men gather to eye the girls sitting on a bench along the Opposite wall. In addition to the dances, movies are also held on Saturday and Sunday nights. The typical pat- tern appears to be a North American film on Saturday nights and a Mexican film on Sunday nights. Residence patterns.--The community of La Lucha is made up of seven clusters of houses with separate dwellings scattered throughout the hacienda. The hacienda owns all of the houses. Among these are eighteen which are being pur- chased by their inhabitants. These houses are located north of the factory area. A rent of 15.00 to 25.00 colones per week is paid to the hacienda by each Of the families living in these eighteen houses. This rent is applied to the pur- chase Of the houses which sell for 5,000 to 10,000 colones. According to the general manager, there is a waiting list of 26 families who wish to purchase similar houses. As part of the contract in such purchases, the land is not sold with these houses. Rather, the owner pays one colon per year as rent for the land upon which the house is located. This insures that the land remains with the hacienda rather than being acquired by the house owner which could be done under a "squatter's rights" law of Costa Rica. The owner must sell his he may c be employ T Condition comparatiw radios am Some also charged fC number and EX the house 3 buildings 1 on the int« The Usual ‘ blue or pi: According local Carp furnishing obserVatiO 126 sell his house only to the hacienda if he moves. However, he may continue to live in the house even though he may not be employed on the hacienda. Those houses which are free to the workers, vary in condition from the extremely poor cabins to those which are comparatively comfortable. Almost all of the.houses have radios and a surprisingly large number have electric stoves. Some also have small electric refrigerators. A small fee is charged for the electricity, the amount depending upon the number and type of electric fixtures in the house. Except for four or five multidwelling units, most of the houses have four small rooms and small porch. All of the buildings are simple wood frame structures with no finishing on the interior walls other than paint over the rough boards. The usual color Of the houses, both inside and out, is pastel blue or pink. The roofs are usually corrogated sheet metal. According to de Wille, all of the buildings are made by the local carpenters. De Wille's descriptions Of the typical furnishings in the houses matched closely the writer's observations. These furnishings include one or two beds; a table and chairs in the dining room or kitchen; and benches or chairs in the living room. Hanging from the walls of the houses are likely to be religious pictures, family photo- graphs and perhaps a school certificate or the certificate of membership in the local savings COOperative. Cooking is done most typically in wood or charcoal burning stoves. Water is providinI drainage houses. service ‘ I more e131 ings. Tl electric general m overly CO are not b as being their own trying to expeCtati do not ea .5. which apg sons in l residEnQ‘ D ‘ ersonal and rela CompOs it 127 Water is piped into the house where a section of it juts out providing for the kitchen sink and its drainage system. Open drainage ditches run along the dirt paths in front of the houses. Buildings housing public latrines or public showers service the different clusters of houses. Those houses being paid for by the workers are much more elaborate in building design, in size, and in furnish— ings. They typically have modern plumbing facilities, an electric stove and perhaps a refrigerator. According to the general manager, it is the policy of the hacienda not to be overly concerned with the maintenance of those houses which are not being paid for by the workers. To do so is viewed as being unfair to those who are in the process of owning their own homes. Further, the management of the hacienda is trying to encourage more people to buy new houses. But the expectation is somewhat unrealistic, as many of the workers do not earn sufficient salary to even consider such a move. Status assignment.--The more important criteria which appear to be related to the status occupancy Of per— sons in La Lucha are: (l) the work role, (2) length of residence in the community, (3) geographical area, and (4) personality attributes. As will be shown, variations in, and relationships among these criteria appear to form a composite index of status level occupancy. The work role appears to be the most salient crite- rion for the status assigning process. On the more general level, its own (1) tho: those pe status v there is the fact both gro level, 5 involves being EQt Lucha is in the wt He is mo: emplond roads. 128 level, two main status groups may be demarcated, each having its own status distinctions. These groups are made up of: (1) those persons who are employed in the factory and (2) those persons who are employed in the fields. Employment in the factory tends to carry a higher status value than employment in the fields or roads, although there is an overlap between the lower levels of work roles Of the factory with the upper levels of field employment. For both groups, the field labor manager occupies a high status level. The work role, as a criterion Of status assignment involves both power and economic distinctions. Other things being equal, a person occupying a high status level in La Lucha is likely to be in a position of authority over others in the work situation and to be more advantaged economically. He is more likely to be advantaged economically if he is employed in the factory rather than in the fields or on the roads. But "other things" are not equal in La Lucha. For example, the manager Of the weaving section of the factory is not held in as high regard as the manager Of the twine and rOpe section. Further, while machinists enjoy a rela- tively highly valued work position, as persons, they do not appear to occupy a high status level throughout the commu- nity. A third illustrative case is that of the carpenters (they are not an integral part in either of the two work role hierarchies) who appear to enjoy a higher status level than an} make the tion to personal similar occupy a section 1 he is kn:I and outsj on the 01 he tends Commnnit' Wishing the Carp who ear: term re c 129 than any Of the skilled machinists, even though the latter make the same or higher wages. It is apparent that in addi— tion to the work role, status assignment is a function of personalistic criteria. We can note this by controlling for similar status levels Of work role. The manager of the twine and rOpe section appears to occupy a higher status level than the manager of the weaving section because he is a life-long resident of La Lucha, and he is known as a courteous and helpful person, both within and outside the factory. The manager of the weaving section on the other hand has lived in La Lucha only three years and he tends to remain aloof from the workers and people of the community. Length of residence and age appear to be the distin- guishing characteristics in status occupancy between some of the carpenters and the machinists. None of the machinists, who earn high wages, but who are relatively young and short— term residents appear to occupy as high a status level as several Of the carpenters. Carpenters are older men and have lived in La Lucha for 20 to 30 years. Area of residence appears to be a concomitant of status assignment, arrived at in two different ways. On the one hand, it is a function of house ownership. Those per- sons who earn more are able to buy their own homes and live at a considerably higher standard than the rest of the res- idents of La Lucha. These persons all live to the north of the fact paying f tinction honor ar the nort manner 1; sons. 1' Should b QIOUps. level, the Stor reSident of hOUSe attribut 130 the factory. On the other hand, among those who are not paying for their own homes, there appears to be some dis— tinction made. Individuals who are accorded more social honor are more likely to live in the cluster Of houses near the northeast Of the factory than elsewhere. The above descriptions are illustrative of the manner in which status level appears to be assigned to per— sons. In addition to the examples given above, notice should be given to those persons outside the principle work groups. The store owner enjoys a comparatively high status level. He is constantly in the center of activity due to the store's location next to the factory. He is a long-term resident of La Lucha, he lives in the near northeast cluster of houses and he appears to possess desirable personality attributes. The two sisters who Operate the restaurant, appear to remain somewhat outside the principal status-assigning system. While they enjoy a good living standard, they are viewed as simply servicing agents for the community. A similar evaluation seems to hold for the bus owner-driver and his wife, a school teacher. They differ from the sis- ters however in their more cosmOpolitan orientation. The ownership of a car (besides the bus) allows considerable freedom of movement for both the husband and his wife, and their rather aloof orientation toward the community results in an ambiguous evaluation assigned to them. i for diff‘ living bf with the: ities of 'I Part beca 0f the ma On both c the latte: With prev for the ge 11 range Of . flies, re: Thus membe tiated W02 E gsz’leral m Paternali is also c painted O Our-age 131 Also outside the main status assigning system, but for different reasons, are two men who attempt to eek out a living by processing charcoal. These men are preoccupied with their endeavors and are not integrated into the activ- ities of the community as such. The general manager occupies a high status level in part because Of his formally defined role, but also because Of the manner in which he fulfills his role eXpectations. On both counts he is highly evaluated; but with regard to the latter the evaluation is based more upon comparisons with previous managers than upon the set Of criteria used for the general pOpulation. It should finally be noted that the relatively wide range of job delineations and the existence Of large fam- ilies, results in work roles cross-cutting family membership. Thus members of the same family may occupy highly differen- tiated work roles. Community Ideology The management.--The owner of the hacienda, the general manager and the farm manager, all tend to maintain a paternalistic orientation toward the workers. This feeling is also conveyed, but to a lesser extent by the various supervisors. Efforts are made through the use of slogans painted on factory machines and by personal example, to encourage community cooperation, self-improvement and pride in work. well-rem was mainl loss of : C ment's p3; dents at cheap ele membershi with a na eXists Wh PerSOn Wh< tion, the nearby Ca: (It 8110111. of the na- s aCie \nda, nalistic 1 Supervj‘so‘ ioSt aCcu 132 in work. The paternalistic ethos is exemplified in the well-remembered economic slump in 1956 when full employment was maintained, but at reduced working hours, in spite of a loss of factory markets. Other examples of paternalism include the manage- ment's practice of selling milk and charcoal to the resi- dents at half cost; providing free housing, free water, and cheap electricity. The management also encourages.increased membership in the local financial c00perative which is linked with a national savings program. A medical aid policy also exists whereby one-half of the regular salary is paid to a person who is unable to work for medical reasons. In addi- tion, the management provides for free hospitalization in nearby Cartago, as well as one-half of the medical eXpenses. (It should be noted however that the medical program is part of the national labor code. Further, the peOple of La Lucha lament the fact that there is no medical center in the hacienda.) But a more compelling indication of the pater- nalistic orientation is the day—to-day manner in which the supervisors deal with the people. A distant friendliness most accurately describes this relationship. The inhabitants of La Lucha.--The principal value which is seen by the inhabitants to be unique to La Lucha is the Opportunity for steady profitable employment. This orientation appears to take the form of dependence upon the supervisors and the general manager rather than upon any i type of\ inhabit. fortunat of comm La Lucha Corrununit| felt tow not forg Was kill The hOSt bEYOnd t graphic; while tr La LUChe desire 4 to the i: the rel 133 type of voluntary community organization. The fact that the inhabitants view themselves as "treated well" and as being fortunate in having a job somewhat mitigates the possibility of community centered "action" groups. A strong identity with the community exists in La Lucha. (This identity is apparently common in most communities in Costa Rica.) It can be seen in the enmity felt toward the nearby community of Frailes. PeOple have not forgotten the fiesta in 1960 when one of their number was killed by a man from Frailes during a drunken brawl.l The hostility between the two communities, however, exists beyond that incident. The strength of identity with La Lucha is seen most graphically with reSpect to the youth of the community. While they may complain about the lack of divertisements in La Lucha, they are very quick to point out that they have no desire to leave. The principal factors which they attribute to their allegiance, is the availability of employment and the relatively favorable wages.2 Abetting this orientation is the existence of an apparent “youth culture" in La Lucha. Many of the factory workers are young people--both men and 1As a result of this incident the possession of liquor is forbidden in La Lucha and fiestas have been discontinued. 2A young woman who was assisting in the restaurant during the duration of the research team's stay complained that the only thing the local boys ever thought about was their work. women. step of so defin tain deg a result formal r: to emphas and physj 0f Some 3 these att 134 women. These persons view their employment as a distinct step of advance over employment in the fields. It is also so defined by their parents who view the future with a cer- tain degree of assurance that they will be well cared for as a result of factory employment of their children. The in- formal relations existing within the factory setting tend to emphasize the youth culture. DiSplays of mental aptitude and physical strength meet with peer approval. The presence of some 30 single girls in the factory adds to the value of these attributes. Unique aspects of La Lucha as a hacienda.-aAccording to de Wille, La Lucha is not unique among haciendas with reSpect to its paternalistic orientation and providing liv- ing quarters and living essentials. It is unique, however, with respect to the presence of its factory, and the inde- pendent enterprise of the store owner, the restaurant oper— ators and the bus service. It would also appear to be unique in its high evaluation of the youth of the community. This is most likely a corollary of factory employment and the policies of the management. The Ph 5 Indian) c Guatemala it overlo kilometer Populated isolated. meters, 131 Guatemal ‘ T‘ (neighbor. and to th barrio," lower Sec 50 SCIHare and domin ten feet plaza are 135 San Miguel, Guatemala The Physical Environment Spielberg describes San Miguel as a Ladino (non- Indian) community located in the central highlands of Guatemala.1 Positioned about 6,500 feet above sea level, it overlooks the departmental capital of Antigua, four kilometers to the west. Despite its location in a densely populated section of Guatemala, San Miguel is relatively isolated. Only a foot path, winding upward for two kilo- meters, provides the means of access from the well-traveled Guatemal CityeAntigua Road. The village is divided into two principal barrios (neighborhoods). To the east lies the older "lower barrio" and to the northwest, the more recently settled "upper barrio." A small plaza is located in the center of the lower section. It consists of a grassy lepe "approximately 50 square yards, bisected by the main path to the highway, and dominated by a crudely made monument of brick and mortar, ten feet tall, tOpped with a cement cross."2 Flanking the plaza are a small Catholic church to the east and a "small one-room abode and stucco schoolhouse and the two-room lThe peOple of San Miguel are described by Spielberg as Mestizo (combination of Spanish and indigenous pOpula- tions). Racially they are homogeneous. Culturally, they appear to bear few Indian traits. ZSpielberg, op. cit., p. 47. auxiliat Standing with thrI Piped-in Spring a water in out the ( T which hm Cipal fea the w and held ; Spielberg The (M of the PFOhi} wlSe, T} Village a \ 12 22 i . ‘ A ha 136 auxiliature (auxiliary city-hall) and jail" to the west.1 Standing next to the church is "a sheltered, public tank, with three lavaderos (wadhstands) and two shower baths, with piped-in water."2 Water is piped into the village from a spring a mile up the mountain. In addition to the two public water installations, there are four faucets located through- out the community. The only public structure in the upper barrio is one which houses four wash stands and a water tank. The prin- cipal feature that distinguishes the upper, from the lower barrio is the ownership of the sitios.3 In the upper barrio the gigig is owned by the community and "merely distributed and held in perpetuity by the family residing in them."4 Spielberg notes that: The only restriction placed upon the residents of these sitios (of the upper barrio) is the prohibition against selling the property. Other- wise, the property may be subdivided and inherited among the descendents of the original grantee. The sitios are arranged side-by-side along the village paths. ,Spielberg describes the houses as follows: lIbid. 21bid. 3A "sitio" in Guatemala refers to both the house of a given family and the plot of land immediately surrounding it. 4Spielberg, Op. cit., p. 51. 51bid. sma fee onl f iv mad Fou: tin Accordir tures-—c the be dr fire pla Chairs ' x from Sto: ware pot: necked t: Compleme] dishes a] of Wood ‘ and blah] the entil male Chi; smaller ( \ 137 In general these houses are composed of earthen floors, with walls made of dried corn stalks (cana), tied together with twine or maguey fiber, and roofs of tightly packed bunches of thatch (paja). These structures tend to be relatively small, square shaped affairs; approximately 15 feet in length. All cane and thatch houses have only one door and no windows. There are only five private structures in the entire community made of materials other than cane and thatch. Four of these are made of abode and stucco, with tin roofs and one made of lumber and shingles. According to Spielberg, almost every sitio has two struc— tures--one containing a kitchen and dining room and the other the bedroom. The kitchen contains an Open-hearth type of fire place and is furnished with low wooden work tables and chairs, or an occasional bench. Kitchen utensils purchased from stores consist of an earthen-ware griddle and earthen- ware pots, one type used for cooking and another small- necked type, for carrying water. In addition there is a complement of pots and pans; knives and forks; and cups, dishes and plates "usually made of zinc, tin or glass."2 The bedroom contains at least two beds made either of wood or of steel. These are without Springs. Straw mats and blankets serve as mattresses. These beds accommodate the entire family with the father sleeping with the older male children and the mother sharing her bed with the smaller children and grown daughters. In addition, the 1Ibid., p. 70. 2Ibid., p. 72. bedroom chest 0 is the bearing burning, HEEL SPiElberg of 1753. been usec additions ‘ nature of its fOUnd W W L Ni hOUSe the Column tribune“ of land i villaQEr it lie fa the II USuf 138 bedroom also contains dressers and perhaps an additional chest or trunk. A final and very important feature of each household is the small family altar, which consists of a "small table bearing an array of holy pictures of saints, holy relics and burning, votive candles."l History of the Community The origins of San Miguel are lost in antiquity. Spielberg reports that the earliest date registered is that of 1753. By that time the name "San Miguel" had already been used to designate the village. Except for periodic additions to the communal land, the last being in 1896, the nature of the community has apparently changed little since its founding date. The Economic Base Land is both privately and communally owned. Almost all households have access to communal land. Division of the communal land is by a village assembly. When a redis— tribution is required the allotment is based upon the amount of land in relation to "need." Under no circumstances can a villager sell his share of the communal land, nor may he let it lie fallow or go unworked very long.2 Spielberg states the "usufruct of a man's portion of communal land may be had 1Ibid., p. 74. 2Ibid., p. 89. by one reside in the nomic ac vation < Miguele? Um reqL tional n who haVe land to hOusehol case the to Other deVoted t kets of z I subSister well as c finther 1 0cCurreci IEStl-ictj \~i\‘\~\ J SUlt 0f aSure a re me 3t 139 by one or more of his offSpring even where they no longer reside in their father's household (but still live somewhere in the village)."1 Agricultural labor is the predominant form of eco- nomic activity in San Miguel. It revolves around the culti- vation of corn and beans--the two major items in the San Miguelefios diet. These products, however, do not alleviate the requirements of obtaining cash for the purchase of addi- tional needs. Cash crops are raised only by those families who have a "surplus" of land or by those who have too little land to grow a significant amount of corn and beans for the household consumption. Spielberg notes that in the latter case the little land that is available is either rented out to other villagers and wage work is sought, or the land is devoted to raising vegetables that can be sold in the mar- kets of Antigua. Bartering is non-existent in San Miguel; hence, subsistence is based upon crops raised for family needs as well as cash-producing activity. This latter activity has further been abetted by a shortage of land which has occurred in recent years due to a national government decree restriCting cultivation at higher altitudes.2 Spielberg 1Ibid., p. 90. 2The increased shortage of land is partially a result of a govenment program designed as a flood control measure and as a means of arresting soil deposits in the stream that runs through Antigua. discuss These i1 ing par labor. grade of vegetabl carrots families PreStigew E in additj ready Cas most part cutting g laws. I forming .. 140 discusses three principal forms of cash-producing activity. These include: (1) raising commercial produce, (2) perform— ing part-time specialties, and (3) performing unskilled labor. Commercial produce which is grown includes a low grade of coffee; peaches, avocados, squash and a turnip-like vegetable (Gisguil). The cultivation of cabbage, lettuce, carrots and beets are the agricultural specialty of two families. Spielberg notes that these are a "source of some prestige" because of the abilities of the men producing them. Selling flowers, domestic as well as wild, results in additional cash income. But the most universal source of ready cash is the preparation of fire-wood. This, for the most part, is carried out in a clandestine fashion since cutting good lumber trees is prohibited by national forestry laws. The second major source of cash is derived from per- forming "part-time Specialties." Individuals involved in these, both within and outside San Miguel include two per— sons who work at carpentry jobs, three who work as "makers of lumber for construction," one person serving as a horti- culture Specialist, particularly as a fruit tree grafter, and one person identified as a bricklayer-mason. Four men work full—time in the bakeries of Antigua. Other special- ties performed primarily within the village include seven to eight marimba band members, four villagers who cut hair and gix for Sp are own and unp members ilies o. unskille least or. means, tion Wor‘ governmen Constitm There is fell0w Sa entirely 0 away from oriented this he“ to its Po depend‘ehc erOps, A 141 and give Shaves, and three villagers who make decorations for Special celebrations. Two small stores are located in San Miguel. These are owned by two relatively prOSperous families. The small and unpretentious structures are usually attended by female members of the two families. In addition, one of these fam- ilies Operates a mill for grinding corn. A final form of cash producing activity is via unskilled labor. Most families, Spielberg observes, have at least one member contributing cash to the family by this means. The principal forms of such activity are in construc- tion work and agriculture. The former is done both for the government and for private interest in Antigua. The latter constitutes work done on nearby coffee fincas (plantations) or work done for other members of the San Miguel community. There is apparently no stigma attached to working for a fellow San Miguelefio. Furthermore, it is done almost entirely on a cash basis. Overall, Spielberg sees San Miguel Slowly pulling away from its agricultural base and becoming increasingly oriented toward the market town of Antigua. Contributing to this trend is the decreasing proportion of land in relation to its pOpulation. This means that there is a growing dependency upon cash wages in contrast to the cultivation of crOps. A part of the trend is the increase in entrepreneural 142 activity done primarily by women (nine at the time of obser- vation) who Operate stalls in the market area in Antigua. Social Patterns Daily routine.-—It appears to be generally the case that the men of the village Spend the working day in the fields or as unskilled labor in the town of Antigua. The day begins before dawn, with the woman of the house reviving the kitchen fire. Breakfast is prepared by reheating boiled black beans and preparing enough tortillas for the family's breakfast. The man of the house has his breakfast alone, and then leaves for the location of his work. Breakfast is taken by the rest of the family as they awake. The wife eats as she goes about her morning chores, preparing the meals for the rest of the day. In the afternoon, with her husband still at work, the wife continues with her household chores, cleaning, mending clothes; gathering fruit or herbs to take with her to Antigua on market day. The husband returns at dusk and joins his family for the evening meal. Following the meal his wife boils more beans and soaks corn grain in preparation for it to be ground, and retires for the night to begin the routine of the following day. Residence patternS.--The only clear-cut residence patterns occur between the "upper barrio" and the "lower barrio." Because the people living in the upper barrio are more dependent upon communal land for their livelihood, they appear lower l; Informa barrio dealing points ( to be m3 characte that a : Posed o liked,~ of the Skill 0 This gr attack whole 9 these T skill: SQQiet: \ 143 appear to occupy a more tenuous position than those in the lower barrio, not only economically, but also socially. Informants for Spielberg noted that those living in the upper barrio tended to be more "insecure and vulnerable in their dealings and conflicts with their neighbors."1 Spielberg points out that differences between the two locations appear to be more in terms of "certain personality and attitudinal characteristics" rather than upon economic factors BEE ES: Social differentiation.-—It is in the upper barrio that a relatively strong "faction" resides--a faction com- posed of eight household heads. These men appear to be dis- liked, but they are held in some degree of awe by the rest of the villagers. This appears to be based upon the verbal Skill of these men and the political savvy which they diSplay. This group exhibits a high degree of cohesiveness and an attack upon one member iS interpreted as an attack upon the whole group. Spielberg offers an eXplanation as to why these peOple are resented yet acclaimed for their verbal Skill: "It appears that in their minds, oratory Skill is one of the chief mechanisms by which persons in the larger I O 0 O 3 soc1ety achieve their aims and accumulate rewards." lSpielberg, op. cit., p. 54. 2Ibid., p. 53. 3Ibid., p. 260. atomis social another securit Eadres Village without reSpect harm ti ecOnomj pIEVen1 % 144 Overall, Spielberg describes San Miguel as highly atomistic with the nuclear family serving as the basic social unit. Individuals appear to be suspicious of one another and their primary orientation appears to be toward security from the threats of their neighbors. Even 2gp- padres (god-parents) are selected outside the village. The villagers view their cohorts as being morally bankrupt, without the necessary "voluntad or respeto" (good will or respect). AS a compadre they have the potential to do more harm than good. But a final reason exists and that is the economic limitations that pervade the village which in turn prevents villagers from carrying out their duties as ppm: padre .1 San Miguel conforms to other descriptions of peasant communities where "larger corporate kin-based structures" are lacking. In these villages the family is "unparalleled in the degree of corporateness, and long-term cohesion."2 The importance of the family as a recognized unit is drama- tized by the strict insistence upon maintaining physical 1According to Spielberg, "it is customary for the padrino to provide the fancy dress for the baptism (or, in some cases, confirmation), to pay the necessary fee . . . and to provide the almuerzo (lunch) for the child and his family, or at least provide some refreshments such as aquardiente (liquor) aguas gaseas (soft drinks) and panes (sweet bread and cakes). Related to this, of course, would be the ability to provide material help or aid to the child and his parents in the traditional conception of a padrino's obligations." Ibid., p. 205. 2 Ibid., p. 137. bounda aspect into a offens and cal social strains strife that: Thu brc Spq 0V! 145 boundaries between sitios. It is further recognized in one aspect of formal etiquette- For example, merely walking into another family's sitio is considered a grievious offense. The would-be caller must stand outside the fence and call to the head of the household. While the family is characterized as the bastion for social cohesion, it is also subject to disintigrative strains. With the scarcity of land and goods, intersibling strife over inheritance is always possible. Spielberg notes that: There were numerous accounts of brothers, or brothers and Sisters, who actually had stopped Speaking to one another due to dissatisfaction over these matters.1 To be shown respect is a desired state for the inhabitants of San Miguel. ReSpect in turn is based in large part, upon the degree of "reserve" one exhibits. According to Spielberg, not being respected results in "chicanery, eXploitation and other misdeeds." Reserve then, or self—control is associated with a lack of tolerance for such actions. Spielberg notes that the individual who is reserved, announces to other villagers that "he is not a man to trifle with; that he would take an intrusion into his life very seriously." Further, "giving such an impression to others is a vital concern of most villagers," especially 1Ibid., p. 159. the ma has ob “freque l the pr] economi Persona Charact aPpears the Sta It hou SUP or ‘ EVe aSC EVe ham; fag 301] 0f Cro mat ref Ole Sec hCh~ high 8. due an heE Vi: th£ -\\\\\ 146 the male heads of households. He notes that when one's mask has obviously slipped it is a source of much anxiety and "frequently physical illness." Personal decorum along with older age appears to be the primary criterion for meriting social esteem. Even exzonomic differentiation iS superceded in importance by the personal qualities which a villager displays. Spielberg's characterization of the store-owning families gives what appears to be an insightful description of the nuances of the status structure in San Miguel. Spielberg states: It is certain that the two store-owning-viajera households . . . are by far in an economically superior position to any of the other families or households in the village. Beyond this, how- ever, differences in wealth are difficult to ascertain and not clear-cut realities evident to everyone in the village. If they exist, they would have to be based on differentials in a variety of factors--primary in the number of cash producing sources eXploited by the household and the amount of land present for cultivation of the subsistence crOps. At any rate, these differences appear to matter little and are only subtly, if at all, reflected in the style of life. Perhaps their clearest reflection is in the amount of economic security felt by the responsible members of the household.1 The male heads of these households have a relatively high status but it is due less to their wealth than to other personal attributes such as COOperativeneSS and helpful- ness to the community as a whole and to individual villagers. Furthermore, while the ability of these two families to be COOperative and helpful lIbido’ pp. 128—'129. in .4 ch th ab bu tht pre fag Ops W have ha 0f bett transpc age of etY not among t the "me ularly fellows to int: interp: ESSent' avaid ‘ Sions . 