\lllll‘1‘ll‘lill ‘|‘|‘IOIII"|I‘I|II|I“I‘I|'||‘|O n-a " (t .‘ 3 firvsmrn-u ..‘ ‘ 1”! A fivxhrfl.‘ -r l “*1. n THE FUNCTIONS OF RELEVANT POWER AND AUTHORITY GROUPS IN THE EVALUATION OF COUNTY AGENT PERFORMANCE: FOUR SELECTED AGENT SITUATIONS By'xy/ Jack Jngreiss W Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology Year 195h THFQIQ Copyright by Jack Joseph Preiss 1955 «Kl ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Any dissertation leaves its author in the debt of many persons for their stimulation, material resources, helpful criticism, encouragement, and forbearance. In this in- stance, I am particularly grateful to Charles P. Loomis, John Useem, Charles R. Hoffer, and Duane L. Gibson, of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Michigan State College, for supplying these ingredients at crucial times, frequently at considerable expense to their own work. I owe special thanks to Paul A. Miller, who went above and beyond the call of duty as dissertation adviser. Many of the ideas presented herein were hammered out in con- ferences and numerous informal conversations in which he gave freely of his intellect and experience. He punctured sociological bubbles when they required it, and if there is any coherence in the format of this monograph he is due a large share of credit. Most important, he has been a per- sonal friend and a tolerant co-worker. Our mutual interest in and concern for the peOple and material dealt with in this study have established a_bond between us which I shall always value highly. My wife and son deserve a special kind of praise for putting up with the kaleidoscopic moods and frequent ., . 0 3483536 iii behavioral oddities which descend upon dissertation writers. Theirs was a trial I don't think I could have borne myself. Above all, I want to acknowledge the indispensible cooperation and help given me by the county agents, the state Extension administrators, and the county leaders and farmers with whom I came in contact. They supplied the bulk of the information which comprises this study. Their honesty of response and their warm acceptance of my presence on their home grounds were deeply appreciated. If anything of functional benefit accrues from this monograph, they, not the author, deserve the credit. Conversely, the author accepts full responsibility for the manner in which the data have been handled, and for all of the evaluations and opinions eXpressed by him. THE FUNCTI NS OF RELEVANT POWER AND AUTHORITY GROUPS IN THE EVALUATION OF COUNTY AGENT PERFORYANCE: FOUR SELECTED AGENT SITUATIONS By: \ 4" W.“ Jack J? Preiss AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology Year ,319Sh Approved / ' /_ y<”zy’c’19zz;‘ Jack J. Preiss ABSTRACT ’I \ L/The initial premise of this monograph is that it is desirable and practical to eXplain human action in terms of its manifestations in group life. Groups and individuals are, in an action sense, parts of definable situational wholes. These wholes cannot be reduced into their com- ponents (structure, individuals, value orientation) without losing some of their gestalt quality and thereby sacrificing much of their motivational significance. The task here is to find ways of analyzing the components of observed be- havior by means of a set of categorical abstractions, while retaining the historical unity manifested by that behaviorIi Part One deals with the construction of a typology for analyzing social behavior within a multi-level theoretical i framework.( The bed-rock of human motivation is assumed to \. '~.. be the effort to control tangible and intangible resources /".‘ / V for the realization of defined ends or goals On the con- ceptual level, power and authority are defined in terms of elemental characteristics which can be determined for every social group. The combined elements of power and authority which a group possesses determine its behavior patterns in social relations. Consequently, the position of any social group on a continuum having power and authority as its Jack J. Preiss 2 polar "ideal types" will indicate the type of behavior which characterizes the group in action situationsZJ American culture, the systems of organized agriculture in the United States, and the role of the county agricultural agent are discussed as illustrations of the multi-level approaCh to behavior theory. This approach is contrasted with other broad behavioral theories, particularly Freudian psychology and scientific rationalism. In Part Two, using the power-authority typology as a classificatory device, four Michigan county agricultural agent situations are analyzed with respect to (a) the structure of formal and informal groups which participate in agriculture, (b) the interaction of the agents with these groups, and (c) the images which agents and group leaders have of one another. Of the four agents studied, two were rated "successful" and two "unsuccessful" by the Michigan COOperative Extension Service. The agents and counties examined were reasonably matched on significant comparable factors, such as size, location, type of farming of the counties, length of service of the agent, etc., leaving the rated performance as the major variable. Ob- served behavior, interviews with agents and county leaders, and historical data supplied material for describing each agent situation. Jack J. Preiss 3 In Part Three, as a result of comparing the four agent situations, and by applying historical and psychological criteria of performance, it is suggested that: (a) rated success is not primarily the result of measured accomplish- ment on specific agricultural programs. Neither is it consistent with personality configurations, as measured by a standard psychological test, (b) the authority orientation of the Extension service renders it subject to domination by power-oriented agricultural organizations, and (c) posses- sion of control by power groups permits them to determine the success rating of agents by influencing the evaluative standards of the state Extension administration. The impli- cations of this research in terms of altering or continuing the present manner of rating agent performance are then examined. The summary findings of the agent rating process are related back to the multi-level theory of control, and the results of and weaknesses in the procedure are discussed. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE PART ONE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AS A THEORY OF CONTROL I. A RATIONALE FOR THE THEORETICAL APPROACH . . . 1 II. THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL--A POWER AND AUTHORITY TYPOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A. Definition of Control . . . . . . . . . 12 B. Two Major Theories of Control . . . . . 13 C. Social Scientific Reaction to the Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. Problems of Formulating an Alternative Control Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E. The Place of the Group in Control Theory . . . . . . . . .i. . . . . . . 30 III. THE CULTURAL LEVEL-~THE VALUE-ORIENTATION OF AMERICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 A. The Power Orientation of the American Ethic . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . AB B. The American Ethic and the Freudian Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AB CHAPTER PAGE C. The American Ethic and Rationalistic Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 D. Veblenian Analysis of the American Ethic .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 E. The Dilemma of the American Ethic . . . 60 IV. THE STRUCTURAL LEVEL--THE SYSTEMS OF ORGANIZED AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . on A. The Farmer and the American Ethic . . . 6A B. Connections between the Farm Bureau and the Extension Service . . . . . . 68 C. The Authority Orientation of the Extension Service . . . . . . . . . . 69 D. The Power Orientation of the Farm Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 E. Functional Linkage Among the Relevant Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 F. The Importance of Legitimacy . . . . . . 78 v. THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL--THE ROLE OF COUNTY AGENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 A. The Situational Approach . . . . . . . . 89 B. The Psychological Approach . . . . . . . 93 C. Analysis of Previous Research . . . . . 100 VI . SUT‘ARMRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 107 vi CHAPTER PAGE PART TWO A DESCRIPTION OF COUNTY AGENT INTERACTION WITH POWER AND AUTHORITY GROUPS: FOUR SELECTED AGENT SITUATIONS VII. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES . . . . 115 A. The Nature of the Research Problem . . . 115 B. Research Methods Selected . . . . . . . 116 C. Selection of Agent Situations . . . . . 120 D. Field Application of the Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 E. Other Research Device Used . . . . . . . 130 VIII. THE FIRST HIGH-RATED SITUATION--ASPEN AND OAK COUNTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 I. Aspen County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 A. The Structure of Organized Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . 13h B. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups . . . . lhh C. Behavior Characteristics of Significant Authority Groups . . 152 D. Interaction'of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups . . . 159 E. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 16h CHAPTER vii F. Image of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent . II 0 Oak county 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A. The Structure of Organized Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . B. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups . . . . C. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups . . D. Interaction of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups . . . E. Image of the Agent and of the IX. THE FIRS COUNTY A. B. Extension Service by County Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Image of the County by the Agent . T LOW-RATED AGENT SITUATION--ORANGE The Structure of Organized Agriculture Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups . . . . . . Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups . . . . Interaction of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups . . . . . . . . 169 175 176 181 183 185 188 193 197 198 211 221 230 CHAPTER E. F. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders . . . . . . Image of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent . . . . X. THE SECOND HIGH-RATED AGENT SITUATION--IVY COUNTY I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A. B. The Structure of Organized Agriculture . Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups . . . . . . . Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups . . . . . Interaction of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders . . . . . . Image of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent . . . . XI. THE SECOND LOW-RATED AGENT SITUATION--MOSS- LILAC COUNTY O O O I O O O O 0 O 0 O C O 0 0 A. B. C. The Structure of Organized Agriculture . Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups . . . . . . . Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups . . . . . PAGE 239 2A3 2A9 2&9 259 268 275 28A 289 295 296 307 318 CHAPTER ix PAGE Interaction of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups . . . .g. . . . . . . 325 Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders . . . . . . 332 Image of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent . . . . 335 PART THREE AN ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM OF RATING AGENT PERFORMANCE XII. COMPARISON OF COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3&0 A. B. D. Patterns of Organizational Structure . . 3A1 Agent Relations with County Power Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3M9 Agent Relations with County Authority Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 sunm’lar'y o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 362 XIII. COMPARISON OF IMAGES HELD BY AGENTS AND BY COUNTY LEADERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 A. B. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders . . . . . . 367 Image of the County by the Agent . . . . 37h CHAPTER C. Image of the Extension Service by the Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV. IMAGE OF THE AGENT BY THE EXTENSION ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. How the Agents were Rated, and Why . . B. Comparison of Administrative Ratings with Objective Performance Criteria C. Comparison of Administrative Ratings with Subjective Psychological Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. An Explanation of the Administrative Rating Process . . . . . . . . . . . E. Implications of this Research for the Present Manner of Rating Agent Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . XV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGENT RATING PROCESS AND THE THEORY OF CONTROL . . . . A. The Individual Leve1--the Role of the County Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Structural Level--the Systems of Organized Agriculture . . . . . . . C. The Cultural Level--the Value Orientation of America . . . . . . . PAGE 385 390 390 397 399 A07 um A20 A20 A22 A27 xi CHAPTER PAGE D. The Conceptual Level-~the Power and Authority Typology . . . . . . . . . . A32 POSTSCRIPT. The Rationale for the Theoretical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A39 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AAA LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Comparative County Factors in Selected Agent Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A II. External Control Orientation and Locus of Groups Related to AgriCulture in Aspen County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 III. One Informant's Configuration of Leadership in Aspen County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 IV. External Control Orientation and Locus of Groups Related to Agriculture in Oak County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 V. Control Orientation and Locus of Organized Agriculture in Orange County, 1953 . . . . . 199 VI. External Control Orientation and Locus of 250 Organized Agriculture in Ivy County, 1953 VII. External Control Orientation and Locus of Organized Agriculture in Moss-Lilac County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29? VIII. Incidence of Active County Organizations Related to Agriculture, 1953 . . . . . . . . 3A2 IX. Incidence of Interlocking Leadership Among County Power Groups, 1953 . . . . . . . . . 3AA TABLE X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. xiii Incidence of "Cross-Leadership" Among County Control Groups, 1953 . . . . . . . Comparative Interaction of Agents with Power Group Leaders, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . Comparative Interaction of Agents with Authority Group Leaders, 1953 . . . . . . Comparative Attitudes of County Leaders toward their Respective Agents, 1953 . . . Administrator Rankings of the Four Agents StUdied O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 PAGE 3A6 356 359' 368 391 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Aspen County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 2. Interlocking Leadership of Active Agricultural Power Groups in Aspen County, 1953 . . . . . . 1A0 3. "Cross-Leadership" Among Power and Authority Groups in Aspen County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . 1A3 A. Delineation of "Cross-Leadership," Aspen County, ' 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A3 5. Oak County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17A 6. Orange County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 7. Interlockinngeadership of Active Agricultural Power Groups in Orange County, 1953 . . . . . 206 8. Interlocking Leadership of Active Agricultural AuthOrity Groups in Orange County, 1953 . . . 209 9. "Cross-Leadership" Among Power and Authority Group Leaders in Orange County, 1953 . . . . . 210 10. Delineation of "Cross-Leadership," Orange County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 ll. Ivy County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2A7 12. Interlocking Leadership of Active Agricultural Power Groups in Ivy County, 1953 . . . . . . . 255 13. "Cross-Leadership" Among Active Power and Authority Groups in Ivy County, 1953 . . . . . 258 XV FIGURE 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Delineation of "Cross-Leadership," Ivy County 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delineation and Focused Attitudes of Active Power Structure, Ivy County, 1953 . . . . Moss-Lilac COunty o o o o o o o o o o o o o Interlocking Leadership of Active Agricultural Power Groups in Moss-Lilac County, 1953 . "Cross-Leadership" Among Power and Authority Groups in Moss-Lilac County, 1953 . . . . Delineation of "Cross-Leadership," Moss-Lilac County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focused Attitudes of Power Structure Leaders, Moss-Lilac County, 1953 . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Cows on Regular Butterfat Test (through DHIA or Equivalent Procedure), 19h7-S3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Cows Bred Artificially (through ABA or Equivalent Organization), 19h7-53 . The Apparent Leadership Interaction Pattern of Agent-Centered Behavior . . . . . . . . . Profiles of Four County Agents, Modified Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 9 259 268 29A 303 306 307 318 351 353 366 » A01 xvi FIGURE 25. Profiles of State Extension Administrators, Modified Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 PAGE PART ONE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AS A THEORY OF CONTROL CHAPTER I A RATIONALE FOR THE THEORETICAL APPROACH One of the distinguishing features of contemporary social science has been its increasing preoccupation with empirical materials, or "data." This empiricism seems to have brought with it a narrower conception of fruitful social theory than existed in the "system-building" period of earlier times. This is not to imply that a quantitative research emphasis, pgg‘gg, necessarily circumscribes or limits the range of theory. Yet it has frequently done so because of the great functional detail involved in the mechanics of research, the heavy cost of collecting and processing desired information, and the development of new criteria1 for evaluating results. The prevalence of the quantitative approach has re- sulted chiefly from the wide adoption of science as the current method of ordering the universe.2 Essentially, science is considered a "way of proceeding" rather than a lPrincipally in the form of statistical tests, mathe- matical models, scales, and similar devices. 2This statement applies primarily to the phenomenal universe, and not to religious or valuational theories of order. Of course, one can either accept the existence of several kinds of order, or adhere to one and reject the others. 2 body of substantive facts, although the procedure eventually yields groupings of such facts, as by-products. These facts can be gathered in orderly fashion, through varied and re- peated research operations, until communicable abstractions about them can be induced. The latter, in turn, suggest further empirical activity, leading to further conceptual refinement. This interplay has been the accepted pattern for scientific advancement. Although the physical sciences have thrived under this arrangement, the complex nature of the human being, as the unit of social investigation, plus the frequent involve- ment of the observer with his material3 present problems for social research which have transcended those encountered in most physical sciences. Perhaps, as Lundberg and others contend, this difference is transitory, and can be overcome through improved social research techniques and by training a more disciplined corps of professional workers. On the other hand, some believe there is an inherent qualitative differenceh between the social and the other 3Other limitations, of course, are the difficulty of maintaining experimental controls in social situations, and the resistance of the value structure of the group being studied. uAs propounded by Max Weber, Methodology 23 the Social Sciences, (translated and edited by E. A. Shils and F. Finch, Glencoe, Illinois, Free Press, l9h9). See Section II, esp. p. 7A ff. 3 sciences which needs to be recognized as fixed, at least in the application of scientific procedures to social situations. The gap between these two basic positions does not alter the fact that one result of an expanded scientific approach has been to restrict the range of social theory to a greater extent than heretofore. The majority of current social research projects are usually characterized by self-imposed boundaries of elaborate conditional limi- tations, and a rigid tentativeness in results. Further- more, the interest in method, pg; g3, often outweighs both the content of a study and the conceptual framework in which it is being examined. In other words, the sheer manipulation of facts has tended to eclipse both their substance and the conclusions derivable from them. Although it is recognized that the overstatement of findings, or an unwarranted claim of achievement,are dangers in any quest for knowledge, it is also likely that excessive cautionary tactics can stifle legitimate generalizing activities growing out of data. At present, there is not a great deal of effort being eXpended upon "high-range" integration of the massive body'3 of empirical-research findings available 5And this fund of information is apparently increasing at an accelerating rate. A perusal of current articles in professional journals, as well as the high degree of specialization in book-length (continued next page) 10" s... A in the social sciences. Of course, the trends and direc- tions which the social scientists follow are not selected independently by the scientists themselves. The compe- tition in the culture for funds, position, and recognition has influenced the behavior of the very people who inves- tigate these phenomena in scientific contexts. These pressures, some internal and some external, have made the 6 The practice of "pure" science impossible to achieve. "facts," far from speaking for themselves, always have to be "spoken for" in some generalizing frame of reference; and this means utilizing constructs of a theoretical character. A primary need, then, for any practicing scientist is to select the dimension of such constructs. The problem of develOping some kind of modus gperandi in- volving theory and quantitative data has become crucial in the operations of the social sciences. One major answer (continued) publications is evidence of the circumscribed notions of theory. Those works which attempt to achieve larger scOpe have usually been collections, or "readers" in an area, with minor connections being made through t0pical headings and other purely taxonomic devices. This sort of integration would seem to be rather superficial, considered as "high range" theory. 6Thus the range of his theory may be said to roughly vary inversely with an investigator's preoccupation in accumulating facts. S has been the idea of the "middle range."7 Although not clearly spelled out by its proponents, this idea conceives of theory as being somewhere between minor hypotheses evolved in daily research and those master conceptual schemes which earlier dominated the field.8 Presumably there are inadequacies in both these extremes which can be avoided, and their virtues retained, by establishing a medium ground on which to function. ‘While Merton seeks to interpret data by establishing their consequences for larger structures in which they are implicated, his way of moving from a lower level of abstraction to a higher is by empirical cumulation, or force of evidence, on the lower level. Although he seems to feel that indiscriminate handling and collecting of facts is largely unproductive in theoretical terms, he is equally convinced that "good" theory cannot come from the tOp down.9 This accounts for his reliance on the "middle range," as a kind of compromise 7See Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, (Glencoe, Illinois, Free Press, 19nd), Chapter I. 8Ibid., p. 5. He conceives the "middle range" of data to group under such headings as "class dynamics, flow-of-power, conflicting group pressure," etc. 9Which leads to the "self- fulfilling prOphecy" and to the substitution of "plausibility" for cause and effect relationships. approach. By recognizing the semantic and physical limitations of scientists as human beings, the "middle range" is a pragmatic answer to the taxing Operational strains of scientific labor. It offers the worker a feeling of command over his material while at the same time giving assurance that he is not dealing with trivia. These characteristics of (a) manageability, (b) significance, and (c) progress through accumulations, make the "middle range idea attractive to the practicing scientist. They give an emotional as well as a practical rationale to his endeavors, and are accepted as premises of much contem- porary social research. However, there may be some uncertainty that this emphasis on the "middle range" has resulted in a universal improvement in the handling of facts in terms of theory. There is, for example, more sheer diversity in research than ever before, with seldom more than a vague hOpe that order and unity will somehow arise from the unconnected variety of projects underway.10 By contrast, it is 10Again, an examination of most issues of professional journals in the social sciences reveals a wide disparity of effort, and makes any wide theoretical relationships appear unattainable on the strength of the material given. 