147 in part seems to be related to their greater economic margin, villagers seem to view these characteristics as being direct consequences of their personalities rather than mere economic ability. Others in a position to help, somewhat, but who refuse . . . are compared unfavorably to these two families. In large measure, their prestige is also due to strictly noneconomic factors such as their successful avoidance of Open conflict with others.1 The Community Ideology San Miguelefios view their community as poor. They have had a chance to be somewhat familiar with the existence of better schools, better medical facilities, and motorized transPort. They view the cause of their poverty as a short- age of arable land and as a consequence of the rest of soci- ety not caring about them. Spielberg portrays a feeling among the villagers that they have somehow been left out of the "mainstream" of the rest of Guatemalan society--partic- ularly of that society which exists in the urban areas. Within the village the individual tends to view his fellows as creating discord and suspicion. Villagers seem to interpret the world in zero-sum terms. One man's gain is interpreted as another's loss. Social life is seen as essentially Hobbesian. It thus behooves the individual to avoid all unnecessary contact with his fellows. Open eXpres- Sions of hostility or intimate friendship are frowned upon. Courteous aloofness is thus the resulting personal attribute 1Ibid., p. 130. one' 5 ages, C00per YEt a the po ThQSQ reSpec OVeral 148 which is highly evaluated. Too much Openness in emotions is not deserving of reSpect. This then requires a prOper "public diSplay" of one's attributes. Spielberg notes that: The lack of public courtesy or apprOpriate pub- lic reserve in manner quickly earns a villager the criticism of his neighbors. This is partic- ularly true if they happen to be relatively Older persons, for age is a prime characteristic of respected persons in the village and a fre- quently enunciated reason for bestowing respect and admiration. The mutual suSpicion and the fear of eXploitation by one's neighbors both of which are abetted by economic Short- ages, result in a reluctance of the villagers to engage in COOperative enterprises. The village remains a community, yet a community with a minimum of cohesive bonds. There exist two community-wide institutions Opposing the potentially disruptive forces within the community. These are the political and religious institutions. With reSpect to the former, the local government is a part of the overall national government administrative structure. Adams describes this structure as follows: For purposes of administration Guatemala is divided into departments, in turn subdivided into municipalities. The municipality (municipio) is the principal local administrative territorial unit, and may itself be divided into rural units known variously aS cantones, aldeas, or caserios. lIbid., p. 134. Th te It The "l tants head (5 January lagers. 18 but Positio and tha- notes, 1 been Vit to him 1 follows elimina1 t0 the ‘ the . 149 The term aldea is usually reserved for a clus- ter of homes; the other two terms refer o a rural area in which homes are scattered. The term aldea is applied by Spielberg to San Miguel. The "local mayor" (alcalde auxiliar) and his three assis- tants (regidores) are appointed by the office of the regional head (municipio). These officials serve for one year, from January 1 to December 30. They are chosen from the vilé lagers. The qualifications are that the candidates be over 18 but under 60; that they have not served in any of these positions within the last two years; that they be literate; and that they not be physically handicapped. Spielberg notes, however, that one or more of these requirements have been violated in the past. The officials are chosen by the office of the municipio from a list of all eligible candidates submitted to him by the local mayor and his assistants. There often follows a sort of informal polling among the villagers to eliminate those candidates who would be "most objectionable" to the villagers. The final choices are made, however, by the municipio. Each of the four administrative officialS--the mayor and his three assistants--choose in turn, three assistants 1Richard N. Adams (ed.), Political Changes in Guatemalan Indian Communities (New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, 1957), p. 4. Cited in Spielberg, op. cit., p. 248. 150 (ministriles) from within the village. The officials, including the local mayor, and their assistants each have charge of administrative duties for one week. These duties include the administration of public laws, keeping civil order, funneling major infractions of the law to the national legal bodies, collection of taxes, physical mainte- nance of the village, and in general, keeping the peace. The local officials are empowered to call on villagers to participate in various work parties. They also serve as arbitrators in interpersonal conflicts, although they have no formal judicial power. The mayor and his aides are the only Official representatives of the village, but they, in fact, derive their power from the larger government struc- ture. Perhaps the most important factor for integration in San Miguel is religion, especially in terms of religious celebrations, funerals and.wakes. The entire population of the village is Catholic except for two Protestant families who remain beyond the pale of dominant religious eXpression. Religion and religious Observances appear to provide a pri- mary source of hope and satisfaction for the villagers. Public religious ceremonies are times for sharing, and "a threat to their church and its relics is a threat to them all."1 Spielberg observes, "if there is any common set of 1Ibid., p. 135. value integ wooder sword altar commun tee." years i maintEr resFons religio fraternll wOmen. of them SpeCifi< during 1 tions f< 151 values and sentiments which can be taken as symbols of their integrity as a community, it rests here: in the form of a wooden statue in classic Roman military uniform wielding a sword and the scales of justice. It stands in the center altar of their church. This is the statue of San Miguel.''1 There are three formal religious associations in the community, the most important of which is the "church commit- tee." This body of men, numbering variously through the years between four and sixteen, is responsible for the maintenance of the church and religious relics. It is also responsible for handling materials and money necessary for religious fiestas. In addition, there are two religious fraternal orders or hermandades, one for men, the other for women. These are voluntary associations and apparently each of them was founded for the eXpress purpose of sponsoring a specific religious celebration, of which there are eight during the year. In addition they perform auxiliary func- tions for other religious activities. Membership in these orders has severely declined, due, Spielberg hypothesizes, to a declining economic base with a concurrent loss of interest in such voluntary orga- nizations. At the time of the field research, there were only four men and seven boys in the male order and only four women.in.the female religious order. This decline in turn / lIbid., pp. 135-136. has I munit tions Miguel Spielb it doe have t Miguel fOOd SI FOSter I 152 has reduced the integrative impact of religion in the com- munity at least in terms of the effects of formal organiza- tions. We are not given a very idyllic picture of San Miguel. What then causes the inhabitants to remain there? Spielberg suggests that while San Miguel lacks many things, it does provide many necessities which the inhabitants would have to buy were they to live in an urban area. In San Miguel, inhabitants need not buy a major portion of their food supply, nor their water, fuel, nor shelter. Summary Observations and Implications The description of San Miguel by Spielberg approaches" Foster's definition of a peasant society; a society existing on a marginal level with reSpect to its resource base and subsistence productivity, and which is tied to a money economy of the larger society of which it is a part. The underlying integrative principal in Foster's terms is the system of dyadic contracts. It is Foster's thesis that in peasant villages "every adult organizes his societal con- tacts outside the nuclear family by means of a special form of contractual relationship."1 These contracts are both informal and implicit, and formal and eXpliCit. In both y lGeorge Foster, "The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village," American AnthrOpologist, LXIII (1961), 1173-1192. Cited in Spielberg, M. , pp. 18—20 . their effec1 result Foster the g1 regarc At 81 EC me 153 types regardless of whether they are symmetrical (involving parties of equal statuses) or asymmetrical (involving parties of unequal status) a consensus is held regarding their terms. The integration of the community is thus effected by the crisscrossing of the dyadic ties.1 The resulting system of interlocking contracts is pictured by Foster as "the glue that holds (the) society together and the grease that smoothes its running."2 Thus Foster writes regarding the peasant community of Tzintzuntzan: About all the Tzintzuntzano asks for his system and about all he gets is a modicum of personal, economic and emotional security which rests pri- marily on dyadic ties within the village and secondarily on similar ties with peOple outside the village.3 Spielberg however, disagrees with certain aspects of Foster's eXplanation. After interpreting his findings 1E. A. Ross of course noted the possibility of a society being "held together" by a multitude of differing allegiances which is implied in Foster's discussion. Wrote Ross: "A society, therefore, which is ridden by a dozen Oppositions along lines running in every direction may actually be in less danger of being torn with violence or falling to pieces than one split just along one line. For each new cleavage contributes to narrow the cross clefts, so that one might say the society is sewn together by its inner conflicts." See E. A. Ross, The Principles of Sociol— pgy (New York: The Century Co., 1920), pp. 164-165. Ralph Dahrendorf deals with this same theme in his Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford: Stanford Univer— sity Press, 1959). 't ZFOStgg'.QEi_EiE-I p- 1176. Cited in Spielberg, 020 Cl 0' p. . 3Ibid., p. 1178. regar asser cable of a the d differ agricr Polit: dyadi. of try lacki tions M19UE tence fostE pat];I alSO 154 regarding interpersonal relations in San Miguel, Spielberg asserts that Foster's model is "both deficient and inappli- cable as an eXplanation for the structure and organization of a community."1 Spielberg does not deny the existence of the dyadic bonds, but he would couch these in the context of different institutions; in marriage and the system of compadrazggj in the village government and work parties, in agricultural wage labor, and in common law unions and the political factions or cliques. Viewed in this way, the dyadic bonds are seen as varying in intensity of involvement of the individuals, a dimension which Spielberg asserts is lacking in Foster's model. For Spielberg, contractual rela- tionships occur in any society. What distinguishes San Miguel, and peasant societies like it, is that it's subsis— tence level of economy and, for Spielberg, its small Size, fosters an aura of suspicion reducing the level of partici- pation in any long-term COOperative arrangements; a thesis also held by Foster. Spielberg further maintains that Foster's model is inapplicable because of Foster's implicit assumption that a community is no more than a maze of reciprocal agreements, that it is not a "real entity with its own overall prin- ciples of structure and organization" and that "it fails to take into account the particular nature and context provided lSpielberg, Op. cit., 366. by co For S ties of art peasar Contra Peasar the n howeVe Spiel] insti- as a Perha' relat 155 by community institutions, but merely treats them as givens."l For Spielberg, the centripetal forces are not merely dyadic ties but the institutions within which these ties take place. Yet Spielberg appears to misread Foster in his series of articles relating to the interpersonal relations within peasant villages. Foster, in his article, "The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village," makes very clear that he is not dismissing the role of institutions in community life.2 He suggests, however, that naming them does not eXplain their effects. Spielberg's approach appears to start with the identity of institutions and then to eXplain interpersonal relationships as a consequence of these institutions. Yet wisely, although perhaps inadvertently he eXplains the characteristics of the relationships not by institutional structures but by the very characteristics Foster has employed, economic scarcity and small size. Thus Spielberg's critique becomes in fact vacuous. Foster's approach does not eXplain the existence of institutions; they are in fact viewed as intervening variables between the effects of economic scarcity and Size 1Ibid., p. 367. 2Foster, op. cit., p. 1173. "Specifically, I suggest a model . . . to reconsider the institutionalized roles which can be recognized and described with the underlying [principal which gives the social system coherence." 156 with interpersonal behavior.l Spielberg's approach iden— tifies the major institutions and he is able to Show differ- ent rates of intensity in interpersonal relations. Yet identification is not eXplanation, although it may be a first step toward that end, and it is difficult to under- stand how Spielberg's formulations Significantly increase our understanding of both interpersonal relations and the cohesive bonds of the community. A more parsimonious and less redundant approach would appear to first ask what structural characteristics, analytically distinct from, and logically prior to interper- sonal relations influence their patterning. Thus in the case of San Miguel, the answer lies in its low economic level, its relatively limited division of labor, its small size and its high degree of autonomy. These appear to be necessary conditions eXplaining the limited COOperative activity and the emphasis upon personal security. In La Lucha, clearly defined functional differentia- tion contributes to a high degree of cohesiveness within the village. In addition, the personal attachment to the commu- nity as a whole is in part a function of the high degree of 1It should be noted that the intervening role of institutions was eXplicated after a reminder by Lewis, in commenting upon an earlier article by Foster, that Foster was approaching a position of "crude economic determinism." See George Foster, "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Soci— ety," Human Organization. XIX (Winter, 1960-1961), 174-175; and Oscar Lewis, "Some of My Best Friends Are Peasants," Human Organization, XIX (Winter, l960-l96l),l78-l80. 157 commitment to the factory. The inhabitants value the work roles highly. This high evaluation is phrased in three different ways: (1) in terms of simply having a job, (2) in terms of the relative benefits of the conditions of work, such as work security, wages, health benefits, etc., and, to a lesser extent (3) enjoyment of the work itself.1 The people of La Lucha tend to evaluate their work roles rela- tive to the absence of those outside the hacienda. Since unemployment is a problem of Costa Rica, the mere fact of having a job is reason enough to be committed to it.2 1In the literature regarding industrialization in developing countries, the problem of labor force commitment is a major area of concern. The "problem" itself may be due more to the manner in which it is couched than to its actual existence. Moore and Feldman, for example, appear to take the position that industrialization involves certain invari- ant conditions to which the values inherent in the culture of the develOping country must somehow be made to conform. The denial of the possibility of various forms of work orga— nization some of which may closely approximate many of the values of the "host" culture results in the inevitability of the "problem" of labor force commitment. See Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feldman (eds.), Labor Commitment and Social Changg_in DevelOping_Areas (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960), pp. 1, 25-26 and 38-39. Morris D. Morris questions the whole basis upon which the problem of commitment is held to exist. See his discussion of the"myth of paradise lost" in "The Labor Mar- ket in India," in Moore and Feldman, Op. cit., pp. 184-187. 2Morris D. Morris notes a Similar reason for commit- ment in India. He attributes this to a "consciousness of scarcity" which, in jobs providing prestige and eXperience in advancement, becomes supplanted by a "consciousness of Opportunity." Ibid., pp. 188-191. 158 The problems of "alienation" which are often attrib- uted to industrial employment seem to be non-existent in La Lucha. It appears that the principal condition prevent— ing this is the nature of both the work organization as well as the community in which it is located. The whole authority structure within the factory is maintained in the community. Foremen in the factory tend to be the "knowledgeables" in the community. The same patterns of interpersonal relation- ships are often maintained both within and outside the fac— tory. The high degree of loyalty to the factory work orga- nization in La Lucha is similar to Blauner's observations of textile mill towns in southern United States.1 This appears to be due as much to an identity with a common background of both workers and management as it is to a perception of functional interdependence within the industrial enterprise. Relations between management and the work force thus tend to 1Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), chap. iv, "The Textile ‘WOrker: Integration without Freedom in a Traditional Commu- nity," pp. 53-58. Blauner in his zeal to demonstrate a general state of social malaise, attributes a sense of power- lessness to the textile workers without their awareness of it: Fallers, in commenting upon industrialization in "new states" observes that "there is ample supply of alien- ated peOple in the new states; but industrial workers are not the most prominent among them, both because the indus- trial sector remains small and because workers tend to be relatively secure and prosperous in relation to their coun- trymen." See Lloyd Fallers, "Equality, Modernity and Democracy in the New States" in Clifford Geertz (ed.), gld Societies and New States (New York: The Free Press, 1963), p. 188. 159 be based upon personalistic and traditional values rather than upon those values characterizing typical bureaucratic structures. Lewiston represents an instance of complexity in the division of labor which extends beyond the clear ordering of work related positions in La Lucha. No clear functional relationships exist among the small business owners in the community. The presence of a comparatively large number of retirees further detracts from the importance of position- related criteria in the community status system. But inter— personal evaluations appear to be an important characteris- tic of the community. In the private sphere, the "gossip culture" is particularly vicious in this regard. However, none of the communities escape the effects of this phenom- enon. In all three communities, personal behavior is a key factor assessing the worth of an individual. In Lewiston, it is the degree of "neighborliness." In La Lucha, it is the degree to which one is "courteous and helpful." In San Miguel, a person is evaluated on the basis of his social reserve and the control of his emotions. The data from the ethnographies suggest further insights in conceptualizing the dynamics of status assign- ment. In neither Lewiston nor La Lucha do formally defined functional positions completely structure the status system. La Lucha is especially interesting in this regard. Even 160 though the work organization provides a clearly defined positional hierarchy, individuals do not escape evaluation on the basis of contributions to the welfare of the larger community. One must be both a factory manager SEQ a friendly community member to warrant Optimum social honor. Yet cer— tainly the work organization of the factory provides a major framework for individual evaluations. In Lewiston no Single comprehensive work organization exists. Formally defined functional positions are thus even less important in the process of status assignment. In San Miguel, of course, the scarcity of formally defined functional positions minimizes even further their consideration as important criteria in status assignment. In addition, another dimension in the evaluation of persons becomes apparent. Spielberg observed in Lewiston that it was possible to personally deSpise a fellow commu— nity member and yet to evaluate him highly in terms of his contributions to the community. This phenomenon, of course, supports Vidich and Bensman's discovery of two evaluative systems in Operation in Springdale: those Operating in the public and private spheres. The evaluative system Operating in the public sphere is largely oriented toward the community as a whole. Indi- viduals are evaluated in terms of their contribution to the community. The interpersonal evaluations in the private sphere (or gossip culture) are self-oriented. It is here 161 that invidious comparisons become most Salient. Vidich and Bensman, in their study, found that these evaluations were couched in economic terms. Our ethnographic data suggest that this is not entirely the case. Spielberg noted in a Specific example that in the self-oriented evaluation, or private Sphere, the evaluation was in terms of personal behavioral attributes. These findings suggest that not only may the status system, defined with respect to the community, influence appraisals of life conditions, but the evaluations made in the private sphere may be just as important, if not more so. Further, the kinds of criteria entering into the interper- sonal evaluations are seemingly not limited by either the private or public Spheres. The three communities appear to differ in the degree to which the evaluations in the two spheres are disjointed from each other. In La Lucha, the two systems are nearly fused together. In Lewiston they appear to be more dis- parate. San Miguel is distinguished by the fact that community—oriented evaluations appear to be almost non- existent. Self-oriented evaluations seem to predominate. In the case of San Miguel, it may be inaccurate to charac- terize community-oriented evaluations to be in the public sphere while self-oriented evaluations are restricted to the private Sphere. It appears more likely the case that 162 both public and private eXpressionS of evaluations are self- oriented, although they may take on different guises. What may be termed a sense of "corporateness" may eXpress not only the degree to which there exists a commu— nity—oriented evaluative system but also the degree to which it predominates over the self-oriented system. By "sense of corporateness" I mean the degree to which a loyalty or alle- giance toward the community is felt by the inhabitants. In La Lucha, this appears to be quite strong, due no doubt, to the relatively superior economic position the villagers enjoy in relation to other communities. In Lewiston, the sense of corporateness is also present, derived mainly from the outmigration of the dissatisfied, leaving those that are committed either by choice or by default. The sense of corporateness which existed in La Lucha and Lewiston was reflected in the frequency of affirmations of the virtues of them. The degree of allegiance of vil- lagers to the community of San Miguel seemed to be consider- ably less. Villagers appeared to view their community in terms of negative comparisons, as less undesirable than the city. 1It may well be that San Miguel represents a case of ‘what Service has called a status system with "familistic-ego- centrid'referents. If so, the association of different classes of criteria with the public and private sphere would not occur until economic divisions were possible or until there existed political or bureaucratic offices. Elman R. Service, "Kinship Terminology and Evolution," American Anthrgpolggist, LXII (1962), 747-763. 163 If the system of status assignment is primarily self- oriented in San Miguel then one might be led to the conclu— sion that the relationship between the status system and personal appraisals of life conditions would be most con— gruent in that community. However, without functional dif- ferentiation, San Miguel lacks the structural supports nec- essary for a stable status system. Status then, is likely to be subject to considerable alterations as specific behav- iorS of individuals vary. About the only stable referents for status assignment appear to be those which are defined as ascribed. Further, the low economic level of the commu- nity contributes to the individual concern of simply staying aliVe. Achieving high social status pp£_§p_is not likely to loom very large in the desires of the San Miguelenb. Sub- sequently, there is ppp likely to be a high degree of correspondence between the community status system and appraisals of life conditions. We may now recast these observations into a more formal conceptual framework. Consider the structural char— acteristics of the communities. All three communities are relatively the same with reSpect to their autonomy from the larger society and their small Size. They differ however in economic affluence and the nature of their division of labor. La Lucha has an economic level above subsistence. The divi- sion of labor within the community is clearly defined and has a high degree of structural articulation. Lewiston also 164 exists above the subsistence level, but its division of labor is best described as lacking a high degree of struc- tural articulation. Finally inhabitants of San Miguel exist at the subsistence level and there is minimal functional differentiation. Drawing upon the discussion in Chapter II and the data from the ethnographies, we may list the following Specific implications for which we seek more validation: 1. The status system is likely to be most clearly defined in La Lucha and least clearly defined in San Miguel. The status system of Lewiston is eXpected to lie between these two extremes. Among the three communities, achievement related criteria are likely to be highly related to status in La Lucha, followed by Lewiston, then San Miguel. Personal behavioral attributes are likely to be the most important reason given by respondents to ex— plain status differences in all three communities. The implications regarding the correspondence between the status systems and appraisals of life conditions may also be derived. Chapter III provides the framework for drawing out these implications from the ethnographic data. These are as follows: 1. The relevance of status rank for appraisals of life conditions is likely to be greatest in La Lucha, 165 least in San Miguel, with moderate relevance in Lewiston . Important criteria involved in appraisals of life conditions are likely to be similar to those which are important in status assignment in La Lucha. In Lewiston, personal characteristics the same as those contributing to the public ideology, are likely tO be most important in appraisals of life conditions, followed by achieved and ascribed criteria. In San Miguel achieved criteria, especially wealth, are likely to be most important for appraisals of life conditions. Ascribed criteria and those contributing to the public ideology are likely to be relatively low in importance. Findings eXpected for both the nature of the status systems and the appraisals of life conditions are summarized in Table 3. With a clearer picture of each of the communities we may further pursue these implications by These behind us, presenting data gathered by more formal techniques. data and their interpretations are presented in the chapter to follow. 166 Table 3. Summary of implications from the ethnographic data M La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Sense of corporate- ness High Moderate Low Nature of the Inclusive; Somewhat Ambiguous status system clearly ambiguous and defined unstable Relative importance of criteria for status assignment Ascribed Low Low High Achieved High Moderate Low Public ideology Moderate High Moderate Perceived reasons Personal Personal Personal for status behavioral behavioral behavioral assignment attributes attributes attributes Likely association of status rank with appraisals High Moderate Low of life condi- corres- corres- corres- tions pondence pondence pondence Relative importance 'of criteria for appraisals of life conditions: Ascribed Low Low Low Achieved High Moderate High Public ideology Moderate High Low CHAPTER VI STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS AND THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL STATUS UPON APPRAISALS OF LIFE CONDITIONS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Introduction 0n the basis of our ethnographies of the three com- munities, we were able to draw out certain observations in need of more precise validation. These observations were phrased as "eXpectations." They pertain to the relationship between the structural characteristics of the communities and their status systems, and the implication of these find- ings for individuals' appraisals of their life conditions. In this chapter we present more formal analyses of data gathered from interviews with the heads of households in each of the three communities. We: first examine the relationship between the struc- tural characteristics and the characteristics of the status systems. First the degree of clarity of the status system is assessed. Secondly, there is an investigation of the impact of researcher-selected "background variables" upon he status systems. Thirdly, the perceptionslof individuals 167 168 in the samples regarding the important criteria entering into status assignment are analyzed. The second major part in the analysis is focused on the impact of the community status system upon the apprais- als of life conditions. We attempt to ascertain the corre- Spondence in rankings between the status scale and a scale of favorable or unfavorable appraisals. We then examine the relationship of those background variables found to be impor- tant for status assignment, with the appraisal of life the perceptions of individuals conditions scale . Finally, regarding their appraisals are analyzed. The Influence of Structural Characteristics Upon the Status Systems Since all three communities appear to be relatively autonomous from the larger society of which they are a part, and all are relatively small, the status system in each of them Should be inclusive and clearly defined. But these features can be either mitigated or enhanced by a standard and by the or at the subsistence level, of living above , For example, nature of the division of labor within them. persons living at the subsistence level in a community with little division of labor or where the divisions are diffuse are likely to evaluate others almost solely upon their per- sonal behavioral characteristics. While these evaluations may be inclusive, the resulting status system is likely to 169 be relatively ambiguous, and relatively unstable due to a lack of formally defined functional relationships. The three communities differ in the following manner. In La Lucha the economy, is above the subsistence level and the work organization provides a relatively stable set of criteria for interpersonal evaluations. Inhabitants of Lewiston also exist above the subsistence level (although very few of them can be defined as wealthy) but the division of labor is diffuse in regard to functional relationships. In San Miguel, living is at the subsistence level and the Indeed, formally division of labor is functionally diffuse. defined positional attributes are almost entirely lacking. Two features of the status systems are of immediate The first is with their degree of clarity and the concern. second is with the criteria that are important in status assignment. From the ethnographic descriptions we may eXpect the status system to be most clearly defined in La Status is likely to be least Lucha, followed by Lewiston. clearly defined in San Miguel. With reSpect to the background criteria selected by the researchers, achievement related variables are eXpected to be most important for status assignment in La Lucha and Lewiston is eXpected to lie least important in San Miguel. The presence of the between the extremes on this dimension. work organization in the community is the rationale for this assertion regarding La Lucha. Those criteria contributing 170 to the public ideology are eXpected to be most important for status assignment in Lewiston. This is because there is no central structure ordering and legitimizing differences in Positional differences may be seen functional posit ions . ascribed criteria as potentially disruptive. are eXpected to be most important. based upon findings in other "traditional" oriented soci- In San Miguel, This expectation is eties. Furthermore, the heavy emphasis upon personal security and the high degree of suSpicion regarding the behaviors of others is likely to preclude the importance of achievement-re lated cr iter ia . Clarity of the Status System Ascertaining the degree of variation in status assignment provides one means of characterizing its clarity. The method by which the community status systems are por- Recall that each head trayed was described in Chapter IV. of household was asked to rank every other head of household in the community. The status of a given household head was derived by computing the mean of the evaluations made of him by all other household heads. In addition, the standard deviation was computed for each of these mean status rank- This gives us a measure of the degree of agreement ings . By taking the mean of all of over each single status rank. the standard deviations of all of the individual mean status ranks we arrive at a measure of community-wide variation 171 over all the individual rankings. This index of variation provides one measure of clarity of the status system within the part icular community . The means of the standard deviations and the inter- quartile range are presented for each community in Table 4. 'Table 4. Community means and inter-quartile ranges of standard deviations of individual mean status ranks Mean Inter- Community Standard Deviation* quartile Range La Lucha 2.3 2.2 — 2.4 Lewiston 2.1 1.9 - 2.3 San Miguel 3.0 2.9 — 3.2 *The interpretation of this measure is as follows: Taking all of the standard deviations on the mean status scores together, the central tendency in San Miguel, for example, is a standard deviation of 3.0. The most amount of variation, as indicated by the largest mean, is in San Miguel. The mean is smaller in La Lucha. The difference between La Lucha and Lewiston, how- ever, is negligible. Our eXpectations are not fully met, knu:San Miguel does appear to differ from the other two cmmmndties in the degree of variation over the assignment of status. 172 It has been well established in stratification research.that persons are more in agreement regarding those they rank extremely high or extremely low. They tend to be in more disagreement in ranking other persons in the middle range. In Table 5 we compare the means of the standard deviations for the extreme ranks in each of the communities. Table 5. Mean standard deviations of extreme status ranks Mean Community Rank Level Standard Deviation N La Lucha High: 8.0 - 9.8 1.60 8 Low: 3.0 - 3.9 2.26 17 Lewiston High: 8.0 - 9.5 1.68 14 Low: 3.0 - 3.9 1.90 16 San Miguel High: 7.0 - 8.0 2.66 8 Low: 3.5 - 3.9 2.70 6 As eXpected the means of the standard deviations are less for those ranked either extremely high or extremely low in their communities than the means of the standard devia- tions of the entire range of rankings (compare Table 4 with Table 5). Rankings in the middle thus tend to eXpand the variations in status assignment. In comparing the communities, the relationships of the means of the standard deviations of the extreme rankings remain the same as those computed on the total range. The 173 most variation appears to exist in San Miguel, while the indices of variation in La Lucha and Lewiston are nearly the same. These findings suggest that the clarity of the status system is nearly the same in La Lucha as in Lewiston. Com- pared to these two communities the status system is less clearly defined in San Miguel. We turn next to an analysis of the nature of the status systems: an inquiry into the criteria that are most important in the assignment of status. Variables Contributing_to Status Assignment In the larger research project, of which this disser- tation is a part, there was an analysis of the association of a variety of background attributes with community status systems. The variables derived from these attributes were discussed in Chapter IV. In order to maintain a basis of comparability, we have limited the major focus of our atten- tion to eight variables, all of which were measured in each community. These variables are the following: (1) vari- ables classed as achievement related—-occupation, income and education; (2) variables representing criteria contrib- uting to the public ideology-—-number of choices as friend and number of times mentioned as someone others visit; (3) variables viewed as ascribed which include age, sex, and length of residenCe. 174 Our exPectations are that achievement related vari- ables will be most important in status assignment in La Lucha, least important in San Miguel with their importance being intermediate between these extremes. in Lewiston. Criteria contributing to the public ideology are expected to be most important in Lewiston, while ascribed criteria are likely to be most important in San Miguel. A partial correlation analysis was employed to analyze the relative contributions of each of the eight variables to the status systems. The status scale was com- prised of only the whole number of the mean status score. Since the scale was. only meant to serve as a portrayal of fractions derived from computing the means relative ranking, Table 6 presents the partial correlation were eliminated. (Frequency distribu- coefficients of the eight variables. tions for these variables are presented in Appendix A.) Two of the three achievement-related variables-- occupation and income—-are clearly most closely associated with status in La Lucha and, with the exception of length of This pattern are least associated in San Miguel. residency, Differences in educational level do not, how- was eXpected. ever, follow this pattern. variables for status assignment in Lewiston appears to be The importance of the selected split between achievement related variables and those which contribute to the public ideology, particularly the number In San Miguel, of times mentioned as someone others visit. 175 Table 6. Partial and multiple correlation coefficients between mean status rank and selected variables Variable La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Occupation .44 .26 -.01 Income .40 .30 .10 Education .17 .14 .18 Number of times chosen as friend .25 .11 .15 Number of times men- tioned as someone others visit .21 .34 .17 Length of residence -.03 .15 —.02 Age .14 .20 .42 Sex* —.21 .oo .22 Multiple correlation of all eight vari- ables with mean status rank .87 .65 .60 N= 90 N= 212 N=73 *Males were coded "l" and females "2." A negative correlation indicates that males have a higher status rating than females. 176 age, an ascribed characteristic, is the variable having the highest association with status. The multiple correlation coefficients are also given in Table 3. Comparing these by community, we find that taking all the variables together, the greatest amount of variance eXplained in the status system is in La Lucha, followed by Lewiston and then San Miguel. This is consis- tent with our portrayal of the three communities. The work organization in the small relatively autonomous community of La Lucha fosters a clearly defined status system that is inclusive in nature. In Lewiston, where the division of labor is more diffuse, the status system is less clearly defined. In San Miguel, where the division of labor is very slight, where a sense of corporateness is apparently low, the status system remains considerably ambiguous and un- stable. The background variables are least related to the interpersonal evaluations in comparison to the other two communities. In making the data regarding status assignment com- parable in the three communities, we were able to consider only an equal number of variables in each community. Yet there is evidence that other variables unique to the commu- nities have importance in the assignment of status. Table 7 presents the zero order correlations of the most highly associated variables in each community. 177 Table 7. Zero-order correlation coefficients of selected variables with mean status rank* Variable La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Occupation .74 ( 97) .43 (138) -.09 (80) Income .78 ( 98) .45 (225) .23 (80) Education .55 (104) .24 (251) .06 (79) Number of times chosen as friend .68 (104) .24 (254) .23 (80) Number of times mentioned as some- one others visit .36 (104) .44 (254) .23 (80) Organizational membership .51 (104) .50 (246) .... Length of residence -.07 (104) .17 (251) .23 (80) Marital status .21 (104) .... .27 (80) Age .03 ( 97) .06 (250) .49 (80) Sex -.21 (104) -.06 (251) .13 (80) *Totals are given in parentheses. the occupation correlation analysis in Lewiston is due to the removal of the retired group and houseines from the sample. The lower N for Occupational differences are likely to be less salient for this group. 178 Based on the coefficients presented in Table 7 we see that occupation and income remain the most important variables for status assignment in La Lucha, followed by the number of times chosen as friend. Education is fourth in importance followed by the added variable, organizational membership. A remaining important variable is the number of times mentioned as someone others visit. In Lewiston, organizational membership, an added variable, is the most highly associated with status. This variable is followed in importance by occupation, income, and number of times mentioned as someone others visit. Both number of times chosen as friend, and education, are ranked sixth in relative importance. The strength of association of organizational membership emphasizes even more the impor- tance of variables contributing to the public ideology in Lewiston. .In the ethnographic account of Lewiston, we noted the relative importance of the voluntary associations in the life of the community. Most of these associations served an eXpressive rather than an instrumental function. In La Lucha, on the other hand, the few associations that existed served primarily instrumental functions. The association with the largest membership was one organized as a savings corporation. The presence of organizations in Lewiston and La Lucha, in contrast to San Miguel may reflect a phenomenon 179 occurring with theprocesses of "modernization." Neil Smelser notes that an increasing number of organizations emerge to serve the integrative functions formerly provided by extended family and kinship units in the course of mod- ernization.l In San Miguel, age remains the most important vari- able, followed by the added variable, "marital status." Length of residence, number of times mentioned as someone others visit, number of times chosen as friend, and income, all are third in relative importance. Taking all of the available information of each head of household, the multiple correlations with the status rank- ings are .90 in La Lucha, .73 in Lewiston, and .63 in San Miguel. The ordering of the communities with respect to the magnitude of the association of all of these variables with the status systems remains the same as the ordering based upon the selected variables in Table 6. It should be emphasized that their size may reflect the degree of clarity of the status system as well as the relative importance of all of the selected variables in influencing status assign- ment. 1Neil J. Smelser, "Toward a Theory of Modernization" in George Dalton (ed.x Tribal and Peasant Economies (Garden City: The Natural History Press, 1967), pp. 40-41. "Mod— ernization" as Smelser uses the term refers to the process of technological advance, agricultural reorganization, industrialization and urbanization. 180 Perceptions of Respondents Regarding Status Assignment A second means of assessing the relative importance of status-assigning criteria is to simply ask the members of the community to eXplain why they ranked persons in the man- ner they did. However, we should eXpect most of the sample in all three communities to answer in terms of personal behavioral characteristics, since these are the most salient indices in contributing to a public ideology of equality and tranquility, a seemingly necessary component of small commu- nities. However, after these have been expressed, we should expect secondary reasons to reflect more closely the struc- tural characteristics of the community. Thus, achievement- related variables, eSpecially occupation, should loom large in importance in La Lucha. In San Miguel, ascribed charac- teristics should be important, second only to responses related to personal behavioral characteristics. In Lewiston, based upon our knowledge thus far, personal behavioral char— acteristics should be the most frequent response followed by achievement related responses. We eXpect, however, that the proportion of achievement related responses should be lower than the prOportion of such responses in La Lucha. EXplanations for status assignment were drawn from a reduced sample in both Lewiston and San Miguel. In order to ascertain whether these samples differ significantly from the original total sample, the percentages in each status 181 category were compared. The resulting distributions are shown in Figures 2 and 3. (Frequency distributions for these samples are given in Appendix A, Tables 34, 35, and . 48.) In the distributions for both communities the re- duced sample is slightly over—represented in the lower status ranks and under-represented in the higher status ranks. Yet the departures do not appear to be significant. Table 8 presents the open—end responses regarding the reasons for placement of others at both high and low status levels. PrOportionate frequency is given in percent— .age for each classification of these responses. The data in Table 8 are generally consistent with our exPectations. Responses relating to personal qualities are the most frequent reasons given for both high and low status assignment in all three communities. Occupation was next most important in La Lucha. In Lewiston, "active in community affairs" was a proportionately more frequent response for assignment to high status than was the case in the other two communities. For low status assignment, occupation and income were the more frequent reSponses, next to "personal qualities." In San Miguel, in contrast to the other communities, age was more frequently mentioned. The majority of the responses, however, were also related to "personal qualities." Percentage 56‘ 52‘ 481 44- 40 ~ 36 l 32 28 w 24.. 20 T 16 - 12 _ 182 Key Total Sample — N=254 . -“--"‘ Interview Sample - N=122 Figure 2. - 1 l . f T T l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rank Level on d - .- Distributions of total sample and interview sample on mean status ranking in Lewiston. Percentage 56 52 48 44 4O 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 Figure 3. — 183 Key Total sample - N=80 ‘—-"-~ Interview Sample - N=49 1 2 3 4 5 Es r l T j I 16 \H m‘ m- Rank Level Distributions of total sample and interview sample on mean status ranking in San Miguel. 184 Table 8. Percentage response citing given reason for high and low status placement Reasons Given La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Reasons for high status placement: Occupation 23.4 20.1 1.3 Income 6.1 4.9 1.3 Education 8.2 3.4 2.6 Active in community affairs 11.7 25.9 16.9 Personal qualities 48.1 34.3 55.8 Age 0.0 0.3 16.9 Length of residence in village 0.4 4.6 1.3 Other 2.2 6.5 3.9 Total 100.1 (231) 100.0 (324) 100.0 (77) Reasons for low status placement: Occupation 20.6 21.5 3.5 Income 5.0 15.6 0.0 Education 6.0 1.3 1.8 Inactive in community affairs 12.1 10.1 10.5 Personal qualities 44.2 44.7 59.6 Age 0.0 0.0 14.0 Length of residence in village 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 12.1 6.8 10.5 Total 100.0 (199) 100.0 (237) 99.9 (57) 185 The Communitnylites Attributes valued most highly by the inhabitants of the communities may be focused in bolder relief by noting the attributes of persons they choose for representing the best interests of the community. Two questions designed to ascertain these attributes were asked. The first was de- signed to indicate the attributes most valued within the community itself. The "local elites" bearing these attri- butes were identified by asking respondents to name three persons for whom they might name a park in Lewiston, a new plaza in La Lucha, and a laundry area in San Miguel. The second question was designed to ascertain the attributes of "cosmOpolitan elites"; those most likely to represent the best interests of the community to representa- tives of the larger society: Suppose some high government official were com- ing to (the particular community), let's say to watch the Memorial Day Parade ("observe Arbor Day" in La Lucha and San Miguel). Suppose he wanted three local peOple to sit in the reviewing stand with him. If you were choosing,which three would you pick?" Following each of the questions regarding the local and cosmopolitan elites, respondents were asked to give the reasons for their choice. Not only will information on these elites emphasize what is valued in the communities, but differences between the elites for both the background variables and reasons given for their choice should indicate the degree to which the community is perceived by the 186 respondents as unique from the larger society. Those chosen to represent the community to outsiders are likely to have attributes which community inhabitants view as more desired in the larger society than within the community. Local elites, however, are likely to have attributes particularly valued only within the community. Because San Miguel is a peasant community in a non-industrial society, there will likely be no difference between the two types of elites. For La Lucha and Lewiston, local elites should bear charac— teristics quite different from the cosmOpolitans. Cosmopol- itans should reflect characteristics valued by the larger society while local elites should reflect characteristics unique to the communities. (Part of the rationale for choosing the communities was based upon the notion that structural characteristics unique to the communities will likely be of greater influence for the status systems than will the value orientations of the larger society.) All persons who were named one or more times in response to the questions were designated as local or cosmOpolitan elites, depending upon the particular question (there were cases of course where the same persons were designated for both types of elites). The reasons given by the respondents for their choices are presented in Table 9. 187 Table 9. Percentage response citing given reason for assigning elite status Reasons Given La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Reasons for choosing elites to meet out- siders: Occupation 10.4 20.2 7.3 Income 2.8 0.5 7.3 Education 17.9 4.1 2.4 Active in community affairs 7.5 20.6 9. Personal qualities 55.7 41.7 48.8 Age 0.9 0.5 12.2 Length of residence in village 0.0 6.4 0.0 Other 4.7 6.0 12.2 Total 99.9 100.0 (218) 100.0 (41) Reasons for choosing elites for local honor: Occupation 8.0 8.7 3.2 Income 1.8 0.7 3.2 Education 8.0 2.0 0.0 Active in community affairs 21.2 35.6 9.7 Personal qualities 54.9 19.5 51.6 Age 0.9 0.0 25.8 Length of residence in village 1.8 24.2 3.2 Other 3.5 9.4 3.2 Total 100.1 (113) 100.1 (149) 99.9 (31) 188 In La Lucha and San Miguel, for both types of elites, responses relating to "personal qualities" were most fre- quent. In Lewiston, statements relating to personal qual— ities were the most frequent reasons given for naming cosmopolitan elites but the most frequent reasons given in naming local elites were those related to "active in commu- nity affairs." In both La Lucha and Lewiston there is a consider- able increase in the proportion of responses related to "activity in community affairs" for local elites in contrast to cosmopolitans. In addition, reSponses related to occupa- tion, income, and education were greater in Lewiston for cosmOpolitan elites than local elites. But the same pattern also occurred in La Lucha, although the percentage differ- ences were slightly less. A relationship in reverse of these findings was expected in La Lucha. In San Miguel, no differences were obtained in the responses relating to community activities. But we did not expect them inasmuch as there is less difference between the status criteria in the community and the larger society of which it is a part. The elites are distinguished however on the ascribed characteristic, age. Age was more frequently mentioned as a reason for choosing local elites than for choosing cosmopolitan elites. The most significant findings in this analysis, how- ever, is the emphasis upon criteria contributing to the 189 public ideology in each of the communities. This is ex- pressed either in terms of personal attributes or activity in community affairs. Variations in the relative impact of the background variables designated as "achievement-related" reflect vari- ations which are more consistent with the portrayal of the three communities. By comparing the median occupational, educational and income levels of the persons assigned to the two types of elite status, with the medians on each of these measures for all household heads, it is possible to ascer- tain not only the distinction between them and the general sample but also the extent of the differences between the two types of elites, regardless of the reasons given by the reSpondents for their choices. The ratios on the medians of the elites in relation to the general community pOpulations are presented in Table 10. (For the overall distributions on these variables, see Appendix A.) In La Lucha, the medians for both elite groups are between two and three times higher than for the general sample. In Lewiston the differences are very small except for the medians on income which are comparatively large for both elites. The only differences in medians that occur in San Miguel are represented by the relatively small ratios on median income. 190 Table 10. Ratio of median occupational, educational, and income levels of community elites to median occupational, educational and income levels of all household heads Type of Elite and Variable La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Elites chosen for meeting outsiders: Occupational prestige 2.4 1.1 1.0 Income 2.7 3.0 1.4 Education 2.0 1.4 1.0 Elites chosen for local honor: Occupational prestige 2.4 1.1 1.0 Income 3.0 2.6 1.4 Education 2.7 1.3 1.0 With respect to the distinctions between the two types of elites, note that the ratio in La Lucha on median income is slightly higher for local elites than for cosmo- politan elites. The same is true with respect to education. In Lewiston, the reverse is the case. The ratios on income and education are higher for the cosmOpolitan elites. The difference between the two communities suggests that the choice of cosmOpolitan elites in Lewiston is based upon urban, industrial values of the larger society of the United States, while for the choice of the local elites these attri- butes are less important. The opposite pattern in La Lucha 191 suggests the importance of industrialized values in the factory-dominated community in contrast to a non-industrial- ized larger society. San Miguel, without any kind of com— prehensive work organization, reflects the values of a non- industrial society. There is little difference in the back- ground characteristics between the "cosm0politan" and "local" elites in this community. Summary of the Findings The findings regarding the status systems of the three communities suggest the following: 1. The status system in San Miguel is more amorphous than those of La Lucha and Lewiston. 2. Selected background variables account for more variation in the status system of La Lucha than they do for the status system in Lewiston. The least amount of variation is accounted for in San Miguel. 3. Background variables which appear most important for status assignment differ by community. Achievement related variables are most important in La Lucha and least important in San Miguel. For Lewiston, the importance of achievement-related variables is between these extremes. Variables designated as "contributing to the public ideology" are most highly correlated with status rank in Lewiston. In San Miguel, the ascribed characteristic, age, is most highly correlated. 192 4. In all three communities, the highest frequency of responses of individuals in eXplaining status assign- ment are those relating to the public ideological stereotypes of personal behavior. But the relative frequency of other responses followed the pattern of the associations of the background variables with the status systems. 5. Reasons given for choice of local elites were very similar to reasons given for assignment of high and low status in all three communities. In La Lucha and Lewiston differences in background characteris- tics between local and cosmopolitan elites imply an awareness of uniqueness from the larger society by the inhabitants of each of the three communities. The focus of the inquiry is next directed to indi- vidual appraisals of life conditions and the degree to which the status systems and their characteristics are relevant to them. Appraisals of Life Conditions Recall that "appraisals of life conditions" refers to the degree to which the individual is satisfied with his life, however he may interpret that'satiSfaction. Our atten- tion is new directed toward ascertaining whether the commu- nity status system will have some relevance for these appraisals. 193 There are three dimensions to these appraisals which we wish to eXplore. First is the degree to which the rank on status influences, or at least is associated with, the "rank" upon favorable or unfavorable appraisals of life conditions. .Second is the degree to which the background variables influencing status influence appraisals of life conditions in a similar manner. The third area of interest is the degree to which the responses which relate to the appraisals are similar to those used to eXplain status assignment. Put in broad terms, all three of these dimen- sions relate to the broader question of the degree of con- gruence between the community status systems and individ- ual appraisals of life conditions. Consider first the issue of similarity between the individual's rank on the status scale and where he places himself on the scale used to measure favorable or unfavor- able appraisals of conditions in life. Where there is a high degree of integration in the community, with a status system that is inclusive and is clearly defined, we should eXpect a high degree of correlation in ranks on the two scales. The less highly integrated, however, the less cor- relation would likely obtain. The degree to which the background variables influ- ence the appraisals of life conditions is less easily assessed. Again, under a high degree of integration, with a status system that is inconclusive and clearly defined, 194 we should eXpect variables which are an important influence in status assignment to be similarly important in appraising life conditions. Yet under such conditions, any discrep- ancies of rank upon the different status-assigning variables may have important consequences upon the appraisals. Indi- viduals.in such conditions are likely to be subject to the pressures of others' eXpectations of consistent rankings across the status-assigning variables. On the other hand, under conditions of a relatively low degree of integration, individuals may more easily ignore relatively low rankings on some status assigning variables and appraise their life conditions highly on the basis of more favorable rankings, or the reverse may also be true. The overall impact of the background variables upon appraisals of life conditions is likely to be considerably less than that upon status assignment because of the differ— ent possible reactions on the part of the respondents. The relative importance of these variables upon the appraisals, however, is eXpected to follow the pattern in status assign- ment. In La Lucha, the achievement-related variables will likely be most closely related to the appraisals scale. In Lewiston both achievement—related variables and those con- tributing to the public ideology are expected to be highly associated with the scale. San Miguel, represents a unique case. With the problems of economic scarcity always present, achievement-related variables, particularly income (computed 195 by the amount of land which is cultivated), are likely to be most closely related to the appraisal scale. Individual responses relating to the appraisals of life conditions are likely to be similar to those used to explain status assignment in both La Lucha and Lewiston. In San Miguel, the responses are likely to reflect concerns arising from subsistence level living. The Association of Mean Status Rank with the Appraisal Scale For the analysis of the association of status with appraisals of life conditions a third scale was added, that of perceived status rank. In addition to asking respondents to rank others and to evaluate their life conditions, they were also asked to indicate where they thought other commu- nity members would place them on the status scale. Informa- tion for this scale was complete for 103 of the respondents in La Lucha, 92 of the total interviewed sample in Lewiston and 36 of the interviewed sample in San Miguel. This scale serves as a connecting link in the relationship between the status scale and the appraisal scale. If the status system is clearly defined and inclusive, we should eXpect the cor- relation coefficients to be relatively large between mean status rank and perceived status rank, slightly smaller between perceived status rank and the appraisal scale, with the smallest coefficient eXpressing the weakest association between mean status rank and appraisal of life conditions. 