7 possible that some of the "master systems" of theory, for all of their factual discrepancies and observational in- adequacy, provided a more consistent orientation for the scientist than the extant brand of empiricism. Further- more, one of the neglected virtues of the old systemic theories, such as Spencer's sociology, is that the over-all continuity and coherence of their structure enabled critics to attack them with a clarity which aided alternative formulations. Today, however, the average critic of a "middle range" theory or a "minor hypothesis" is compelled, to perform on the low conceptual levels of his material, with the result that his contribution is likely to be as feeble and unnoticed as the original proposition. There is also scant evidence that the cumulation process among "middle range" theories has produced higher or more general theories about social behavior. The position to which.much of the above discussion has. been leading is that perhaps fuller rein should be given to broader theoretical formulations than have recently been deemed allowable in social research. The time may have arrived when rather bold notions of theory about human organization and behavior are necessary to deal with the data so profusely at hand. Understandably, the advocacy of a particular "high range" theory at this time might be 8 criticized as a regression to arm chair speculation, as a substitution of insight for information, or as an attempt to read much significance into minor occurrences.11 Nevertheless, at the risk of inviting criticisms of the foregoing types, and as something of a reaction against too-patent acceptance of the "middle range" idea, this monograph will assay a rather large (in scope) theory about human social behavior. It is Openly acknowledged that empirical evidence for this theory will be scanty or totally lacking at many points. There may also be question- ing of the validity or pertinence of even such facts as are employed. But at least the range of the concepts used may Offer an Opportunity for some social scientists to work on a "high range" level of theory largely neglected at the moment. The first part of the monograph will be a presen- tation of an over-all theory of behavior, which the remaining parts will try to clarify and illustrate. Under- standably, the amount of detail used in any one aspect of the work will seem sparse by some standards; but there seems no way of treating everything thoroughly in this initial effort. The main task is to establish the general 11Also, the "vested interests" of highly specialized disciplines in their own autonomy often produces an ethnocentric reaction whenever unifying or inter- disciplinary proposals are suggested. 9 framework of the theoretical position, and to demonstrate how it can be carried through various ranges of research and still maintain linkage throughout the theoretical and empirical structure. While such "high range" theory, as a whole, is perhaps of first importance for the long-run development of social science, it is not of exclusive importance. There is much to be gained of a utilitarian value from consideration of limited hypotheses, and also from just describing the actual phenomena observed, in an ethnographic sense. Therefore, some attention will be given to the rather immediate impli- cations of the field work as they relate to the persons and groups involved. In addition, the attempt will be made to connect the research findings to the "high range" theory presented, even though the end-product of the attempt may indeed seem tenuous. With respect to the preceding theoretical rationale, two further clarifications are in order. In the first place, the point of view of this monograph is that quanti- tative research methods do not constitute the sole legiti- mizing criteria for social research. This is not to say that such techniques are themselves invalid, but rather to question the notion that any research which doesn't make them the keynote of its procedure is inherently deficient. 10 They have their place, but it is not necessarily central in every phase of the process. In fact, it is held here that it may be more fruitful to hold off the application of many powerful statistical tools until 33323 the generalized conceptual positions can be worked out, and until the researcher can readily ascertain what it is he wishes to test quantitatively. Too often, the mere employ- ment of quantitative techniques has been used to camouflage amorphous theory. Thus, the relatively non-quantitative treatment of the data in this monograph is not due to intrinsic rejection of statistical procedures, but because the current stage of the propounded theory is not ready for them. Secondly, the position that the Mertonian type of "middle range" theory is inadequate on some levels does not mean that it is fruitless at all levels of research. It has been suggested that the wide use of the "middle range" idea may be more a concession to functional expediency than a resolution of scientific difficulties. Although the kinds of propositions and hypotheses with which the "middle range" idea deals have usually been adequate for research use on certain levels of theory, one attempt of this mono- graph will be to refocus them back into a "high range" frame of reference, or at least to indicate how this may be done. 11 Despite the foregoing differences with current practices in theory and research, the basic orientation of the work undertaken here remains that of science--a science which can encompass purely physical verification criteria at one level of endeavor while dealing with abstract phiIOSOphical evaluations at another. To find ways of linking these and intervening levels together in meaningful, consistent fashion is the basic theoretical and methodological problem to be tackled if science is ever to unravel, even in its own terms, the massive complexity of human behavior. Therefore, our first task will be to examine some examples of control theories which attempt to classify behavior in terms of a particular orientation. These theories will be of the "high range" type in that their prOpositions are intended to apply universally to mankind, and not merely to limited behavioral situations. Thus they seem to go well beyond the so-called "middle range" level just described. CHAPTER II THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL--A POWER AND AUTHORITY TYPOLOGY A. Definition of Control (:iThe initial premise of any analytical theory Of human behavior is that basically it involves a concept of con- trol. This is true whether one considers the actions of groups, of individuals, or combinations thereof. By con- trol is meant the mastery of material and non-material resources to realize goals. Such a definition can encom- pass practically any human activity, from a sales clerk deciding where to eat lunch to an engineer designing a bridge. The behavior patterns of man, as a cultural and biological animal, are integral with his ability to control both his environment and himself. Any purposive focus of human enterprise, whether it be science, theology, business, or love, aims at mastery over persons and things, real or imagined. Since we cannot construct a scientific behavior concept for man except in a social setting,1 we may accept the further premise that all people function within 1Unlike Hobbes' atomistic and undemonstrable "state of nature," see the Leviathan, Chapters XIII-XV. 13 societies. Such acknowledgment of the presence of the group as an elemental social fact does not eliminate man as the individual unit in that group. His simultaneous existence as both part and whole, depending upon which aspect of him is examined, makes the dissection of his Over-all behavior difficult. However, this duality also supplies flexibility,in that participation in social groups does not prevent at least partial detachment at various times for analytical endsZ) As Davis has pointed out,2 a major attribute which differentiates man from other animals is his ability to objectify his own behavior, this being the very quality which makes science itself possible. B. Two Major Theories of Control3 Among the social sciences, the effect of society upon man as a biological unit has found its most penetrating K'" a 3In selecting two major theories of control for brief discussion, it is duly recognized that history contains other orientations, such as various theological syntheses and several standard philOSOphies, such as idealism, eudaemonism, hedonism, and others. Most of these were already well-develOped before the advent of modern science and were modified by, rather than evolved from, the growing use of scientific method. Although any set of doctrines can always be traced to certain antecedents, it is still possible to speak meaningfully of certain "schools" of thought which are mutually distinguishable. In this respect, rationalism and biological determinism appear to have been the chief control theories produced by the scientific frame of mind. 1h eXpression in the Freudian psychology. Here the basic orientation is the struggle of the individual to satisfy inherent physical needs and desires which are circumscribed by artificial social barriers. "Conscience," or super-ego, is the control by which a particular morality and behavioral code are imposed upon a person as he matures within his society. To the orthodox Freudian, every man is in a perpetual state Of conflictl‘L with both his natural and social environment, and his adaptation thereto consists largely in adjusting himself to demands and conditions of life which are essentially beyond his personal control. Absolute Freudian "freedom" could thus be identified as social anarchy. Its alternatives are drive repression or transference, either of which may result in individual neurosis or psychosis. Social control is conceived as external and negative, forcing each man to struggle against it continually as a penalty necessary for his own survival. These Freudian concepts have much in common with the social Darwinism which greatly influenced the sociologists5 of Freud's time. It is mechanistic and deterministic--an inexorable process without end. hThis is akin to Hobbes' "state of nature." Se.g., Sumner, Spencer, Ward. 15 By way of contrast, empirical rationalism inverts the Freudian explanation by postulating effective control by intellectual processes as superior to the demands of the body. In the social sciences, this idea has achieved fullest acceptance as the bedrock of "laissez-faire" economic theory. The rationalists do not deny the influence of bodily responses upon social behavior, but feel they can and should6 be beneficent rather than hostile. This is epitomized by Bentham's "felicific calculus," in which the common-sense logic of the individual psyche, if left to function unrestrained, automatically results in the common good. Control, therefore, is actually in the hands of every man, to use if he so desires. Any behavior becomes socially legitimate when dictated by rational self-interest. This view of human conduct, which substitutes a world of self- regulating interaction for Freudian anarchy, ranks as one of the major conceptualizations of observed behavior. The fact that it historically preceded the Freudian view, while still accounting for individual motivation via such bio- logical notions as the pleasure-pain principle,7 makes its 6The "should" made morality an integral part of the rationalist position. 7Which postulated that the major motivation for human action was the seeking of pleasure and a concomitant avoidance of pain. x fy 16 ingenuity even more remarkable, and led to Parson's trenchant observation that Locke's position was empirically "8 sound, but "for the wrong reasons. C. Social Scientific Reaction to the Theories It is difficult to imagine two concepts of control more divergent than classical rationalism and Freudian psy- chology, and yet they have both been nurtured in the culture of Western society, and have greatly influenced it. The inability of either of these concepts, by themselves, to account for the entire range of human behavior has been pointed out in many contexts. Durkheim,9 for example, vehemently denies that social phenomena can be adequately explained by behavioristic psychology. He rejects the hedonism of the biological school and substitutes his own conception of "social facts." For Durkheim, the whole (a social group) is not a simple numerical equivalent to the sum of its parts (individual members). A purely psycho- 8T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, (Glencoe, ' Illinois, Free Press, 19h9), pp._§62 -63. Locke was one of the key formulators of this position. See John Locke, Ag Essay Concernigg Human Understanding, esp. Chapters I-VII. 9Emil Durkheim, Division 93 Labor 12 Society (trans- lated by George Simpson; New York, MacMillan Co., 1933); and Rules pf Sociological Method (translated by S. Solova and J. Mueller; Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 193'). 17 logical yardstick cannot, therefore, be applied to socio- logical phenomena. There are also many psychologists who themselves question the supremacy of biological sex libido in human motivation. Adlerlo 11 and Jung were among the first to criticize Freud's negative handling of "community" or social factors, and to insist that morality was essential to develOpment of personality. G. H. Meadl2 argued con- vincingly that the socialization of the self is as crucial in human maturation as any biological function, and that this socialization is an interactive process which can only occur in a social environment. The most recent cultural- psychoanalytic group, especially Fromm,13 Horney,1u and Kardiner,15 seek the basis of neurotic behavior within the 10Alfred Adler, Understanding Human Nature (translated by W. B. Wolfe; New York, Greenburg, 1927). 11Carl Gustav Jung, The Psychology gf the Unconscious (translated by B. M. Hinkle; New York, Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1937). 12G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 193A), esp. pp. l6h-209. 13Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom (New York, Farrar and Rinehard, l9hl). lhKaren Horney, The Neurotic Personality gf Our Time (New York, W. W. Norton, 1937). l5Abram Kardiner, The Psychological Frontiers 23 Society (New York, Columbia University Press, l9h5), esp. Chapter I. 18 culture as a "gestalt," rather than in the genes and physical characteristics of particular individuals. Here the modal, or "basic" personality structure becomes the center of the analysis, and the actual individual is measured against this "typical" cultural formulation. Although these and other critics have found weaknesses in an exclusively psychological analysis of behavior, particu— larly the Freudian, they have not reformulated their position in a scope comparable to Freud's. Several, in- cluding Kardiner, have intimated that a comparably universal kind of behavioral theory may not even be possible. In like fashion, the tenets of empirical rationalism, with its hedonistic bent, have stimulated fundamental Oppo- sition within the field of economics, where rationalism's greatest theoretical success in social science has been achieved. Writers such as Veblen,16 about whom much will be said later on, Mitchell,17 Commons,18 and J. M. Clark19 16The core of Veblen's position, as expressed in most Of his books was his refutation of classical rationalism as the basis of human behavior. l7Wesley Mitchell, The Backward Art 92 Spending "oney and Other Essays (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1937), Chapters 1 and 10. . 18John R. Commons, The Economics 23 Collective Action (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1950), pp. 15 ff., 209-238. l9John Maurice Clark, The Social Control 9: Business, Second Edition (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1939), Chapters II, XVIII , XXVI . 19 were able to perceive the powerful influence of social customs and institutions upon human behavior. Likewise, in philosophy, James,20 21 22 Peirce, and Dewey rejected the absolute world of pure reason and substituted the idea that truth is tested by the practical consequences of belief. Here again, morality is conceived as a social phenomenon, not a supernatural one. It is apparent from the foregoing brief resume that the two theories of control chosen for discussion have been indicted on rather similar grounds, although in different contexts. This does not mean that all of the social uses and effects of the theories have been invalidated, but it does point up their failure to achieve a "high range" integration of human behavior, at least in terms of scientific tenability.23 While the criticisms of both 20William James, Pragmatism (New York, Longmans, Green, 1908). 21Charles s. Peirce, Collected Papers of Charles g. Peirce, Editors C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss TCambridge, Harvard University Press, 1931-35). 22John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct (New York, Henry Holt, 1922). 23As will be evident in the next chapter, this failure does not destroy the effectiveness or popular acceptance Of Freudian psychotherapy and "laissez-faire" economics as mechanisms of social adaptation and as guides to ethical conduct within a given culture. 20 systems have been incisive, the modern preference for "middle range" theories in social science generally has, at least momentarily, precluded any reintegration of theory on a universal scale. However, if any strain toward theo- retical coalescence has been at all discernible among the behavioral disciplines it probably lies in the concept of "normative" behavior. This concept would appear, essen- tially, to be that of accounting for human response patterns in terms of assorted ranges of culturally accepted conduct which are themselves undergoing varying rates of mutation.2h The major institutional patterns of any society are cohesive as well as constraining.2S They are not evils endured for the sake of personal survival, nor are they entirely subject to the whim or the calculus of the indi- vidual. They do permit some behavioral variability within 21‘re. ., Margaret Mead, "The Study of National Character' in D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell, Editors, The Policy Sciences (Palo Alto, Stanford University Press, 1951); Geoffrey Gorer, The American PeOple (New York, W. W. Norton, l9h8); David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950). These and others hinge their analysis around a normative concept of culture. The concept also holds a conspicuous place in many of the newer textbooks, particularly in sociology, e. g., Davis, on. cit., Chapter 3; Freedman, Hawley, Landecker, and Miner, Principles of Sociology (New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1952), Chapter “5: 2SLouis Schneider, The Freudian Psychology and Veblen's Social Theory (New York, King's Crown Press, 19h8), p. 85. 21 the institutional framework, but there are penalties, both social and physical, for overstepping the normative boundaries. The conformity prescribed by custom is gener- ally a painless and efficient way of keeping personal self- interest in line with existing conduct patterns, While still allowing a measure of psychological freedom. Any new theory of control, then,would have to consider this concept of normative in social behavior, as well as taking account of the earlier empirical rationalist and Freudian views. The aforementioned critiques demonstrating the fallibility of the two positions in terms of closure 26 have been quite trenchant. Revised, or entirely different, basic concepts of behavior are consequently in order. The normative concept has already been mentioned as a kind of revision, although still somewhat amorphous in its organization and exposition. But it has also been noted, especially in Chapter I, that the climate of Opinion in current social theory and research has not encouraged "high range" formulations, but rather "middle range" concepts, presumably dictated by methodological refinements and the 26While the preceding treatment has, in a sense, been telesc0ped and oversimplified, this has been done purposely. The critical references cited are well-known and need not be repeated, since they are not of paramount interest in this particular text. 22 hugh agglomeration of data available to the scientist. The "middle range" theory, seen as a concession to the presumed Operational requirements within social science, thus militates against "high range" theory. ,//5<: D. Problems of Formulating an Alternative Control Theory In Spite of the pitfalls which will be faced by any "high range" theory, an attempt will now be made to suggest a further alternative theory of control on the level of the two already considered. It is felt that the well-recorded history of what we loosely know as Western society provides two symbolic concepts needed for such an alternative theory. The concepts are those of power and of authority. It is acknowledged at once that neither of these terms can be considered as free of previous bias and interpre- tation. Indeed, a large literature, albeit a confusing one, has already flourished around both of them. This is because the terms, despite differences in their definition and use, apparently represent something endemic in human behavior as social scientists analyze it. The recurrent employment of these terms, along with their diversity of meaning, is testimony of their persistence in social theory, and is some evidence of their repeated observation 23 in varied situations. Power and authority, handled in the "middle range" manner, have been used chiefly as rubrics for explaining behavior in specified empirical instances, but seldom as components of any larger theory of control. The attempt here will be to take the latter transitional step. In the generic sense, power and authority will be used as uni- versals to the extent that the power element in "power politics" will be no different analytically from the power element in any other context. Of course power, and authority as well, will have to be defined in a manner consonant with this universality. The following pages of the chapter are an attempt to achieve this definition. One drawback of broad definitions in social science is that they are seldom precise enough to illuminate all conceivable applications and situations. Only as they are narrowed and qualified do they seem to gain refinement, until eventually they become particularistic definitions. Perhaps, then, one characteristic of a "large" idea is that it creates a measure of uncertainty about its own meaning. Perhaps, also, it must at some point resist complete dis- section into the lower levels of formulation lest it lose its identity altogether. It is still important to relate both the general and the Specific on all theoretical 21; levels. Therefore, in the present state Of social science, it is not imperative to condemn a theory because it appears imprecise, or because it "covers too much ground." Of course, there are always disciplinary dangers involved in pure speculation, or in using one’s "intuition," but these risks should be recognized and met, rather than completely avoided. If there is honesty and competence in the scientific method, it will eventually separate sense from nonsense, regardless of the sc0pe Of the material.27 Therefore, we need not be overly timid in raising our sights for fruitful social theory. Nevertheless, the matter of coverage in broad, or "high range," theory does raise procedural problems with respect to research. There is considerable strain and difficulty involved in maintaining the connections between such theory and the experiential level where it is being tested. With this in mind£it is proposed to treat "power" and "authority" as equi-level concepts which may be looked upon as the Opposite ends of a continuum. Both are sub- sumed under the universal idea of control, as previously defined. It is realized that this arrangement is somewhat 27Indeed, the breadth of modern theoretical physics makes theory in social science seem minuscule. Clearly, "size" alone is no criterion for evaluating concepts. 