196 As we have seen, however, not all of the status systems can be characterized as inclusive and clearly defined; certainly not the status system of San Miguel. Thus the relationships among these three scales are expected to be especially weak in this community. A first step in analyzing the relationship among the three evaluative systems is to compare their distribution characteristics. In making such comparisons we are inter- ested in the general shape of the distribution as well as the relative magnitude of differences in the proportion of respondents at given levels on the three scales. We are 223 interested in the equivalence of absolute scores. The reason for this is that the status rank assigned to each respondent is an averaged score, whereas the rank represent— ing his perceived standing and his appraisals of life condi- tions are absolute scores. Thus, it is nearly impossible for an individual to receive a status rank of one or ten, since such scores would represent perfect consensus on evaluations--an unlikely event. Figures 4, 5, and 6 repre- sent the distributions on each of these scales for each of the communities. (Frequency distributions for these vari- ables are presented in Appendix A, Tables 23, 35 and 48.) In none of the sets of distributions is there a close fit among the three distributions. Only in La Lucha is there even an approximate similarity. The percentage dif- ferences are smallest between the ranks of 5 and 9. 197 Percentage 56TF Key __ MSR - N=104 ----- ALC — N=104 —--—-— PSR - N=103 52st 48‘L 44-, 40~» 32* 284 24-» 20 .J. 16 «J. 12! A» 0‘ 1 5 5 I s 6 7 e 9 10 Rank Level Figure 4. Distributions of mean status rank (MSR), perceived status rank (PSR) and appraisals of life conditions (ALC) in La Lucha. 198 Percentage 56 up Key ‘—————— MSR — N=122 i (ALC - N=ll6 52 —-—- PSR - N=90 48" 44- 40m 36m 324 I 28" \ I I I I I \ /( 1 I I 24‘ . \ / / Ad I 20" 16‘ I \ 7 / . \ I \ /// / \ II 12.1 I \\ J>\ " I / ‘ \ I . / ‘ / \ / 8- \ \\ III / V \V 4“ :J ‘v ’4',” O 4:. i '2 3 21 s 8 I7 53 25 15 Rank Level Distributions of mean status rank (MSR), perceived status rank (PSR) and appraisals of life conditions Figure 5. (ALC) for the Lewiston interview sample. Percentage 56 4 5.2 ‘ 48 - 44 . 4o - 36 ~ 32 J 28 ~ 24 ~ 204 16 12‘ 199 Key MSR - N=49 ——-—-— ALC - N=46 -—---—~ PSR - N=37 / \‘ Z v Figure 6. r 4 5 é 7 s 9 E Rank Level l—l-l Nd w Distributions of mean status rank (MSR), perceived status rank (PSR) and appraisals of life conditions (ALC) for the San Miguel interview sample. 200 In both Lewiston and San Miguel the pattern is par- ticularly uneven. In Lewiston, 30 percent of the sample appraise their life conditions in the most favorable terms, whereas only 7 percent, representing ranks 7 and 8 come any- where near that level in the others' evaluations of them. In San Miguel, the opposite effect occurs. Forty-six per- cent of the sample appraise their life conditions at the bottom two levels, whereas a little under 8 percent are assigned the lowest status rank by others. These distribu- tions provide a graphic description of the discrepancies among the three evaluative systems. Before continuing our analysis, a closer look at Lewiston is required. The presence of a relatively large group of retired people there would appear to make a differ- ence in how they, as opposed to the non-retired group, appraise their life conditions. Distributions for these two groups are presented in Figures 7 and 8. (See Tables 36 and 37 in Appendix A for frequency distributions.) Nearly 56 percent of the retired group in Lewiston appraise their life conditions in the most favorable terms, a distinct contrast from the 14 percent of the non-retired group who display as much "ecstacy." The two groups differ in their appraisals of their life conditions. We shall thus keep the two groups separate for the remainder of this par- ticular analysis. 201 Percentage 56 Key ______ MSR — N=45 ..--—_- ADC — N=45 PSR - N=34 ’c’ 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 / 0 f I I l | 1 2 3 4 Rank Level Distributions of mean status rank (MSR), perceived d appraisals of life conditions Figure 7. status rank (PSR) an la in Lewiston. 1(ALC) for the retired_samp 202 Percentage 561v -—————- MSR — N=74 52- ----- ALC - N=71 ‘“"-' PSR - N=56 48'4 44— 40- 36— 32- 28- 24~ 201 16- 121 I l 4 5 e Rank Level q— m- m» H CH H- N 00-4 Figure 8. .Distributions of mean status rank (MSR), perceived status rank (PSR) and appraisals of life conditions (ALC) for the non-retired sample in Lewiston. 203 We can further show the relationship of the distri- butions in all three communities by comparing their medians, which_represent a relatively stable summary measure, useful for skewed distributions. Table 11 presents the medians for the three distributions in each of the communities including the two groups in Lewiston. Table 11. Medians on mean status rank, perceived status rank, and appraisal of life conditions* Mean Perceived Appraisal Status Status of Life Community Rank Rank Conditions La Lucha 4.5 5.9 4.8 Lewiston: Total 5.9 6.1 7.8 Non-Retired 5.9 5.9 7.3 Retired 5.6 5.5 9.6 San Miguel 5.3 6.6 3.3 *Medians were computed by the grouped data formula with class limits eXpressed mid-way between each step level. The use of the lower class limit in the formula slightly reduces the exPressions of the medians. Clearly, from the appearance of the distributions and the medians in Table 10 we can expect a relatively low degree of association between the status scale and the scale on appraisal of life conditions. Even if the distributions were perfectly symmetrical, however, there would be no 204 guarantee of a high degree of association. But with very little similarity in the distributions we are nearly assured of relatively low associations. The zero order correlation coefficients of the three scales are presented in Table 12. Table 12. Correlation coefficients between mean status rank, perceived status rank, and appraisals of life conditions Mean Perceived Appraisal Status Status of Life Community Rank Rank Conditions La Lucha MSR ... (104) PSR .23 (103) ... (103) ALC .24 (104) .38 (103) ... (104) Lewiston MR 0.. (122) PSR .32 ( 92) ... ( 92) ALC .16 (116) .18 ( 90) ... (116) Non-Retired MSR ... ( 72) PSR .35 ( 57) ... ( 57) . ALC .18 ( 71) .26 ( 56) ... ( 71) Retired MSR ... ( 44) PSR .30 ( 35) ... ( 35) ALC .24 ( 42) .00 ( 34) ... ( 42) San Miguel MSR ... ( 49) PSR .28 ( 37) ... ( 37) ALC -.01 ( 46) .09 ( 37) ... ( 46) 205 In absolute terms the correlation coefficients in all three communities are small. However, among the total samples of the communities, the association of the scales is highest in La Lucha. Further evidence that the status system is relevant for appraisals of life conditions is the relatively high correlation--a coefficient of .38--of per- ceived status rank with appraisals of life conditions. This suggests that even if perceptions are inaccurate, at least status considerations enter into the appraisals. For the retired group in Lewiston, the same coeffi—_ cient between mean status rank and appraisal of life condi- tions is obtained, but there is no correlation between per- ceived status rank and the appraisals. Persons may have some notion of their relative standing, but this remains independent of the personal appraisal of life conditions. In summary, because of the pattern of the correla- tion coefficients, we may interpret the data in Table 10 to indicate a slightly greater relevance of the status system to appraisals of life conditions in La Lucha than is true in the remaining two communities. But this interpretation remains only suggestive. 206 The Relevance of Status-Assigning Variables to the Appgaisals of Life Conditions If the status rank is of little consequence for appraisals of life conditions, we may next inquire if any of the variables associated with status assignment have an impact. According to the theoretical discussion, it would be possible for status rank and the individual criteria that define it to have separate effects upon the appraisal scale. To answer the question at hand, the association of back- ground variables with the scale measuring appraisals of life conditions was analyzed by partial correlation analysis. On the basis of past analyses we may eXpect one or more of the achievement-related variables—-occupation, income and educa- tion--to be more highly related to appraisals of life condi— tions in La Lucha and San Miguel than in Lewiston; highly related in La Lucha because of the impact of the work orga- nization upon the community, and highly related in San Miguel, particularly income, because of the problems of subsistence. In Lewiston, criteria contributing to the public ideology should be most highly associated with appraisals of life conditions. Not all of our eXpectations are met, according to the evidence from Table 13. In La Lucha, the only achieve- ment-related variable that is relatively highly correlated with the scale on appraisal of life conditions is education. 207 Table 13. Partial correlation coefficients between apprais- als of life conditions and selected variables La Lewiston San Lucha Non—Retired Retired Miguel Occupational prestige .04 -.01 .04 -.13 Income .08 .09 -.04 .16 Education .24 .14 .11 .03 Number of times chosen as friend -.12 .16 .01 .08 Number of times men- tioned as someone others visit .09 —.08 -.04 .33 Organizational membership -.10 -.11 .20 ... Age .07 .40 .28 -.13 Residence .27 .03 -.25 -.19 Marital status .11 .08 .21 .22 Total 89 59 39 41 Length of residence, an ascribed characteristic with a coef- ficient of .27, is associated slightly more strongly. For both the non—retired and the retired groups in Lewiston, an uneXpected finding is the high association of age, an ascribed characteristic. Indeed, in both groups in Lewiston, it considerably outweighs all other variables in its contribution to high or low appraisals. In San Miguel, another unexpected finding is the relatively high association, not of achievement variables, but of criteria contributing to the public ideology. How— ever, achievement-related variables, especially income, has n . :“m‘aj 208 a slight effect upon the appraisals of life conditions. Long-term residents appear to have a slight propensity to down-grade their life conditions in the village. To be properly married, however, is to contribute somewhat to more favorable appraisals. If we group together those variables designated as "achieved," those designated as "contributing to the public ideology" and those viewed as "ascribed," we may note the relative effects of each group of variables upon appraisals of life conditions, by deleting each of their contributions from the total amount of eXplained variance. Their relative effects can be noted by the reduced size in the multiple correlation coefficients. This is shown in Table 14. From the table we see that in La Lucha, achieved variables have the greatest impact upon the appraisals of life conditions scale. Their absence most greatly reduces the multiple correlation coefficient on the scale. (Note the underlined coefficient.) But ascribed attributes also have a relatively large effect, owing undoubtedly to the impact of length of residence in the village. For both the non-retired and the retired persons in Lewiston, ascribed attributes clearly have the greatest degree of association with appraisals of life conditions. Recall that age in both cases was the single most highly associated variable to the scale. We suspect that the mean- ing of the findings in Lewiston is that age, especially for 209 Table 14. The effects of classes of achieved, ascribed and public ideology variables upon the appraisal of life conditions scale A. Multiple Correlations of Selected Variables B. Effects of the Removal of the Classes of Variables from the with ALC Original Multiple Correlation La Lucha .37 Achieved variables .21 N = 89 Ascribed variables . 3 Public ideology variables .35 Lewiston: Achieved variables .43 Non-retired .47 Ascribed variables .13 N = 59 Public ideology variables .45 Lewiston: Achieved variables .48 Retired .49 Ascribed variables .18 N = 39 Public ideology variables .45 San Miguel .50 Achieved variables .46 N = 41 Ascribed variables .42 Public ideology variables .36 210 the non-retired group reflects a selectivity factor. Lewis- ton is a town with many older people and those who have not lived there long have made the choice to move there. This is also reflected in the findings regarding the retired group, although they are not as dramatic. Marital status and an inverse relationship with length of residence con- tribute to appraisals of life conditions in the retired group. For San Miguel, although our original eXpectations were not met, the importance of being mentioned as "someone others visit" may be interpreted as an index of one's social and economic security. Total Impact of the Backggound Variables gpon Appraisals of Life Conditions It was eXpected that the impact of the selected background variables taken together would be considerably less on the appraisal scale than upon the status scale. These eXpectations are met even though the variable, orga— nizational membership was added for the analysis of La Lucha and Lewiston. What was not eXpected were the findings re- garding the ordering of the communities in terms of size of the multiple correlation coefficients. The eXpectations were that these would be in the same order as they were for the status scale: largest in La Lucha, followed by Lewiston and San Miguel. Instead, exactly the reverse order obtains. 211 The multiple correlation of these variables with the apprais- al scale is .37 in La Lucha, .47 for the non-retired group in Lewiston, .49 for the retired group, and .51 for the samplein San Miguel. This is in contrast to the coeffi- cients of the selected variables against mean status rank of .87 in La Lucha, .68 for the total Lewiston sample and .60 in San Miguel. A plausible eXplanation for this finding may be the mitigating effects of the relatively high degree of integration in La Lucha. We characterized La Lucha as being highly integrated, having a clearly defined, inclusive status system. Under such conditions, any discrepancies on rankings across the various status-assigning dimensions is likely to have more complex consequences upon personal appraisals of life conditions than where such integration is lacking. In the latter case, individuals have more freedom to choose or ignore dimensions upon which to evaluate their conditions. In the former case however, such freedom is not available for the individual. One is likely to be under pressure to equilibrate his relative standings in such a community. For example, in La Lucha it is eXpected that the foreman be not only a good boss but that his income be relatively high, that he have a relatively high education level, that he is a good family man, and that he contribute to the community and the welfare of his neighbors. Fewer eXpectations of this kind are likely to be brought to bear in Lewiston, and even fewer in San Miguel. 212 We may translate these interpretations back into statistical terms. Multiple correlation analysis is based upon an additive model. A large multiple correlation coef- ficient may be obtained either by the additive effects of variables weakly associated with the dependent variable, but which are themselves unrelated to each other. A large coef- ficient may also be obtained from a large association with a single variable to which other variables are related. Finally, of course, a single variable may be highly related with the dependent variable but with no association of other variables to it. It would appear that additive effects of weakly associated variable best eXplains the phenomenon in San Miguel, while in Lewiston the single variable age ap— pears to account for most of the variance. A low multiple correlation may simply be an index of a low linear association of the independent variables with the dependent variable. It may also represent inter- action effects among the independent variables, thus reduc- ing any effects each of them may have had upon the dependent variable. This second interpretation might appear most plausible for the case of La Lucha. But we already know that there exist only slight relationships of the variables, taken singly, with the appraisal of life conditions scale. Are we to conclude then that these have no relevance for the appraisals? Rather than accept this explanation, we would argue that the integrative pressures brought to bear result 213 in a relatively complex calculus by which the individual appraises his conditions in life. The overall effect is a variety of reactions contributing to a reduction in the strength of association of these variables taken singly, and together, upon personal appraisals. Empirical evidence that the conditions exist for such reactions is provided through inspection of the inter-correlation matrices of the variables run against the appraisal of life conditions scale. In order to support the argument there must be more and larger intervariable correlations in La Lucha than in the remaining two communities. Tables 15, 16, 17 and 18 present the evidence. The variables in each of the four matrices are ordered in terms of clusters of achieved, ascribed and public ideology criteria. With the one exception of the ascribed cluster in San Miguel, the inter-correlations are considerably higher in all equivalent clusters in La Lucha than in the other communities. Further, the frequency of positive correlations above .20 among the variables outside these clusters is greater in La Lucha than in the remaining two communities. The only case where a single correlation coefficient outside these clusters is higher is in the retired group in Lewiston, where a correlation coefficient of .70 between income and organizational membership is obtained. By comparison, the highest single correlation 214 as mcoquNflcmmuo mo Hones: Amy “mmuwma> mm ammono mmfiwu mo Hogans Amv ammono mead» mo HmQEd: Abs “msumum Hmuaume Amy “mecca“ Amv “Goaummsooo Adv «mBOHHom mm mum mwnmuwwo may mo xuwucmpHa .pawn ma manmumnamfi suanz “mocmpfimmu Amv “mom Ago oqa m m a m m a m m H so. on. mo. 00. as. eo. as. an. on. mm. ow. an. mo. mo. mm; mm; .mm. aa. aa. ma. ma. no.1 .wm. ma. 3 . ma . mo . MN. MW. .kle. on. ma. oa. HA. oH. em. oe.u oo. ao.u ~e.u 6H.u oa.: as. «a. H6. “pcmwuw mm “cowumoscm Amy 1.0th 'd‘ msosq on as mamom mcowuwccoo mmwa mo Homamnmmm cam moanmflum> padoumxomn pmpooamm mo xwuume coaumamuuou amaumuwnu mmoaompH owansm «maumufluu ombauoma amnumunuo pm>mano¢ .mH OHQMB 215 .mH maflme ca umnu mm mEmm map mum maumufluu on» no huwucmpHa m m a o m a m N H ma. mo.n mo. mm. mo. mm. «0.: mo. oo. mo. mo. .mm. on. mo. ma. .mm. .mm. mm. ma. so. HH.| .mm. mo. NH. mo. ma. mo.. «0. ms. 00. oo. oa. mo. mm; ma. ma. ma.u «0. mm.: me.: mm.u m~.u «a. am. am. . coumfi3mn cw msoum pmuwuwulcoc map How mamom mcowuwmcoo owes mo Hmmflmummm cam moanmwum> pcsoumxomn pmuumamm mo xHHumE coaumamuwoo mwumuwuo mmoHompH Deanna emanmnnuo pmflwnom< sanumuauo om>mnaoa .@H magma 216 .ma manna CH umnu mm 08mm or» mum mflumuwuo Gnu mo muflucmpHs Qua m m a o m a m m a an. mo. mo.u em. HH.: am. Ho. 60. mo. ma. .mw. 60.: an. .mM. .mm. ma. No.1 oa.n HH.I mm; 60.: mm.n oo. mo.: 00. «a. mo.u mo. as. mo. an. mm. NH. ma. oa.u as. an. mm. mm. soumw3oa cw msoum pmuwumu on» How mamum mcowuwpcou mmwa no Hmmflmummm pom mmHQmem> pcsoumxomn cmuomamm mo xwuume cowumawuuoo 1‘ Lth ‘1' «mwumufluo .hmoHopr UHHQsm #MHHwUMHU pmnwuomé smwuwuwuu Um>mw£o4 .hH OHQMB 217 .mH manta ca away no mEmm mSu mum mwnmuwuo or» we muwucmpHs oHa m a o m a m m H hm. om. mH. mo.u mo. em. mH. mo. me. MH. .MM. 0H. .wm. sH. HH.- Ho. mH. 5H. mo. Mm; om.u Hm. me. .mm. no. mo. km. mo.u .mm. eo. 6H.- mm; «o. HH demflz saw as wamom chMqucoo muse mo Hmmwmummm pom moanmwum> pcdoumxomn pmuomHmm mo xauume cowumamuuoo amaumuauu mmoaompH Deanna amaumufluo meflHUm< 4mHumuHuo em>mHso< .mH OHQMB 218 coefficient in La Lucha is .53 between the two variables, income and number of choices as friend. It remains statistically unclear precisely what overall effects the negative inter-correlations have upon appraisals of life conditions, but on conceptual grounds these can be explained. The inverse relationship between age and education, and residence and education, in La Lucha should have little consequence upon the appraisal scale, since the possibility of educational attainment was less at an earlier period. .Among the non-retired group in Lewiston, occupation, income, and education are all inversely related to age, as.is education with residence. These relationships also are likely to have little effect upon the appraisals of life conditions since Lewiston represents a community where opportunities are relatively low for achieving high levels of occupational prestige and income. Or put in other terms, the community,in effect, represents a haven from the empha- sis placed on these variables in the larger society. Those that are retired in Lewiston do not reflect the same characteristics as those that are not retired. They represent persons who once were active participants in the larger society. However, the relationship between age and education is in the negative direction, as it is for the non-retired group. The negative relationship between length of residence and education is consistent with the overall pattern. 219 In summary, the evidence from the four matrices suggest that the high multiple correlation in San Miguel is due to the additive effects of each of the variables. In Lewiston, the multiple correlation coefficient appears to be due primarily to age and marital status, perhaps reflect- ing an effect of a selective population there. In La Lucha the low multiple correlation coefficient may well be due to the relatively high degree of interrelationships among the status-assigning variables. RespondentsflJEXpressions of Appraisals of Life Conditions Assessments of the communities.-~An.introduction into an inquiry of how reSpondents exPress their appraisals, is to ask how they evaluate the community as a whole. Two questions which focus directly upon this evaluation were asked. These questions were: "What are the things you like m9§£_about living in (the particular community)?" and "What are the things you like least about living in (the partic- ular community) ?" Both of these questions force the respondent to enumerate "good" and "bad" things regarding his community, but in so doing they bring out the salient criteria upon which he evaluates the community as a whole. Table 19 pre- sents the percentage response of those things liked most about "the town." Table 19. Percentage of responses citing things liked most 220 about the town Response La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Economic related responses 43.6 2.4 50.0 Economic optimism for the future 39.9 2.0 ... Low cost of living 3.7 0.4 50.0 Desirable personal attributes of others 18.1 24.3 . Friendly, helpful 17.6 21.5 . Unselfish business- men ... 1.2 ... Very little vice 0.5 1.6 ... General non—economic aspects of the town 34.5 65.1 21.0 Slower pace 7.4 17.8 6.5 Uncrowded ... 6.1 4.8 Good living facilities 7.4 2.8 ... Have personal independence 3.7 3.2 3.2 Non-specific reSponses 1.1 4.4 11.3 Accustomed to the place ... 2.8 6.5 Family lives here 1.1 0.8 4.8 Like it ... 0.8 ... Other 2.7 3.6 14.8 Total* 100.0 (188) 99.8 (247) 100.3 (62) *Total number of responses are given in parentheses. 221 of the total number of responses given in La Lucha, the highest proportion are those relating to optimism . regarding the economic future of the town. In San Miguel the highest proportion of responses are also economically related but with a negative connotation. Responses relating to a "low cost of living" say nothing about economic improve- ment. They simply reflect a security—oriented response, that the cost of living could be more expensive. In Lewiston, the highest proportion of responses are expressions regarding the desirable climate. The next most frequent response is related to desirable personal attri- butes of others. These responses appear to fit into a general pattern of responses and background varibles for inhabitants in Lewiston. The pattern reflects a process of selectivity for the kinds of people living in Lewiston. (Recall the presence of the retirees in Lewiston and the high rate of outmigration of the youth from Montmorency County.) They live there having rejected urban, industrial values. Thus the attractive attributes of the town are those related to personal comforts, to neighborliness; to the absence of the vicissitudes of urban areas. In La Lucha, on the other hand, the active work organization fosters an emphasis upon economic improvement. Further, in contrast to much of the rest of Costa Rica, inhabitants of La Lucha enjoy a considerable economic advantage. 222 Responses to "things liked least" about the commu- nity are presented in Table 20. A somewhat unexpected finding in Table 20 is the comparatively large proportion of responses in La Lucha which, contrary to the focus of the question, stated that "nothing was disliked." Over 40 percent of the responses expressed this orientation. The remaining responses were quite dispersed. Twelve percent eXpressed dissatisfaction with the living facilities, 11 percent were pessimistic for economic reasons and 11 percent felt the town was too isolated. In San Miguel, the negative orientation toward the village was expressed in economic terms, economic pessimism regarding the future. Nearly 29 percent of the reSponses eXpressed this orientation. Other undesirable traits of San Miguel were the unfriendly neighbors and the isolation of the village. Yet, a somewhat surprising proportion of the responses--near1y 20 percent-—also stated that nothing about the village was disliked. Negative aspects of the village mentioned by the inhabitants of Lewiston tended to be slightly more dispersed than in the other communities. The single most frequent of the responses were those relating to the lack of living facilities. This accounted for 21 percent of the responses. Table 20. Percentage of responses citing things liked-1east 223 about the town Response La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Economically related responses 12.1 23.4 28.6 Economic pessimism for the future 11.0 13. 28.6 High cost of living 1.1 10.0 ... Undesirable personal attributes of others 13.2 17.7 21.4 Unfriendly, gossips 6.6 4.3 14.3 Clannish 1.1 2.4 ... People begrudge personal success ... 1.4 7.1 EXploiting business- men ... 6.7 ... Bad moral climate 5.5 2.9 ... General non-economic aspects of the town 29.7 40.2 25.0 Poor climate 3.3 10.5 ... Too isolated 11.0 2.9 12.5 Dissatisfied with community admin- ~istrators 3.3 3.3 1.8 Town getting too large, too many tourists ... 2.4 ... Lack of adequate living facilities 12.1 21.1 10.7 Other 4.4 12.0 5.4 Nothing disliked 40.7 6.7 19.6 Total* 100.1 (91) 100.0 (209) 100.0 (56) *Total number of responses are given in parentheses. 224 Taken as a whole, the non-economic related responses accounted for 40 percent of the total. It was also in this category that the largest proportion of reSponses were expressed regarding "things liked most" about the town. Finally, 23 percent of the responses in Lewiston were economically related, the second most frequent type of response. In general, to summarize the findings in Tables 19 and 20 the most salient attributes of the total community for the inhabitants of San Miguel were economic related, a negativistic security orientation. In La Lucha, the most frequently mentioned attributes liked most were economic related. But these were eXpressed in Optimistic terms. Further, 40 percent of the responses emphasized that nothing was disliked even when asked to specify "things liked least about the town." La Lucha also differed from San Miguel in the greater proportion of responses relating to non-economic attributes. In Lewiston, non-economic aspects of the town were most frequently mentioned both as things liked most and least about the town. The proportions of responses appear to correspond to the overall characteristics of the communities rather than to the specific characteristics of the status systems. The economic related responses of San Miguel reflect the security orientation of its subsistence level farmers. The emphasis upon non-economic aspects of Lewiston reflect the 225 selective nature of its pOpulation and the absence of struc- tural supports for such an emphasis. In La Lucha, the emphasis upon economic Optimism reflect the impact of steady employment in the work organization. If character— istics of the status systems have any hearing at all on these community-wide evaluations they would appear to do so primarily in La Lucha. Definitions of success and expressions of central life interests.--Two dimensions to eXpressions of personal appraisals of life conditions were tapped: a definition of personal success indicating the respondent's perceptions of what success means to him and a statement of the reSpondent‘s central life interests, designed to indicate what concerns are most salient for him. If the status system has a crucial impact upon personal appraisals of life conditions then we should expect its terms to appear in definitions of personal success. Further, its terms should also be reflected in exPressions of central life interest, but to a less degree. The central concerns of an individual may or may not be in terms stated in his ideas regarding personal success. He may have a clear idea of what is required to be "successful" but this may be of little importance for him. Based upon previous formulations, we should eXpect achievement related responses to be proportionately most frequent in La Lucha for definitions of success but less so for central life interests. For Lewiston, we should expect 226 these responses to be proportionately less frequent for definitions of success and certainly even less frequent for expressions of central life interests. For San Miguel, achievement related responses (which, however, may not be viewed as achieved by the respondents) are likely to be of primary concern both for definitions of success and central life interests. Economic concerns especially are likely to be paramount. Consider first the definitions of personal success: The phrase "getting ahead in the world" means different things to different people. What would you have to do to feel that you had gotten ahead or were a success? Table 21 presents the responses to this question. A minimum of categorization of the responses was employed in order that the full range of them may be seen. In general, the findings obtained in Table 21 are as eXpected. In La Lucha, the greatest prOportion of the reSponses are economically related. Of these, "having eco- nomic security and savings" is the most frequent type of response. Similarly, in San Miguel, the majority of responses are economically related. "Having more land and more crOps to sell" is the single most frequent type of response in this category. For both La Lucha and San Miguel, the occupation related responses are the next most frequent type of response. For La Lucha, success in these terms is most likely to mean being occupationally mobile. For San Migue, the most frequent occupation related response is 227 .mmmwnucmumm ca cm>flm mmmGOQmmn mo Hones: apnoea Ammo p.mm HHHNV a.mm HmmHV H.00H 4Hmuoa m.m 0.5 m.h Honuo m.m m.m ... :Hwosoo 0: mo “mmmmm m.H m.m ... muuoz ou pas oou “pawns umm ou mafiawnammom oz h.m H.h ... ucm>mHmHHH_coHumumm ... m.¢ m.H mamuofi poom mcw>ms “msowmmamu mswmm ... m.¢ m.a mmmcomwmw poucmwuo wooemwamm ... 0.0 0.0 muwruo ou Hommamn impassafioo as m>fluom mcflmm ... o.m v.0 noncommmu pmuswwuo NJAGSEEOU m.H ... ... mHmchE Hmfiuom coco madcummq ... h.m m.H pommmmu paw msumum HmeOm mcw>mm m.H m.m m.m Spammn @000 CM madam ... 0.0 m.H mpsmaum mswmmmx pom mcw>mm ... H.m ¢.¢ ommwuumfi HommmmUUSm “hawamm ammo: msm>mm m.m N.¢N v.HH mammosoo auwusoom Hmwoom ... m.m h.m GOHuMUSpm whoa mcm>mm ... m.m h.m noncommmu pmumamu GOHuMUSGM N.Hm m.o m.m moo ucmmmnm on» son» coflummdouo .map msfi>mm ... ... m.a meuo3 poom m mswmm m.H ¢.H m.a cohonEmlmamm msamm m.m m.m H.0H cowummsooo cw.mHHQOE mapHMBQS mcflmm m.wm ¢.oa ¢.