2S arbitrary, but an elementary arbitrariness is required for any systematization of observably recurrent behavior. In one way, power and authority will be considered as ideal types, in the Weberian sense that "ideal" is an analytical term signifying purity Of type rather than something which ethically "ought" to be. Furthermore, the two types are dichotomous to the extent that their comparable analytic characteristics are mutually exclusive. This does not mean that the actual characteristics Of a particular em- pirical group will fall wholly in one category Of type or the other. There will almost certainly be elements Of both power and authority in any Observed social interaction, but it should be possible to make some judgments about groups, vis-a-vis one another, on the basis Of definable power and authority elements. Two major problems, obviously, will be tO satisfactorily delineate the elements Of the types for empirical use, and then to place the groups on the con- tinuum once the elements have been determined:) It would be unproductive at this stage Of develOpment to set up any conclusive quantitative measurements Of power and authority via some prefabricated scale. Placement will have to re- main in the realm Of "relatively more or less," as con- ceived by the investigator. In this regard, vehement critical Objections can be raised, since these loose forms 26 can lead tO muddled and confused thinking. But it has previously been pointed out that "large" ideas may always involve considerable imprecision, and that it is perfectly legitimate to handle theory from the tOp down as well as from the bottom up as long as the connections among the various levels Of abstraction can be discerned. From what has been said so far, the use Of power and authority concepts as main ingredients of control can be made from the standpoint Of the individual and/or the group. Both the rationalist and Freudian approaches have tended to view the individual as central, and the group aspects of behavior as somewhat derivative and subsidiary. Although not denying the importance and desirability of this focus, it remains as a part rather than all of the control picture. The group aspects can be accorded an equal analytical position. Therefore, the major emphasis of this study will be that Of group interaction. This is not intended to rule out psychological, physiological and rationalistic orientations, but rather to add social, or group factors to them in accordance with the critiques of the two control theories already mentioned. E. The Place Of the Group in Control Theory We may begin this consideration of the group by stating 27 that a group is any control-oriented association of persons. This rules out mere aggregates or congeries Of individuals based solely upon spatial proximity and other physical similarities. The control group is purposive, and it re- quires common consciousness in a goal sense. It is found in all social interaction except that Of a reflex character. It may be properly contended that this goal consciousness, and consequent striving thereto, is always an individual phenomenon under any conceivable circumstances. Groups, pg; 32, do not act, but their members do. This is admitted, but the differentiation insisted upon here is that the influence of an individual's membership in a group, as group is defined above, will, under some con- ditions, have a greater influence upon his actions in a given situation than his physiological drives or his calcu- lated self-interest. As previously pointed out, this group influence is not invariably a restriction or a negation of other motivations, but is Often a positive force in its own right. It has been stated above that the normative concept Of control has resulted from the scientific recognition of group influences upon behavior, and that this has been used 28 as a bridge to a like consideration of personality. Yet, 28As Spiro points out, "the develOpment of personality and the acquisition of culture are one and the same process." Melford E. Spiro, "Culture and Personality," in Psychiatgy, Vol. 13, 1950. ‘l' 28 .it may be granted that while the overall process of human CievelOpment may be a single occurrence in its ultimate ssense, it can be, perhaps indeed must be, observed from (jlifferent vantage points. Here, again, is a problem Of the JE-ange Of theory, for where the number Of vantage points 1:>ecomes too numerous, and the area Observed too small, the garcOpe Of applicability Of the Observations becomes less and :1.t the apex of behavioral theory, is still in the "high bangs" classification. It is one of a fairly limited lrliutmber of comparable vantage points, such as personality *3}:Leory, bio-genetic theory, and ethico-rationalistic 'tikleory. A group theory of control has the normative base ‘Vklich social theorists have long been aware of, but which ‘blley have not Often spelled out in a structural sense. The “Host ambitious attempt so far has been Parsons' treatment Of'the social system in which he attempts closure for his analysis within a set Of five dichotomous pattern variables. It must be realized that it is difficult to translate such a level Of theory into significant research designs and projects. These latter do not suggest themselves auto- 29 matically. But the fact that they do not is scant justi- fication for discarding the theory.29 Perfection of re- search mechanics and tools is not a substitute for the relevance30 of the design to what is being tested. In some czases, relevance may even have to be preferred over the Ipest available methodology in order to preserve its primacy (aver sheer technique. Sometimes, a kind of subjectively" cierived relevance will characterize certain parts of the .I‘esearch in this monograph, but this selection has been made islrrough an awareness of possible procedural alternatives, I‘Either than an ignorance of them.31 \ 29By way of reinforcing this point, Einstein, in dis- ‘CVLlssing his latest formulation of universal field theory, C=<>1dtends that his most difficult and taxing problem is not C=<3qnstructing the theory but to devise means for adequately 1:3-'Essting it. The sharp professional reaction to T. Parsons EltdtiEh Shils, Eds., Toward 3 General Theory pf Action (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1951), and T. Parsons, l£fltgg Social System (Glencoe, 111., Free Press, 1951), illus- tIrates the effect of "middle range" thinking when an Eli3tempt is made to develop "high range" theory. While t31'1ere is considerable interest in Parsons' work, it appears 13C) be mostly negative. 3ORelevance may range from a thorough knowledge Of ngDecific past research in an area to a "hunch" based upon F3€3rsonal observation. While the former is generally pre- fGarred in scientific circles, the latter can still yield ‘ffir‘uitful relationships worth investigating. 31While the concentration Of attention will be upon g7317‘Oup control, the psychological aspects will not be r16iglected altogether, and one psychological criterion of leadgment, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory, will be used in considering the empirical situ- 8~‘t.ions being examined. 30 F. Elements Of-a Group Theory of Control Returning to the problem of analyzing group behavior, lasing power and authority as pivotal concepts, the attempt vvill now be made to set these up as ideal types. Actual Egroups will be identified in accordance with their simi- ]_arity to these types. For application to concrete situ- .51tions, however, the relative proximity Of groups to each ¢:>ther, may often be more significant than their position £1llong the continuum as a whole. It is proposed to define I><>wer’and authority by describing their crucial functional Elluxi formative factors, rather than by giving a synthetic SBIJJmmary in one or two sentences. This method of exposition 1.53 Operational, in that it involves action as well as E3‘txructure. The characteristics enumerated are perhaps not $131-1 Of the essential ones, but the size Of the typology inlaiy'vary with future use Of it. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDEAL CONTROL GROUP TYPES laiggwer Group, Authority Group 1--» Roles and interrelation- l. Roles and interrelation- ships Of members ships of members Specifi- amorphous and Often cally defined in a sporadic. continuous, on-going pattern. Power Group 2. Internal structural arrangement Of members variable and fluid. a. Frequent mutual coercion of members via: (1) Influence (2) Subterfuge (3) Physical sup- pression 31 Authority Group 2. Internal structural arrangement Of members hierarchical and rigid. a. No mutual coercion (1) Voluntary acceptance by each member of positions of all members \ Area and scOpe of group activity fluctuates according to external conditions and to desires of current membership. Behavioral processes idiosyncratic or charismatic. Behavioral change articulated by sudden shifts of structural alignment or direction Of effort via: a. Revolution b. Ideological reversal (3.. Wide range and choice of action alternatives. a. Situational vari- ations handled via criteria of: (1) Expediency (2) Particularistic assessment of con- sequences 3. Area and scOpe Of group activity fixed and con- tinuous regardless of external conditions and desires of current mem- bership. Behavioral processes stable and channelized by formal mechanisms. Change articulated in consistent and predictive manner via: a. Law b 0 C118 tom Narrow range and choice of action alternatives. a. Situational variations provided for via: (1) Body Of rules (2) Dictates of precedent Power Grogp 7. Behavioral codes flexible and adaptive. 32 Authority Group 7. Behavioral codes strictly prescribed and followed. 8. Behavioral innovations and extraordinary modes Of action may be in- voked. Rewards and punishments distributed in accord- ance with competitive performance among group members. Behavioral innovations and aberrant or unprecedented modes of action not countenanced. Rewards and punishments distributed in accordance with impersonal pre- arranged standards Of Office. J—C).. Group behavior and 10. Group behavior and structure self- structure legitimized by legitimizing. the larger society or ethical code in which group exists. J-JL.. Group orientation to 11. Group orientation to con- conflict: flict: a. Stress and tension a. Harmony in intra-group in intra-group relations b. Competition and dominance in inter- group relations c. Desire to promote con- flict with other groups in areas Of self-interest relations COOperative and division of labor in inter-group relations c. Conscious avoidance of conflict situations b. In terms of the above characteristics, it can be sur- ‘ndised that the internal and external orientations of groups ‘nfl£iy vary in terms of power and authority. This means that 1Grltra-group and inter-group behavior will have to be 33 evaluated separately in given situations. The following are examples of possible group formations: Internal External C}roup Orientation Orientation Example {Pype I Authority Authority U. S. Post Office Department Type II Authority Power Nazi Party fIType III Power Authority New York Stock Exchange fllype IV Power Power American Farm Bureau Federation The Post Office Department, both internally and ex- ternally, is representative Of what is commonly described Elsa a bureaucratic organization. Its rules and regulations <><3wver almost every imaginable functional contingency it may IRELce, its duties are rigidly prescribed, and it is rarely 1Involved in inter-group conflict. The Nazi party, as I‘Eapresentative of Type II may seem somewhat surprising. ‘BTGBt the internal structure of the party (barring limited I>€3riods of stress and upheaval) was remarkably free of 1Internal conflict. The discipline, obedience, imperson- El:Lity, and carefully defined hierarchy of intra-party I~"'531ations was pronounced. This is why the party held to- EEGBther so well and for so long. The internal authoritar- 1Eanism of the membership resulted in structural tenacity, 3h even in the face of the tremendous conflicts generated by the external orientation. This is why, tO the puzzlement of many Observers, the Nazi party's internal structure did Iuot collapse when the external power position became un- :favorab1e. The external power characteristics of the party (even among the mass Of Germans who were pgt members) are zalready well-known and do not require further elucidation. 1&3 an example Of Type III, the Stock Exchange affords an fitnteresting illustration. In theory, at least, the members £3JPG highly secretive, competitive, and cultivate shrewdness filri Operation. The whole market situation is one Of iFDEarticularism and gambling in a fluid, unprescribed situ- ation. Although there has recently been more emphasis upon 1311c stock market as a "security" device, it is still the ‘hnlain chance which governs its internal structure. However, ‘3116 external relations Of the Exchange with the public has 1become relatively circumspect, mainly through the regulations jLrnposed by government commissions (indeed, the Exchange, IDJrior to 1933, might well have been classified as a Type IV E§Droup). All statements, advertisements, issues, hours Of Operation, etc., are prescribed and the Exchange, as such, has practically no power manifestations in its external ELctivities. The fourth type, as exemplified by the American 'FRarm Bureau Federation, will be discussed in considerable 35 detail throughout this monograph. The Federation is made up Of many semi-autonomous units,and there is a great deal of differential behavior among them. There is confusion as to purposes, responsibilities, and methods as far as :1nternal unification is concerned. Membership is highly 13ermissive, sporadic, with charismatic leadership quite Iaossible on all levels of activity. Externally, the iEFederation exhibits the same characteristics, particularly iLn.terms Of self—legitimation within the cultural values (>1? the society. It is highly competitive and conflict- CDIriented with whatever outside groups it deems threatening. The preceding brief resume is not intended to be definitive but is merely to sketch the main outlines of 1'1<>wthe control group typology may be concretely used. llcztual case analyses, including the examples just given, Itrcnst be worked out in much greater detail. At present, ‘Dnrrelation if the data can be quantified) will have to be Cifisvised to measure differential effects within a total 36 result. It is in this realm Of the classification of actual behavior that the greatest amount Of empirical and statistical work needs to be done. The foregoing manner Of utilizing power and authority concepts may seem laborious to some and nebulous to others. Yet it is believed that a considered evaluation Of the Characteristics listed will suggest at least their surface applicability to many groups within one's own experience. However, some further points should be stressed. The dichotomous nature of the characteristics is Obvious, as is the fact that each is mutually exclusive Of its polar corresponding number, though not of the remaining numbers or the Opposite group. Combinations of power and authority elements will be the rule in practically all groups ana- lyzed under these rubrics, although the groups' general leanings will be a matter Of interpretiveskill, at present, instead of a quantitative measurement. Something further s31'10u1d be said about the orientation of these groups to conflict. The term "conflict" may best be described as an <>]pposing action involving incOmpatibles, or divergent 1I'lterests, in which the combatants vie for control. It will be recalled that a like notion Of struggle underlies the Darwinian theory Of evolution, and with it the Spencerian sociology and Freudian psychology. It also 37 parallels rationalistic empiricist economics insofar as the latter has sanctioned competitive striving for advantage. AlthOUgh the power ideal type would add up to much the same result as Freudian anarchy or Hobbes' "state of nature," its inclusion in a group theory indicates that this extreme is not concretely attainable. The "anarchic group" is a logical as well as an empirical impossibility. The use Of the term "conflict" as descriptive of human society pre- sumes that there are alternate periods Of time when con- flict is mitigated. It is now suggested that if any single characteristic Of groups observed in an interactive process can give clues as to the general polarity of each group it (will be that Of orientation to conflict. Situations in which power elements are dominant will result in action patterns which will differ from situations where authority elements are primary. Therefore, from the point of view Of both observer and actor, analysis Of group relations along the power-authority control continuum does have pragmatic and predictive functions. Every individual performs these functions to a certain extent whenever he "sizes up" a problem, or tries to choose one action alternative from a number at hand; but they are seldom recognized by the actors themselves as processes of any theoretical signif- icance. Yet the whole panorama of historical occurrence, 38 in very broad as well as very limited examples, may be treated in the power-authority context. Therein, one can classify eras and cultures, as well as particular relations between two known individuals, depending upon the research focus desired. The claim of rather enormous applicability for this control theory is, to repeat, presumptuous; and it is not anticipated that this monograph will progress very far in establishing its empirical validity. But it is felt that the empirical data, handled in the power-authority matrix as outlined, may be illustrative of how the theory would be utilized under given circumstances, and to what purpose. The question may be raised as to whether the power and authority classifications are meant to refer only to groups within larger groups, and eventually to whole societies, and whether they apply as well to situational contexts in which the relevant groups may be participants. As has already been intimated, both are permissable. Not only are the structural aspects of a society amenable to this treat- ment, but its cultural and valuational qualities may be similarly analyzed. The "climate of Opinion," or the ethos, in which various groups Operate is just as important in determining their behavior as the manner in which they are put together. Therefore, to encompass the major impli- 39 cations of any action pattern, both structural and cultural factors need to be considered. It is here that the vitally important normative elements in an interactive situation can be discovered and incorporated in the analysis of con- trol. The social atmOSphere in which a group acts32 is largely responsible for that group's notion of its "generalized other." Such a group has social identity in- sofar as it interacts with other groups and individuals. The self-conception of a particular group in a society will depend both upon the cultural ethos in which the group functions as well as its own structure. One would eXpect, for example, that a culture emphasizing control charac- teristics of power would morally approve and encourage power groups within its social structure, and that such groups would be more prevalent than in an authority type culture. It is suggested that such is the case, and also that the process of social change is fundamentally an interaction of power and authority elements within and among societies. It might be pertinent to inquire whether the change process, so considered,is or could be made tele- ological. In other words, can "control. be controlled"? In 328y this is meant individual members who are functioning primarily as members of a group being scruti- nized. ho the sense of complete mastery, there is really no scien- tific way of answering this question. It involves, within the bounds of the human mind, an acceptance of certain "beginnings" or postulates of an arbitrary character to which the general procedural canons of a scientific dis- cipline do not apply. No matter how much these may be clarified or modified they do not appear to be removable. Intriguing as these and other phiIOSOphical questions of the nature of knowledge may be, it is not intended to dis- cuss them further, although their importance is acknowl- edged. However, within specific delimited areas, it would appear feasible that control over social change is achievable. Societal analysis may, of course, be performed for purely taxonomic reasons, but it can also be applied to some other end or goal. Indeed, this is explicit in the previous definition of control itself. Purposes may be complex and confused at times, but they are attainable and manipulable in the suggested theory. In order to make the illustration of the theory more meaningful, it is proposed to switch from the level of a unified idea of human existence, without a time sense, to a more circumscribed area. The area chosen, both culturally and in terms of specific groups, will be that of the United A1 States, roughly to the extent that today it represents the product of about two hundred and fifty years of national history. Obviously, not all of the ramifications of American society can ever be touched upon, but at least the general bases for its present cultural characteristics can be outlined to set the stage for examining the particular groups which are the main subjects of this monograph. CHAPTER III THE CULTURAL LEVEL--THE VALUE-ORIENTATION OF AMERICA The effort to suggest a theory of control based upon the concepts of power and authority, as already defined, requires some empirical selectivity in order to get down _/ to cases. The next step, then, will be thfocus upon what is generally thought of as American1 society, realizing that America is but one of a group of social structures and cultures known collectively as "Western society." Allowing for many identifiable differences among these structures and cultures, there appear to be certain threads of simi- larity2 in the analysis of them which account for their being thought of together. Without entering into a docu- mentation of the historical develOpment of the modern Western world, some salient aspects of the American case will be considered as representative of the larger tradi- tion, though perhaps only in rough fashion.& This choice lFor expository convenience, the terms "American" and "United States" will be considered synonymous. 2These commonalities revolve around such manifestations as a scientific concept of knowledge, a Christian theology, political equality of the citizenry, advanced material technology, and a growing urbanization, taken in their broadest conception. A3 is made because of a relatively wider knowledge of American society on the part of the writer as compared with other Western groups, and because the subsequently reported field work was done in a section of this country. A. The Power Orientation of the American Ethic To most observers, including its own inhabitants, life in America is a dynamic process which can be either brashly simple or subtly complicated with equal ease. While almost every cherished belief and value seems, somewhere in the society, to have a comparably exalted paradox, there is one precept that Americans hold with few exceptions. [This is the conviction that the individual human being can never be completely understood or mastered by finite methods or agencies. The faith in the free and independent spirit is a kind of fundamental postulate which permeates the entire society, and which is consciously eulogized and fostered as desirable for its own sake. In the light of the typology of control, the idiosyncratic and non-formal nature of this quality would seem to classify it more as a power charac- teristic than an authority one. Since its concept of freedom implies some exercise of the unique and the unex- pected in behavior, it follows that the possibilities of action,in a given situation, can never be completely pre- Ah dictable, except that they may be considered as "free" according to preconceived standardsg] Of course, the question of "how free" a society, or group within it, really is, becomes a comparative matter. Furthermore, any behavioral situation may be poorly perceived or consciously misrepresented by those who invoke "freedom" as a motivator and rationale of action. Yet the pOpular notion of freedom, defined principally as an absence of restraint,3 is funda— mental to an understanding of the values of American culture. The locus of freedom in the individual, qua individual, means that the key judgments about the ethics of behavior are not transferrable to the social structure. Also, a convenient avenue for resolving the frustrations of personal failure has been present in the "frontier"Lt idea, 3It is freedom "from," rather than freedom "for." It is important to distinguish between these two kinds of freedom in cultural analysis. The "from" refers to a negative reaction against restraint, whether legal or otherwise. "Freedom," as a cultural symbol, is usually in- voked in America as a defense against encroachment. It is something which must be preserved from infringement in a continuous struggle with hostile forces. The freedom "for" is a more positive concept, involving notions of produc- tivity and progress. As such it is more affirmative psy- chologically than freedom "from." It is contended here that freedom "from" has become the more prevalent of the two as the term freedom is employed in the American ethic. "When geographical frontiers were exhausted, others, such as science, production efficiency, consumer goals, were substituted. 145 which has resulted in American culture being charged with a constant aura of both physical and emotional mobility, working as a safety valve for the stresses of material failure and mental frustration. If the self-image of American culture may be termed "free," in the foregoing popular sense, such freedom has become traditionalized, and to a great extent, morally in- violate and sacrosanct. Such an idealization of values will exist, and often become strengthened, within a culture regardless of any changes in the structure of the society itself. American history is saturated with the behavioral permissiveness and fluidity which mark a power orientation. The individual, considering himself/central and dominant in his environment, has had little reason to feel circumscribed by natural forces beyond his control. His only qualm has been that he might not fulfill his success potential, and that by such failure he would reveal himself as having been designated morally culpable. This is the kernel of Protestant ethic,S so thoroughly outlined by Weber, and it SIn which the motivation of action is to "prove" that one has been saved. Weber's comparative study of major religions led him to the conc1usion that capitalist eco- nomics could thrive only in the kind of cultural and moral atmosphere provided by Protestant, particularly Calvinist, doctrines. The emphasis of these doctrines upon individual responsibility for behavior supplied the ethical rationale for "laissez-faire" individualism in the world of commerce. Weber did not claim that either (continued next page) A6 is directly related to both the rationalist and Freudian theories of control alluded to in a preceding chapter. The cornerstone of the American ethic6 is social Darwinism, given an optimistic twist by the preposition that even in the competitive struggle for survival no indi- vidual need really be a "loser." This is accomplished by asserting that the unfettered rationalistic calculus of the individual, in trying to "best" his fellows, inevitably results in the greatest advance of well-being in the general society. This fortuitous combination of principles, at once (continued) Protestantism or capitalism "caused" the other, but pointed out neither is present historically without the other. It is a matter of concomitant variation, rather than a cause-effect sequence. See Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,(translated by Talcott Parsons; London, G. Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1930); The Religion of China, (translated and edited by'H. Gerth; Glencoe, 111., Free Press, 1951); Ancient Judaism, (translated by H. Gerth and D. Martindale; Glencoe, 111., Free Press, 1952). Tawney's work also supports Weber' 3 thesis, with minor differences. See R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism,(New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co.), 1926. 