©H mmmGOQmoH pmumamu HMGOMHMQdUUO ... ... m.m augusowm owsosooo ou musnaupcoo soucawso msw>mm b.m c.0H ©.o msa>fla mo pumpsmum Hmnmfln mcw>mm m.mm ... o.m xuo3 mHoE .Hamm ou mmouu mHoE .ocma whoa mca>mm m.m w.~ m.H mmwuwmmmoms pom coon nmsocm mcw>mm m.>H m.H~ m.m¢ mmsa>mm “muwusomm oaeocooo msw>mm m.mm m.vm N.hm momsomnou omumamu owaosoom Hmdmwz smm neumwzoq , Manon ma ili I ill mmmoofim mo Gowuwnwmmp man on mmmcommmu mo mmmucmoumm .Hm magma 228 "having a different occupation from the present one"; a response exPressing change in occupation rather than achieve— ment in the present work role or mobility through work- related activities. In Lewiston, responses are somewhat more evenly diSpersed. Only 35 percent of the responses are economi- cally related, in contrast to 57 percent and 60 percent in La Lucha and San Miguel, respectively. The proportion of social security concerns is considerably greater in Lewiston than in either La Lucha or San Miguel. The proportion of occupationally related responses, on the other hand, is con- siderably below that of these two communities. A reflection of the degree to which a sense of corporateness exists in the three communities is indicated by the reSponses to whether those interviewed believed others defined success in the same terms as they had used. ("Do you think most peOple in Lewiston would agree with this meaning?") Of those for whom information is available (109 in La Lucha, 111 in Lewiston and 46 in San Miguel), 59 per- cent in La Lucha and 61 percent in Lewiston thought others agreed with them. In San Miguel, only 37 percent felt others would agree with their definitions. The low percent- age in San Miguel appears to reflect the atomistic character of the community. The findings regarding the responses to the defini- tions of success are as eXpected. Characteristics of the 229 status systems are readily apparent for La Lucha and Lewis- ton. For San Miguel, however, the problems of scarcity far outweigh any status considerations. Not everyone in the communities is likely to be centrally concerned with personal success. Information regarding central life interests of the respondents was obtained by the following question: Different people regard different kinds of things as important in life. When you think about what really matters to you, what would you say are the central interests in your life? The responses are presented in Table 22. The responses indicated in the table vary in their pattern from those in Table 18; they are less congruent with the characteristics of the status systems. In La Lucha and Lewiston, social security concerns are the most frequent reSponses. The second and third most frequent responses more closely reflect the kinds of attributes valued in the status system. For La Lucha, these are occupation-related and economic-related responses. For Lewiston the second and third most frequent responses are community-oriented and economically-related. The most numerous responses in San Miguel are divided between social security concerns and occupational-related reSponses. Economic responses follow in frequency. The con- cern for an adequate job and for economic security, especial- ly adequate food and shelter reflects, again, economic scarcity rather than the status system. 230 Table 22. Percentage of responses to central life interests —__.._7 1 La Lucha Lewiston San Miguel Economically related responses 16.3 15.5 21.9 Having adequate food and shelter 4.2 1.7 9.1 Having enough land, planting good crOps 2.9 ... 7.3 Financial security 8.2 9.2 5.5 More material things 0.3 2.5 ... Dressing well, good clothes 0.7 ... ... Business ... 2.1 ... Occupgtion related responses 24.2 7.9 30.9 Having good job; advancing in work 24.2 7.9 30.9 Education related respgnses 3.3 ... 1.8 Knowing how to read and write 3.3 ... 1.8 Social security concerns 35.9 35.4 30.9 Family; providing a good home 12.7 20.4 10.9 Good health for self and family 21.9 13.3 17.3 Having good social standing 1.3 1.7 ... Finding a mate ... ... 2.7 Community oriented responses 13.5 16.3 7.2 Help the community; good government 1.0 6.3 0.9 Helpful to others 0.7 2.9 ... Live in peace -with neighbors 7.2 6.3 3.6 Having good moral behavior 4.6 0.8 2.7 Religious oriented responses 3.6 5.8 3.6 Avocations (hunting, fishing, hobbies, org. membership, etc.) 0.7 11.7 ... Other 2.6 7.5 3.6 Total* 100.1 (306) 100.1 (240) 99.9 (110) *TOtal number of responses are given in parentheses. 231 The different patterns in responses between defini— tions of success and central life interests may eXplain why little association is found between the status measure and the appraisal of life conditions scale. In La Lucha and Lewiston definitions of success follow closely the criteria defined as most important for status assignment but eXpres- sions of central life interest differ from these criteria. In San Miguel economic scarcity monopolizes both the defini- tions of success and central life interests. Summary In this chapter, analyses of quantified data were employed to examine (1) the relationship between the four structural characteristics of each of the communities and the status system in each of them, and (2) the relationship between the status system in each of the communities and the inhabitants' appraisals of their life conditions. All three communities were held to be relatively similar in terms of autonomy and size. They differ, however, in the following manner: La Lucha has a clearly defined and structurally articulated division of labor and its economy is above the subsistence level. Inhabitants of Lewiston live above the subsistence level, but the division of labor within it is not clearly defined in terms of distinct func- tional relationships linking together most occupations. In San Miguel, the economy is at the subsistence level, problems 232 of economic scarcity are predominant, and the division of labor is not only functionally diffuse but the range of occupational prestige is extremely compressed. The eXpected findings and the degree to which the analyses of the data meet them may be summarized in the following manner: 1. EXpectation: Awareness of uniqueness of the commu- nity from the larger society will be greatest for La Lucha and Lewiston, least for San Miguel. Evidence: Analyses based both upon background data and respondents' perceptions support this expectation. Local elites differed in their characteristics from the cosmopolitan elites in La Lucha and Lewiston, but this was not the case in San Miguel. 2. Expectation: The status system in La Lucha will be most clearly defined, followed by Lewiston, then San Miguel. Evidence: The eXpectation is partially supported. Based upon an analysis of standard deviations of the means of status rankings, status systems in La Lucha and Lewiston appear equally clearly defined, both more so than in San Miguel. 3. EXpectation: Achievement related criteria will be most important for status assignment in La Lucha followed by public ideology criteria, then ascribed criteria. In Lewiston, public ideology criteria will be most important followed by achieved, then ascribed criteria. In San Miguel, 233 described criteria will be most important followed by criteria contributing to the public ideology, with achieve- ment related criteria least important. Evidence: These eXpectations are all well supported by multiple correlation analysis of the association of back- ground variables with status rankings. 4. EXpectation: In all three communities reasons given by respondents for status assignment will be primarily eXpressions of the public ideology. Secondary responses will reflect the variables associated with status rankings. Evidence: This eXpectation is supported by prOpor- tionate frequency of response of reasons given for both high and low placement on the status ranking scale. 5. EXpectation: The appraisal of life conditions scale will be most highly related to the mean status ranking scale in La Lucha, least in San Miguel, with the relationship in Lewiston lying between these extremes. Evidence: While correlational analysis of the association of the two scales support the exPectations regarding the ordering of the communities, the relationship is extremely weak in all three communities. 6. Expectation: In La Lucha and Lewiston, those cri— teria of most importance for status assignment will be most important for appraisals of life conditions. In San Miguel, achievement related criteria will be most important in 234 contrast to criteria that are ascribed and that contribute to the public ideology. Evidence: Multiple correlational analysis only partially supports the exPectations for La Lucha. The eXpectations are not supported for Lewiston and San Miguel. Ascribed criteria were most important for the former; cri- teria contributing to the public ideology for the latter. An eXplanation was offered for the small multiple correlation between the background variables and the apprais- al scale in La Lucha. This correlation was small in con- trast to both the non-retired and the retired groups in Lewiston, and was especially small in contrast with the correlation in San Miguel. Evidence was presented to sup- port the contention that the relatively high inter-variable correlations detracted from the overall effect of the vari- ables on the appraisal scale in La Lucha. The higher multi- ple correlation in San Miguel was held to be due to additive effects of the variables. The single variable, age, appeared to account for most of the variance on the apprais- al scale in Lewiston. 7. Expectation: In La Lucha and Lewiston, definitions of success will reflect the characteristics of the status systems of the two communities. In San Miguel, economic related responses will outweigh all other concerns. 235 Evidence: The proportionate response supports the eXpectation. Achievement related responses were most fre- quent in La Lucha and less frequent in Lewiston. In San Miguel economic related reSponses were proportionately greatest. 8. Expectation: EXpressions of central life interest will be less related to status characteristics than defini- tions of success in La Lucha and Lewiston. Achievement related reSponses will be most frequent in San Miguel. Evidence: Proportionate frequency of reSponse sup- ports the eXpectation. The major shift from definitions of success was to social security concerns, having good health for self and family in La Lucha and providing a good home in Lewiston. Similar shifts also occurred in San Miguel, but economic as well as occupational concerns remained predomi— nant. ‘ Among all the findings, the most important is that in all three communities there is little relevance of ’ status_rank for the appraisal of life conditigns scale. Further, in Lewiston and San Miguel, those background vari- ables important for status assignment are not important for the appraisal scale. Although the status assigning vari— ables are more important than others for the appraisal scale in La Lucha (with the exception of length of residence) the relationship of these is extremely weak. 236 DeSpite these findings perceptions of respondents regarding definitions of success appear to reflect the status characteristics in La Lucha and Lewiston. The status characteristics are not apparent in the definitions in San Miguel, but this can be eXplained by its subsistence level economy. The pattern of responses to central life interests appear to be only remotely related to the status systems in La Lucha and Lewiston and unrelated to the status system in San Miguel. The findings in San Miguel are most easily under— stood. The findings in La Lucha and Lewiston remain some- what of an enigma. The final chapter will be devoted to a deeper probe into the implications of the findings. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS Introduction The original intent of this study was to ascertain the underlying factors influencing the impact of community status systems upon personal appraisals of life conditions. Yet, as the analysis has shown, status systems cannot be viewed as invariants to which the appraisals may be related. Rather, the underlying factors, which have been called "structural characteristics," appear to influence 225g the nature of the status systems and appraisals of life condi- tions. Whether or not status systems are relevant for the personal appraisals must be seen as contingent upon the structural characteristics of the communities. In this, the last chapter, the issues involved in the interrelationship of the structural characteristics, the status systems, and appraisals of life conditions, are dis- cussed and conclusions are drawn. These conclusions are to be viewed not as an end to the study but as the groundwork for future analyses. 237 238 The Methods and Their Limitations In order to add validity to this research, a variety of techniques were employed for data gathering and analysis. However a major part of the interpretations and eXplanations were based upon the analyses of quantified data. In the analyses, one may question the use of correlation techniques on other than interval scales. These techniques were justi- fied in this research for several reasons. The relative magnitude of zero order correlation coefficients matched closely other measures of association which do not assume interval scales. The large number of variables and the rela- tively small samples posed a problem in accounting for the relative influence of the variables, while holding others constant. The advantage of using correlation techniques, particularly multiple correlations, was that it enabled multi-variate analyses which would have been impossible with the other techniques owing to the small siZe of the samples. Continuous cross—checking of the quantitative analyses with information gained from the ethnographies added validity to theinterpretations of the findings based upon the correla— tion techniques. We have not been overly concerned with the statis- tical significance of the correlation coefficients. Our concern is primarily in the relative strengths of association of variables in comparing the three communities, rather than 239 characterizing a population of communities. The validity of the findings rests with future replication rather than upon a probability level. Even though our concern was directed toward a com- parison of total communities, internal variations may have detracted from the validity Of the interpretations of the findings. For example, persons in high status levels may be far mOre conscious Of their rank than others. Thus apprais- als of life conditions may be more highly associated with upper status ranks than with lower ranks. The existence of social cliques crosscutting status levels could also produce variations in the effects Of mean status ranking upon appraisals of life conditions. Personal appraisals may thus be expressed in terms of group membership rather than status level. The choice of small communities was designed in part to reduce internal variations. Cliques did exist within the communities, as we have portrayed in the ethnographies, but it was difficult to ascertain their effects upon the status system or the personal appraisals. Preliminary analyses failed to reveal any unique configuratiOn of people with background variables that would clearly identify them as variants from the rest of the community pOpulation.l 1The method employed for this purpose was "hierarchi- cal syndrome analysis" a variation of pattern analysis devel- Oped by McQuitty. See Louis L. McQuitty, "Hierarchical Syndrome Analysis," Educational and Psychological Measuremepp, XX (1960), 293-304. For the basic assumptions underlying the 240 A final note should be made regarding the interpre- tation of the data. Since this thesis was designed to generate hypotheses the interpretations have not been con— servative. Conservatism is required for confirmatory studies, but it may be a hinderance in eXploratory ones. Survey Of the Findings One principal proposition with four corollaries guided this research. The proposition was, "the degree of correspondence of community status rank with appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which alter- natives other than the status system are available for the appraisals." In selecting relatively isolated communities, some parameters were provided in limiting the range of alternatives available for personal appraisals of life con— ditions. Further, size of the communities was held rela— tively constant. But there were important variations in the remaining two structural characteristics; division of labor and economic affluence. The key finding of this study is that in all three communities, status rank has little effect upon individual appraisals of life conditions. What effect it does have, however, is dependent upon the configuration Of the approach see McQuitty, "A Pattern Analysis of Descriptions Of 'Best' and 'Poorest' Mechanics Compared with Factor- Analytic Results," Psychological Monoggaphs: General and Applied, LXXI, NO. 17 (1957). 241 structural characteristics of the communities. The struc— tural characteristics appear to influence both the nature Of the community status systems and personal appraisals Of life conditions. Yet the influence upon the one is independent of the influence upon the other. In Lewiston the background variables most highly related to the personal appraisals were ascribed criteria, while public ideology criteria were most highly associated with status assignment. We explained this difference as being a function of low structural articulation on one hand and a selective pOpulation on the other--an Older population rejecting the urban values of the larger society. In San Miguel age was the most highly associated variable with mean status rank but variables contributing to what we have labled the "public ideology" were most highly associated with personal appraisals, although other variables appeared to have independent effects. We explained this in terms of the secutiry-suSpicion ethos Of the community, fostered by economic scarcity. Achieved variables--especia11y educa- tion--were most highly related to the appraisal scale in La Lucha (although length of residence was also influential). This was the same class Of variables related to status assignment. Yet deSpite a higher association Of mean status rank with the appraisals scale, the effects of each of the status-assigning variables taken singly and together, were extremely small. We interpreted this finding as a consequence 242 of the high degree Of integration in the community with the relatively low degree of independent effects of the vari- ables upon the appraisal scale. We shall eXpand upon the implications of this finding later. Certain important uniformities appear regardless of the structural characteristics. These are centered upon individual perceptions. First, regardless Of the type Of community, individuals are most likely to eXplain the status system in terms of personal behavioral attributes. Only in secondary reSponses were the characteristics of the villages reflected. Second, definitions of personal success were couched primarily in achievement-related terms regardless of the community (although in Lewiston, the prOportion of these responses was least in comparison to the other two communi- ties). Third, central life interests were not synonomous with definitions Of success in all three communities. The major shift from definitions of success was toward "social security" concerns in all three communities. We will probe deeper into the explanations of the findings in each of the communities before drawing them together under one eXplanatory framework. La Lucha.--Few communities have a status system so clearly defined and structurally articulated as La Lucha. Occupation, income and education account for a very high proportion of the variance in mean status rankings. These variables, clearly ordered within the context of the work 243 organization, give the status system clarity and stability. In terms Of Ordering the three communities by strength of association of the appraisal scale with the mean status ranking scale, the association in La Lucha is strongest as predicted. But based upon our portrayal of the community, it is far lower than was eXpected.l Four features of La Lucha and its status system appear to account for the weak relationship between the evaluative systems. First, the weak relationship may be due to the fact that the status system is more complex than our portrayal Of it so far would suggest. (Recall the second corollary, "the degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the complexity Of the status system.“) While the work organization has a very strong influence upon the status system it does not completely define it. Further, regardless Of the impact of positional criteria upon the status system, in a small community personalistic criteria are never com- pletely replaced. Indeed, in La Lucha the zero order corre- lation Of "number Of times chosen as friend" with mean status ranking was .68, surpassed only by occupation and income. Under these conditions it is highly possible, for example, that persons of low status rank rationalize the 1Even though we have been primarily interested in the relative size of the coefficients, at some point ques- tions about the absolute strength of associations must be asked. 244 effects of their low position by deriving satisfaction in being viewed as a friendly, COOperative neighbor. Yet this eXplanation doubtless accounts for only a small part of the discrepancy between mean status rank and appraisals Of life conditions. In La Lucha the status sys- tem itself was relatively clearly defined and positional criteria contributed to its stability. Further, the commu- nity appeared to be relatively highly integrated. Personal characteristics (identified as those contributing to the public ideology) are not by any means independent of posi- tional criteria. The partial correlation of friendship choice with mean status rank was only .25. A second feature contributing to an exPlanation for the low association of the two evaluative scales may rest upon a paradox of implications for the individual in a highly integrated community. In a community in which status assigning criteria are highly interrelated, alternatives for appraising life conditions may be limited, but this also places strains upon the individual to maintain equivalence Of his "standing" with respect to the different status— assigning criteria. This is most likely to occur for per- sons assigned high status in the community. Such persons are likely to be far more conscious Of their social rank than others, and hence far more attentive to insuring that they bear all Of the attributes necessary for their overall rank. Consciousness of high status may not necessarily 245 result in a high appraisal Of life conditions. It could also result in low appraisals based upon a concern for improving ones "standing" on particular status-assigning dimensions. A third feature Of the community, accounting for the weak relationship between mean status rank and appraisals of life conditions, is that while it may be autonomous by virtue Of its geographic and social isolation, individuals within the community are still able to make comparisons between the total community and the larger society. Living in La Lucha with assured employment is far more preferred than the less economically favorable conditions outside the community. The first corollary may well be applicable, "the degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals Of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which the community, as a social system, is autonomous from the larger society." There may be autonomy for the community as a viable social system but the fact that it can be identified as a social system unique from the larger society may even reduce rather than increase the impact of the status system upon appraisals Of life conditions. For example, the indi- vidual ranked low in La Lucha may Still appraise his condi- tions in life highly, relative to the larger society. Fourth, and perhaps most fundamental Of the eXplana- tions, is the likelihood that clearly different dynamics are involved in assigning others social prestige from appraising 246 one's own life conditions. Noting this distinction, it is important that the status system be viewed as independent Of other structural attributes of the community, i.e., the four structural characteristics considered in this study. Social honor is a population attribute, a composite Of indi- vidual judgments of others. It is likely that in the process of evaluating others, the evaluator employs some calculus of evaluation resulting in a more generalized evaluation than is employed in appraising his own life conditions. In the latter case a particular criterion is likely tO take on special importance in the assessments, for whatever reason. Undoubtedly, contributing to the variation in the dynamics, is the distinction between evaluations Of others that are community-oriented and those that are self-oriented. These separate systems are referred to in the third corollary, "the degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals Of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which community—oriented and self-oriented systems of interpersonal evaluations are fused together." Any like- lihood Of correspondence between appraisals of personal con- ditions and evaluations of others would likely be based pri- marily upon the self-oriented system Of evaluation. Recall again, the Observations of Vidich and Bensman in this regard. The authors noted in Springdale that the "gossip culture" was primarily based upon self-oriented comparisons with others while public exPressions of evaluation were with 247 respect to the whole community. Spielberg also noted the possibility of the two evaluative systems operating in Lewiston. Unfortunately we have no data on the self- oriented systems of interpersonal evaluations. However, it is likely that if any interpersonal evaluative system is relevant for appraisals Of life conditions it is the self— oriented system. Indeed the whole notion Of relative depri— vation is based upon such evaluations. To the degree that self-oriented evaluations must remain covert, while the com- munity-oriented system conforms to an ideology Of equality and tranquility, the impact of the publicly acknowledged, community-oriented, status system upon personal appraisals Of life conditions is likely to be low. Lewiston.--The first three corollaries to the prOp- osition may eXplain the low association of mean status rank with appraisals of life conditions in Lewiston. Consider the first corollary: "the degree of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which the community, as a social system, is autonomous from the larger society." Lewiston is isolated both geographically and socially, but this does not insure its autonomy with reSpect to compari- sons Of life conditions that may be made with the larger society. The selective nature of its pOpulation indicates that almost regardless Of the status of the individuals within the community they would rather live in Lewiston than 248 elsewhere. (Recall that nearly 56 percent of the retired group appraised their life conditions at the highest pos- sible level.) This orientation—-that Lewiston is the best possible place to 1ive--is reinforced by the public ideology of equality and tranquility, and also of friendly neighbor- 1iness. Further, inhabitants frequently make reference to their good fortune at not being involved in the urban "rat- race." The dynamics involved in comparisons between the community and the larger society are likely the same in Lewiston as in La Lucha, except they are likely to be more profound in Lewiston, due to the greater degree of impact of the urban oriented mass media and previous eXperience of retirees in urban areas. It is significant in this regard that the structural characteristics Of Lewiston and La Lucha foster quite different orientations of the community members from the values of the larger society. The inhabitants of Lewiston have rejected the urban values Of the larger soci— ety (apparent in both the nature of the status system and in personal appraisals, but for different reasons) while inhab- itants of La Lucha have adopted a significant aspect of them, in distinction to the non-urban, traditional values of the larger society. The second corollary, that "the degree of correspon- dence between community status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the complexity of the status system" also applies to interpreting the weak relationship. 249 Not only are personalistic criteria particularly important for status assignment, especially those contributing to the public ideology, but positional criteria are also important. These types of evaluations, personalistic and positional, cross-cut the status assigning variables which were desig- nated as achieved, ascribed, and public ideology criteria. Further, there was little articulation of the positions within the community status structure, thus lending further ambiguity to the status system. The implications of the first two corollaries may be combined to note the following possible effects. The degree Of autonomy Of Lewiston is sufficient to have an unequivocal effect upon the appraisals of life conditions: inhabitants viewed their form of existence to be far superior to life in urban areas. Yet the autonomy is not sufficient to eliminate the impact of urban status criteria (those based upon occupa- tional position, income and education). .The result then is not only more complexity Of the status system but also a high degree of ambivalence toward it. This combination Of circumstances thus serves to reduce the overall association Of mean status rank with the appraisal scale. Finally, the third corollary applies, to a lesser extent, to the findings ("the degree Of correspondence between community status rank and appraisals of life condi- tions is dependent upon the degree to which community— oriented and self-oriented systems of interpersonal 250 evaluations are fused together"). Evidence from the ethno- graphic data suggests that these two systems Of evaluation clearly exist in Lewiston. Persons can assign to others high status based upon their contributions to the community, but they can also evaluate them lowly on other grounds. In Lewiston, where there is less structural support for the legitimacy Of invidious comparisons, criteria relating to the public ideology of equality and tranquility are highly valued for the community. Yet covert invidious comparisons do occur. These comparisons likely incorporate achieved criteria (occupation, income, and education) and, to a lesser extent, those which contribute to the public ideology. San Miguel.