6As the American ethic has developed from its early foundations in the Protestant ethic, the stringency of the early Puritan notions of sin and damnation have been softened, even though the basic belief in individual responsibility for behavior has remained. Economic and social sanctions have replaced theological ones, and the material "means" of demonstrating salvation have become "ends" in their own right (i.e., wealth, position, etc.). One of the effects of this substitution has apparently been to make the present American ethic more amenable to social change than its earlier theocratic version. in both mechanistic (in the form Of inexorable "natural laws") and idealistic (there is no practical limit tO man's in- tellectual power over his environment), have enabled the American ethic to retain its potency in an era of accel- erated scientific develOpment. As long as it was conceived mainly as a system Of personal values, doing duty in a time and place largely free Of social and physical limitations, no severe shocks upon the actual structure of the society were likely to result through adherance tO the ethic. If occasional stress did occur, it could be handled by some relieving device, such as the aforementioned frontier. However, as soon as the pressures Of geographical boundaries, a fast-growing population, and the complex organizational problems Of a thriving technology grew more insistent, the functional discrepancies between the "power morality" of the American ethic and the behavioral patterns being thrust upon the individual by a rigidifying social structure grew more noticeable and frequent.7 Soon even the "average 7The mechanics of this process have been both complex and gradual in their Operation, and it would require con- siderable space to spell out this mutation from confidence to disillusion. Yet it does seem that popular faith in the American ethic has absorbed some heavy blows in the past fifty years, especially in the crises Of war and economic depression. In general, the goals Of achievement have re- mained quite stable, while the possibility Of actually attaining them in the given social structure has declined for large segments Of the pOpulation. It is the gap between ends and means which has widened. AB person" could see that his private dreams of worldly success might well be far removed from what he was likely to achieve. One's own future could no longer be realis- tically planned as a personal matter, to be gained by private enterprise alone. B. The American Ethic and the Freudian Psychology Within this atmosphere Of increasing personal doubt and misgiving, Freudian psychology also flourished. As an answer to frustration and despair, it provided a technique for individual adjustment to the "facts of life," which were frequently unpalatable. It stripped a man naked of his culturally imposed morality, his false hopes, his shibboleths. Only, claimed the Freudians, by removing the camouflage imposed by society could the individual get to know himself and gain a measure of stability. Admittedly, Freud's"stripping" process was emotionally merciless and traumatic, andhis therapy sometimes produced a kind of resignation, and even cynicism, when contrasted with the uplift Of the American ethic. But in many instances it proved, with increasing modification, tO be clinically usable. As an analytical technique, it attempted to rein- force the position Of the individual against the society at large, and it gave him an internal weapon to fight back 1+9 against that society's encroachments. It was, then, an attempt to achieve freedom "from" for those unable to gain it without guidance. Freud was not particularly interested in groups or in cultures, except as they hampered the indi- vidual. At best, they were necessary impediments whose influence had to be minimized to gain psychological equilibruim. Conceptually, the Freudian psychology is quite com- patible with the American ethic in its concept of control. It is similarly power-oriented. In one instance, the indi- vidual must accomplish his own deliverance as a patient in the medical world, just as in the other he must accomplish his own success as an entrepreneur in the business world.8 The only important quality found in the American ethic and not in Freudian theory is rationalism, which has no place in a biological determinism. As long as psychoanalysis is used in the milieu of Western culture, it can produce ' succesSful results in many clinical applications. But this applicability is bound up with the value orientation of that culture. It is mainly as a remedial technique, when personality equilibrium has broken down in a particular society, that Freudian psychology has been useful. It is 8One must accept the tenets of the faith and rules of the game in either case. 50 a product of the culture rather than an eXplanation of it, and, like other "drive" psychologies it lacks adequate terms and concepts to make the transition from individual to social behavior.9 For instance, there is widespread agreement that one of the paradoxical results of the American ethic has been a wide increase in behavioral conformity in spite of a moral allegiance to behavioral individualism.10 Clearly, there are wide gaps between value systems and actual be- havior, and the heavier the pressure for conformity, the more the cultural values are arrayed against it. C. The American Ethic and Rationalistic Science In contrast to the Freudian position, many social scientists are not willing, or ready, to consign American society to biological determinism. Some of them, such as Lundberg,ll Bain, Dodd, embrace the position of positiv- 9Louis Schneider, The Freudian Psychology and Veblen's, Social Theory (New York, King's Crown Press, l9h8), p. 9h. This transitional inability also lay at the root of Durkheim's rejection of Spencer's attempt to structure society in psychological fashion. 10See David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950), Chapter IV, and generally, Ortega y Gassett, Revolt gf the Masses (London, G. Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1932). llSee particularly George Lundberg, Can Science Save Hg? (New York, Longmans, Green & Co., 19h7). 51 istic rationality, minus hedonism,12 in which the role of man's psychology is largely subordinate. Chief reliance is placed upon an instrumental scientism, which can solve the problems of life by impersonal calculation of observable causes and effects, rather than by admitting the relevance of such things as unanalyzable values and vagrant impulses. Of course, this faith in rationality, pg; g3, creates dilemmas of its own. In the first place, it can deal with cultural values in only one of two ways, either to eliminate them as necessary influences upon behavior, or else to com- partmentalize them in a separate frame of reference. The latter alternative has seemed most attractive to the 12It must be noted that the current type of ration- alistic science does not have precisely the same orientation as the empirical rationalism referred to in Chapter II. The modern version of science, better known as positivism, is minus the theological and moralistic ingredients which flavored the empiricism of the earlier Western thinkers. Therefore, while the early version of rational science is imbedded in the fabric of the American ethic itself, modern scientism is a further development, which has had to be reconciled to the ethic rather than being endemic to it. As is pointed out in the text, the main differences between these two positions are the elimination of hedonism in positivistic science, and the extirpation of culture and teleology from its own logical processes. Parsons has carefully traced this separation Of science from the body of non-logical ends and values in the work of several out- standing economists and sociologists. The seeming incom- patibility of these categories become primary positional dilemmas for these theorists. See Talcott Parsons, Egg Structure 23 Social Action,(Glencoe, 111., Free Press, 1937% esp. Chapters II and III. 52 rationalists, since they can then lay any perceived in- consistencies of behavior (as judged in terms of rational methodology) at the door of this "non-scientific" category. In practice, rational science can dispassionately point out the consequences of behavior alternatives in cause-effect language, but man still has the Option, in the final reckoning, of behaving in an impulsive or non-scientific manner if he so chooses. The high status of positivistic science in the social 1" structure indicates the congeniality of the/mOdern ration- alist position with the American ethic. [This’science\ remains a tool which needs to be manipulated to be effective, since it is basically instrumental and non-purposive in itself. Essentially, its findings are common heritage in- sofar as they are incorporated into the culture. Certain characteristics, such as technical "know how," become in- grained in the society's self-image and even become commodities in cultural interaction.}3 Like Freudian psy- chology, however, scientific rationalism is a creed of freedom "from" in many respects:‘ In its early stages, it was a liberation from theological dogmatism, which had 13Such as the export of techniques and information in international mutual assistance programs. (UNESCO, Point Four, Marshall Plan, etc.) 53 emphasized natural phenomena.1h It, too, has enabled one to see a "real world," albeit a taxonomic world different from the emotional symbolism of the Freudians.Z:The social group is important to the rational scientist chiefly as an Object of investigation which can be dissected into its N..- elemental components and arranged in some logical fashionft . This would even apply to the scientist's own work as part H’rfi'JJ of the division of labor on a "research team." The ends and purposes to which these groups are put, or for which they are formed, are not the province of the scientist Qua scientist. As with the Freudians, these "ends" are cultural additives which usually only Obscure and hinder scientific analysis by their intrusion as value judgments. It must be pointed out, however, that although science has acquired a high status in the eyes of the society at large, it has done so largely because of its pragmatic qualities. This is especially evident in the biological and physical sciences, which have already demonstrated their ability to produce desired results in such work areas as industry and medicine. While science is authority-oriented within its own sphere, its social legitimacy can only be gained in 1"This does not mean that the scholastics and theo- logians of the early scientific era were uninterested in nature. It does mean that the core explanation which they gave for their observations were supernatural rather than sensory. Sh terms of its applicability to stated problems of an em- pirical character. Therefore, the scientists are seldom at the tOp occupational level in any American group structure, whether it be a manufacturing plant, a hOSpital, or even a university. The internal discipline of a science is binding only upon its professional members, and is not applicable to its relations with non-scientific groups. The result is that while science provides many tools for social control it is infrequently the agent of that control, leaving such matters in other hands. The fruits of science thus become part of the power orientation of the American ethic, and brains can be "bought and put to work" like any other raw material. Science, as an "end in itself" stirs very little enthusiasm within the culture, and is indeed often suspect as a waste unless tied to some non-scientific goal. From the foregoing it seems clear that current posi- tivistic science has also been made compatible with freedom "from," and that it has handled the matter of values either by negation, or by relegating them to non-scientific categories. The scientist assumes a rather passive attitude toward non-scientific goals, since he is authority-oriented within his own occupational frame of reference. Outside this frame of reference, he is manipulable by power-oriented, non-scientific groups. One would expect that in power situ- SS ations, where pressure tactics and behavioral adaptability are considered desirable, that scientists generally would exhibit ineffective behavior, judged by power standards. Only by acting lggg as scientists can they perform in accordance with the American ethic.15 The positivistic scientist is compelled to lead a kind of double life in order to gain acceptance into the American cultural struc- ture. In the actual functioning of society, he often sub- ordinates himself to the power elements. D. Veblenian Analysis of the American Ethic Perhaps no commentator upon American culture has per- ceived its inner workings more clearly than Veblen, for whom the entire course of history could be viewed as a cyclical movement16 between power and authority groups. Since he had addressed himself primarily to economic habits, he used as polar terms "business" and "industry," which, 15One example of this is the behavior of the American Medical Association. The individual who built its strength as a power group was a non-practicing physician. Even though he has been replaced, the behavior of the organi- zation falls increasingly in the power category as a pres- sure group, than as a body devoted to science pg: g3. 16Which also reflected a "stage theory" Of cultural evolution based upon his familiarity with physical anthro- pology. See T. Veblen, Theory gf the Leisure Class, New Edition (New York, B. W. Huebsch, 1918). 56 while rather restricted as referents, convey sharply the division between power and authoritygas-they have been out- lined in.Chapter II. His critiques of the background and content of Western institutions and modes of thought were incisive, although his notions of psychology were more of a common-sense variety than the symbolic characterizations of Freud, and his concept of "human nature" appears rather confused and superficial. ButEHe understood the importance of power-determined values in American society, and called attention to the present secondary (in the social structure) ranking of science,17 in the adherance to these values. To Veblen, the elements of power were raw, unscrupulous, and in general restrictive of the general welfare of the "under- lying pOpulation." On the other hand, the results of science were bountiful, and if the leadership of science could be established in society on the basis of its own internal authority, then the external dominance of power values could be broken. To achieve this was, apparently, Veblen's 18 dream, though he was apparently unaware of the reluctance of most scientists and technicians to assume such an active leadership role. l7As represented, in his terms, by technicians and engineers in the industrial economy. 18Via the "soviet of engineers." See The Engineers and the Price System (New York, B. W. Buebsch, 1921). V (“x a 57 ‘DeSpite the inadequacy of Veblen's solutions19 for what he interpreted to be the ills of society, his analysis of those ills remains cbgght But there is little evidence to support his belief that if cultural impediments could somehow be removed that "instincts" of a desirable Character 20 ' AV}! 5.: 1".13‘4; " :' tiv‘?!’ .l‘; ‘1 would remain. In terms of our typology of control, it is necessary to remove Veblen's connotation of "good" and "bad" from the :rubrics of power and authority. As techniques of control, «either one can be evaluated positively or negatively de- Ixanding upon the goals invoked. {In fact, the American ethic Conceives of power and authority in a way exactly the re- ‘verse of Veblenfls. The power orientation is morally i acceptable, while that of authority is not. ‘Veblen's (effort to reverse these normative values was hardly real- istic,21 and he could not demonstrate its desirability taxcept by substituting a different cultural standard of ;hndgment. He attempted to rule out the necessity of con- 19As epitomized by his support of "technocracy." 20There is considerable similarity between this idea shad that Of Freudian psychology, except that Veblen's ;hmdgment Of basic human character is moral whereas Freud's is largely biological. 21As Schneider points out, 2p. cit., p. 120, Veblen swiid not see the necessity of norms to hold society together. 58 flict by establishing a kind of structural rationality, similar to Mhnnheim's,22 in place of the existing power ethos. Yet Veblen himself could not fully accept the authority Of science as the ultimate answer to power su- premacy; He realized that mankind would be as restive "under" science as it had been under any other discipline, and at times he seemed to be pushing himself, via his own :relentless analysis, into sheer relativism in his ethics. THis ultimate theory of power is a psychological theory in- volving the recurrent readiness of the victim for the slaughter,23 because his examination of history seemed to offer no alternative position. Thus Veblen oscillated between a faith in ethical pnwogress based upon science, and a foreboding that man is Board of Supervisors Beef Calf Assn. {Lew-”M -wy/I DH IA MM“...— ABA u , -Lwaw PMA ‘ ".—.’n-t W“ Farm Bur e au *Jw'xém-‘M-‘fl" ' ' Figure 3. "Cross-leadership"8 among power and authority groups in Aspen County, 1953. viduals, whose positions were: Individual Power Group Authority Group "A" DHIA Director Township Supervisor "BU Farm Bureau County PMA Committeeman Committeeman "C" Seed Growers Assn. .Township Supervisor Director Figure h. Delineation of "cross-leadership," Aspen County, 1953. 8Only lines of "cross-leadership" are shown. .9The dotted line indicates a family rather than an in- dividual "cross-leadership." In this case, the father was the power group leader and the son the authority group leader. Both lived and worked on the same farm, and could thus be considered as part of a single economic and kinship unit. mu B. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups One characteristic of the power groups was that their leaders were likely to be either the more prosperous farmers and/or the "progressive"10 ones. This meant that in terms of personal prestige, brought about by success within the basic occupational framework, the power group leaders wielded considerable influence over their respective organi- zations. This influence was enhanced by the fact that the officers and directors of the power groups represented an interlocking network of control among many of the groups. Thus, the election of new officers often simply meant ex- changing titles among the current leaders within one or more groups. This exchange was, however, confined largely within the power group structure, and an individual could not usually enter the leadership stratum simply on his own volition. 10"Progressive" in this case refers to those who seemed most active, alert, and willing to try new ideas. They were not necessarily young men, but they did tend to be younger than those leaders who held their positions by virtue of past accomplishments and visible material pros- perity. The "progressive" leaders were quite likely to be in debt if they were under forty-five years of age. Of course, there were leaders who were both well-off finan- cially as well as "progressive" in the above sense of the word. - 11+; Town-centered power group_. These groups had a fairly well-defined internal structure, in which functional pro- cedure, division of labor, and hierarchy of membership were clearly arranged. The Chamber of Commerce and the Lions Club were mainly concerned with economic matters, and with developing the county for greater income. They had minor interest in farmers, except as customers and as a labor supply, but were anxious to keep on good terms with them for business reasons. This applied chiefly to the larger farmers who were not close enough to the county seat to interact very much with the town leaders. Therefore, the businessmen sponsored regular farmer-merchant banquets at which farmers were invited guests. Clubs and athletic teams made up of youth from all over the county were also underwritten by the town-centered groups. Although their motivation and interests were not identical with those of the agricultural power groups, the Chamber of Commerce and Lions Club were conscious of the strength of the leaders of such groups and sought good relations with them. The Grange, by and large, appeared to be a placid organization, whose group attitudes and opinions precluded dealing with partisan matters directly. The Master stated, "We're interested in local civic things like good roads, luo safety on the farm and such as that. We don't enter into politics like the Farm Bureau. We have health insurance, just like they do, but I wouldn't say we compete with them. I would say most Grange people agree with what the Farm Bureau stands for, and lots of them belong to both. But we like to keep away from politics." Most of the Grange's- activities were of a social nature; and when it took a direct stand on an issue, it usually followed the lead of the Farm Bureau. None of the Grange leaders had much prestige outside of their own organization, and the Master was disliked by several other power leaders, including the chairman of the county Farm Bureau. The Seed Growers Association was the one town-centered group which was integrated in the main power structure. Its president and two of its directors were among the largest and best-known farmers in the county. They did little of the actual work of the Association, such being the task of the manager and other wage-earning employees; but they kept close watch over policy. It was mainly through the Seed Growers Association that linkage was main- tained between the Chamber of Commerce and Lions Club on the one hand, and the country-centered power groups on the other. Most of the farmer leaders experienced no diffi- culty in their contacts with organized businessmen. 1h? Country-centered power groupg. Compared with town- centered groups, these groups had a more confused internal structure, with considerable permissiveness in performance of official duties, inconsistent administrative practices, and irregular communication among members. Most of the agricultural organizations were focused around problems of production; and while marketing problems were the object of increasing concern, they were still approached chiefly on the level of individual rather than group action. This meant that organizational leadership became channelized into regular patterns of behavior. Although the organi- zations engaged in varied concrete activities, their atti- tudes on issues and problems tended to coalesce because such attitudes emanated from the same set of leaders (see Figure 2). The Dairy Breed Association and the DHIA represented the core of the country-centered leaders, and farmers who were members of one were likely to be found in the other. Their leaders had a kind of "ease of leadership" born of eXperience and self-confidence in personal ability. They took their positions of control as more or less "natural," and as based upon proven accomplishment. When these leaders were asked why officers seemed to persist in their jobs, they had quite similar responses. As one man lhB expressed it, "Most people don't want to be tied down. When it comes time to elect officers, they look at each other and say, 'Let Joe keep on. ‘He's done a good job and he's got experience.' So, they elect Joe again and he has to take it or else the whole thing is liable to fall apart." The leaders felt that the mass of the group memberS» were dependent upon them, with the result that the leaders came to have a preprietary interest in their jobs. Another leader stated, "I used to balk when they elected me at first, but now I find I like the work. When they re-elect me, I know I've done pretty well. I wouldn't mind quitting on my own, but I'd feel pretty bad if they voted me out after I've given more time to this work than anybody else." In general, the passive attitude of the membership in . practically all the country-centered groups reinforced the control position of the leaders and allowed them a wide latitude in behavior. Within the past six years, however, the traditional, or "old guard," leaders were sharing more and more control with newer and less well-established men. Since 19h7, the DHIA and the Dairy Breed Association showed no steady in- crease in membership.11 Yet there was some replacement in 11Since the testing and record-keeping, which were an integral part of DHIA, were (continued next page) 119 the ranks. One director of DHIA commented that the organi- zation was once a "kind of closed club" for members of the Dairy Breeders Association. "They wouldn't let anybody in DHIA unless he had their breed, but they had to take some of the rest of us when their own fellows drOpped out." Although there was no sharp rift between these two types of leaders, the newer ones had less security and breadth of contact. The "old guard" leaders had an easy tolerance of out- side people and events which the others lacked. They also had a familiarity and a "joking relationship" with FH which enabled them to accept or reject his advice without apparent tension or strain. Their views on public affairs generally coincided with those of the newer leaders,but they appeared to be less compulsive and dogmatic in both expression and action. The ABA, one of the most recently formed organizations in the county, was more representative of the newer leaders, even though its current president was an "old guard" leader. One of the prime difficulties in‘a sparsely settled county like Aspen was to have enough work for the (continued) tedious and demanding processes, they were con- fined most to established, successful farmers who could afford the time and expense of carrying them on. 150 inseminator, who usually found it impossible to incorporate another job into his ABA schedules. Many farmers who tried artificial insemination became discouraged and bitter about improving their stock, although some remained with the program in spite of losses and failures. FH was instru- mental in encouraging younger men to keep going, and he took an exceptional personal interest in the futures of several whom he regarded as unusually promising. Those farmers who were active in the regional Beef Calf Association were generally larger farmers, usually of the "old guard" type, who were able to secure sufficient land and capital to make beef profitable. The county-wide increase in size of farms and decrease in number of them over the past two decades had given impetus to the change from dairy to beef, even though the smaller farmers clung to dairy cattle out of sheer necessity. Mi!2§.22!2£ groups. The Farm Bureau epitomized the rise of younger newer leaders in the power structure. While the "Old guard" moved slowly with respect to Farm Bureau policies and programs, the young leaders were less cautious. They were vociferous Opponents of PMA, and were more critical of authority groups as a whole. They were more positive about what they wanted and how they felt they could achieve it than the Older leaders were. This is not 151 to say that the Older leaders were Opposed to Farm Bureau ideas and programs. On the contrary, most of them were members, although they frequently had reservations about certain phases of Farm Bureau procedure, such as pre- arranged community programs and pre-digested pamphlets on state and national issues. In Spite of the fact that organization membership increased sharply subsequent to the offering of group health insurance, no Farm Bureau leaders acknowledged any causal relationship, preferring to believe that Farm Bureau policies and legislative accomplishments were the main attractions for joining. Whatever the moti- vation, there was little doubt that the Farm Bureau was the most widespread, as well as the most vocal agricultural organization in Aspen County. The dairy power groups and the Farm Bureau felt that they represented the majority of farmers in the county, and they behaved on that assumption. Practically all Of the power group leaders believed that their existing organiza- tions were adequate to accomplish this representation.12 As farmers, the power group leaders were likely to be the 12This was often expressed as if it had been true for a long time, et the Farm Bureau was only organized in the county in l9hg. Apparently they felt that the Bureau crystallized Opinions and sentiments which had previously been vaguely expressed in less formalized ways. 152 ones who adopted more of the new practices than did the majority of farmers. Many of the leaders were the first in their areas to build laminated rafter barns, cut grass silage, use trench silos, raise broilers, and adopt a new strain Of dairy cattle. The "old guard" power group leaders had a tight inegroup feeling and a selfeconfidence in ex- ternal affairs resulting from long tenure in policy- controlling positions. It seemed that very often the mem- bership responded to their wishes, rather than the reverse, and that a kind of nepotisml3 prevailed when new individuals were brought into the upper echelons of leadership. C. Behavior Characteristics of Significant Authority Groups Except for the three cases of "cross-leadership" pre- viously cited, the leadership of the authority groups was separate from that of the power groups. The authority groups were smaller, their size being fixed by statute; and in some respects they were insulated from immediate con- 13Leaders who had sons and sons-in-law, often saw to it that these young men joined key groups and immediately assumed roles of minor responsibility, in order to gain experience and group acceptance. Some leaders, such as the county Farm Bureau chairman, expressed regret that their sons were not interested in, or didn't seem to have the ability to "follow in my footsteps." 