--San Miguel is an isolated community relatively autonomous from the larger society. Its status system is not complex, based as it is upon only personal- istic criteria, esPecially the ascribed attribute, age. Yet there is no association between mean status rank and the personal appraisals. The primary eXplanation for this is provided by the fourth corollary ("the degree of corre- spondence between community status rank and appraisals Of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which prOb— lems of economic subsistence have been resolved"). Individ— uals in the community are preoccupied with meeting the prob- lems of economic scarcity. Under such conditions status concerns become nearly irrelevant for appraising life con- ditions. ‘251 A second reason for the lack of association between the two evaluative systems is the amorphous nature of the status system. of the three communities there was the least degree of consensus in rankings in San Miguel. Further, the least amount of variance in the mean status ranking scale was accounted for by the background variables. Under such condi— tions the status system cannot be viewed as a stable, clearly defined referent for the appraisals. Even though the importance of age lends some stability to the status system there is not likely to be a gradation Of prestige across the range of age levels. Rather it is more likely the case that having attained an older age, an individual will be shown reSpect. This is quite different from the effect of clearly defined hierarchically ordered positions in a work organization. These positions provide a clear indication Of rank at all levels of the status system rather than exclusively at the tOp. There appears to be a clear distinction in San Miguel between the criteria employed in evaluating others and those employed in personal appraisals. Where suSpicion enters into interpersonal relations, age is a relatively non- threatening attribute. Of course Old age is a common cri- terion for prestige in traditional societies inasmuch as it Often represents accumulated experience and wisdom. Obvious— ly, however, favorable appraisals of ones life conditions is 252 not an automatic consequence of age. Indices of respect must substantiate the value of the attribute. One Of these is the number of times one is visited, the single variable most strongly associated in San Miguel with the appraisal scale. Frequent visits provide an-indication Of the indi— vidual's degree Of security in relation to his fellow com- munity members. This index is not restricted to Old persons but to persons Of all ages. Hence status rank and personal appraisals are based upon different sets Of criteria. This suggests the relevance, with some modifications, Of the third corollary ("the degree of correSpondence between com- munity status rank and appraisals of life conditions is dependent upon the degree to which community-oriented and self-oriented systems Of interpersonal evaluations are fused together"). Since the sense of corporateness in San Miguel is relatively low, the two systems of evaluation are domi- nated primarily by the self-oriented system. Yet the cri- teria employed for the personal appraisals are different from those employed in status ranking. This difference appears to be in part a consequence Of economic scarcity which results in concerns for security not only in the economic Sphere but also in the social sphere. Indeed the two Spheres may be an artificial distinction. Thus an individual is likely to view with suSpicion a person who is visited frequently rather than give him respect. But for the individual himself, being visited frequently is an 253 indication Of a secure position which may result in a favorable appraisal of life conditions. That economic concerns underlie this orientation is indicated by the definitions of success and the central life interests of the community inhabitants. In both cases the majority of responses were centered upon economic concerns and having more favorable occupations. Eighty-six percent Of responses were of this type for definitions of success while 53 percent of the expressions of central life inter- ests were in these terms. In both cases the prOportion Of responses were considerably in excess of the responses in La Lucha and Lewiston. Summary and Suggested Hypotheses A proposition with four corollaries provided the eXplanatory base for the findings in this research. Three classes Of variables were employed: structural characteris— tics Of the communities, the status systems which may be viewed as attributes of the community pOpulations, and appraisals Of life conditions which are individual attri— butes. The most fundamental theme running through the find- ings is that neither the characteristics Of community status systems nor personal appraisals of life conditions can be viewed as constants; both are independently influenced by the structural characteristics of the community. Yet what 254 remains relatively independent of the structural character- istics are public eXpressions by individuals of their reasons for status assignment. These reasons tend to be couched in terms of personal behavioral attributes which contribute to a public ideology of equality and tranquility; an ideology serving to minimize overt recognition Of divi- siveness within the community. It is also apparent that covert, invidious comparisons among persons occur in almost any community. This leads us to the conclusion that only when these are given legitimacy will the publicly acknowl- edged community status system have any bearing upon personal appraisals. Legitimacy in this regard is Of crucial impor- tance in small communities where divisions and inequalities seemingly cannot be tolerated unless there is a clearly defined rationale for them. NO better rationale can be provided than the presence of a work organization upon which depends the livelihood of community members. Yet should the community be of small size, the characteristic of smallness is likely to suppress the effects of the hierarchically ordered positions. This might lead us tO the hypothesis that in order for the status system to have an impact upon personal appraisals, the community must be relatively large and autonomous, have a clearly defined, structurally artic- ulated division of labor, with its inhabitants existing above the subsistence level. Under such conditions the status system is likely to be based almost wholly upon 255 ‘positional criteria, legitimized in the large community setting. Yet this hypothesis may not be tenable. While divisions and inequalities can be tolerated in a larger com— munity, the only reason this is possible is because sub- groups, to which the individual identifies, can be allowed to form in support of these divisions. Yet within the sub— groups divisions can be far less tolerated. Appraisals of life conditions in such a situation are likely to be based upon group membership rather than the overall status system. Further, the two evaluative contexts--the subgroup and the overall community status system—-are likely to coincide pply for the elites of the community. We are therefore led to the hypothesis that commu— nity status systems as publicly acknowledged, regardless Of their structural characteristics, have a very limited impact upon appraisals of life conditions. What impact they do have is most likely to occur within a community having a structural configuration Of, (1) a high degree of autonomy, (2) small size, (3) a clearly defined, structurally artic- ulated division of labor where the inhabitants are free of problems of economic scarcity. Fundamental to the limited impact of status systems upon personal appraisals of life conditions is the fact that two different referents are involved in the evaluations. For community status systems the community itself is the referent for evaluations of others. For personal appraisals 256 of life conditions the self is the primary reference. Thus we may further hypothesize that the covert, self-oriented evaluations prevalent within the "gossip culture" of com— munities have a greater impact upon personal appraisals of life conditions than community oriented status systems. The eXploratory findings in this study provide the basis for further hypotheses. These include the following: (1) The smaller the Size of the community the less likely will cleavages and divisions be publicly acknowledged. (2) Self—oriented and community-oriented systems of evaluating others are more likely to be congruent where positions are highly structurally articulated. This is most likely where a central work organization serves to legitimize positional differences. (3) Personal appraisals of life conditions are most likely to be subject to joint and interactive effects of ranks across status assigning dimensions in communities having clearly articulated positions and which are highly integrated, than in those communities lacking these attri— butes. In the latter case the effects are more likely to be independent and additive. (4) In communities whose inhabitants are faced with economic scarcity, both evalua- tions of others and personal appraisals of life conditions are likely to be in terms oriented toward personal security. In the perceptions of the inhabitants, the evaluations of others are likely to be in terms of absence Of threat to 257 personal security, while personal appraisals are likely to be in terms Of economic-occupational security. General Implications The consideration of status by both American sociol- ogists and the general American public implies the social recognition of achievement. Further implied in the writings of supporters of an achievement-oriented society is that in the course of achieving for themselves, individuals also contribute to the general welfare of the total society and, in turn, are recognized for it by being accorded high status. American sociologists have also Operated on the assumption that status is a social reward conferred upon the individual by the "system." The bulk of their concern, however, has been with the costs, both for the individual and the society, rather than the benefits of status-seeking. The costs for the individual occur in the process Of moving up or down the status ladder. The costs for the society occur from those in high status keeping deserving individuals from reaching the high status levels. Yet implicit in the approach is the idea that once having achieved high status, greater satisfac- tions will be gained for the individual. The questionable assumption underlying these inter— pretations is that status is a "driving motive" for all. persons regardless of the social context. Further, the assumption implies an increased satisfaction with life with 258 an increase in status rank. Our data, drawn from commu- nities having widely varied structural characteristics, suggest that these assumptions may not be correct. Not only may publicly acknowledged status levels have little impact upon personal appraisals, but individual's percep- tions of requirements for personal success may not even be related to their central life interests. Status seeking as a major life interest is likely to occur primarily for that segment of an urbanized pOpulation which is highly involved in formal organizations. In such contexts, positional labels are most likely to define status rather than contribute to it, and both social status and appraisals Of life conditions are more likely to be depen- dent upon positions in an organizational hierarchy. Another reason status striving is likely to be found among persons involved in this segment of an urbanized popu- lation is that they are most likely to be free from problems Of economic scarcity, at least as this applies to the prob- lem of staying alive rather than as a consequence of concern for consumption styles. In short, persons comprising this segment of the population can afford the luxury Of status striving. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, Richard N. (ed.). Political Chapges in Guatemalan Indian Communities. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, 1957. Bell, Daniel. The End of Ideology. New YOrk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Bendix, Reinhard, and Lipset, Seymour Martin. ClassL Status and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1953. Bendix, Reinhard, and Lipset, Seymour Martin. Clasaa Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Per- apective. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Blauner, Robert. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: Univer— sity of Chicago Press, 1964. Broom, Leonard, and Selznick, Philip. Sociology. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Brown, Robert. EXplanation in Social Science. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1963. Bunzel, Ruth.‘ Chichicastenago: A Guatemalan Village. Seattle: UniverSity OfWashington Press, 1952. Chinoy, Ely. Society: An Introduction to Sociology, New YOrk: Random House, 1961. Cuber, J. F., and Kenkel, W. F. Social Stratification in the United States. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954. Dahrendorf, Ralph. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959. Dalton, George (ed.). Tribal and Peasant Economics. Garden City: The Natural History Press, 1967. 259 260 Davis, Kingsley. Human Society. New YOrk: Macmillan, 1949. De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy_in America. Vintage Books. New York: Random House and Alred A. KnOpf, Inc., 1945. Dobriner, William. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Durkheim, Emile. Suicide. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1951. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Sociepy. New YOrk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Firth, Raymond. Elements of Social Organization. London: Watts and Co., 1951. Friedmann, Eugene A., and Hamighurst, Robert J. The Meaning of Work and Retirement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954. Gallaher, Arthur, Jr. Plainville: Fifteen Years Later. New YOrk: Columbia University Press, 1961. Geertz, Clifford (ed.). Old Societies and New States. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Gerth, H. H., and Mills, C. Wright. From Max Weber: Essaya in Sociology, Galaxy Book. New YOrk: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1958. Gordon, Milton. Social Class in American Sociology. Paper- back edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Hodges, Harold M. Social Stratification: Class in America. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1964. Hollingshead, August B. Elmtown's YOuth. New YOrk: Wiley and Sons, 1949. Kahl, Joseph A. The American Class Structure. New YOrk: Rinehart and Co., 1960. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of nguigy. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964. Kenski, Gerhard. Power and Privilege: A Theogy of Social Stratification. New YOrk: McGraw—Hill, 1966. 261 Lewis, Oscar. Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951. Lewis, Sinclair. Babbitt. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1922. Linton, Ralph. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton- Century, 1936. Lipset, Seymour M., Trow, Martin, and Coleman, James. Union Democraay. Anchor Book. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1962. Loomis, Charles P., Morales, J. 0., Clifford, R. A., and Leonard, 0. E. Turrialba: Social Systems and the Introduction of Change. Glencoe: Free Press, 1953. Low, J. O. The Social System of the Modern Factory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. Lynd, Robert, and Lynd, Helen. Middletownéin Transition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1937. Madsen, William. The Virgin's Children: Life in an Aztec Village Today. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960. Malinowski, Bronislaw. Argonouts of the Western Pacific. London: George Routledte and Sons, 1932. Mayer, Kurt. Class and Society. New York: Random House, 1955. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957. Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. Compass Books. New York: The Viking Press, 1958. Moore, Wilbert E. The Igpact of Industgy, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Moore, Wilbert E., and Feldman, Arnold S. (eds.). Labor Commitment and Social Change in DevelOping Areas. New YOrk: Social Science Research Council, 1960. Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Redfield, Robert. The Little Community and Peasant Sociepy and Culture. Phoenix Books. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, n.d. 262 Reichel—Dolmatoff, Garcia and Reichel-Dolmatoff, Alicia. The Peaple Of Aritama. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Reissman, Leonard. Class in American Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1959. Riesman, David, Glazer, Nathan, and Denney, Reuel. The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Ross, E. A. The Principles of Sociology. New YOrk: The Century Co., 1920. Runciman, W. C. Social Science and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Schulberg, Bud. What Makes Sammy Run. New York: Modern Library, 1952. Seeley, John R., Sim, Alexander, and Loosley, Elizabeth. Crestwood Heights. New YOrk: Basic Books, 1956. Service, Elman R., and Service, Helen S. Tobati: A Paraguayan Town. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954. Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures: and a Second Look. London: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Spectorsky, A. C. The Exurbanites. New York: Berkley Publishing Corp., 1958. Stein, Maurice R. The Eclipse of Community. Harper Torch- bOOk. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Stein, William W. Hualcan: Life in the Highlands of Peru. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961. Strauss, Anselm (ed.). The Social Psycholggy of George Herbert Mead. Phoenix Books. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959. Tumin, Melvin. Caste in a Peasant Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theogy of the Leisure Class. Mentor Book. New YOrk: The New American Library, 1953. Vidich, Arthur J., and Bensman, James. Small Town in Mass Society. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1960. 263 Warner, W. Lloyd, and Low, J. O. The Social System of the Modern Factory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. Warner, W. Lloyd, and Lunt, Paul S. The Social Life of a Modern Community. Vol. I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Warner, W. L., and Lunt, Paul S. The Status System of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942. Webb, Eugene J., et a1. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Weber, Max. The Theogy Of Social and Economic Ogganization. Edited and translated by Talcott Parsons. New YOrk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. West, James. Plainville U.S.A. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1945. Wheeler, W. Social Stratification in a Plains Community. Minneapolis: Privately printed, 1949. Whyte, William H., Jr. The Organization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1956. Wolf, Eric. Sons Of the Shaking Earth. Chicago: Univer— sity of Chicago Press, 1959. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Articles Backman, Carl W., Secord, Paul F., and Pierce, Jerry R. "Resistance to Change in the Self-Concept as a Function of Consensus Among Significant Others," Sociometry, XXV (1963), 102-111. Bendix, Richard. "Industrialization, Ideologies, and Social Science," Readings on Economic Sociology. Edited by Neil J. Smelser. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 26-38. Broom, Leonard. "Social Differentiation and Stratification," Sociology Today: Problems Prospects. Edited by R. K. Merton, et al. New York: Basic Books, 1959. 264 Centers, Richard. "The American Class Structure: A Psy- chological Analysis," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by R. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley. New YOrk: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1947, pp. 299-311. Clelland, Donald A., and Form, William H. "Economic Dominants and Community Power: A Comparative Analysis," American Journal Of Sociology. LXIX (March, 1964), 511— 521. ’ Couch, Carl J. "Self-Attitudes and Degree of Agreement with Immediate Others," American Journal of Sociology, LXII (1958), 491—496. Davis, Kingsley, and Moore, Wilbert E. "Some Principles of Stratification," American Sociological Review, X (April, 1945), 242-249. Dubin, Robert. "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the Central Life Interests of Industrial Workers," Social Problems, III (1956), 131-142. Duncan, Otis, and.Artis, Jay W. "Social Stratification in a Pennsylvania Rural Community," Pennsylvania State College: The Pennsylvania State College School Of Agriculture, Bulletin 543, 1951. Erasmus, Charles J. "The Occurrence and Disappearance Of Reciprocal Farm Labor in Latin America," Contemporary gultures and Societies of Latin America. Edited by Dwight B. Heath and Richard N. Adams. New YOrk: Random House, 1965. Fallers, Lloyd. "Equality, Modernity and Democracy in the New States," Old Societies and New States. Edited by Clifford Geertz. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Faunce, William.A., and Smucker, M. Joseph. "Industrializa- tion and Community Status Structure," American Sociologe ical Review, XXXI (June, 1966), 390—399. Forde, Daryll, and Douglas, Mary. "Primitive Economics," Tribal and Peasant Economies: Readings in Economic Anthropology. Edited by George Dalton. Garden City: The Natural History Press, 1967. Form, William H., and Stone, Gregory P. "Urbanism, Anonym- ity, and Status Symbolism," American Journal of Sociol— ogy, LXII (March, 1957), 504-514. 265 Foster, George. "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Society," Human Organization, XIX (Winter, 1960-61), 174-178. Foster, George. "Peasant Society and the Image Of Limited Good," American Anthrapologist, LXVII (April, 1965), 293-315. Foster, George. "The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village," American Anthropologist, LXIII (December, 1961), 1173-1192. Fried, Jacob. "Social Organization and Personal Security in a Peruvian Hacienda Indian Community: Vicos," American Anthrapologist, LXIV (August, 1962), 771-780. Garretson, Wynona Smutz. "The Consenual Definition of Social Objects," Sociolagical Quarterl , III (1962), 109-113. Goffman, "Symbols of Class Status," Human Relations, X (1957), 294-304. Goodenough, Ward H. "Rethinking 'Status' and 'Role,'" The Relevance of Models for Social AnthrOpology. Edited by Michael Banton. New YOrk: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965. Hughes, Everett C. "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status," American Journal of Sociology, L (March, 1945), 353—359, Inkeles, Alex. "Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to EXperience Perception and Value," American Journal of Sociology, LXVI (July, 1960), 1-31. Kaufman, Harold. "Prestige Classes in a New YOrk Community," Class, Status and Power: A Reader in Social Stratifica- tion. Edited by Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1953. Kaufman, Harold, Duncan, Otis D., Gross, Neal, and Sewell, William. "Problems of Theory and Method in the Study Of Social Stratification in Rural Society," Rural Sociology, XVIII (1953), 12-24. Kornhauser, Ruth R. "The Warner Approach to Social Strati- fication," Classy_Status and Power. Edited by Reinhard Bendix, and Seymour M. Lipset. New York: The Free Press Of Glencoe, 1953. Kuhn, Manford. "Self-Attitudes by Age, Sex, and Professional Training," Sociological Quarterly, I (1960), 153-159. 266 Kuhn, Manford H., and McPartland, Thomas S. "An Investiga- tion Of Self Attitudes," American Sociological Review, XIX (February, 1954), 68—76. Landecker, Werner S. "Class Boundaries," American Sociolgg— ical Review, XXV (December, 1960), 868—877. Landecker, Werner S. "Class Crystallization and Class Consciousness," American Sociological Review, XXVIII (April, 1963), 219-229. Lensksi, Gerhard. "Social Participation and Status Crystal- lization," American Sociological Review, XXI (June, 1956), 458-464. Lensksi, Gerhard. "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension Of Social Status," American Sociological Review, XIX (August, 1954), 405-413. Lewis, Oscar. "Some of My Best Friends Are Peasants," Human Organization, XIX (Winter, 1960-1961), 178-180. Lipset, Seymour M. "Political Sociology," Sociology: An Introduction. Edited by Neil J. Smelser. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Mack, Raymond. "Occupational Ideology and the Determinant Role," Social Forces, XXXVI (October, 1957), 37-44. McKee, James B. "Status and Power in the Industrial Community: A Comment on Drucker's Thesis," American Journal of Sociology, LVII (January, 1953), 365. McKinney, John C., and Loomis, Charles P. "The Typological Tradition," Contemporapy Sociology. Edited by Joseph Roucek. New York: Philosophical Library, 1958. McPartland, Thomas, and Cummins, John H. "Self-Conception, Social Class and Mental Health," Human Organization, XVII (Fall, 1958), 24-29. McQuitty, Louis L. "Hierarchical Syndrome Analysis," Educational and Paychological Measurement, XX (1960), 293-304. McQuitty, Louis L. "A Pattern Analysis of Descriptions of 'Best' and 'Poorest' Mechanics Compared with Factor- Analytic Results," Psychological Monographs: General and.Applied, LXXI, NO. 17 (1957). ,1- 267 Marx, Karl. "Wage, Labor and Capital," Selected Works. Vol. I. New York: International Publishers, 1933. Mills, C. Wright. "The Social Life Of a Modern Community," American Sociological Review, VII (June, 1942), 263-271. Miyamoto, Frank, and Dornbusch, Sanford. "A Test of Inter- actionist Hypotheses Of Self—Conception," American Journal of Sociology, LXI (March, 1956), 399—403. Morris, Richard T. "Social Stratification," Sociology. Edited by Leonard Broom and Philip Selznick. New YOrk: Harper and Row, 1963, pp. 176-217. Morse, Nancy C., and‘Weiss, R. S. "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review, XX (April, 1955), 191-198. Nash, Manning. "The Organization of Economic Life," Tribal and Peasant Economies: Readings in Economic Anthropology. Edited by George Dalton. Garden City: The Natural History Press, 1967. Orzack, L..N. "Work as a 'Central Life Interest' of Profes- sionals," Social Problems, VII (1959), 125-132. Pitt-Rivers, Julian. "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Society: A Comment," Human Ogganization, XIX (Winter, 1960-1961), 180-182. Rasmussen, Glen and Zander, Alvin. "Group Membership and Self-Evaluation," Human Relations, VII (1954), 239-252. Sahlins, Marshall D. "On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange," The Relevance of Models for Social Anthrapol— pgy. Edited by Michael Banton. New York: Frederick A. Praeger,.l956. Schulze, Robert O. "The Bifurcation of Power in a Satellite City," Communitngolitical Systems. Edited by Morris Janowitz. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1961, pp. 19-80. Service, Elman R. "Kinship Terminology and Evolution," American Anthropologist, LXII (October, 1960), 747-763. Sherwood, John L. "Self-Identity and Referent Others," Sociometry, XXVIII (March, 1965), 66-81. Smelser, Neil J. "Toward a Theory of Modernization," Tribal and Peasant Economies. Edited by George Dalton. Garden City: The Natural History Press, 1967. 268 Speier, Hans. "Honor and Social Structure," Social Research, II (February, 1935), 74—97. Stirling, Paul. "Social Ranking in a Turkish Village," British Journal of Sociology, IV (1953), 31—44. Stone, Gregory P., and Form, William H. "Instabilities in Status: The Problem of Hierarchy in the Community Study of Status Arrangements," American Sociological Review, XVIII (April, 1953), 149-162. Svalastoge, Kaare. "Social Differentiation," Handbook of Modern Sociology. Edited by R. E. L. Faris. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. Tax, Sol. "Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Commu- nity," Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Publication NO. 16, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953. Udy, Stanley H., Jr. "Preindustrial Forms of Organized Work," Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas. Edited by Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feldman. New YOrk: Social Science Research Council, 1960. Vernon, G. M. "Religious Self Identification," Pacific Sociological Review, V (1962), 40-43. Videbeck, Richard. "Self Conception and the Reactions Of Others," Sociometry, XXII (December, 1960), 351-359. Wallace, Anthony F. C. "On Being Just Complicated Enough," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. XLVII, 1961. Weber, Max. "Class, Status and Party," From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited by H. H. Gerth and.C. Wright Mills. Galaxy Book. New YOrk: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1958. 269 Unpublished Material McPhail, S. Clark. "Self Identification with a Specific Context of EXperience and Behavior." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1965. Miller, Irwin W. "Nodular Models: A Technique for Articu- lating Stratification and Personality Systems." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department Of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1964. Sim, Francis M. "An EXpliciation of the Logical Model of Role Systems." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart— ment Of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1966. Spielberg, Joseph. "San Miguel Milpas Altas: An Ethno- graphic Analysis Of Interpersonal Relations in a Peasant Ladino Community of Guatemala." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology. Michigan State University, 1965. Tucker, Charles W., Jr. "Occupational Evaluation and Self Identification." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology. Michigan State University, 1966. Westby, David L. "A Study of Status Arrangements in Three Michigan Communities." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology. Michigan State University, 1962. APPENDIX A Frequency Distributions 271 Freqaency Distributions for the Communipy» of La Lucha, Costa Rica Table 23. Frequency distributions of mean status rank, per— ceived status rank and appraisals of life condi— tions in La Lucha Mean Perceived Appraisals of Rank Level Status Rank Status Rank Live Conditions 1 .. 3 9 2 .. 6 8 3 19 10 15 4 34 9 16 5 25 18 15 6 12 15 7 7 6 12 9 8 7 17 10 9 l 10 4 10 .. 3 11 NO answer .. 1 .. Total 104 104 104 272 Table 24. Frequency distribution of occupation in La Lucha Type Of Occupation Freguency Non-agricultural, road repair, general labor . . . 3 Field labor (agricultural) . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Apprentice and helper (factory and non—skilled) . 1 Machine operators (field) . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Machine Operators, material handlers, inspectors (factory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Truck and heavy equipment drivers . . . . . . . . 0 Skilled workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Office workers: clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 First level supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Entrepeneurs and farm owners . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Managerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 NO answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__1 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Table 25. Frequency distri— Table 26. Frequency distri- bution of income bution Of education level in La Lucha in La Lucha Cplonea/month Frequengy Years Frequency 300 or less . . . 33 None . . . . . . 16 301-500 . . . . . 42 1 . . . . . . 21 501-700 . . . . . 7 2 . . . . . . 14 701-900 . . . . . 9 3 . . . 18 901-1100 . . . . . 4 4 . . . . . 8 1101-1300 . . . . l 5 . . . . . 9 1301-1500 . . . . 0 6 . . . 11 1501-1700 . . . . l 7 . . . . . . 0 1700 or more . . . 1 8 . . . . . 1 NO answer . . . . __§ 9 . . . . . . 2 10 . . . . . . 1 Total . . . . 104 11 . . . . . . 0 12 . . . . . . 0 13 . . . . . . 1 l4“ . . . . . . 1 15 . . . . . . 0 16 . . . . . 1 Total . . . . . . 104 273 Table 27. Frequency distri- Table 28. Frequency distri- bution Of number bution Of number of times chosen of times men- as a friend in tioned as someone La Lucha others visit in La Lucha Frequency . .7 Number Of of Choice Frequency Times Mentioned Frequengy 0 . . . . 55 1 . . . 22 0 . . . . 52 2 . . . 8 1 . . . . 30 3 . . . . 7 2 . . . . 6 4 . . . . 4 3 . . . . 8 5 . . 2 4 . . . . 5 6 . . . 0 5 . . . . l 7 . . . . 3 6 . . . . 0 8 . . 2 7 . . . . __g 9 —-1- Total 104 Total . . . . 104 Table 29. Frequency distribution Of organizational membership in La Lucha Number of Organizations Frequency 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__g Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 274 Table 30. Frequency distri- Table 31. Frequency distri- bution of sex in bution of marital La Lucha status in La Lucha §§§_ Frequency TyEe Frequency Male . . . . . . . 91 Separated . . . . 4 Female . . . . . . ._l§ Common law . . . . 0 Total . . . . . . 104 unmarried .° ' ' ° 13 Legal marriage widowed . . . . ._§l Total . . . . 104 Table 32. Frequency distri- Table 33. Frequency distri- bution of age in bution of length La Lucha of residence in La Lucha Years Frequency Years Frequency 16-22 . . . . . . 5 23-29 . . . . . . 3 0-5 . . . . . . 19 30-36 . . . . . . 32 6710 . . . . . . 10 37-43 . . . . . . 26 11-15 . . . . . . 16 44-50 . . . . . . 23 16-20 . . . . . . 16 51-57 . . . . . . 4 21-25 . . . . . . 12 58-64 . . . . . . 4 26-30 . . . . . . 13 65-71 . . . . . . 0 31-35 . . . . . . 13 72+ . . . . . . 0 36+ . . . . . . ___§ No answer ' ' ° ’ —-1- Total . . . . 104 Total . . . . . . 104 275 Frequency Distribution for the Community of Lewiston, Michigan Table 34. Frequency distribution of mean status rank for the total sample in Lewiston 2222 Rank Level Status Rank 1 . . . . . . . . . . l 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . l4 4 . . . . . . . . . . l7 5 . . . . . . . . . . 54 6 . . . . . . . . . . 9O 7 . . . . . . . . . . 61 8 . . . . . . . . . . 10 9 . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 . . . . . . . . . . __Q Total . . . . . . . . . . 254 Table 35. Frequency distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for the total interview sample in Lewiston Mean Perceived Appraisals of Rank Level Status Rank Status Rank Life Conditions 1 .. l 1 2 .. l .. 3 6 4 .. 4 7 5 4 5 29 27 14 6 46 13 12 7 21 5 21 8 6 18 25 9 3 5 4 10 .. ll 35 No answer .. 28 2 Total* 118 118 118 *Four housewives were eliminated from the total sample of 122. 276 Table 36. Frequency distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for the non-retired sample of Lewiston Mean Perceived Appraisals of Rank Level Status Rank Status Rank Life Conditions 1 .. l .. 2 .. .. .. 3 4 4 .. 4 4 3 4 5 l4 16 12 6 32 10 9 7 9 4 13 8 5 ll 21 9 3 3 2 10 .. 4 10 No answer .. 15 .. Total* 71 71 71 Table 37. Frequency distribution of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisals of life conditions for the retired sample of Lewiston Mean Perceived Appraisals.of Rank Level Status Rank Status Rank Life Conditions 1 .. .. l 2 .. 1 .. 3 2 .. .. 4 3 2 .. 5 15 ll 2 6 l4 3 3 7 10 l 8 8 l 7 4 9 .. 2 2 10 .. 7 25 No answer .. ll .. Total* 45 45 45 *Totals based upon usable N in multiple correlation analyses. 277 Table 38. Frequency distribution of occupation.in Lewiston North-Hatt Total Scale Rank Sample Interview Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total 33-40 5 .. 5 .. 5 41—47 21 4 l .. 5 48—54 18 8 10 .. 18 55-61 36 9 11 .. 20 62—68 72 20 .. .. 20 69-75 60 19 8 .. 27 76-82 20 6 8 .. 14 83-89 3 3 .. .. 3 90-96 2 1 l .. 2 No answer 17 4 .. 4 9* Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. Table 39. rFrequency distribution of income in Lewiston 4 :—— _—— Tot. Interview Sample Income Level Sam. Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total $1500 or less 41 l 5 l 7 1501—2500 ‘ 37 8 5 .. 13 2501-3500 48 7 18 .. 25 3501—4500 20 7 4 .. 11 4501-5500 16 8 l .. 9 5501-6500 19 10 2 .. 12 6501—7500 11 5 l .. 7* 7501-10,000 14 6 1 .. 7 10,000 or more 19 8 4 .. 12 No answer 29 14 3 3 20 Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. 278 Table 40. Frequency distribution of education in Lewiston Total Interview Sample Years Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total None 4 2 .. l 4* l .. .. .. .. .. 2 1 .. .. .. .. 3 l .. .. .. .. 4 7 .. 2 l 3 5 4 .. l .. l 6 8 2 4 .. 6 7 l3 4 l l 6 8 78 17 18 .. 35 9 l6 6 4 .. 10 10 18 5 l .. 6 ll 13 5 0 .. 5 12 50 19 6 .. 25 13 10 2 l l 4 14 10 3 l .. 4 15 5 2 2 .. 4 16 7 2 1 .. 3 17+ 8 5 2 . 7 No answer 1 .. .. .. .. Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status._ 279 Table 41. Frequency distribution of number of choices as friend in Lewiston Frequency Total Interview Sample of Choice Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total 0 80 14 13 2 29 1 83 29 l6 1 47* 2 59 21 10 .. 31 3 20 6 4 l 11 4 12 4 l .. 5 5 .. .. .. .. .. 6 .. . .. .. .. 7 .. .. .. .. .. 8 .. .. .. .. .. 9 .. .. .. .. .. Total 254 74_ 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. Table 42. Frequency distribution of number of times men— tioned as someone others visit in Lewiston Number of Total Interview Sample Mentions Sample Non—Retired Retired Housewives Total 0 67 9 6 1 l6 1 75 24 12 2 39* 2 35 8 6 l 15 3 34 15 9 .. 24 4 23 10 7 .. l7 5 12 5 2 .. 7 6 3 l l .. 2 7 5 2 l .. 3 8 .. .. .. .. .. 9 .. .. .. .. .. Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. 280 Table 43. Frequency distribution of organizational member— ship in Lewiston Number of Interview Sample Organi- Total 'tions Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total 0 131 35 23 3 61 l 60 16 12 .. 29* 2 32 9 7 .. l6 3 l7 6 l .. 7 4 3 l 1 .. 2 5 3 l .. .. l 6 .. .. .. .. .. No answer 8 6 .. l 7 Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. 281 Table 44. Frequency distribution of sex in Lewiston Total Interview Sample Sex Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total Male 219 68 42 .. 110* Female 34 6 2 4 12 No infor- mation l .. .. .. 1 Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. Table 45. Frequency distribution of age in Lewiston W Age in Total Interview Sample Years .Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total 16-20 ... .. .. .. .. 23-29 5 3 .. .. 3 30-36 12 8 .. .. 8 37-43 18 12 .. .. 12 44-50 32 15 .. .. 16* 51-57 25 ll 2 .. 13 58-64 50 15 8 l 24 65—71 56 2 l8 1 21 72+ 52 5 l6 2 23 No answer 4 3 .. .. 3 Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. 282 Table 46. Frequency distribution of marital status in Lewis- ton Marital Total Interview Sample Status Sample** Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total Divorced or sep. .. 2 .. .. 2 Unmarried .. 3 2 .. 5 Married ‘ or wid. .. 67 42 4 114* No answer .. 2 .. .. 2 Total .. 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. **Information available only on interview sample. Table 47. Frequency distribution of length of residence in Lewiston Years of Total Interview Sample Res. Sample Non-Retired Retired Housewives Total 0-5 43 10 10 l 22* 6—10 48 16 9 .. 25 11-15 28 9 5 .. 14 16-20 51 17 7 l 25 21-25 17 5 3 2 10 26-30 13 2 2 .. 4 31-35 7 2 .. .. 2 36+ 44 13 8 .. 21 No answer 3 .. .. .. .. Total 254 74 44 4 123 *Includes one individual not ranked on community status. 283 Frequency Distributions for the Community of San Miguel, Guatemala Table 48. Frequency distributions of mean status rank, perceived status rank and appraisal of life conditions in San Miguel Mean Status Rank Perceived .Appraisals Rank Total Interview Not Status .of Life Level Sample Sample Interviewed Rank Conditions 1 .. .. .. l 12 2 .. .. .. 1 9 3 6 4 2 2 2 4 16 10 6 1 2 5 22 12 10 8 5 6 27 17 10 3 5 7 7 4 3 6 4 8 2' 2 .. 5 3 9 .. .. .. l 3 10 .. .. .. 9 1 No an- swer .. .. .. 12 3 Total 80 49 31 49 49 284 Table-49. Frequency distribution of occupation in San Miguel ‘y‘ . . l;' .. Total Interview Not Type of Occupation Sample Sample Interviewed Farm laborer 7 5 2 Housemaid, construction worker, small sh0p owner, assistant mason 4 4 0 Farmer (responsible for own land cultivation) 60 38 . 22 Baker;, mason 4 2 No information 5 0 5 Total 80 49 31 285 TflfleSO. Frequency distribution of income level (land units) in San Miguel . Total Interview Not Cuerda' 5 Sample Sample Interviewed None 2 .. 2 01-39 9 6 3 40-79 29 19 10 80-119 20 13 7 120-159 8 6 2 160-199 4 l 3 200-239 2 1 1 240-279 0 0 .. 280-319 1 0 1 320-359 0 0 .. 360+ 4 .2 2 No ansWer 1. .11. 0 Total 80 49 31 Table 51. Frequency distribution of education in San Miguel -».—n- —. mh—A- —5 >r-e - - Total Interview Not Years Sample Sample Interviewed None 25 13 12 1 22 15 7 2 24 14 10 3 4 2 2 4 3 3 .. Dfl31.arisvwe1: 2 2 .. Total 80 49 31 4-.———A.H-.-n.»r—._— 1...,1 286 Table 52. Frequency distribution of number of times chosen as a friend in San Miguel Frequency Total Interview Not of Choice Sample Sample Interviewed 0 56 29 27 1 15 13 2 2 7 6 1 3 2 1 1 Total 80 49 31 Table 53. Frequency distribution of number of times men- tioned as someone others visit in San Miguel Number of Times Total Interview Not Mentioned Sample Sample Interviewed 0 53 26 27 1 13 11 2 2 7 6 l 3 6 5 1 4 l l .. Total 80 49 31 Table 54. Frequency distrubution of sex in San Miguel Total Interview Not Sex Sample Sample Interviewed Male 78 48 30 Female 2 1 1 Total 80 49 31 287 Table 55. Frequency distribution of marital status in San Miguel Total Interview Not Type Sample Sample Interviewed Separated l l .. Common law 35 21 14 Unmarried 8 6 2 Legal marriage or widowed 36 21 15 Total 80 49 31 Table 56. Frequency distribution of age in San Miguel 1 Total Interview Not gears Sample Sample 1 Interviewed 16-22 1 l .. 23-29 12 8 4 30-36 16 12 4 37—43 15 9 6 44—50 10 5 5 51-57 9 5 4 58-64 9 4 5 65-71 4 3 1 72+ 4 2 2 Total 80 49 31 Table 57. Frequency distribution of length of residence in San Miguel Total Interview Not Years Sample Sample Interviewed 0-5 2 1 1 6-10 2 l 1 11-15 1 l 1 16-20 2 l 1 21-25 8 6 2 26—30 11 9 2 31-35 9 7 2 36+ 45 23 22 Total 80 49 31 APPENDIX B Interview Schedules ._ ——*,1--.r.1 1“..- 1 --4d-o.Ao—-_——- H- _1‘... .-.—fl...) “fic‘.-_n-. l LEWISTON INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Ir Included in a study of small towns in different parts of the world. being conducted by Michigan State University. 290 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSlTl LENISTON-SAN MIGUEL SW2! You probably received a letter explaining that Lewiston has been picked to be ' The study is As a part of this study, we will be interviewing all heads of households in Lewiston. Your name will net be put on this list of questions and when your interview has been completed it will be returned to the University so no one will know how particular individuals have answered the questions. . 2. 3. 5. First of all, we would like to know how long you have lived in Lewiston? If you were describing Lewiston to a stranger, what are the main things you would say about it? - I What are the things you like most about living in Lewiston? What are the things you like least about living in Lewiston? ‘ D in what ways is living in Lewiston better or worse than living in a big city? 291 6. If you were asked what different kinds of people live in Lewiston. how would you answer this question? Here is a picture of a ladder. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder (POINTING) represents the best possible life for you and the bottom (POINTING) represents the worst possible life for you. 7. ‘Where on the ladder (MOVING FINGER RAPIDLY up AND DOWN LADDER) do you feel you personally stand at the present time? Step number . 8. Where on the ladder you say you stood five years ago? Step number 9. Where do you think you will be on the ladder five years from novfl Step number“ Now, let's use the ladder in a different way. Suppose at the top of the ladder are the people in Lewiston apart from members of your family for whom you have the most respect. , _ lO.-‘ Why would you put these particular. persons at the top of the ladder? (PERMISSIBLE PROBE) Why is it that you respect these persons? (OBLIGATORY PROBE) Anything Else? '11; I2‘ Now, 13. I 4.— 292 Which one of the reasons you have mentioned for having respect for a person would you say is the most important? (CIRCLE ANSWER ABOVE) Do you think that others in Lewiston wouIId agree with you that this one is the most important? That is, would you say that: (CHECK ONE- READ SLOWLY AND REPEAT UNDERLINED WORDS lF NECESSARY) Nearly everyone in Lewiston would agree with you? Most Pegple in Lewiston would agree with you? Some People in Lewiston would agree with your? or Very few people in Lewiston would agree with you? let's:talk;about.the.othenrend of the.ladder. ;Thlnk ofsthe people in Lewiston' for whom you have the least respect. Why would you put these particular persons at the bottom of the ladder? (PERMISSIBLE PROBE) Why is it that you do not respect these persons? (OBLIGATORY PROBE) Anything else? Which one of the reasons you have mentioned for not havln res ect fo r a rson would you say is the most important? (CIRCLE ANSWEQ’ g p pe A .. Now, looking at the ladder again, if we have the people in Lewiston you respect \Inost at the top and the people in Lewiston you respect least at the bottom. where on the ladder (MOVING FINGER RAPIDLY up AND DOWN LADDER) do you feel you personally stand at the present time? Step number 15'. Now, keeping in mind the reasons you have given for having respect or not having respect for a person in Lewiston, how'do you feel about your standing In the community? (PERMISSIBLE PROBE) Are you completely satisfied with your standing in the Community? (PROBE) Why is that? (or) Could you explain that a little more? -.r14-—.—._.--—.' “A“... ...-x “24.... -———.-_A _ .. ..——‘-- L.,—h- _. —._1_ cg '2 93 l6. Are there some things that give a person high or low standing in Lewiston no matter what kind of person he is? Yes ‘ No (If yes) what are they? 0" 17. Do you think that the things which affect a person' s standing in a big city like Detroit are different from the things that are important in Lewiston? as No IS. (if YES) how are they different? (PROBE) Any other ways in which they are different? lea..(iF ves TO 35) What are they? (PROBES) How could you tell which had high standing and which low standing without knowing them well? Any thing else? l'9b..(lF NO TO 35) Would it be at all possible to tell who had high standing and who had low standing in Lewiston without knowing the people well? _ Yes , , ' No (it res) How could you tell? 20. ' Do you think people in Lewiston generallyact any differently toward the Vpersdns ‘ with highest standing in the community than they. do toward the persons with lowest standing? Yes No --- ...-... .4 —————‘ 1_,r --.. .... - ...—...... ---q.&e1 . . A. 21. .22. 23. ’24. 294 (IF YES) 'In what ways do they act differently? Now’we would like you to use the ladder once more. Here is a larger picture of the ladder and here are some cards with names of people In Lewiston on them. The names are in alphabetical order. There are numbers on the backs of the cards Would you first go through the cards and pick out one of the persons you were thinking of as being at the top of the ladder in Lewiston and one of the persons you were thinking about as being at the bottom. if the names are notthere please give me the names-and we will add them to our list. When you have located them, please put them on the picture of the ladder_and give me the numbers on the back of the cards. Also. pull out your own card and put it at step of the ladder as you did before. Nowrwe would like you to go quickly through the rest of the cards and put each person on the step of the ladder that indicates their standing in the community. Just tell me the number on the back of each card and the step number where it goes. You may find others you want to put at either top or bottom. (IF NECESSARY, EXPLAIN THAT WE ARE NOT SO MUCH INTERESTED IN WHO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE ARE AT THE TOP.AND BOTTON AS IN WHAT KINDS OF PEOPLE HAVE THE HIGHEST STANDING IN SMALL TOWNS AND HOW MUCH AGREEMENT THERE IS ABOUT WHO GOES WHERE. GIVE FURTHER ASSURANCES OF ANONYMITY IF NECESSARY. ACCEPTABLE SYNONYMS FOR "STANDING IN COMMUNITY” ARE ”PRESTIGE IN THE COMMUNITY“, "AMOUNT OF RESPECT IN THE COMMUNITY,” "MOST OR LEAST LOOKED UP TO", OR ”RATED OR RANKED IN THE COMMUNI- TY". So far we have been asking you questions mostly about other people. Now we would like to get someinformation about you. Different people regard different kinds of things as important in life. When you think about what really matters to you, what would you say are the central interests in your life? (PROBE) What else Is important to you? Which of the things you have mentioned is most Impontant to you? (CIRCLE THE ONE MENTIONED ABOVE) -.“-- ...l._.> "v.2, a- 25. 26. 27. 28.- 295 ‘The phrase "getting ahead in the world" means different things to different people. What would you have to do to feel that you had gotten ahead or were a success? Do you think meet people in Lewiston would agree with this meaning? Yes . No (if N0) What do you think "getting ahead" means to themR Of all the things you do, which four or five do you think you do best right nowfl (PROBE) What (other) things do you particularly do well? .29. '30. ‘31. '32. 33. 296 Which of the things you have mentionedwould you say you are most proud of? (CIRCLE ANSWER ON PREVIOUS PAGE) ' Are there any other things that you would say you are particularly proud of? Considering all the things you have mentioned now, do you think that others in Lewiston would agree that It is important to do these particular things well? That is. would you say that: (CHECK ONE - READ SLOWLY AND REPEAT IF NECESSARY) . Nearly everyone in Lewiston would think they are important? Most people in Lewiston would think they are important? Some people in Lewiston would think they are important? or Very few people In Lewiston would think theya re important? Do you think others .in Lewiston would agree that you do these things well? That is. would you say that: (CHECK ONE - READ SLOWLY AND REPEAT IF NECESSARY) Nearly everyong in Lewiston would agree? Most people in Lewiston would agree? Some Jeople in Lewiston would agree? Very few people in Lewiston would agree? Now a little more difficult question. Which of the things you do would you say you do leasg well? ' (PROBES) What (other) things are there at which you are not so successful? Are there any (other) things about yourself you are not especially proud? l. l have not done well and this bothers me. 2. Most people may'think l have not done well but they are wrong. 3. I may not be doing well now but i plan to someday. l}. i really don't care about doing well because there are a lot of other thing I do well. . 31+. 35. '36; '_37. 38; 3'9 .‘ 297 we have talked before about various things that affect a person's standing In Lewiston. Now i would like to ask you about the importance of some specific things we are particularly interested in. is the kind or type of work a person doeslmportant in determining his standing? Wbuid you say it was: Very important important Somewhat Important . or .Of little or no importance. How about how skillful a person is at whatever kind of work he does? Would you say this was: Very Important» important Somewhat important or l_e Of little or no importance. How about how much money he has? Would you say this was: Very important important Somewhat Important or Of little or no importance. How about how much education he has? Would you say this was: Very important Important Somewhat important or. Of little or no importance Which of these four things would you say Is most important? (job, skill, money, education) Which least important? I O s Now, not In terms. of your own standing In Lewiston, but just in terms of'what , you think of yourself. how important is the kind or type of work you do? ' (NOTE: IF PERSON IS RETIRED, GET RESPONSE TO PRESENT JOB IF ANY. IF NO PRESENT EMPLOYMENT, ASK 57a and 536 ONLY) .- Very important important Somewhat important or Of little or no importance. 1298 395. Howrimportant is the type of work you used to do to what you think of yourself 903. Lil. 42; 43. 'LES. noW? Very important Important Somewhat important or Of little or no importance. Howlimportant to what you think of yourself is how skillful you are at the work you dc? Very important important Somewhat important or 0f little or no importance. How important is how skillful at the work you used to do to what you think of yourself now? Very important important Somewhat important or Of little or no importance. How important to what you think of yourself is how much money you have? Very important Important Somewhat important or Of little 6r no importance. How’lmportant to what you think of yourself is the amount of education you have? Very important Important~ . Somewhat important or Of little er no importance. Which of these things is most important? (job. skill. money, education) Which least important? Here is a different kind of question. If you had to pick.just three people. who you would say were your three closest friend in Lewiston! (WRITE DOWN NAMES - EXCLUDE RELATIVES) w Which families in Lewiston would you say you visit most ofteh?(WRITE DOWN NAMES) 1+6. 299 Suppose some high government official wa’s coming to Lewiston, let's say to watch the Memorial Day parade. Suppose he wanted three local people to sit in the reviewing stand with him. if you were doing the choosing, which three would you pick? (WRITE DOWN NAMES) NOW, I am going to read some statements to you. and I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with them. On this card (SHOW CARD #1:) are five choices ranging ' from strongly agree to strongly disagree. As I read each statement, tell me which of the numbered choices on the card comes closest to expressing your view. Here is the first statement. (CIRCLE ANSWER) " £79 48. 49.. 50. 5!”. News about Lewiston interest me more than national or international news. i. SA ' 2. A 3. NAD II. D 5. SD The most rewarding organizations a person can belong to are organizations ' serving local needs.‘ l. SA 2. A. ' 3. NAD A. D 5. SD National and international events are more important largely because of the way they effect Lewiston as a community. I. SA 2. A 3. NAD 1i. D 5. SD Big cities may have their place. but when you get right down to it. the small colmlunity Is the backbone of the country. l. SA 2. A 3. NAD u. D 5. so Small towns are nice places to visit but life is better in big cities. l. SA 2. A 3. NAD ll. D 5. SO 'People in big cities are generally unfriendly. "I. SA * 2. A 3. NAD A. D 5. so People who have made a lot of money deserve more respect than people who have not. I. SA 2. A _ 3. NAD II. 'D 5. so i generally respect a man who works for himself more than a man who works for somebody else. I. SA ' 2. A 3. NAD II. D 5. SD -55; 553 757., 58; 59.” 60'.‘ 61.” 52.- 63. 54. 65. 66: T No matter what I do. I will never be highly respected in thi s town. 300 As long as a person is honest and respectable it doesn' t matter what kind of work he does or how much money he has. i. SA 2. IA 3. NAD A. D 5. SD The way they are run now. labor unions do this country more harm.than good. I. SA 2. A. 3. NAD h. D 5. SD The only purpose of working is to make money. I. SA 2. TA 3. NAD H. D 5. SO Big companies should be broken up because they control too much oflAmerican business. . i. SA ‘ 2. A 3. NAD II. D 5. SD If i received an inheritance equal to my income, I would still work at my present job. I. SA 2. A. 3.‘ NAD II. D . 5. so I believe a man needs to work in order to feel that he has a real place in the world. I. SA 2. A 3. NAD A. D 5. SD The things I do off the job are generally more important to me than the things I do while at Work. - I. SA 2. A 3. NAD A. D 5. SO I can't really be happy unless i do well at my job. i. SA 2. A 3.NAD II. D 5. SD I feel that I have Succeeded at almost all the things i have tried. i.SA ' 2.A' 3. NAD tho 5. SO I am completely satisfied with my standing In the community. I. SA 2. A j 3. NAD ‘ R.'D 5. SD I sometimes worry about whether people regard me as successful or not. I. SA 2. A ' 3. NAD A. D 5. SO I. SA 2. A 3. NAD A. D 5.. SD 301 Now, just a few more questions about you and we will be finished. 67. 68. 69.- ’70. 72. _73: 71+ . 7s.' First, what was your age at your last birthday? _ Sex (BY OBSERVATION: CHECK) M____ F How long have you lived in Lewiston? Where did you live just before moving here and how long did you live there? Where did you live before that? (GET COMPLETE RESIDENTIAL HISTORY AND APPROXIMATE DATES) What do you do for a 'living now? How long have you been doing that? What was the last full-time job‘you had just before your present one? How Long did you work at that job? __ . Now starting with the job you held just before that one, and including only jobs you had for a year or more, we would like to know what jobs you have had and approximately when you had them. (GET COMPLETE OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY BACK TO FIRST FULL-TIME JOB AND APPROXIMATE DATES.) 76. _77. 78. 302 Are you: (CHECK ONE) I. 2. 3. ll. (IF 8. b. .How'many of your children are in Lewiston now? married?- single? wl dowed? divorced? OTHER THAN SINGLE) How'many children do you have? What do they do here -- that Is, are they in school. Or what? How about the children who no longer live in Lewiston. Where have they gone, and what are they doing now? Do you have any (other) relatives living in the Lewiston area? Yes No (IF YES) Which Relatives? (BY NAME AND RELATIONSHIP) 90 -79. 30; 8i, , 82$ _83. _ 8h. 85L‘ -86. 87.. (7‘33s' Where were you born? (STATE OR COUNTRY) Where were your parents born? (STATE OR COUNTRY) 303 In which of the categories on this card (SI-IOW CARD #5) did your total family income before taxes last year fall? I. 2. 3. A. SISOO or less. more more more more more more more than SISOO but than $2500 but than $3500 but than $4500 but than $5500 but than $6500 but than $7500 but $i0,000 or more. less less less less less less less than $2500. than $3500e than $4500. than $5500. than $6500. than $75000 than $I0,000u What was the laSt year of school you completed? I 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 IO II I2 I3 IN IS I6 I7 (IF MARRIED) What was the last year of school your wife completed? I 2.3 “.5 6 7 8 9 I0 II I2 l3 IN IS l6 I7 What organiZatlons do you belong to in Lewiston? How'many times a year do you usually go to Lahsing. Grand Rapids, Detroit or any other big city? . Do you read a newSpaper regularly? , (IF YES) Which one? Do you subscribe to any magazines? '(IF YES) Which ones? Yes 'Yes No 89; 90... ‘51. ‘ 304 Do you own a television set? _ , Yes No. How about a radio? : I . Yes I; What is your religious preference? (IF RESPONSE IS PROTESTANT. ASK WHICH DENOMINATION) \ LA LUCHA INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 306 Entrevistado ' I - . Fecha Entrevistador ' (l) Sexo: M I F (2) Cuantos afios tiene usted? (3) Es usted: A soltero B casado (legal) 4C .unibn libre D. separado '0 E divorciado F viudo . 6.- H no lnformacién (A) Cual es el Iugar de su nacimiento? ' (Pueblo) - (Provincia) (5) Cuéntos afios ha vivido usted en La Lucha? (6) En qué lugares ha vivido usted antes de venir a La Lucha?_ (Iugar) . (No. de afios) (Iugar) ; (No. de afios) (lugar) ; (No. de afios) (7) Cuantos afios de escuela ha completado usted? (8) Sabe leer: Si No Sabe escribir: Si No (9) Cuél es su ocupacién pgjncipal: (en lo que se ocupa el informante Ia mayorla dei tiempo. Solo una ocupacibn se requiere) Cuantos afios ha trabajado usted en éste puesto? (i0) Tiene usted otra ocupaci6n actualmente? Si ‘ No (si la respuesta es "si") Cuél es su otra ocupacibn? 307 (ll) Cual fué el Oltimo puesto inmediatamente antes del presente trabajo?‘ Cuénto tiempo durb en ese trabajo? (l2) Ahora empezando con el trabajo que usted tuvo inmediatamente antes del anterior que usted menciono e incluyendo solamente aquelios trabajos que usted tuvo por un afio o mas, quisiera saber que’ trabajos ha tenido y aproximadamente cuando fué que los tuvo? 1 (Obtenga un reiato completo de los trabajos que él tuvo y las fechas aproxlmadas) . Close de trabajo Lugar Tiempo (13) Hay alguno mas de su casa que tiene puesto?. Sl No (Si la respuesta es "si") Que clase de pueSto? (lho Esta usted comprando one casa de la hacienda? Si No (l5) Es usted el duefio de algunas tierras cerca de La Lucha? Sl_ No (l6) Cuéntos hijos tiene usted? ,(l7) Digame don Que clase de pueblo es La Lucha? (Came es la Vida aqul, cémo es el pueblo en general) PRUEBE: Que otras caracteristicas? Porqué dice usted esto? (l8) (l9) (20) (21) (22) 3053' .\ Que es lo que mas le gusta a usted de la vida que se Ileva en este pueblo? PRUEBE: Qué otras cosas? Porqué dice usted esto? Qué es lo que menos le gusta a usted de la Vida que se Ileva en este pueblo? PRUEBE: Qué otras cosas? Porqué dice usted esto? Digame don Pen qué forma es mejor la Vida aqui, que en una gran cludad como San Jose? - L En qué sentido es peor la vida en La Lucha, que la vida en San Jose? -Cuales son las diferentes categories 0 clases de gente que hay en La Lucha? . PRUEBE: Que otras NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: ENTREGUE AL INFORMANTE LA TARJETA QUE MUESTRA UNA ESCALERA. SERALE EL EXTREMO SUPERIOR-DE LA ESCALERA CADA vsz ODE LO MENclONE (EL EXTREMO SUPERIOR ES EL PELDANO No. IO). SENALE EL EXTREMO INFERIOR CADA VEZ QUE L0 MENCIONE. AL HACER UNA PREGUNTA, MUEVA EL DEDO RAPIOAMENTE DE ARRIBA A ABAJO SOBRE LA TARJETA. .309 I. 7‘. (23) Aqui tiene un cuadro que representa una escalera. Supongamos que en el peldafio mas alto estan representadas las meiores condiciones posibles de vida y que en peldafio mas bajo estah Ias peores condiciones posibles -de vida. a. En cuéi peldafio de la escalera diria usted que . se encuentra actualmente? Num del peldafio b. En cual peldafio de la escalera diria usted que estaba hace cinco afios? Num del peldafio c. En cuél peldafio de la escalera piensa que 1 estaré usted dentro de cinco afios? Num del peldafio (2%) (Si ha cambiado de peldafio) POrqué dice usted que ha cambiado de peldafio? (25) (Si cambiara de peldafio) Porqué piensa usted que cambiaré de peldafio dentro de cinco afios? . (26) C6mo tiene que ser una persona (cualquiera persona adulta) para ser una de ias personas mas respetadas de este pueblo? PRUEBE: De qué otra manera tiene que ser la persona? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI ESTA PREGUNTA N0 DA RESULTADO EN RESPUESTA DE CRITERIO NECESARIO PARA SER "RESPETADO" 0 EL INFORMANTE INSISTE QUE TODA PERSONA DEBE SER RESPETADA, APUNTE ESTO Y PREGUNTE LO SIGUIENTE: "COMO TIENE QUE SER UNA PERSONA PARA QUE LA MAYORIA DE LA GENTE DE LA LUCHA LA APRECIE MUCHO”? ’ 310 (27) De éStas razones (o caracteristicas) que usted acaba de mencionar, cuél es la mas importante aOn para que un individuo (cualquier individuo) sea (0 Ilegue a ser) una_persona de reSpetO? 0 one persona apreciada a? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: MARQUE LA RESPUESTA MENCIONADA EN LA PREGUNTA ANTERIOR: ’0 (28) Qué clase de persona no seria respetada por la mayorla? PRUEBE: Qué otras caracteristicas tendrian dichas personas? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI ESTA PREGUNTA N0 RESULTA EN CRITERIO O CARACTERISTICAS, 0 EL INFORMANTE INSISTE EN QUE TODA CLASE DE PERSONA ES RESPETADA, ENTONCES ANOTE ESTO Y PREGUNTE L0 SIGUIENTE: "QUE CLASE DE PERSONA ES MENOS APRECIADA EN EL PUEBLO?" (29) De todas estas cesas males (0 clases de personas) cual seria la peor? (30) Ahora teniendo en mente Ias razones que usted ha dado para ser una persona respetada o una persona no respetada en La Lucha, que piensa usted de su posici6n en este pueblo? NOTA AL ENTREVI‘STADOR: POSICION NO SE REFIERE A UN PUESTO. ‘ ‘ (PRUEBA REMITIDA) Esta usted cempletamente satisfecho de su posicibn en el pueblo? ' ' I PRUEBE: Porqué? Podrla usted explicar un poco mas? (31) (32) (33) (39) 311 ' Hay algunas cualidades que lo dan a una persona una posicion alta o baja en La Lucha no importando la clase de persona que es? Si No (si la respuesta es afirmativa:) Cuales son esas cualidades? Piensa usted que los cosas que afectan la posiciOn de una persona en una gran ciudad como San José son diferentes de ias cosas que son importantes en La Lucha? Si No (si la respuesta es afirmativaz) En que son diferentes? PRUEBE: Hay algunas otras formas en que las cosas son diferentes? Piensa usted que la gente en La Lucha generalmente actDa diferente con los personas de mas alta posicién en el pueblo, de como acth con las personas de mas baja posicibn? Si No (si la respuesta es afirmativa) En que formas actDa diferente? IAhora don ., vamos a hablar de las cosas que le interesan a usted. Sabemos que no todos los individuos del mundo estan de acuerdoi en lo que es mas importante en la vida. Cuando piensa usted en las cosas que la interesan a usted, cuales cosas diria usted que son las mas importantes en su Vida? ' Que otras cosas son también de mucha importancia para usted? Dallas cosas que usted acaba de mencionar, cuai es la mas importante de todas? , NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI REPITA LAS COSAS MENCIONADAS AL iNFORMANTE Y MARQUE LA MENCIONADA COMO MAS iMPORTANTE. (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) 312 ' La frase "hay que progresar” significa para diferentes personas, diferentes cosas. Podrla usted decirme que tendria usted que hacer para sentir que ha progresado? ~ Cree usted que la mayorla de la gente de La Lucha piensan igual que usted? Si No (SI la respuesta es "no") Que piensa usted que significa "progresar" para ellos?