153 stituent control. For instance, the FHA Office could be considered as quite independent of local control, since it dealt with clients on a private individual basis. Of course, FHA.desired county approval and good will, but to a great extent its actions and policies were determined above the county level. Eggpg pf Supervisors and PMA. The Board Of Supervisors and the PMA committee were locally elected, and thereby subject to almost daily public criticism and pressure. In addition, their duties were legally defined, the officials worked for a fixed remuneration, their behavior was channeled by formal mechanisms, and their patterns of action were Often bound by custom and precedent.lh These authority-type characteristics, although not always strictly followed, were contrary to the power group frame of mind. Therefore, the authority group leaders often incurred the hostility of the power group leaders whenever their paths crossed in terms of issues or choices of action. Of the authority groups, the Board of Supervisors was most likely to be involved in outside conflicts. However, thor a more detailed description of township super- visors and their behavior, see Charles P. Loomis, pp pl, Rural Social Systems and Adult Education (East Lansing, Michigan State College Press, 1953), Chapter XII. 15h these conflicts were usually non-agricultural in origin, and were seldom resistant to compromise by the parties in- volved.15 Furthermore, the presence of two "Old guard" power group leaders on the Board gave it an acceptance-in the power structure it might not otherwise have enjoyed. The major portion Of such power-authority differences as were found in the county was centered in the PMA-Farm Bureau conflict.16 The Farm Bureau was unalterably Opposed 15A supervisor sometimes relied upon his authority role when controversies became severe. He could use his office as a justification for nonpreferential treatment of his friends and neighbors (i.e., the "requirement" that a public official must play no favorites). - 16An unusual fact about Aspen County was that it had no Soil Conservation District, and hence no SCS activity. Very few counties in the state were without such Districts, yet many of the Aspen leaders were totally ignorant of SOS work. One supervisor thought that SCS was simply a formal designation for the soil testing laboratory Operated by the Extension agent. The president of the Seed Growers Association, which was now chiefly a marketing and merchan- dising organization, had no conception at all of what a District was, or how SCS operated. Later, the field interviews disclosed that FH was steadfastly Opposed to SCS, and had actively campaigned against it, maintaining that Extension could handle conservation more efficiently than another "government bureau." It was significant that FH put Extension into a specifically non-bureaucratic category, in Which he himself personified local autonomy, as contrasted with "outside interference." Thus, even those farmers who might have desired, or at least accepted, SCS were convinced, for the time being at least, that it was both functionally superfluous and ethically undesirable. In other counties, the SCS was Often involved in power- authority group conflicts, often being the focal point in them. 155 to the PMA program, since it resulted in PMA's access to the average farmer for purposes of influencing his behavior. The leading PMA committeeman voiced his hostility to the local Farm Bureau which, he felt, took orders from the state and national levels. He said that many farmers were in favor of PMA and other government programs but that they were not vocal, even though a large number of them were Farm Bureau members. He was also convinced that group health insurance was responsible for a large percentage of Farm Bureau membership, and that these members had little knowledge of what the leadership was doing, nor were they interested. Thus, he felt Farm Bureau claims Of farmer representation were based on sheer numbers and not upon actual delegation of power. From the discussion, it was also apparent that the PMA leader had himself acquired a "vested interest" in his job in much the same manner that some of the "Old guard" power group leaders had done in theirs. Even his stated reasons for longevity in Office were similar. As he put it, "I've been at this (PMA) job a long time, and I've gotten so I like it. I suppose others ought to get into it, but it's hard to get them interested. They think you do a good job, so they keep on re-electing you." Thus the same rationalizing principle for continuity in Office seemed to serve for both power 156 and authority group leaders, even though one set of Offices was publicly chosen and the other selected from a special- ized group. Another informant,l7 currently a supervisor, was able to visualize conceptually the difference between power and authority constellations. He believed the power groups functioned more on the informal social level than they did on the organizational level. In his analysis, age and experience were important in determining the hierarchy of control, which he spelled out as shown in Table 111.18 From this table, it can be seen that the leadership of the county corresponded to the power and authority 17This person was a college graduate whose father was a college English professor who was only present in the county during non-school periods. The father was highly respected throughout the area, because of his professional status and speaking ability. The three sons, of whom the respondent was the eldest, lived on a large farm. None had much agricultural experience, and the family had lost heavily on several of FH's projects. However, the respondent was able to grasp the significance of many of the interviewer's questions, and to define the charac- teristics of many of the groups. 18The significant thing about this positional arrange- ment was that it was given without any kind of coaching or prompting, once the respondent understood what sort of information was desired. His analysis was given using personal names, which were here changed to the major current Offices held by the respective individuals. This substitution showed the independent analysis to be con- sistent with the conclusions reached by the investigator through other county sources. 157 TABLE III ONE INFORMANT'S CONFIGURATION OF LEADERSHIP IN ASPEN COUNTY W Major County Leaders "Outsider" Leaders President, County Farm Chairman, PMA Bureau Manager, Seed Growers Committeeman, PMA Upper Exchange echelon (Older men) President, ABA Member,19 School Board President, Seed Growers Exchange Respondent's Father as "elder statesman" Chairman, Board of Supervisors Major Farm Implement Locality leader,2O Dealer critical of Farm Bureau President, Chamber of Lower Commerce echelon (younger men) Director, ABA Regional organizer, Farm Bureau Respondent himself 19This member and his wife were leaders of the pro- school consolidation forces, while many of the power group leaders were opposed to consolidation entirely. 20This leader, a brother of the school board member listed in footnote 19, had a small neighborhood following in the extreme southern end of Area I in Figure 1. This man was a top Extension cooperator and a good farmer, and his wife was very active in Home Economics work. The diagram- ming respondent classified this person as a "lone wolf" who fitted into no outside category. 158 organizational dichotomy which had previously been out- lined. Although the power elements had preponderance over the authority elements in terms of numbers and position, the latter were not completely overshadowed, particularly in local areas where authority group leaders resided. As a further illustration Of differences between the authority and power groups, another supervisor, located in Area II (see Figure 1), stated that he had "no love" for the Farm Bureau, which he believed was inclined to tell the people what to think instead of allowing them to express their own ideas. This supervisor did not participate much in county-wide affairs, and his marginal farming Operations made it necessary for him to do Off—farm work consistently. He claimed most farmers in his area were in similar circum- stances. All were caught in the 1951-52 drOp in beef prices, and there was general pessimism concerning future price trends. This supervisor mentioned several of the power group leaders in critical fashion, and complained that at least two of them had "inherited" their wealth and were not competent farmers themselves. Several of these "inheritors" later turned out to be proteges and key demonstrators of FH. With respect to Figure A on page lh3, it was inter- esting to discover why power group leader "B" was also a 159 leader of one of the main authority groups. Presumably, this represented some ambivalence on his part. However, the regional Farm Bureau organizer revealed that leader "B's" membership in PMA was to give the Farm Bureau access tothe inner circle of PMA ideas and activities. Thus, it was a kind of infiltration maneuver which gave the power group advance notice of the plans of its rivals.21 D. Interaction of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups A key feature of FH's organizational activities was that they were almost entirely confined to the power groups. Since he had consciously promoted and helped to organize most of these groups, it was not surprising that he par- ticipated in them directly. This was especially true of the DHIA, the ABA, the Farm Bureau, and both cattle breed associations. The agent regularly attended the meetings Of all of these groups, and was an active member of the Lions Club as well. On the other hand, FH almost never entered the Office of PMA, which was located in the community five 210ther PMA committeemen who were interviewed, in- cluding leader "B" himself, made no mention of this process, construed in the above manner. In view of the possible negative reactions to a confrontation on this subject, it was not brought up by the investigator, since subsequent interviews might have been jeopardized. 160 miles west of his headquarters. The only time he met or consulted with the Board of Supervisors as an official body was during the yearly period of budget hearings, when county apprOpriations for Extension work were being con- sidered. This lack of contact was illustrated by the fact that one of the supervisors never had any advance meetings with ER on either program planning or budget requirements. Two years prior to the present study, FH had, after con- siderable discussion at the annual budget hearing, con- vinced the Board to purchase equipment for a soil testing laboratory. Subsequently, this supervisor had seen the laboratory in the Extension office only once, and during the interview could not give any coherent explanation of its Operation or how frequently it was being used. Another major feature of FH's behavior was the manner in which he influenced the policies and leadership compo- 22 He sition of the power groups in which he was active. was very careful to keep abreast of what these groups were doing and thinking. Since FH had been instrumental in establishing most of these groups, he had taken for himself a proprietary "right" to influence their behavior. 22FH, for example, was little concerned with the work Of the Grange, and seldom attended its meetings, except to show an occasional film or give a talk on some tOpic tangential to agricultural matters in the county. 161 There were numerous examples of this "right," as practiced by FH. For instance, the ABA had decided to get some younger men in as officers. The leaders took it upon themselves to do this without consulting the membership as a whole. This was possible because of the general per- missiveness extended to the leaders of these power group structures, whose rank and file could be counted on to accept "suggestions" from above. In this case, FH not only agreed that "new blOod" was needed, but went on to select a specific individual, who happened to be one of his own proteges in farm development. At the next election, this man became secretary-treasurer. On another occasion, a county-wide meeting Of the Farm Bureau was addressed by FH, who outlined a list Of five ideas on which he thought a particular stand should be taken for the coming year. In the subsequent list of resolutions passed by the county Farm Bureau, all of these ideas were included. However, FH's attempts to control these organizations was not always successful. The experiment with the special breed of dairy cattle, which the agent had made the back- bone Of his dairy program, was beginning to show serious deficiencies. After initial enthusiasm had subsided, various problems, such as Bang's disease, poor production records, and artificial breeding failures turned quite a 162 few experimenters against the new breed, and also partly against FH as well. However, FH's energy and persistence was such that even these failures and deficiencies did not produce the kind of mass rejection and loss of confidence which might have resulted. There were further evidences of FH's power group identification. During Observation in his Office on two non-consecutive days, six farmers made personal contact. Of these, three were power group leaders, and none were authority group leaders. Of four farmers contacted by phone, all four were either power group leaders or were active in power organizations. Likewise, in accompanying the agent on a round of farm calls, visits were made to the president of the ABA, the secretary-treasurer Of the ABA, a director of the DHIA, the ABA inseminator (who was also very active in the Farm Bureau), and the "locality leader" referred to in Table III on page 157. This contact with the "locality leader" indicated that the agent was able, on occasion, to transcend even the regular power group ties which were his chief source of support. Thus, while certain leaders were Opposed to some Farm Bureau ideas and activities which.FH himself approved of and helped formulate, they nevertheless were tied to the agent in technical fashion as farming practice cooperators. 163 Thus FH had enough programs going so that if a leader dis- agreed with him on one issue, or experienced failure on one practice, there were enough agreements and successes on other counts to preserve a working relationship23 and thereby build up a sense of mutual obligation. This was entirely lacking in terms of FH's relations with authority groups. ' A final citation of FH's organizational behavior is concerned with the handling of a general farmers meeting to promote his newest project, the raising of broiler hatching eggs. This meeting was publicized by posters in various communities, in the weekly county newspaper, and by word of mouth. The investigator attended the meeting, which was held in the largest community in the center of Area I (see Figure 1). In attendance was a poultry specialist from the land-grant college, who had driven up to the meeting with the owner and manager of the commercial hatchery through which the program would Operate. Twelve farmers showed up, and one of them, whom the investigator previously interviewed, had then predicted that only FH's 23Thus the "locality leader" mentioned above would never be approached by FH in terms of that farmer's oppo- sition to the Farm Bureau, but rather in terms of his experiences with a new grass seed, or with the progress of pasture rotation. FH never permitted antipathies among various group leaders to jeopardize his access to these leaders as individuals. 1614 closest COOperators would be there. With four exceptions this proved correct. After three hours of explanation and discussion, the meeting adjourned on an inconclusive note. The specialist, hatchery representatives, and FH then went to a motel for further discussion. A friendly, informal relationship prevailed throughout. The gist of FH's position was that if the hatchery would, as he put it, "play ball" with him and funnel all its off-season hatching egg requirements through ASpen County, then FH would see to it that the hatchery always had sufficient sources of supply within the county. Thus both groups would stand to benefit. FH was quite vague as to how some farmers would be able to finance the initial investment for this venture, but was confident he could deliver the product. From the material presented in this section, the major ways in which the agent worked through and influenced the agricultural groups in Aspen County should now be recog- nizable. Given this pattern of behavior, how did the leaders evaluate it in terms of their own conception of Extension work in general and of FH in particular? E. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders- In view of FH's high administrative rating, and his 165 close affiliation with the power groups in Aspen county, it might be expected that virtually complete approval of the agent would have been expressed by the leaders of such groups. Some dissatisfaction by the lesser authority groups would not have seemed surprising. However, taking the entire leadership group, as interviewed, there was fully as much criticism from power group leaders as from other sources. However, any censure was usually tempered by some praiseworthy comment, and there were no cases of outright rejection. On the positive side, there was a great respect for the agent's energy and devotion to his job. He was acknowl- edged to have a large fund of technical information which he dispensed to all who cared to take it. Most of the leaders expressed a rather deep sense of personal obliga- tion to FH. Even those who criticized him usually ended up with something like "but in spite of that I owe him a lot. If he hadn't prodded me into rotating those fields I'd have been a much poorer man today." Other typical comments in this vein were as follows: "I don't always take his advice, like on trench silos, but he has plenty of good ideas. I put up the first laminated barn in the county on his advice, and I've never regretted it." 166 "Well, a lot of people criticize him, but he knows what he's doing. They laugh at him sometimes, and at me for all the things I try, but I'll tell you, mister, if it wasn't for PR I wouldn't be on this farm today. The ones who gripe are the ones who just barely keep a-going. The progressive farmers are all behind him." Thus, while even his backers had some reservations, they stood in slight awe of his ability, and respected his attempts to help those who wanted to be helped. Negatively, the comments fell into two classes, personal and procedural. There was almost universal com- plaint that FH talked excessively, both at meetings and in private discussion. Said one farmer, "His main trouble is that he can't answer a question 'yes' or 'no.' He's like a history book. I get so I don'tdare ask him anything." Mention of this criticism varied from vehement annoyance and exasperation to a kind of amused tolerance. Some farmers also felt that FH seemed to change his mind fre- quently and without warning. On one visit he might extol the virtues of poultry, and the next time urge expansion of the dairy herd because the future price of milk looked strong. Consequently, there was some confusion and un- certainty about what to do next. It was obvious, then, that FH's work was not accepted 167 without reservations. The feeling about him was mixed, both in terms of personal characteristics and the way he carried out his programs. It was generally acknowledged that he worked over and over again with the same people, many of whom were the respondents themselves, but this was defended on the grounds that (a) you couldn't blame a man for working with people who showed a willingness to work with him, and (b) it was always possible for anyone to work with the agent if the person had enough interest and energy to seek out the information. 