- , Cuando la gente de aqui habla a algunas personas, siempre o Casi siempre se les dice don fulano de tal. A qué clase de gente se le dice aqul asi? Yo qulsiera saber cual es la costumbre del pueblo. A que clase de persona nunca, o casi nunca, se le dice "don" cuando se le habla? (Si hay nifios en la familia) Cdmo decidio usted quiénes fueran los padrinos de sus nifios? Lo decidirla ahora en la misma forma? Si No (si la respuesta es Hno") Por qué? 313 (39a) (si no hay nifios en la familia) (1(0) (All (92) Si usted tuviera ni nos como decidiria quienes serian los padrinoS? Es ésta la costumbre para decidirlo en su familia? Digame don , que importancia tiene la clase dpftrabaio que un individuo hace, para que pea reconocido como vecino importgnte (o persona de prominencia, importancia, prestigio) aqui en La Lucha? Cree usted que es: Mi i . DAI ' DPONI Que importancia tiene trabajar duro para que sea reconocido como vecino importante (persona de promihencia, importancia, prestigio) aqui en La Lucha? Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI Que importancia tiene la h’abilidad o destreza de un individuo (cualquier individuo) como trabajador en su ocupacion particular, para que sea re- conocido como uno de los vecinos importantes (o persona de prominencia, importancia, prestigio) por los demés vecinos de éste pueblo? Creeusted que es: Mi 'I DAI DPONI 314 (A3) Que importancia tiene ser rico (0 el dinero) para que un individuo sea (41+) (‘55) (A6) reconocido como vecino importante (o persona de prominencia, prestigio, importancia) Por los demas vecinos de este pueblo? Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI Q ‘ Que importancia tienen los afios de escuela que ha completado para que un individuo sea reconocido como uno de los vecinos importantes (o persona de prominencia. prestigio, importancia) por los demés vecinos de éste pueblo? Cree usted que es: MI I I DAI DPONI Bueno don , hemos hablado de la importancia de cada una de estas cosas para el reconocimiento del individuo. Estas cosas fueron; para repetir: la ciase o tipo de trabajo, lo duro que trabaja, la calidad de trabajo, la cantidad de dinero, y los anos de escuela del individuo. Ahora digame, de esta s cinco cosas: ' Cual es la mas importante de todas?__ Cual es la menos importante de todas? . NOTA. SI LA PERSONA ESTA PENSIONADA v N0 TIENE TRABAJO, PREGUNTE A6a, A7a y A8a EN VEZ DE A6, A7 y A8. .Ahora, no en relacibn a su posiciOn en La Lucha sino en términos de lo que usted piensa de usted mismo, cual es la importancia de la clase o tipo de trabajo que usted hace? (su estimacién personal). Cree usted que es: III I DAI DPONI 315 IO (h6a) Ahora, no en relacién a su posicién en La Lucha sino en términos de lo (47) (#7 a) (As) (h8a) (1(9) (50) que usted piensa de usted mismo, cuél es ahora Ia importancia de la clase o tipo de trabajo que usted hizo antes de pensionarse? . , / Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI Que importancia tiene su capacidad para trouajar duro en relaciOn a lo que usted piensa de usted mismo? Cree usted que es: '5 Mi ' I I DAI ' DPONI Qué importancia tiene su capacidad para trabajar duro en su trabajo anterior en relacién a lo que usted piensa de usted mismo ahora? Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI- Qué importancia tiene la habilidad que usted tiene para hacer su trabajo en relacién a lo que usted piensa de usted mISmo? Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI Que importancia tiene la habilidad que usted tenia para hacer su trabajo en relacibn a lo que usted piensa de usted mismo ahora? Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI Que importancia tiene ser rico en relaciOn a lo que usted piensa de usted mismo? Cree usted que es: MI I DAI DPONI Que importancia tienen los afios de escuela que uated ha completado en relaci6n a lo que usted piensa de usted mismo? Cree usted que es: Mi I DAI DPONI_w (SI) Bueno don ' (52) (53) (5A0 316 II h_ , hemos hablado esta vez de la importancia de la. clase de trabajo, Io duro de trabajar, Ia caiidad del trabajo, la cantidad de dinero, y los afios de escuela en relacibn a lo que usted piensa de "usted mismo. Ahora, digame, de estas cinco tosas: Cual es la mas importante de todas? ’ l Cual es la menos importante de todas?__ { Es el trabajo que usted hace ahora mas importante para usted, menos importante para usted, olmas o menos de la misma importancia cgmo era hace l0 afios? / mas lo mismo menos (si hay algun cambio, pregunte:) Porqué? Digame don . cuales tres vecinos del pueblo son sus tres mejores amigos? \ Iligame don , a cuales families del pueblo visita usted y su familia mas a menudo? NOTA AL ENTREUISTADOR: SI EL INFORMANTE‘ TIENE DIFICULTADES EN NOMBRAR PERSONAS, ANOTE ESTO, CON SUS EXPLICACIONES. 317 12 (55) Ahora don , vamos a suponer que para el dia del érbol el (56) maestro de la escuela va a tener un programa de actos presentados por los escolares de La Lucha. También habré un almuerzo al que asistira el Jefe Politico de San Marcos, el inspector de Escuelas y el Maestro. Al mismo tiempo el maestro esta preocupado porque él desea que tres vecinos del pueblo acompafien a los invitados de honor en el almuerzo, pero no sabe a que tres vecinos o vecinas, invitar. Si el viniera a pedirle consejo a usted, a cuales tres vecinos sugeriria usted (o a cuales tres vecinos le diria usted que serie mejor invitar)? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI EL INFORMANTE ..TIENE DIFICULTAD EN NOMBRAR PERSONAS, ANOTE ESTO CON SUS EXPLICACIONES. Porqué sugeriria a éstos tres vecinos? Ahora don ’. vamos a suponer que la hacienda va a construir una nueva plaza en La Lucha. También vamos a suponer que al terminarse de construir la plaza va a haber una ceremonia para bautizarla con el nombre de alguna persona de La Lucha. Cuéles trepfnombres de personas de La Lucha sugeriria usted para que se le pusierp_ei nombre a la plaz . Porqué sugeriria usted éstos tres hombres? Ahora don , le voy a leer una serie de "declaraciones". Estas "declaraciones" son de Opiniones nada mas. Me interesa saber si usted esta de acuerdo 0 en desacuerdo con cada una de elias. NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: PARA LAS SIGUIENTES DECLARACIONES, PREGUNTE: ESTA DECIDIDAMENTE DE ACUERDO, O SOLO LIGERAMENTE DE ACUERDO? '0 ESTA DECIDIDAMENTE EN DESACUERDO? ANOTE LAS RESPUESTAS COMO SIGUE: ' DECIDIDAMENTE DE ACUERDO..........SI LIGERAMENTE DE ACUERDO............sI NO SABE O NO PUEDE DECIDIR........? LIGERAMENTE EN DESACUERDO.........no DECIDIDAMENTE EN DESACUERDO.......NO III (III (.7. III )III III: (57) (58) (59) (60) (6|) , (62) 318 l3 Yo pienso que los nifios en La Lucha tendrén una vida mejor de la que han tenido sus padres. . Dlrla usted que estaz. SI si ? no N0 Para ml, es mas interesante lo que suceda en La Lucha. que las cosas que pasan en San José. . Diria usted que esta: SI si ? - no NO Ser reconocido y bien tratado en La Lucha es mas importante para mi que ser conocido y bien tratado por gente de San José. Dirla usted que esta: SI si ? no ' NO A mi me gustan mas los modos y la manera de vivir de la gente de la capital, que los de los vecinos de La Lucha. Diria usted que esta: SI si ? I I ' no N0 § A mi me gusta mas observar las fiestas religiosas de la capital que la fiesta patronal de La Lucha. Dirla usted que esta: SI sI ? no NO Lo que ocurre en La Capital y en otras partes del mundo me interesa solamente si tiene efectos y consecuencias en La Lucha. De otra manera no son interesantes para mi. ' - Diria usted que esta: SI si ? , no N0 (63) (6A) 165) (66) J (67) (68) 319 l4 Yo prefiero contribuir con dinero o trabajo para ei beneficio de la Iglesia de La Lucha, que para el beneficio de la Parroquia de San 'Marcos en general. Diria usted que esté: Si si ? (no N0 El Onico fin de trabajar es para ganar dinero u otras cosas materiaies necesarias para vivir mejor. Diria usted que esta: Si si ? no _ N0 Si mafiana yo ganara el primer premio de la loteria--una cantidad bastante para retirarme del trabajo—-de cualquier manera seguiria en mis labores como lo he hecho die a die. Dirla usted que esta: SI si 7 ' no. No Una persona que no trabaja aunque tenga dinero de ninguna manera es una persona complete. (integra) Diria usted que esta: SI si ? I - no NO Una persona que no neceSita trabajar nunca es feliz. Diria usted que esta: SI si ? ' no I N0 Para mi ias cosas que hago después de mi trabajo, o cuando no eStoy trabajando, son mas importantes que el trabajo mismo. Diria usted que esta: I SI si ? no NO ._.-Ij.a ___*_‘_- .. ... (69) (70) (7|) (72) (73) (7A) . Diria usted que esta: 320 IS Cuando tengo tiempo libre, prefiero pasarlo haciendo otras cosas y no adelantar mi trabajo o buscar mas trabajo que hacer. SI ‘ si ? no N0 Como el trabajo nunca se termina, no es necesario hacerlo lo mejor posible. Diria usted que esté: SI ' si ~ ? no NO Yo he tenido éxito en todas las cosas que he tratado de hacer. Diria usted que este: . SI si ‘1 ? .no ‘ NO Yo estoy satisfecho con la posicién que me dan los demés vecinos de La Lucha. - Diria usted que esté: SI si ? I no NO Los demos vecinos de La Lucha generaimente me dan un lugar algo (o mas bajo) de lo que yo merezco. Diria usted que esta: SI si ? Ila no NO Es importante para mi saber que piensan de mi los demas vecinos de La Lucha. , . , , Dirla usted que esta: SI si 7 ' no NO -._ _ _....__..._. -_. _ -_,.__, .r. F.-._....-__..._ “gs—......“ __. ._—-- I75) I76) (77) (78) (79) (80) 181) 321 l6 Me preocuparia saber que los vecinos de La Luc he no me consideran una persona de respeto. Diria usted que esté: SI _ si ? no _N0 Los vecinos de La Lucha nunca me considerarén una persona de respeto. no importa lo que yo llegue a hacer en la .ida. Diria usted que esté: SI si ? no _NO I Cuando voy a San Jose 0 a Cartago siento que la gente me ve de cualquier manera (0 sin respeto) y esto me preocupa. Diria usted que esta: SI si 7 no ' N0 Yo pienso que los visitantes que vienen a La Lucha me ven de cualquier manera (0 sin respeto) y esto me preocupa. Diria usted que esta: SI - si 1 ? . no, N0 A mi me gustaria mas tener mi propio trabajo que trabajar para otro. Diria usted que esta: SI si 7 no NO I”, Si usted mismo pudiera decidir cuéndo trabajar seria mucho mejor que tener que trabajar las mismas horas que en una fabrics. » Diria usted que esta: SI si - ? .- no N0 La vida de un campesino es mejor que la de un trabajador de una fabrics. Diria usted que esta: SI si ? no NO (82) _ 322 I7 _NQTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI SE USA LA° TARJETA CON LA ESCALERA EN GRANDE. N0 ENSENE LAS TARJETAS ANTES DE LLEGAR A.LA PREGUNTA. PIDA AL INFORMANTE QUE AL COLOCAR LA TARJETA EN SU RESPECTIVO PELDANO, LA PONGA BOCA ABAJO Y USTEO SOLO APUNTE EL NUMERO EN SU LUGAR APROPIADO. Ahora vamos a user Ia escalera de otro mode. Vamos a suponer que en el peidafio mas alto (peldafio #lO) estén las personas de La Lucha a quien la mayorla de los demas vecinos le tienen mas respeto. es decir, las personas mas importantes, las personas de mas prestigio en el pueblo. En el peldano més bajo estan las personas que no son respetadas por la mayoria de los vecinos, es decir, Ias personas que no son importantes, a las que nunca se les hace caso. NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI SE INTRODUCEN LAS TARJETAS. PIDA AL INFORMANTE QUE EXAMINE TODAS LAS TARJETAS Y QUE ESCOJA LA QUE MAS REPRESENTA EL PELDANO #IO Y OTRA QUE REPRESENTE EN MEJOR FORMA EL PELDANO #I. DIGALE QUE ESTAS TARJETAS DEBEN SER COLOCADAS EN SU RESPECTIVO PELDANO COMO GUIAS PARA QUE EL COLOQUE LAS DEMAS. EXPLIQUELE QUE PUEDE COLOCAR MAS DE UNA TARJETA EN CADA PELDANO. En Ias tarjetas estén los nombres de Jefes de familia de La Lucha. Hagame ei favor de colocar cada tarjeta en el peldafio mas aprOpiado, segOn lo que crea usted que serla la epini6n de la mayoria. NOTA AL ENIREYISTADOR: DIGA AL INFORMANTE QUE A UD. NO LE INTERESA LA OPINION PERSONAL DE EL, SINO QUE LO QUE EL CREA QUE SEA LA OPINION DE LA MAYORIA DE LOS VECINOS. DIGA AL INFORMANTE QUE USTEO NO ESTA INTERESADO EN LOS INDIVIDUOS, PERSONALMENTE, SINO EN LAS CARACTERISTICAS GENERALES DE LAS PERSONAS QUE OCUPAN DIFERENTES NIVELS DE IMPORTANCIA Peldafio #lO Peldafio #9 Peldafio #8 Peldafio #7 Peidafio #6 Peidafio #5 Peldafio # ll Peldafio #3 Pe Idaho #2 Fe I dafio #l No puede colocar I8 323 . _,.--,.._._-. ..4.~..... u._-, J... .A._ws.._.—_~--_V‘_- .d_..___._w_.___ ._ — 1 a - 324 l9 (83A) Porqué razones éstas personas estan en ei peldafio mas alto? . {NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI SE LE ENSENA AL INFORMANTE LAS TARJETAS EN EL PELDANO MAS.ALTO. 'PRUEBE: Cuales otras razones? (83B) Pensando ocho o diez afios atras, diria que las mismas personas (0 families) que tenlan entonces alta posicién tienen ahora la misma posicion? Si No , (si la reSpuesta es "no":' Porqué? (84A) Porqué razones éstas personas estan en el peldafio mas bajo? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI ENSENE AL INFORMANTE LAS TARJETAS EN EL PELDANO MAS BAJO. PRUEBE: Cuéles otras razones? I (8&8) Pensando ocho o diez afios atras, diria que las mismas personas (0 families). que tenian entonces baja posicién tienen ahora_la misma posicién? Si___ No (si la respuesta es "no":) Porqué? Ahora don , quiero que me diga cuél peidafio es el nivel medio. Es decir, ei lugar donde se encuentran las personas de respeto o importancia media. Peldafio # ,. _ ...—ih— m.~—.—~a—..—u-; 325 20 (85A) Porqué razones estan éstas personas en el peldafio intermedio? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI ENSENE LAS TARJETAS EN EL PELDAl‘lO ESCOGIDO COMO MEDIO. PRUEBE: Cuéles otras razones? (858) Pensando ocho o diéz afios otras, diria que las mismas personas (0 families) que tenlan entonces una posicién intermedia tienen ahora la misma posicién? - Si no , (si la respuesta es "no":) Porqué? (86) Ahora digame, en cuél peldafio cree usted que los demas vecinos del pueblo colocarian su tarjeta? - Peldafio # (87) A.cuanto ascienden sus entradas mensuales? Que otras entradas tiene su familia? I Dtros salarios (mensuales) RelaclOn con el jefe ' Salarlo \ Venta de productos (por mes) (lista de produttos) 326 2] 'I88) _Tiene usted siembras o animaies para 5“ propio ”50? Si-——‘—“" no (si la respuesta es "si") Aproximadamente que cantidad de estos productos o animales consumen ustedes al mes? (39) NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI PREGUNTE AL ' INFORMANTE LA FRECUENCIA Y MOTIVOS POR LOS CUALES EL VISITA CARTAGO, SAN JOSE O CUALQUIER OTRO LUGAR QUE EL MENCIONE. Lugar Motives (o qué va a hacer) _Frecuencia 1 (90) (9 l) (92) 327 22 Pertenece usted a algunas organizaciones o clubes en La Lucha? Si ’ No Cuales? (Hombres) Tiene radio en su casa? Si No Con qué frecuencia escucha usted Ia radio? Lee usted periOdicos o revistas? Si’ _ No Cuales y con que frecuencia? SAN MIGUEL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE txrtrevistado_ 329. Fecha No’. de Sitio 4 Bntrevistado: (1) Bdad pafios (2) Sexo: M . l P _fi (3) Bstado Civil: A soltero I _B casado (legal) 7 -_ C)3 unto ID separado E divorciado P viudo G H no informacién (4) Luger de nacimiento:_____ _p_ ~ , ;"- ‘Pgéblo . Depto . (S) Afios de vivir en San Miguelky 'fi' v—vvv .(6) Lugar (es) de residencia antes de San Miguel: ~ 0. (lugar)‘v I . - (No. de anos§* e U. (7) Afios de escuela cumplidos A y A (8) Sabe leer: si no ' sabe escribir: si No (9) Ocupacion principal: (en lo que se ocupa e1 informante la mayoria del tigmpo. Solo una ocupacidn se requiere) 4A. 'Agricultor (cultivando terreno para consumo propio y/o vendor) 7.78. Ama de casa C. No especializado: a) peon b) mozo de casa c) canastera d) obrero en construccif ‘e) asistente en camiones f) otro H. Lugar donde desempefia su ocupacion principal (10) OcupaciOn Secundaria A. H. Lugar donde desempefia su ocupacion secundaria ' i 330 2 Especializado: 1 a) panadero b)‘albalil c) carpintero d) hace coronas e) sastre f) cocinero g) chofer h) barbero) i) otro. Propietario de tienda en aldea Algfin otro negocio Vendedora de mercado ‘C $ Agricultor (cultivando terreno para consumo propio y/o vender) Ama de casa No especializado: a) peon b) mozo de casa c)canastera d) obrero enoconstruccion e) asistente en camiones f) otro Bspecializado: a) panadero b) albafiil c) carpintero d) hace coronas e) sastre f) cocinero g) chofer h) barbero i) otro Vendedora en Mercado Propietario de tienda en aldea Algfin otro negocio x (1i) Digame don , que otras clases de trabajo ha tenido Ud. antes? NOTA AL BNTREVISTADOR PARA ESTA RESPUESTA, USE LAS CATEGORIAS DADAS ARRIBA, O TAMBIEN PARA REFRESCARLB LA MEMORIA. INCLUYA SBRVICIO MILITAR 331 Clase de trabajo - Lngar ’Tiempo rd (l2) 5Cuantas personas viven en este sitio? A (13) De éstas, acuantas son personas men’~es de edad? (‘de 15 afios de edad o menos) . E“ (14) aCuéntas son personas mayores de edad? , (15) acuales son las ocupaoiones principales de estas personas adultas? (16) aCuales son las ocupaciones secundarias de estas personas adultas? 332 1 (l7) Digame GOH;L' ' . aqué clase de aldea es San Miguel? ‘ (Como es la Vida aqui, c0mo es la aldea en general ) PROBE: aQué otras caracteristicas?( aPorqué dice usted esto? (18) aQué cosas en la vida que se llevaba en esta aldea son las que mas 1e gustan (o satisfacen, o agradan)a Ud? PROBE: aQue otras cosas? aPorqué dice usted esto? (19) aQué cosas en la vida de esta aldea son las que menos le gustan (0 le satisfaoen) a usted? ‘ PROBE: aQué otras cosas? aPorqué dice usted esto? (20) Digame don gen qué manera es mejor la vida de aqui que la vida de una gran ciudad como Guatemala? (21) aBn.qué es peor la vida en San Miguel que la vida en Guatemala? 333 (22) aCualeS son las diferentes categorias o clases de gente que hay en San Miguel? PROBE:-6Qué otras? NOTA AL ENTREVISTAD R: BNTRBGUE AL INFORMANTE, LA TARJETA QUE MUBSTRA UNA ESCALERA. SENALE EL EXTRQMD SUPERIOR DE LA ESCALBRA CADA VEZ QUE LO MENCIONB (BL EXTRBMO SUPERIOR ES EL PBLDANO No. 10). SBEALE EL BY TRBMO INFERIOR CADA VEZ QUE LO MENCIONB. AL ' ‘ HACBR UNA PREGUNTA, I’IUEVA EL DEDO RAPIDAPIBNTE DE ARRIBA ABAJO DE LA TARJETA. (23) Aoui tiene un cuadro que representa una escalera. Supongamos que en el.pe1dauoamas alto estén'repiesentadas las mejores condiciones posibles de vida y que en peldafio mas bajo estan 1as peores condiciones posibles de vida.: a. aEn cual peldafio de la escalera diria Ud. que se encuentra actualmente? i,E del peldafio b. ~En cual peldano de la escalera diria Ud. que estaba hace cinco afios? .. $5 del peldafio c. aEn cual peldafio de la escalera piensa que estara Ud. dentro de cinco afios? # del peldafio_ . (24) éPorqué dice usteo que ha cambiado de peldafio? 334 (‘1') (25) aPorqué piensa usted que oambiara‘de peldafio dentro de cinco afiOSf? (26) aComo tiene que ser una persona (cualquier persona adulta) para ser una de las peisonas mas respetadas de esta aldea? PROBi: gDe qué otra manera tiene que ser 1a persona? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI ESTA PREGUNTA NO DA RESULTADO EN RESPUESTA DE CRITERIO NECESARIO PARA SER "RESPETADO" 0 EL INFORMANTE INSISTE QUE TODA PERSONA DEBE SER RESPE- PETADA, APUNTE ES”10 Y PREGUNTE LO SIGUIENTE: "OCOMO TIENE QUE SER UNA PERSONA PARA QUE LA MAYORIA DE LA GENTE DE SAN MIGUEL LA APRECIE MUCHO?" I q (27) De estas razones (o caracteristicas) que usted acaba de mencionar, zonal es la mas importante afin para que un individuo (cualquier indi- viduo) sea (0 llegue a ser) una persona de respeto? o una per- sona apreciada? - NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: MARQUE LA RESPUESTA MENCIONADA EN LA PREGUNTA ANTERIOR. ' 335 . A 7 (28) aQué clase de persona no seria respetada por la mayoria? PROBE: éDe qué otra manera tiene que ser la persona? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI ESTA PREGUNTA NO RESULEA EN CRITERIO O CARACTERISTICAS, 0 EL INFORMANTE IN- SISTE EN QUE TODA CLASE DE PERSONA ES RESPETADA, ENTONCES ANOTE ESTO Y PREGUNTE LO SIGUIENTE: "aQUE CLASE DE PERSONA ES MEMOS APRECIADA EN LA ALDEA?" (29) De todas estas cosas malas (o clases de personas) acual seria la peor? (30) Ahora don__r 111 11‘ vamos a hablar de 1as cosas que le interesan a usted. SaBemps que no todos los individuos del mundo estan de acuerdo en lo que es més importante en la vida. Cuando piensa usted en las co- sas que le interesan a usted, acuales cosas diria usted que son las mas importantes en su vida? aQué otras cosas son de mucha importancia para usted? De las cosas que usted acaba de mencionar, acual es la mas importante de todas? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI REPITA LAS COSAS MENCIONADAS AL INFORMANTE Y MARQUE LA MENCIONADA COMO MAS II‘IPORTANTE. .336 8 (31) Las frases "hay que mejorar" "hay que progresar" "hay que avanzar" signifioan para diferente gente, diferentes-cosas aPodria Ud. de~ cirme que tendria Ud. Qfle hacer para sentir que ha progresado? (32) 5Cree usted que la mayoria de los vecinos piensan~lo mismo? ; . - " " i 81 . No . ?_ i (Si la respuesta es "no“) , I I 6“ En que manera es diferente lo que la demés gente entiende por "progresar“? . w av \ ' r- (33) Cuando la gente de aqui habla a algunas personas, siempre o casi siempre se .ales dice "senor tal y tal". 6A qué clase de gente se 1e dice asi? Yo quisiera saber cual es la costumbre de la aldea.w (34) (3A qué clase de persona nunca, o casi nunca, se le dice "senor" cuando se le habla?. (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40)' 337 Digame don 1 gqué importancia tiene la clase de trabajo que un individuozfia ace, par a que sea reconocido como vecino principal (o persona de prominencia, importancia, prestigio) aqui en San Miguel? éCree Usted que es: MI ' I . DAI . DPONI ? 5Qué importancia tiene trabaiar duro para que sea reconocido como vecino principal (persona de prominencia, importancia, prestigio) aqui en San F Miguel? - aCree Usted que es: ’4 MI I DAI , DPONI ? aQué importancia tiene el alcance de ( o lo listo que es) un indiyiduo (cualquier individuo) como trabajador en su trabajo particular, para que sea reconocido como uno de los vecinos principales ( o persona de prominencia, importancia, prestigio) por los demas vecinos de esta al- dea? 173mm 5"“ acree Usted que es: MI I DAI' DPONI ' ? 5Qué importancia tiene ser rico (o la riqueza) para que un individuo sea reconocido como vecino principal ( o persona de prominencia, pres- tigio, importancia) por los demas vecinos de esta aldea? 2 aCree USted que es: ME I " DAI - DPONI ? aQué importancia tiene saber leergy escribir para que un individuo sea reconocido como uno de los vecinos principales (o persona de prominencia, prestigio, importancia) por los_demas vecinos de esta aldea? '5Cree:USted que es: co m .. - ' I DAI DPONI, Bueno don ‘ ,hemos hablado de la importancia de cada una de estas cosaSVpara el reconocimiento del individuo. Estas cosas fueron, para rcpetir: la clase =o tipo de trabajo, lo duro que trabaja, la cali- dad del trabajo, la cantidad de dinero y la habilidad de leer y escribir. del indiViduo. Ahora digarO, de estas cinco cosas, 5Cual es todavia 1a mas importante que las demas? aCual es la menos importante que 1as demas? 338 13 (41) Digame Don._ , acuales tres vecinos de la aldea son sus tres mejores amigos?;’ ANOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI EL INFORMANTE TIENE DIPICUL- TADES EN NOMBRAR PERSONAS, ANOTE ESTO, CON SUS EXPLICA- CIONES. TH (42) Digame don ,5 cuales tres vecinos de la aldea son sus I amigos de cpnfianza? (43) Digame Don ,5 a cuales familias de la aldea visita usted y su propia familia mas seguido?u ' (44) Digame Don , en caso de una muerte en su familia, aa qué tres vecinos invitarié usted como acompafiantes? (45) Ahora Don , vamos a suponer que para el dia del arbol e1 1 maestro de la escuela va a tener un programa de actos presentados por los nifios escolares de San Miguel. También habra una cena que sera atendida por eliAlcalde de Nagdalena, e1 Director de Escuelas Rurales y el Profe- sor mismo. A1 mismo tiempo el profesor esta preocupado porque él desea que tres vecinos de la aldeaacOmpafien a los invitados de honor en la ce4 na y como jueces de actos, pero no sabe a que tres vecinos o vecinas,invi- tar. Si él viniera a pedirle consejo a usted,a a cuales tres vecinos su- geriria usted (o a cuales tres vecinos 1e diria usted que seria lo mejor invitar)? :5 NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI EL INFORMANTE TIENE DIFICULEAD EN NOMBRAR PERSONAS, ANOTE ESTO CON SUS EXPLICACIONES. .5Porqué sugeriria a estos tres vecinos? 339 (46) Ahora Don , vamos a suponer que la municipalidad acaba de constuir oEra pila de cemento en la plazuela de San Miguel. Tam— bién vamos a suponer que a1 terminarse de construir la pila, iba a haber una ceremonia en la cual e1 Padre de Antigua llegaria a San Mi— guel a bendecir la Pila nueva. Para la bandicién e1 padre desea que los vecinos de San Miguel nombren tres personas como "padrinos" (0 ma- drinas) de la pila. 5A‘cuales tres personas nombraria usted para este acto? ~ , ‘ NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: SI EL INFORMANTE TIENE DIPICULTAD EN NOMBRAR PERSONAS, ANOTE ESTO CON SUS EXPLICACIONES. 5Porqué nombraria usted a estos tres vecinos? (47) Ahora Don ‘ ; , 1e voy a leer una serie de "declaraciones". Bstas "declaraciones" son de opiniones nada mas. Me interesa saber si usted esta de acuerdo 0 en desacuerdo con cada una de estas. NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: PARA LAS PRIMERAS CINCO SIGUIENTES DECLARACIONEsgPREGUNTE: aESTA DECIDIDAMENTE DE ACUERDO, O SOLO LIGERAMENTE DE ACUERDO? O ESTA DECIDIDAMENTE EN DESACUERDO? ANOTE LAS RESPUESTAS COMO SIGUE: DECIDIDAMENTE DE ACUERDO...............SI ' LIGERAMENTE DE ACUERDO..............”..Si NO SABE O NO PUEDE DECIDIR............. ? LIGERAMENTE EN DESACUERDO..............no DECIDIDAMENTE EN DESACUERDO............NO - PARA LAS DEMAS SI EL INFORMANTE CONTESTA "SI", PREGUNTAR SI ESTA DECIDIDAMENTE DE ACUERDO.' SI EL INFORMANTE CON- TESTA NO, PREGUNTAR SI ESTA DECIDIDAMENTE EN DESACUERDO. (47) Para mi, es mAS interesante lo que suceda en la aldea, que las cosas que pasan en la capital (en Guatemala). Diria usted que esta SI ‘31 ? . no ' NO (48) Ser reconocido y bien tratado en la aldea es mAS importante para mi que ser conocido y bien tratado por gente de la capital de Guatemala. Diria usted que esta S: I si ? no NO 340 12 ' (49) A mi me gustan mas los modos y la manera de vivir de la gente de la capital, que la de los vecinos de San Miguel. Diria usted que esta SI 81 ? no NO (50) A mi me gusta mas observar las fiestas religiosas de la capital (de Guatemala) que la fiesta titular de San Miguel. Diria usted que esta - _ FE SI 51 ? no NO I .:v' ...4’. j _ ' (51) Lo que ocurre en la Capital y en otras partes del mundo me interesa solamente si tiene efectos y consecuencias en la aldea. De otra ma- nera no son interesantes para mi. {we} Eu... .. ..- Diria usted que esta SI Si ? . no NO (52) Yo prefiero contribuir con dinero o trabajo para el beneficio do.1a Iglesia de San Miguel, que para el beneficio de la parroquia de San José en general SI _ si ? no NO (53) El finico gusto de trabajar es ganar dinero u otras cosas materiales necesarias para vivir mejor. SI Si ? no NO .(54) Si mafiana yo ganara el primer premio de la loteria -- una cantidad bastante para retirarme del trabajo -- yo de cualquier manera segui- ria mis labores como 10 he hecho dia a dia. SI si ? no NO (55) Una persona que no trabaja de ninguna manera -— aunque tenga dinero -- no es una persona completa. SI 51 NO 8 341 13 (56) Una persona que no necesita trabajar nunca es feliz SI Si ? no NO (57) Para mi las cosas que hago después de mi trabajo, o cuando no estoy trabajando, son mas importantes que el trabajo mismo. SI 51 ? no NO (58) Cuando tengo tiempo libre, prefiero pasarlo haciendo otras cosas y no avanzar mi trabajo o buscando mas trabajo que hacer. SI 31 ' ? no NO (59) Como e1 trabajo nunca se termina, no es necesario hacerlo lo mejor po— sible. SI si ? no NO (60) Yo he tenido éxito en todas las cosas que he tratado de hacer. SI si ? ’no NO (61) Yo estoy satisfecho con el lugar que me dan los demas vecinos de San Miguel. SI Si . ? no No (62) Los demés vecinos de San Miguel generalmente me dan un lugar algo me- nor (0 mas bajo) de lo que yo merezco. SI Si ? no ‘: NO (63) Es importante para mi saber que piensan de mi los demfis vecinos de la aldea. , SI Si 2 ho NO 342 14 (64) Si yo llegara a saber que los vecinos de San Miguel no me consideran con suficicnte respeto, esto me preocuparia. SI Si ? ‘no NO (65) Los vecinos de San Miguel nunca me daran un alto lugar de respeto, no importa lo que yo llegue a hacer en la vida. {7 SI si ? ’ 'no NO 1 M NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI SE USA LA TARJETA CON LA ESCALERA EN GRANDE. NO ENSENE LAS FOTOS ANTES DE LLE- GAR.A LA PREGUNTA. PIDA AL INFORMANTE QUE AL COLOCAR LA FOTO EN SU RESPECTIVO PELDANO, LA PONGA BOCA ABAJO Y USTED SOLO APUNTE EL NUMERO EN SU LUGAR APROPIADO. (66) Ahora vamos a usar la escalera de otro modo. Vamos a suponer que en el peldafio mas alto (peldafio # 10) estan las personas de San Miguel_ a quien la mayoria de los demas vecinos le tienen mas respeto, es de- cir las personas mas importantes, 1as personas de mas prestigio en la aldea. En el peldafio mas bajo estan las personas que no son respeta-, das por la mayoria de los vecinos, es decir, las personas que no son importantes, a las que nunca se les hace caso. NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI SE INTRODUCEN LAS FO’I‘OS. PIDA AL INFORMANTE QUE EXAMINE TODAS LAS FOTOS Y QUE ESCOJA LA QUE MAS REPRESENTA EL PELDANO #- 10 Y OTRA QUE REPRESENTE EN MEJOR PORMA EL PELDANO # 1. DIGALE QUE ESTAS FOTOS DEBEN SER COLOCADAS EN SU RESPECTIVO PELDANO COMO GUIAS PARA QUE EL COLOQUE LAS DEI ~.IAS Ex- PLIQUELE QUE PUEDE COLOCAR MAS DE UNA POTO EN CADA PEL-. DANO. Estas son fotos de Jefes de Domicilio en San Miguel. Hagame e1 favor de colocar cada foto en el peldafio mas apropiado, segfin lo que crea usted que seria 1a opinion de la mayoria. NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: DIGA AL INFORMANTE QUE A USTED NO LE INTERESA LA OPINION PERSONAL DE EL, SINO LO QUE EL CREA QUE SEA LA OPINION DE LA MAYORIA DE LOS VECI NOS. DIGA AL INFORMANTE QUE USTED NO ESTA INTERESADO EN LOS INDIVIDUOS, PERSONALMENTE, SINO EN LAS CARACTE- RISTICAS GENERALES DE LAS PERSONAS QUE OCUPAN DIPEREN- ' TES NIVELES DE IMPORTANCIA. Peldafio # 10 343 L0 Peldafio # C0 Peldafio # Peldafio # \l m . Peldafio # Peldafio # 5 Peldafio # 4:. Peldafio # L14 '0 Peldafio # Peldafio # [.1 No puede colocar 344 16 (67) Ahora Don , quiero que me diga cual peldafio es el nivel medio. Es decir, e1 lugar donde se encuentran las personas . de res— peto o importancia media. Peldafio # A. éPorqué razones estan estas personas en el peldafio mas alto? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI SE LE ENSENA AL:INPOR~ MANTE LAS FOTOS EN EL PELDANO ALTO. PROBE: aCuales otras razoneS? B. 5Porqué razones estan estas personas en el peldafio mAS bajo? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI BNSENA.AL INFORMANTE LAS FOTOS EN EL PELDANO MAS BAJO. PROBE: gpuales otras razones? C. .aPorqué razones estan estas personas en el peldafio intermedio? NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI ENSENA LAS POTOS EN EL PELDANO ESCOGIDO COMO MEDIO. PROBE: ,5Cua1es otras razones? AT __ . ‘Jhmflltm’i‘h __-__ 345 17 ' (68) Ahora digame, aen cual peldafio cree usted que los demas vecinos de la aldea colocarian su foto? Peldafio # (69) Posicion cconémica. No. de cuerdas cultivables disponibles para su sitio (de este total) No. de cuerdas en tierra comunal de aldea No. dc cuerdas en tierra propia No. de cuerdas en tierra arrendada No. total de cuerdas con cultivo de maiz, o frijol finicamente (u otros productos para consumo propio) No. total de cuerdas cultivadas con verduras (productos para la venta) No. de animalcs que pertenecen a1 sitio: vacas caballos gallinas bueyes mulas pollos terneros ’ ovejas gallos toros conejos otros No. de arboles que producen en el sitio: Arbol No. Arbol No. NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: ESTE CALCULO DEBE INCLUIR IN- SRESOS PROCEDENTES DE TODO MIEMBRO DEL SITIO. Ingreso total de ventas en el mes anterior Q. ‘ Wealculo ~ > Ingreso total de sueldo en el mes anterior Q, Japroximado 346 18 (70) NOTA AL ENTREVISTADOR: AQUI PREGUNTE AL INFORMANTE LA . ' FRECUENCIA Y MOTIVOS CON LOS CUALES EL VISITA IvflXGDALENA ANTIGUA, GUATEMALA O CUALQUIER OTRO LUGAR QUE EL MENCIO- NE. Lugar Mbtivos (o qué va a hacer) Precuencia ’l 1': r (71) Pertenece usted a algunas organizaciones? Si No aCuéles? (Nombres) 347 (72) aTiene radio en su casa? Si No aQue tan scguido escucha usted el radio? (73) aLee usted periodicos o revistas? Si , No aCuales y con que frecuencia? l9 ELL-‘3’ lr 4 4 5 0 5 7 1 3 0 3 9 .h m "'l. L m1 m3