'However, the authority group leaders were more inclined to attribute FH's personal preferences to his own calculated efforts, and to feel that he lavished his time on those whom he thought would support and perpetuate his own influence in the county. Referring back to Table III on page 157, the informant who constructed the table believed that the "upper echelon" leaders were generally conservative, practical men who regarded many of FH's ideas with some skepticism. However, there was no doubt of FH's loyalty to the county, as repre- sented by the fact that he had "brought more money into it than any other single person." ‘This informant also felt that FH was quite jealous of his pre-eminent position in the county. This, in turn, would account for his conser- vative position on some issues, such as the Opposition to 168 establishing a Soil Conservation district. As far as the Extension Service as a whole was con- cerned, most of the leaders saw it completely in terms of FR himself. When Specialists came into Aspen County it was seldom without FH's knowledge, and all of their activities were funneled through him. One respondent re- garded this practice as quite undesirable by saying, "Well, we had specialist _____ up here to tell us about poultry diseases. FH arranged the meeting and introduced _____, but by the time he got finished he'd talked about an hour and a half, and gave _____'s speech for him, and one of his own besides. Then _____ got up, repeated a little of what EH said and sat down in ten minutes. A lot of folks were kind of sore. We came to hear _____. We hear FH every day in the week." This tendency toward personal monopolization of all agricultural activities in Aspen County was characteristic of FH's behavior; and at times his constituents chafed, at least among themselves, under this domination. Yet there was also a pervasive feeling that things really couldn't get along without his guidance. A few of the top farmers and leaders (the "Upper Echelon") could meet FH as a status "equal," and could feel that he depended upon their support fully as much as they depended on him. But the "Lower 169 Echelon" supporters, many of whom were FH's technical proteges, felt more of an obligation to him than vice versa. Consequently, FH had an active core of followers who "owed" him social capital, and he apparently drew upon this fund Of obligation to achieve his own goals. F. Image of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent Numerous discussions with FH left certain definite im- pressions as to his conception of his own job and of the groups with which he dealt. From the preceding sections of this chapter,it could be seen that within Aspen County itself both authority and power groups were present, and had different characteristics which largely explained their attitudes toward one another. To this we added the dimen- sion of the attitudes of these groups toward the agent per- sonally and to the Extension Service as a whole. Here we found more unanimity than divergence in terms of power and authority Opinion, even though authority group Opinion was not well articulated and many of its leaders felt personally obligated to PR in his technical capacity. Thus FH used his professional competence to prevent the formation of any organized Opposition to his programs. His activities and projects were not always successful, but few would dare to 170 Oppose him publicly, and his "funded reputation" was ample enough to overcome specific instances of failure or con- flict. Viewing these processes from FH's own perspective meant that in the final analysis he placed himself 32233 any group factionalism within the county. In fact, he could use such conflicts as diversionary measures to dis- tract attention from things he wished to do unobtrusively. He was well aware of the major strength Of the power group constellation, and made sure that he kept active and in- formed within it. “He was also aware of the weakness Of the authority groups, which he largely ignored Operationally. Yet he cultivated certain leaders in authority groups by visiting them often, feeding them ideas, and getting them obligated in terms of services rendered. In this way, he neutralized any possible opposition which might have arisen among the authority groups as a consequence Of his own preferential identification with the power groups. FH regarded himself as a considerable politician who knew how to marshal peOple and groups in his own behalf. He frankly stated that he had "key men" in all the farm organizations in the county, and that he could control membership on most boards of directors. He had several techniques for doing this. If he felt he wanted to remove 171 a man in a leadership position, he "began asking questions about him" all over the county. He would drop hints that perhaps the marked individual "wasn't carrying out his job as well as he might." Eventually the man would find him- self replaced by a new director. Conversely, if FH wanted to get a particular person "elected," he campaigned in- directly by describing the "best man" for the post without actually naming him. Pretty soon peOple got the idea who was being groomed for a job. He admitted he worked with key men in order to get them obligated to him. When he felt an individual was re- sisting him strongly, he never precipitated an Open fight, but either won the recalcitrant to his side by patient effort, or indirectly via social pressure. He regarded Aspen County as his own private preserve or, as he called it, his "home grounds." He felt his job to be a challenge, almost a "calling," and in return for his self-dedication he expected loyalty from his constituents. In some ways, he treated the county as his diocese, almost by divine right, and the people as his congregation. He ruled his Office staff with a benevolent but irOn hand. Scornful of bureaucratic routine, he ignored most of the paperwork required by the central Extension adminis- tration. At the same time, he delegated carefully measured 172 authority-to his h-H agent and Home Demonstration agent, but kept all major decisions for himself. He related that one of his enjoyments was to give his h-H agent a "problem" to work on, and when the younger man thought he knew the answer, FH would, as he put it, "take the wind out of his sails." Yet as long as "his" peOple, whether co-workers or farmers, respected his pOsitional supremacy they could count on his loyalty and protection with respect to "outside" forces. These "outside" forces were represented chiefly by the Extension administration. FH, on numerous occasions, voiced hostility and criticism of the central Extension office. He felt many specialists were impractical, and that the administration was too rigid in its procedures. As a man with great respect for technical competence, he conceded that the state departments had much to Offer, but he wanted their contributions on his own terms--or not at all. He carried on running feuds with some specialists, yet was very close with others. Sometimes, as in the case of poultry, he joined in the research efforts himself, and many specialists regarded him (not always without distaste) as their professional peer in certain fields of work. As a result of his wide technical knowledgeQ)4 and the quhich, as we shall see later, has become almost a ' rarity among modern county agents. 173 solid backing (in some cases almost blind following) he had built up within the county, FH felt secure and confident in flaunting the Extension administration. He felt himself above reprisal, and was willing to pit his own social re- sources and political skill against any Opposition. His conception Of independence was freedom from administrative control, and he communicated this dogmatically to those who worked with him. Paradoxically, this conception was the V basis of his own control over the very same people. Thus it would appear that, while the images of the agent by the leaders were Often couched in negative as well. as positive terms, no concerted defection in general allegiance was forthcoming. Many people underestimated FH's political acumen, and even those who were restive under his domination felt a kind of emotional attachment and de- pendence which precluded any overt rebellion. 17h % county seat (inactive exte sion office \ Figure 5 . OAK COUNTY N . City, town, or community centers \ m Sparsely farmed or non—farming areas E Principal farming areas . Location of major agricultural leaders 175 II. OAK COUNTY The structure and interaction of organized agriculture in Oak County were unique. The county itself was one of the most sparsely inhabited in Michigan, with only about 10 per cent Of the land area improved for farming, no in- corporated villages or cities, and no railroad. In addition to the geographical concentration of farming operations,1 the most striking fact about Oak County agriculture was its dominance by a Mennonite sect. This group occupied nearly all of the tillable land in Area I, and several of its members were scattered throughout Area II. Area III, how- ever, was almost entirely non-Mennonite. Prior to the study, a division of religious doctrine had occurred, re- sulting in so-called "Old" and "new" Mennonite churches within the county. The "Old" church was the more orthodox2 of the two; and most of the farmers, particularly the leaders, belonged to it. The "new" church was more secu- 1See Figure 5. 2Yet it was less so than some other Mennonite sects, such as the "Older order" Amish, which was Sparsely repre- sented in Oak County for a number of years, but had eventually disappeared because Of incompatibility with the behavior of the present sects. It is not necessary for the purpose of this study to describe Mennonite principles and theology in detail. Only those beliefs and activities which are applicable to particular problems will be men- tioned. 176 larized, and most Of the members were younger people who apparently desired less rigor and formalism in their re- ligion. Although no outward schism occurred between the groups, a distinct coolness existed, especially on the part of the "old" church, which outnumbered the other by about three to one. The main community in Area I was the center of agri- cultural activity and most of the Mennonites traded there extensively, several of them owning shops. Both the feed store and the creamery were located in this community. As a consequence of cultural and occupational differences (Mennonite farmers vs. non-Mennonite village dwellers), the county seat and the main community in Area I had built up a rivalry over the years which extended to everything from high school athletics to allocation of tax assessments. A. The Structure of Organized Agriculture Despite the fact that there were only slightly over two hundred commercial farms in the county, a large per- centage of farmers actively participated in organizations. Continuing the kind of analysis attempted in Aspen County, the control classification of Oak County groups is shown in Table IV. Town-centered power groups. The feed store and the 177 TABLE IV EXTERNAL CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LOCUS OF GROUPS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE IN OAK COUNTY, 1953 W Functional Control Type Locale Power Authority Town-centered Feed store Board of Supervisors Creamery Country- DHIA centered ABA Dairy Breed Association Mixed PMA creamery were both Operated by members Of two Of the largest "Old church" Mennonite families in the county. The feed store not only handled grain and fertilizer, but also helped market eggs and poultry, and often financed farmers who were getting started in such enterprises. The creamery had excellent plant facilities for handling milk and cream, and had its own collection routes and equipment. These two businesses were profitable, and had steadily eXpanded their Operations during the post-war period.3 3Both the feed store and creamery did a considerable amount of business in neighboring Aspen County. 178 Country-centered power groups. Leadership in these organizatiOns hinged around the fact that the special dairy breed introduced into the county by FH fostered joint participation by many farmers in the Dairy Breed Association and in DHIA. In addition, such farmers were likely to have adOpted several other practices and programs recommended by Extension. Prior to 1951, there had been no ABA in Oak County, but when service became available for the special dairy breed, there were enough interested farmers to form an organization, which soon grew to eighty members. Although most of the larger farmers retained their own bulls, many used ABA to bring in new blood lines. There was no Farm Bureau,“ which most Mennonites re- garded as a partisan political group. As might be expected, the power structure reflected its Mennonite composition; and all of the leaders in the power groups listed in Table IV belonged to the old church. In addition to this general religious tie-in, family connections were also present. For example, a relative of the feed store owners was president of the DHIA, and the I "However, the Farm Bureau organizer in Aspen County had confided to the investigator that he was working patiently and slowly in Oak County, with FH's knowledge, and that he felt the county would eventually have a Farm Bureau unit. 179 manager of the creamery was related to the secretary of the ABA. The "old church" bishop was also president of the Dairy Breed Association. Authority grogps. In contrast to the power structure, the authority groups were led entirely by non-Mennonites, with one exception. This power and authority cleavage was practically assured by the general Mennonite abstinence from holding public office, from engaging in overt political activity, or even voting in civil elections. The Board of Supervisors had its office in the county seat. Most of its members were men in their sixties who did not live on farms, and were either retired or engaged in a village business. By and large, they had little interaction with the power groups, except on public occa- sions, such as budget hearings. Within the agricultural areas, the supervisors did not follow the majority pattern. The representative from Area II was a French-Canadian, who was a strong neighborhood leader. Although living on a farm, he had given up agriculture in favor of politics and various seasonal jobs, such as hunting guide work. As chairman of the Board, his hierarchical position was strong. The "exception" referred to above happened to be the minister of the reformed "new" church, who had risked censure by competing for the position. 180 The PMA office was also in the county seat, and its three committeemen were non-Mennonite farmers, one from Area III and two from Area I. There was one part-time office employee. Due to the nationally revised PMA and ACP programs, numerous PMA functions were being curtailed or eliminated, and there was some prospect that too little would be done to justify keeping the office going. There was no linkage between the authority groups. As in ASpen County, there was no Soil Conservation district. "Cross-leadership." The only "cross-leadership" which could even resemble power and authority interaction was represented by the "new" church minister, who was also a supervisor. Yet, being a minority power faction leader, he was not represented in the major power group structure. His dual roles actually served to widen the gulf between the religious sect groups, since it violated "old" church principles. The minister had taken this post as a calcu- lated risk, in order to show that all Mennonites need not be as conservative and "custom-bound" as many people imagined. Consequently, he hoped younger people would accept the "new" church as a modern version of a traditional faith.S SThis motivation was expressed in an interview, as he explained why he had decided to flout the elders and run for political office. 181 B. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups Although the power groups of Oak County were similar in name and purpose to their counterparts in ASpen, the aura of Mennonite influence led to behavioral differences. The bishop, or chief elder, although initially chosen by the group as a whole, became an entrenched leader of great stature and authority. His leadership was accepted, by virtue of his office, and there was little internal con- flict once it was established.6 As a consequence of this acceptance, the Mennonite-dominated groups tended to act as units in their external relations; and it was frequently a problem of convincing "all of them or none of them" when- ever a choice of policy was involved.7 The Mennonites were prolific (having one Of the highest birth rates in the state), and the extended families were very large. Thus, about fifteen surnames accounted for the bulk of the individuals farming in the major areas. Offices 6This was analagous to the traditional type of author- ity discussed by Weber and later modified by Riesman in terms of general behavior patterns. See David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950), Chapter I, Part I. 7This kind of problem would not be faced, of course, in a more secularized county like ASpen. 182 in the agricultural power groups were rotated within the family leadership structure, much the same as in Aspen County; and sons of Older leaders tended to follow their fathers in active participation in the various groups. As a result of overwhelming Mennonite superiority in num- bers, the power organizations were regarded by outsiders as "clannish," a label which the Mennonites chose to ignore rather than repudiate. The feed store and the creamery acted as focal points for exchanging ideas and information. Since they performed functions which nearly every farmer depended upon, their owners and managers were key channels through which to reach the general public; and their position Of influence was enhanced by the fact that they had little economic com- petition in the surrounding area.8 ' Due to the above circumstances, then, the power groups of the county presented an unusually cohesive "front," which was cemented by (a) close territoriality of a few large kinship groups, (b) a common religious and ethical tradition among the majority of farmers in the county, and (c) joint economic interest in a special breed of dairy 8However, several non-Mennonite farmers in Area III felt that the creamery had things "too easy," and that it not only drove a hard bargain on milk prices, but was reluctant to extend its collection routes outside Area I. 183 cattle. This situation made it clear that interaction of outside groups with the power structure Of Oak County would have to be made with the preceding characteristics in mind. C. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups The Board of Supervisors, being centered in the county seat, which was itself outside the chief agricultural area, had little direct interest in agriculture. It is signif- icant to note that the supervisor of Area II, and chairman of the Board, was not particularly concerned about Mennonite influence. Since the Mennonites eschewed poli- tics,9 although they could easily have had formal control of the county government, their attitude enabled active minorities, such as this leader, to parlay his township strength to county-wide dimensions. His reputation among 9There were some dissenting views to this picture of ,the Mennonites as being "outside" Of politics. One Of the leaders in Area III (see Figure 5), which was mostly non- Mennonite, claimed that the "Dutchmen," as he called them, did a lot of undercover wireepulling. -He cited instances of elders getting draft deferments for their sons "no matter what it cost." He also believed the Mennonites con- trolled the County Road Commission, with his "proof" being that most Of the workers were sect members who used these jobs Whenever they got into financial difficulties. At the time, there was no way of checking this respondent's infor- mation; but the fact that he gave specific instances at least Opened up the possibility that the Mennonites, in typical power group fashion, might have used legitimized behavior patterns to camouflage antithetical covert maneuvers. 181; the Mennonites was quite low, except for the minister- supervisor, who recognized his political astuteness. The PMA organization, within.the past several years, had eXperienced a sharp decline in activity. Its program had never appealed to the Mennonites because of their re- luctance to deal directly with government agencies, and also because their ability as farmers made it less neces- sary for many of them to receive financial assistance.10 The chairman of the county PMA committee was rather critical of the clannishness of the Mennonites, and he felt that the county as a whole suffered because they were only interested in themselves. Personally, he was in favor of a 8011 Conservation district, but FH was against it, and the Mennonites were not interested enough to investigate the matter. By and large, then, the two main authority groups were isolated from the power groups, both culturally and geo- 10In fact, they had an informal system Of sect-group financing. If one of the members needed money, a "committee" of elders pointedly visited his farm unexpect- edly, having been informed of the member's desire for help via an intermediary. They inspected his land, buildings, and stock, particularly noticing the size of his manure pile (if too large for the size of the Operation, this indicated either laziness or inefficiency on the part Of the Operator). After inspection, if a loan were approved, the member was informed where and from whom he could get some money and under what terms. 18S graphically. They were ignored by the power groups, rather than Opposed by them, and were definitely in a secondary position in the structure of the county as a whole. D. Interaction Of the Agent with Power Authority Groups From the information in the preceding sections, the main task faced by FH to gain acceptance and OOOperation in the agricultural framework of Oak County was to establish and conserve a positive working relationship with the Mennonite groups. FH understood this necessity, and made it the basis of his entire county program. The crucial project was the introduction of the special dairy breed as the backbone of the program itself. This breed had been adopted by several key leaders in ASpen County prior to FH's designation as agent in Oak. When they first came to Michigan, the Mennonites had tried to make ends meet primarily by raising wheat and other cash grain crOps, as they had done "back home" in Kansas, Indiana, and Ohio. This approach failed because of climate and soil limitations; and at the time of FH's appointment, the peOple were psychologically and economically ready for new ideas. FH worked strategically through the then "Old bishOp," who was venerated as a patriarch of the 186 sect, which at that time was unified. A tour was arranged to Aspen County where the special breed was exhibited and explained. At the end of the tour, the "old bishop" was reported to have made the following comment: "I am now too old to change, but if I were a younger man I would go into something like this."11 With this authoritative approval, a considerable number of Mennonite farmers adOpted the special breed within the next couple Of years. The agent quickly used this "Opening" to establish a DHIA, and to further such projects as grass silage, poultry raising, trench silos, etc. In time, he selected key per- sons to act as funnels for his ideas, knowing that the relay system was dependable and productive. He found that he could give these leaders responsibility, and that they 12 Both the would follow through to the people in general. feed store and the creamery owners acted as his "lieuten- ants"; and once he convinced them of an idea, it was often possible to let them complete the ground work and imple- 11This incident was related by the young minister of the "new church." 12What FH was doing was capitalizing on the general sense of Obligation which the Mennonites had toward all their undertakings. Their kind of moral compulsion, or "inner-directedness," went far beyond agricultural matters, and was a transcendent ethical principle. FH merely put it to work in his own cause. 187 mentation. The farmers were inclined to be cautious at first, but could be counted upon to carry out things they had agreed to do. This made close supervision by FH un- necessary once the pattern of action had been set. As FH built up his hierarchy Of contacts, he spent less and less personal time in Oak County. He had early been given a branch office in the county seat courthouse, but had seldom used it. He came to the county at his own discretion; and when he did appear, he visited only those persons he desired to see (primarily the power group leaders). From them, he could get a resume of progress and problems, and decisions could then be made on an informal basis. Two leaders mentioned in interviews that attendance at Extension public meetings was recently declining, but that the agent did not seem to be worried about it, and preferred using his informal system. Having developed this effective pattern Of interaction with the power groups, FH paid very little attention to the authority groups. He met with the Board of Supervisors only once a year, for appropriations hearings; and since most Of the supervisors were non-farmers, they had very little occupational contact with him. The chairman of the Board, while very favorable toward the Extension Service and toward FH as a worker, admitted that they seldom met, 188 and then usually by chance. Likewise, FH had little con- tact with PMA, as an official agency. The chairman of the PMA committee remarked that he had not seen FH for four months, although he knew he had been in the county Oftener. This respondent claimed that many "good farmers" did not use Extension much, but got their ideas from farm maga- zinesl3 and by watching neighbors. This was particularly true in his local neighborhood, located in the western part Of Area I. He also made this trenchant comment about FH's system. "FH once told me that he didn't intend to work through alot of peOple and organizations. He said he'd work through a few small groups, and I guess that's what he's doing now." Certainly those who were outside the chosen pattern were aware of its existence, and were quite conscious of their exclusion. E. Image of the Agent and Of the Extension Service by County Leaders As in ASpen County, the Oak County leaders identified the Extension Service largely with.FH as an individual. Likewise, all governmental agencies and private political 13He himself had put in a trench silo a year before FH had introduced it as part of his own program. He had read about it in a magazine and had gotten plans there. 189 groups were seen through him as an intermediary.1" Among most of the Mennonites, FH and Extension were now an accepted part of their way of life. Various ideas and programs had been put to practical test, and many of these had been materially successful. Thus, in terms of results, Extension "made sense" to the thrifty and industrious farmers. Furthermore, they approved of FH's energy and capacity for work, and could conceive of him as one of themselves. They felt that it was not the responsibility of the agent to "sell" his ideas, but rather the responsi- bility of individual farmers to recognize their value.15 Thus, to the Mennonites, FH's program was more a matter of good business than of an emotional affinity reflecting local self-determination, "grass roots" democracy, or any other value concept. It reinforced rather than disturbed their traditional moral code. 1"EH, while a booster of the Farm Bureau, was conscious of the disfavor with which many Mennonites would view it. Therefore, he was unobtrusive about trying to establish it in Oak County. He had managed to communicate this attitude to the regional Farm Bureau organizer, with whom he had, much personal influence. 15Here, we might say, was the original conception of the American ethic, expressed in its simplest form. "Sales- manship" has actually been a latter American adjunct to the economics of "laissez-faire," since neither its necessity nor its desirability were ever suggested by the classical economic theorists. In fact, with an automatic system work- ing according to natural laws, much of the whole modern process Of high pressure selling and advertising would not be merely logically superfluous, but concretely disruptive. 190 There were, however, a few negative responses to FH, chiefly among the younger Mennonite farmers. Several of them had been singled out by FH for Special attention, and two or three had virtually "grown up" agriculturally under his tutelage. EH, as an authority figure, found easy acquiescence to his leadership role within the social structure, once his acceptance by the elders had been estab- lished. In agricultural matters, he thus managed to trans- fer some of the "father dominance" Of the Mennonite kinship group to his own person. This paternalism had begun to make some of these young proteges uneasy. One of them, a member of the "old" church, indicated that the attention he was receiving from FH was making him feel conspicuous in the community. His wife concurred rather vehemently, and said people were beginning to "talk," and to imply that FH was giving their family too much time. PeOple pointedly asked him to "send FH over" when the latter paid his next visit, because they knew that whenever FH came to Oak County he would be sure to visit this farmer. This protege described FH's approach as one of informally sounding out inner-circle Opinion before getting under way with a pro- gram, and he believed he knew of FH's ideas long before the public in general. Some farmers felt that both FH and the Extension 191 Some farmers felt that both FH and the Extension specialists he brought to the county sometimes appropriated ideas Of farmers, and subsequently presented them as their own. *Among specific instances were an idea for a poultry house door, and an improved way of keeping breeding records for dairy cattle. Furthermore, the specialists frequently didn't agree16 among themselves, which was confusing for the farmer. It led him to pick one specialist, whose advice he followed, and to ignore the rest. As in Aspen County, there was consensus that EH was (knowledgeable, energetic, and that he had done a great deal materially for the county. But there was also an under- current of at least latent dissatisfaction with his methods. The same personal criticisms, such as verbosity, poor speech delivery, and a tendency to monopolize any social or tech- nical meeting, were common to both counties. Among the authority group leaders, there was some bitterness at the agent's neglect; but as before, it seemed that intergroup animosity in the county was more pronounced than any direct criticism of the agent. For example, a 16Some evidence of this confusion was found in Aspen County, where some farmers had been faced with Bang's disease in their herds, and received conflicting advice from dairy specialists, college veterinarians, and local veterinarians. The farmers found this extremely frus- trating. 192 leader in Area III was very harsh in his description of Mennonite behavior, but full of praise for FH, even though he knew that FH worked very closely with the group he dis- liked, Here again, as in.Aspen, FH, through strategic use of his services,17 escaped personal recriminations resulting from inter-group tensions. The PMA chairman put it this way, "I'll say this, FH never refuses me any information or gives me any trouble when I ask for something--but I have to 335. It isn't so with _____ (the young Mennonite protege' mentioned above) and the rest Of that bunch. They get things without asking. That's the big difference right in a nutshell." The feed store and creamery owners were fulsome in their praise of'FH, and regarded themselves as his closest confidante. Though not farmers themselves, their business had prospered mightily since the Extension program had been introduced. Any Extension project which appeared likely to further increase their volume, or add a new commodity to the market18 was likely to receive their support. 17He assiduously visited this Area III leader, who was himself a retired Forest Service employee, and saw to it that he received all the help he needed. 18The feed store owner was the sparkplug behind FH's growing broiler program, and he even arranged private financing for farmers if necessary to get them started. 193 F. Image of the County by the Agent19 FH discussed his activities in Oak County in a manner exuding confidence and self-assurance. He felt that his initial effort in introducing the special dairy breed had provided the key to continued success within the county. In discussion, he referred to several power group leaders as his "lieutenants," and confided that the county really ran itself without much attention on his part. However, he was very careful to keep in touch with events, mainly relying upon the creamerywand feed store owners for assess- ments and evaluations Of local happenings. In practice, his own attitude was inclined to be paternalistic.2O He tried to plan his Extension projects strategically, or as he put it, "when I feel they are ready for them." This, to him, was principally a matter of timing, which depended upon his private estimate of the l9Since FH's attitude toward the State Extension Office has already been noted in the corresponding section under ASpen County, it will not be repeated here. 20For example, at one Extension district meeting attended by the investigator, he brought two Mennonite women along as Oak County representatives. At certain times, he prompted each of them to make remarks on issues being discussed, and if they faltered or seemed to wander in their presentations, he coached them deftly by "putting words in their mouths," or by clarifying some vague point himself. 19h "right moment." Such an orientation was in line with FH's basic image of the job of county agent. He believed that even his own exceptional technical knowledge would avail him little if he did not have a certain "feel" for his work. "An agent," he said, "should have ninety-five per cent of his training in psychology, and the rest of it in subject matter." It was evident that he regarded his own handling of Oak COunty as a concrete example of his psycho- logical competence. If he was aware Of the rumblings of discontent among some of his proteges and among certain authority group leaders, he never indicated as much. He felt he understood the Mennonites culturally, and that in terms of control he was pretty generally in the dominant position. This was not to say that he had little respect for the power groups, but rather that he had evaluated their structure and action patterns so well that he could convert their strengths into his own. In return for his "adoption" by the power group community, he made all Of their causes his own, and had always been quick to rise to their defense against outside threats.21 Here were at least the rudiments of a gemeinschaft relationship. 21This iswa good example of building "social capital" by constructing a network of mutual obligation. _ 195 On the other hand, his image of other county groups was sketchy. In fact, his only direct reference to the Board of Supervisors was that he sometimes had difficulty getting them to contribute "their share" of Extension financial support in comparison with Aspen County.22 Since most of them were non-farmers, living outside the major agricultural areas, FH had little motivation or Opportunity for interaction with them. Furthermore, his general antipathy toward agricultural organizations over which he had neither direct nor indirect control encouraged a lack of cooperation with PMA, which he regarded as a lurking threat to his own position and influence. Since he could not formally dissolve it, he could informally circumscribe it by avoidance, and by substituting his own program wherever possible. In the final analysis, then, FH chose to work mainly with the power groups in both counties. His modus gperandi in Oak was perhaps an intensified version Of his approach to Aspen, where he had to deal with more heterogeneous elements. For this reason, he devoted more time to the latter county, even though his basic aims and techniques were the same in both situations. 22By general agreement, Aspen contributed between two- thirds and three-quarters of the total Extension appropri- ation. 196 ,1 (extension office) ‘. ///( county seat Figure 6. ORANGE COUNTY Legend N T 3%" City, town, or community centers [:ES::3 Sparsely farmed or nonpfarming areas [:::::] Principal farming areas Location of major agricultural leaders CHAPTER IX THE FIRST LOW-RATED AGENT SITUATION--ORANGE COUNTY The major agricultural sections of Orange County covered roughly about thirty per cent of the total land area (see Figure 6). In addition, a small, isolated farming section was located in the northeast corner. There were three main communities, including the county seat, in Area II; a retail trade center in Area III; and a community center in Area V. The major industries consisted of an oil refinery,; a precision machine shop, and two wood products factories. All of these establishments employed less than one hundred workers each, and all were located in or near the county seat. The only ethnic grouping which retained its identity in the county was a settlement of Hungarians in the western portion of Area V. As far as could be determined, this group took no organized role in county activities, although it sometimes acted as a bloc in town- ship affairs. While the county seat was the focal point of agricul- tural activity within the county, the leadership was 1A number of oil wells were in production, concentrated in Area II. Most of these were fairly Old wells, with small volume, but at the time of the study, a number of new drillings were under way. 198 distributed quite evenly in the several areas, with the exception of III and VI. Areas I and V tended to have the kind of locality self-identification which was Observed in sections of Aspen and Oak Counties. Area V, especially, had a leader group composed of three households within one family, which was one of the largest beef breeders in the county. This family had considerable influence and power within the area, including fairly good rapport with the Hungarian ethnic settlements. In terms Of the control group types, the authority group leaders were found mostly in Areas II and IV, while the power group leaders were about equally distributed in Areas I, II, IV, and V. A. The Structure of Organized Agriculture As in the agent situation described in the preceding chapter, it was found that the agricultural organizations in Orange County could be aligned into power and authority classifications. These are shown in Table V. Igggn-centered power groups. The Farm Bureau Purchasing COOperative performed marketing and supply services for the entire county. Through it, for example, farmers could sell grain, seed, and eggs for prices prevailing at the nearest market centers, and could purchase a wide variety of feed, fertilizer, construction materials, and machinery. The 199 TABLE V CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LOCUS OF ORGANIZED AGRICULTURE IN ORANGE COUNTY, 1953 =1 3:— Functional Control Type Locale Power Authority Town-centered Farm Bureau Purchasing FHA County COOperative Committee Bank County Newspaper Chamber of Commerce County Fair Board* Country- DHIA* centered ABA #1 ABA #Ze Dairy Breed Association* Mixed Agricultural Advisory Agricultural Councils Resources Conser- vation Committee* Beef Calf Association PMA Livestock Exchange Soil Conservation Dairy Cattle District COOperative Board of Supervisors Farm Bureau sThese organizations were not actively functioning at the time of this study, September, 1953. 200 organization had led an independent existence for many years, although it had eXperienced financial difficulties several times. However, for the past four years it had been affiliated with Farm Bureau Services, which had prO- vided a specially trained manager to institute efficient Operational procedures into the organization. Although the Board of Directors seldom participated in daily business affairs, it retained considerable autonomy over local policy matters, and it had administrative control over the manager, including payment of his salary. The bank, one of two in the county seat,2 did a large amount Of business with farmers. Being centrally located, it served as a kind of "clearing house" for information and Opinion, in addition to providing financial resources.3 None of the current bank Officers were farmers, although the president had Operated a beef ranch until 1952. The county weeklynewspaper had also been owned by the bank president for many years, but he had recently sold it to the present younger editor, who was paying for it on an 2Just prior to the study, the second bank became in- solvent and was forced to cease Operations pending legal investigation of its financial activities. 3These functions were similar to those rendered in Oak County by the feed store and the creamery. 201 installment basis. The.paper had excellent circulation throughout the county and devoted considerable space to agricultural news, feature columns, and technical infor- mation. . The Chamber of Commerce was composed chiefly of mer- chants and businessmen who were located in the county seat. There were no full-time farmers among its leadership, although there were two men)"L who Operated farms in addition to town enterprises. The main purpose of the organization was to discover ways and means of increasing the business volume and income of its members, and to publicize the virtues and advantages of Orange County. The Fair Board's history was difficult to trace. Although the fair was begun for the benefit of AAH clubs, town-centered leaders claimed that rural people had failed to contribute time and money, and had depended upon towns- people to do most of the work. Since the fair usually "One of them revealed that while he now spent most of his time in his town Office, he "thought more like a farmer." He sharply criticized many of the businessmen for what he termed 'looking down their noses" at farmers. He resented this even though he had more town contacts than rural ones. This man had a good deal of what might be termed "attitude ambivalence." When questioned directly about his views and loyalties he was equivocal in his answers, and attempted to avoid direct commitments. When other informants were asked where this man stood on particular issues, both power and authority leaders were unsure of his position. None were positive he was on "their" side. Thus he tended to be some- what isolated in group situations involving confidential relations among leaders. 202 showed a financial loss, these town leaders had come to feel it was not worth perpetuating. The farmer leaders, on the other hand, believed that the townspeOple were "not civic-minded" about the fair, and were trying to turn it into a carnival for the sake of profit. The farmers thus refused to support the Fair Board for what they deemed "undesirable" practices. Besides this impasse, the fair grounds itself was in need of repairs, but there was no concerted effort to put up money for the necessary work. Country-centered power groups. The data in Table V indicates that most of the dairy production organizations were dormant. This was partly due to a shift from dairy to beef cattle on many farms. Therefore, county-wide interest in dairy products was at a relatively low point at the time of the study. Since many leaders were involved in the transition, they devoted less time than formerly to dairy production groups.5 The DHIA and the Dairy Breed Association had been closely identified with one another. The dairy breed was the same one which agent FH had introduced into Aspen 5However, due to the decline in beef prices, many farmers who had turned to beef cattle at the price peak were now uncertain about future plans. Some felt they would return to dairy as soon as they could because of milk's greater price stability. 203 County, but there were fewer breeders of this type in Orange County. As interest in the breed declined over the years, it reflected in the shrinking size Of DHIA, to which 6 At the time all Dairy Breed Association members belonged. of the study, regular meetings of both groups had been discontinued, and the panels of officers remained constant almost by default. Both ABA organizations had experienced alternate improvement and decline over the past decade, with the #2 group, which was concentrated in Areas IV and V, having disbanded in 1952. Some farmers in these Areas received service from ABA groups in neighboring counties. The ABA leaders tended to be smaller and less prosperous farmers than those in DHIA and the Dairy Breed Association. Several leaders were active in both organizations, but since most of the larger dairy farmers kept their own bulls, they used artificial insemination less than many who had small herds. Mixed power group_. The Agricultural Advisory Council, along with its authority group counterpart, the Agricultural Resources Conservation Committee, was composed of repre- sentatives of various other organizations in the agricul- 6As previously mentioned, one Of the requirements for raising purebreds in the special breed was active partici- pation in a DHIA unit. 201; tural structure. Its purpose was to get diversified leadership Opinion in the planning Of county programs. But the difficulty of getting members to meetings, plus their indefinite roles in the group resulted in abandonment of formal meetings after the initial organizational session was held. The Beef Calf Association and the Livestock Exchange represented much the same individuals. It is significant that both were marketing organizations, as contrasted with the production organizations of the country-centered type.7 Furthermore, both were devoted to beef, whereas the de- clining production organizations were concentrated in dairy breeds. The yearly auction of the Beef Calf Association, in particular, had become in about five years an event of regional importance. Buyers throughout Michigan attended, along with many from neighboring states. Price trends were directly influenced.by those established at the sale. Most of the leaders of the two beef marketing groups were among 8 the largest farmers in the county, and several were members 7This may well illustrate a long-range shift in empha— sis within organized agriculture. Marketing-type goals are superseding production-type goals. This trend has been recognized and encouraged by government as well as "grass roots" leaders. 8The Beef Calf Association had grown so rapidly that its membership now included several counties. Some direc- tors of the Association thus came from "outside," although the central leadership remained in Orange County. 205 Of other power groups. The Dairy Cattle Cooperative was only a year old at the time Of the study, and was formed as a marketing equiv- alent of the beef organizations. It was composed mainly of non-power group leaders who were trying to find an out- let for surplus dairy animals and feeder stock. Its Operations were still in the formative stage and were on a comparatively small scale. The Farm Bureau was by far the largest power group in the county. Although some of its directors were among the Older, well-established power leaders in the county, there were newer young workers who were even more active. Meetings and neighborhood group discussions were scheduled and held with regularity, and members were rewarded with such benefits as low-rate hospital insurance. These bene- fits proved to be a powerful attraction\for many rural peOple. From the preceding description of power groups, it is apparent that there has been some interlocking Of leader- ship among them, as illustrated by Figure 7. It can be seen that the only organizations without formal linkage to others were the Chamber of Commerce and the Dairy Cattle COOperative. However, prior to 1953, the president of the bank had been an officer in the Chamber of Commerce for 206 ‘\‘ Town-centered Country-centered Mixed Farm Bureauawgg. Beef Calf COOperative ‘Ei531fwwlm1W, Association [County Newspaper \x\x:h 'ABA #lt¥+4%93~Livestock Exchange iChamber Of Commerce "“2. ”1-Farm Bureau LBank w W 1 Dairy Cattle COOperative Figure 7. Interlocking leadership of active agricultural power groups in Orange County, 1953. many years. Of course, formal power linkage would include the Chamber if some of the dormant groups, such as the Advisory Council and the Fair Board were reactivated. The lack of linkage for the Dairy COOperative, however, was of another order. Its leaders were chiefly those who had positions in the authority group structure, and who had formed the dairy organization in emulation of the power- group leaders in beef who were not greatly concerned about marketing dairy animals. As one dairy group leader put it, "The beef boys have had it all their own way for a long time. They built their calf and steer auctions into a big thing. We figured dairymen better do something like that, too, before we got snowed under." As a result of these commodity differences, no major county power leaders were found among the officers of the dairy OOOperative, at least up to the time the study was made. 207 The authority group structure was less unified than that of the power groups, even though the number Of organi- zations was smaller.9 This was true in spite of the fact that the FHA, PMA, and SCD headquarters were all located in the same building as the Extension Service, and could thus supply farmers with easy access to available government services. The main function of the FHA County Committee was to advise the local administrator on federal loan policy in the county. This was mainly a task of technical interpretation of regulations, and to make recommendations for changes in such regulations. The FHA administrator, a government employee, had general responsibility for carrying out the actual loan program. The Agricultural Resources Conservation Committee contained representatives from all of the authority groups, but it had never gotten beyond the formative stage. Al- though the individual members thought that the committee might eventually serve a vital unifying function, they were too preoccupied with their own activities to devote much time to such an Objective. The PMA committee had no professional employees, but gsince there were so few authority groups, the locus classification has been ignored in the text. 208 did support one full-time Office clerk. The current chair- man had been associated with both PMA and its predecessor, AAA, ever since their inception, and thought Of himself as primarily a public official. The other committeemen were fairly small farmers, and two Of them had non-farm jobs to supplement their income. Since they had been elected to. office by the farmers at large, they considered this a mandate to carry out the regulations as literally as possible. The chairman spent considerably more time on PMA work than the other committee members. The SCD committee of four members contained two who were active in power groups, and two who were not. All were thoroughly convinced, personally, of the value of conservation work, and used various practices extensively on their farms. One SCS technician was under the juris- diction of this SCD committee, although he was responsible for the technical aspects of his work to the SCS hierarchy, and he made his work reports to them. The committee held monthly meetings in the technician's office and were paid a nominal fee for their services by the federal government. The technician functioned much like a county agent, in terms of setting up individual farm conservation plans, dispensing bulletins, and arranging demonstrations of practices. 209 The Board of Supervisors, as in ASpen County, con- sisted of a considerable number (five out of eleven) of non-farmer members who lived and worked in towns and community centers.“ As will be shown in a later section Of the chapter, some rural-town differences were present on the Board, which led to sharp rifts, extending to numerous issues. Since the Board had many kinds of duties and problems, agriculture was handled by a special committee, which was mainly concerned with the disposition of the budget submitted annually by the Extension Service for local travel and office expense. The Board itself was not directly involved in shaping agricultural policy, except insofar as county funds might be involved. The interlocking leadership chart was as follows: Town-centered Mixed FHA County Committee .PMA \ “an Board of Supervisors \. ”g“. u— ‘\, Soil Conservation District Figure 8. Interlocking leadership of active agricultural authority cups in Orange County, 19 3. Thus, at the time of the study, only two authority groups were formally linked, although several lines Of connection 210 would come into being if the Resources Conservation Committee were to become active. "Cross-leadership." Although there was a definite division of leadership along power and authority lines in Orange County, there was a striking Icross-membership" in the two types of groups which counteracted this division. Thus the leadership structure was far from symmetrical with the control typology, as shown in the following chart: Power Groups Authoritinroupg Farm Bureau COOperative FHA County Committee County Newspaper Chamber of Commerce'“I \", Bank In”, "v /’ u .0 a. A x \ Beef Calf Association \ PMA Livestock Exchange \xngoard of Supervisors Farm Bureaus—w~ww~w*”9“"1“.”xm'"Soil Conservation District UM" 3' Dairy Cattle COOperative”! Figure 9. "Cross-leadership" among power and authority ‘ group leaders in Orange County, 1953. The "cross-leadership" lines were actually represented by three individuals, only one of whom felt he was decidedly 211 in the authority group structure.10 For two of the leaders involved, their "cross-leadership" resulted in uncertainty as to their control position in the entire organizational structure, and produced some ambivalence in their behavior. The chart below indicates the manner in which the "cross- leadership" occurred: Individual Power Grogp Authority Group "A" ABA Director SCD Director "A" ABA Director FHA Committeeman "B" Farm Bureau County SCD Director Chairman "B" Farm Bureau SCD Director COOperative Director "C" Dairy COOperative SCD Director _ “ Director Figure 10. Delineation of "cross-leadership," Orange County, 1953. _ B. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Power Groups The power group leadership was considerably unified at the formal level, and the town—country differences were minimized, except in the one case of the Fair Board. Two 10This was "C," whose power group affiliation was out- side the main power structure. 212 consequences of this unity were that the power groups had geographical and instrumental access to most of the farmers of the county, and that they were not only numerically superior tO the authority groups, but had access to more Operational resources. ‘ngg-centered power groups. Among the power group leaders, there was very little frictiOn, since all appeared to have a community of interest which was openly expressed. Said the bank president, "This idea of the town fighting the country folks is nonsense. We're for the whole county. Anybody who tells you different is trying to stir up trouble, or just doesn't know the facts." The bank and the newspaper, while not specifically agricultural in themselves, were potent factors in making decisions affecting agriculture, 11 could influence and through various kinds of pressures the outcome of practically any public issue. The president Of the bank had long been a key figure in Orange County. He was not, he said, "a friend to all men," but he did have personal contacts with most of the power group leaders, and at least an acquaintance with many of the authority group leaders. 'Having been a beef farmer for several years, he 11By controlling the granting of loans and credit, editorial writing, publicity coverage, etc. 213 had been active in starting the Beef Calf Association with a few other large breeders. The newspaper editor mentioned that he "often consulted" with the bank president and other town leaders on issues and policies before taking a stand in print. He had little personal regard for government programs generally,12 and mentioned several authority group leaders as being "radicals" and troublemakers." Some members of the Chamber of Commerce, such as farm implement dealers, had direct dealings with farmers occu- pationally, but most of the merchants made no distinctions among their over-the-counter customers. The only conscious effort at town-country cooperation was an annual Farmer- Merchant Stag Day,13 which was sponsored annually by the Chamber of Commerce. The Farm Bureau Purchasing Cooperative's directors were almost entirely power group leaders, who replenished their ranks by nepotism, and by the careful hand-picking of new men. Three of the directors were following their 12He even felt that the Extension Service was spreading itself too thin, and that it should spend its time mostly with "good farmers on good land," and not try to keep marginal farmers on poor land. This latter effort was, he believed, a waste Of time and money, and if these poor producers were "smart" they would leave farming on their own volition. 13According to many of the participants, this event was largely an Opportunity to imbibe liquor freely under a socially acceptable pretext. 21h fathers in the same jobs, while the latest addition to the board was the fairly young (early forties) chairman of the County Farm Bureau. As the Chairman of the COOperative board of directors described the latter, "We needed a new man, and the Farm Bureau Chairman seemed to be the best one around. He's young, but he gets in on a lot of things. He's a little unsure of himself, but he won't be quite as nervous later on with us older fellows as he is now." Since the Beef Breeders Association and Farm Bureau were well-represented in the cooperative's leadership, its policies reflect the attitudes of these organizations. Country-centered power groups. As mentioned pre- viously, the dairy production groups grew weaker as market- ing groups became stronger. Since three of the groups had ceased Operations, little hOpe was expressed among leaders for their rejuvenation. As one farmer stated, "I don't think our county is in that kind of agriculture any more. The DHIA went out because we didn't need it." This kind of attitude was coupled with the continual difficulty of getting and keeping herd testers for DHIA and inseminators for ABA. There were many criticisms by farmers of poor performance on the part Of these Special workers, and there were rumors of misapprOpriation of funds, discrimination, and herd losses. The testers and inseminators, on the 215 other hand, claimed they were not paid enough in either salary or expenses, that their working hours were too erratic, and that the attitude of the farmer clients was overbearing and excessively critical.lh The last active president Of the DHIA declared that the "swing to beef" had hurt the organization, and that it wOuld not start up again unless there was more demand for it than presently existed. The Dairy Breed Association could not function effectively without a DHIA, so that its scattered members were forced to carry on as individuals,and to get tests whenever and wherever they could. Some Of them had begun a cooperative system of bulk milk shipments in a refrig- erated tank truck in order to help solve their problems of dispersion and isolation from central markets. It was quite evident that, taken as a whole, the dairy production organizations in Orange County were neither vigorous nor influential. Most of their leaders, however, were active in other power groups through which they made their influence felt more effectively. Mixed power groups. Although there were some signs 1"This kind of criticism was found to some extent in Aspen County, but it had not reached the state of mutual recrimination which was present in Orange County. 216 of a rift between the Chairman15 of the Beef Calf Association and several other power leaders on county issues such as taxation and school consolidation, this had not become an Open break, at least at the time of the study. These men had great pride in the success of their auctions and they were not too disheartened by slumping beef prices. Unlike most of the smaller farmers who had gone into beef during a period of inflated prices and who had lost heavily, the beef leaders were there to stay and had the resources to overcome what they termed a "stabi- lizing slump."16 Of all the mixed-locale groups, these beef marketing associations had the closest formal and informal ties with the town-centered power groups. Many of the leaders of Farm Bureau community groups 15This man was a state legislator who owned the largest beef ranch in the county. He had been a prime mover in starting the Association, and had been elected chairman every year since its inception. Since he was out of the county most of the time, his sons represented him as community leaders. They were not held in high regard throughout the county as farmers, but held the general respect of most leaders because of their father's position. The sons worked up a strong neighborhood leadership, but did not participate much in county-wide organizations. Much of their personal animosity was directed at the president of the bank whom they felt was trying to "run the county," including their own locality. 16Some of these leaders actually welcomed the slump as a way to weed out marginal producers. They felt that only the "real" beef men would remain. 217 were young people, usually married couples, who undertook many clerical and administrative responsibilities seemingly without monetary recompense.l7 The Farm Bureau leaders, via state conferences, regional meetings, mailed literature, and traveling representatives, kept themselves and their members in fairly close touch with organizational activities in the upper echelons. But, as one of the young "dedicated" leaders put it, "You can get peOple to meetings if you work on them enough, but they usually won't say much even if they do show up. If they don't stand up and holler, you can usually figure they'll gO along on a thing." As a fairly typical instance Of how the Farm Bureau functioned on the purely "grass roots" level, the investi- gator attended a regular meeting of a community group in Area IV. About a dozen peOple were present (one half of total membership) at the home of an enthusiastic young leader and his wife. A state Farm Bureau publication was used as a text for discussion. Conservation and credit were the pre-determined tOpics for the meeting. Most Of those present had little detailed knowledge of these sub- jects and their comments were vague and halting. While they spoke against almost every kind of governmental 17The ABA inseminator and his wife in Aspen County were similarly immersed in Farm Bureau work. 218 agency in principle, especially PMA and FHA, yet later in the meeting several members complained Of the difficulty - of getting private credit and paying for farm improvements. They did not conceive these two viewpoints as related. They endorsed the Officially expressed Farm Bureau position on free enterprise and exclusive'reliance on supply and demand to control prices, but their concomitant criticisms of present conditions suggested a lack of faith in these. ideas as solutions to their own problems of high costs. They talked of "economy" on the national level, yet felt that farmers, pg; g3, "deserved a good living," and that ways must be found at any cost to insure this.‘ They seemed to have an overall faith that the Farm Bureau on the upper levels could, and would, find answers to their problems even if they themselves were unable to discover any. The meeting covered its tOpics methodically, according to the printed guide, and the members unanimously endorsed the Farm Bureau resolutions on conservation and credit. Thus the "grass roots," at least in this case, seemed to involve little more than a legitimation of the position already taken at higher levels of the organizations.18 18One of the chief criticisms of the Farm Bureau by non-members, especially authority group leaders,_was that Opinions were "handed down" from the top, and then made to appear as if they had come from the bottom first. Likewise, as in ASpen County, it was claimed that many Farm Bureau members were in the organization only for the health insurance privileges. 219 If this example was any criterion of such meetings, the power orientation of the Farm Bureau would need little further documentation in terms Of the way in which members were influenced. The road was always carefully left Open for dissent via discussion and voting, but the average mem- ‘ber had few subject matter resources with which to even question the official organizational presentation of facts and issues. Thus the Farm Bureau county leaders were supplied with numerous mass media and prestige tools for preserving the notion of "grass roots" democracy with respect to Farm Bureau activities. Nevertheless, none of the county leaders showed anything but sincerity in carrying out their jobs, and they were thoroughly convinced that their methods were in keeping with the best tradition of majority rule. Yet, as an Opinion-minded group, the Farm Bureau singled out several authority groups as specific targets,19 and so was in the forefront Of the conflicts among the two types of groups. Since it took definite stands on such matters, it was in turn the target of attack by these groups and those who sympathized with them. 19Although the Farm Bureau was Opposed to FHA in principle, most of the county leaders, whatever their affiliations, had high regard for the work of the county FHA administrator. This was another case of discrepancy between a general idea and the personification of that idea in real people and situations. 220 The Dairy Cattle Cooperative was something of an anomaly among the power groups. As a unit, it was largely ignored by the rest of the power structure and there was no interlocking leadership in which it was involved. How- ever, repressive actions20 by the major power structure indicated that it was sensitive to even minor threats from new sources. As a whole, the behavior of the power group leader- ship Of Orange County represented a well-knit set of inter- active patterns. There were some stresses, particularly among individuals on specific matters, but these were not powerful enough to destroy long established affinities. .Every one of the power leaders interviewed was a full-time farmer, and practically all of them had substantial in- comes and social status by observed county standards. While the shift from dairy to beef had taken a heavy toll of the dairy production groups, it had compensated for this by strengthening beef marketing groups, which served the leadership equally well. Most of the power group leaders were able to identify the authority group leaders as "out- i! siders" or as "not one of us, and Often considered them 20There was a movement within the beef group to deny the rental of its pens to the dairy group for their annual sale, and the latter contemplated moving future sales to the fair grounds. 221 as inefficient, radical, or just not bona fide farmers. They were secure in their own sense Of control, but were alert for competition from either the authority groups or the latter's power offshoots. C. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups The chief linkage among the authority groups was through considerable office visiting among the personnel, and all agreed that their sheer proximity to one another, if nothing else, had increased their cOOperative interaction. Of all the groups, the PMA was probably the least interactive with the others. Most Of its farmer committeemen were in the Office rarely, except for periodic meetings. .FHA. The FHA administrator had considerable leeway in interpreting and carrying out FHA statutes and regula- tions. He numbered several power and authority group leaders among his clients, and he seemed to be personally pOpular in leadership circles generally. This acceptance might have been deemed unusual for an official whose work was at least partially bureaucratic, and who dealt largely with those farmers unable to get funds from commercial sources. However, investment capital was usually scarce in Orange County, and the private lenders were only too glad 222 to have a government agency either assume or insure the marginal risks.21 The FHA was not so much a group activity as it was a relationship between individuals, and each application was decided on its own merits. The administra- tor, while pOpular, tried scrupulously to stay out of other county activities which might compromise his position of impartiality. NO matter how friendly he might be on off “22 hours, he made a point of being "all business when on the job. EMA. Of the authority groups, PMA was the subject of most controversy. To the power group leaders, particularly the Farm Bureau, it epitomized "non-American" ideas of wasteful expenditures, bureaucracy, and coercion of indi- vidual freedom. The PMA committeemen felt that the PMA system of elections was fair and democratic, and that they were acting as spokesmen for the so-called "little fellows."‘ They were well aware of Farm Bureau Opposition, and the reasoning behind it, but believed they were more realistic 21The bank president, for example, praised the FHA administrator's work highly, and did not feel that it com- peted at all with his institution. 22As he phrased it, "When they walk in that (office) door, I want them to forget I'm , and to think of me as somebody they never saw before. Some of them may not like it, but I don't mean to have any favorites." 223 about the facts than their Opponents were, and that govern- ment participation in agriculture was not only expanding in practice, but that it was desirable in principle in order to eliminate economic cycles. There was a tendency, also noticed in ASpen and Oak Counties, for these authority leaders to cultivate as much of a "vested interest" in their jobs as the power leaders had in theirs. While their sub- stantive and ideological differences might be great, the psychological attitudes Of these individuals toward their jobs were quite similar.23 PMA also had one of its committeemen2h in the Farm Bureau who kept the authority group leaders up-tO-date on power group thinking. The PMA chairman had little regard for official Farm Bureau Opinion, believing it to be parrot- like repetition of directives from state and national leaders. The aims Of PMA were to prevent its own absorption by other authority and/or power groups, and to preserve as 23PMA and Farm Bureau committeemen, although poles apart on policy, expressed the same kind of dedication to their work, and both said categorically that they would feel-"hurt" and "let down" if their group membership had voted them out of office in favor Of a newcomer. zuThe PMA chairman did not identify this person, but said such action was necessary to preserve his own group from surprise maneuvers by the Oppositions. This procedure was remarkably similar to the one which the Farm Bureau used on the PMA in Aspen County. Obviously, such tactics could be used in either direction. 221; many of the practices and payments which were the corner- stone Of its activity. Since these aims were being re- sisted, the PMA leaders found themselves being drawn toward power-type practices in order to retain their identity.25 As a group, however, they had little organized effort out- side their functions. §QQ. The Soil Conservation District Committee illus- trated a degree of ambivalence not encountered in previous power and authority groups. The nature of this ambivalence was well illustrated by the leadership activities of the current chairman (see Figure 9). He had also been pre- viously an Officer in the Farm Bureau, of which he was an original county member, and secretary of the inactive DHIA. This extraordinary amount Of group activity created divided loyalties which prevented a consistent line Of thought and action. Although most Of the "grass roots" leaders of all groups knew this man well, many were doubtful about "where he stood" on specific issues.26 Some disliked his ubiq- uitous presence at meetings and believed he was in these 2SThe PMA chairman also confided that several PMA committees in the neighboring counties had created an "informal group" to exchange ideas and information and to discuss possible joint courses of action. 268cc footnote h, page 201, for similar example. 225 groups more for his own enjoyment than for any public objective. As one authority group leader summed it up, "Old _____ growls and talks a lot, but when you come right down to it, he doesn't do very much. He gets a lot of these jobs because he's the only feller around here you can be sure will take 'em." Discussion with this almost "professional leader" re- vealed that he regarded himself as an "independent." He criticized the bank president and the Farm Bureau, and supported PMA policies in general. He felt that a "committee of three to five farmers" should have overall control Of agriculture and be responsible only to the people of the county. 'He was well off financially, took winter vacations in Florida, and served on many organiza- tions because he "like to keep active and have a hand in what's going on." Thus what his critics termed a confusion of sentiment, he considered to be a breadth of approach far removed from narrow partisanship. Another ambivalent SCD director was, at the same time, a Farm Bureau director. Even though, on a national level, the SOS and Farm Bureau were at swords points, this indi- vidual was as enthusiastic about one program as he was about the other. To him, the control orientation differ- ences simply did not exist, or if they did exist, they were 226 solved on the level of concrete'participation rather than the level of ideology. Since both of these men identified themselves more with the dominant power group leaders than with any others, their soil conservation interests had to be justified on the basis of technical desirability rather than in terms Of any group organizational principles. The two remaining committeemen were definitely out- side of the power structure as far as interactiOn was con- cerned, except for the fact that one of them had been a key figure in organizing the dairy cattle cOOperative. The farm planner, who was under the jurisdiction Of the SCD committee, was a bureaucratically-oriented person whose main concern was keeping his Office files up to date and seeing that farmers accomplished their paper-work properly. He had difficulty in getting peOple to use their farm plans once they were drawn up, but felt it was not his duty to "push" them. He consciously remained in the background,27 and preferred to let the "grass roots" leaders take the 27At a Soil Conservation demonstration in laying drainage tile, he took no active part in the proceedings, leaving descriptions and announcements to the tile manu- facturer's representative, who handed out souvenir pencils and company literature, and made a short Speech describing and praising his own product. Only at the insistence of the county agent did the farm planner say a few words into the micrOphone. 227 policy lead. He Said that whenever he was confronted with a difficult procedural problem, he consulted with his administrative superiors in SCS for suggestions or solutions. This avoidance of publicity and lack of aggressiveness re- sulted in much criticism of the planner as "inefficient" or that he was a "book man," and therefore too rigid. Even the SCD committeemen expresSed these sentiments. ‘However, it was obvious that the planner, by choice, was quite passive with respect to the power groups, and that the SCD committee had a more pronounced power orientation itself, in terms of leadership, than any other county authority group S o Egggd‘gf Supervisors. As a whole, the Board had a reputation for being "stingy," even for what its critics termed "good" causes. There were several young men on it, and also several who were termed "radicals." Five power leaders had a vociferously lOw Opinion of the Board, and one claimed that the representative frOm his own township was a "communist." However, Since the Board had no con- tinuous activity,in agriculture, despite its standing agricultural committee, the power leaders were inclined to ignore it. However, two of the authority group leaders, both of whom were actively antagonistic to the power groups, were supervisors and served on the agricultural committee. 228 The following incident served to accentuate the county cleavage between the power and authority groups. Two men, one a power group leader through the Farm Bureau and in- formal personal connections in the county seat, and the other an "outsider" who had been living in the neighborhood for only seven years, were contending for township repre- sentative on the Board of Supervisors. The major issue was school consolidation Of this township with the county seat. The power group man was in favor of the move, while his Opponent was against it. Much campaigning and name-calling were engaged in by both factions, and even some fisticuffs. As township Opinion coalesced around the candidates, it was found that most Of the smaller, part-time farmers, and also the PMA committee chairman who lived in the township, rallied behind the "outsider." While the larger, more. prosperous farmers were supporters of the power group can- didate. The first group represented more votes, and the "outsider" won by a handy margin. The important fact was that the school issue was not of supreme importance. It merely brought out all the latent hostility which various groups had for one another in the community at large." Both candidates, when interviewed, eXpreSsed bitter feelings about the Opposition, even though the election had been over for six months. Thus, from several points of view, 229 the power leaders had few friendly feelings for the Board of Supervisors, and reviled them with great candor.28 In summary, the authority groups themselves were almost as different from one another as they were from the dominant power structure. This conclusion was borne out in Figure 8, which showed little interlocking leadership. When the authority group leaders clashed with power group leaders, it was usually with reference to a particular problem or occurrence, rather than a county-wide struggle. Furthermore, the attitudes of the authority group leaders was not so different from those of the power groups with reSpect to their concepts of control. It was more a case of the "cuts" trying to break the power of the "ins." There was a marked difference, for example, in the "purer" authority type represented by the farm planner, as con- 28The defeated candidate said, "Those reactionaries (as he labelled the Opposition) are illiterate. They don't read and don't care if their children do or not." He was quite aware of clique divisions, and considered himself a progressive, as contrasted with the other group. The successful candidate, on the other hand, inveighed heavily against the well-tO-do farmers who, he claimed, wanted to run the whole Show. ‘He felt conscious of being an "out- sider," even though he had lived on his present place for fifteen years. He hadn't wanted to run for supervisor at first, but his friends urged him to do so. The school issue made him so angry he decided to go ahead and campaign. Now that it was over he was glad he won. He thought his friends would now stick together for a while to keep the "Old clique" from getting back into control. . 230 trasted with the "mixed" orientation of the SCD committee members. However, as demonstrated, there were variations in the social, economic, and value orientations of the two group types, which reflected their typological differences. D. Interaction Of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups The extent to which FL interacted with the agricul- tural organizations varied considerably. For many years, his Office had been separated from those Of other govern- ment agencies, but even in the Short time Since the major units were combined under one roof, some changes occurred. All of the government personnel now had increased face-to- face contact, and could unofficially discuss many problems of common concern. Whether this would lead to any kind of a "united front" was problematical, except on an informal level, but the juxtaposition did seem to produce more cohesion than friction.29 Better liaison also coordinated action with farmers and resulted in fewer contradictory policies. Thus the new office arrangement did lead to some 29Indeed, the friction among the farmer leaders of these authority agencies was greater than among the re- spective technicians. This supports the observation that the more bureaucratically-oriented an individual is, the less likely he is to be involved in conflict situations. 231 increased work efficiency among the agencies. FL himself had been the leader in bringing this consolidation about, perhaps because his agency was the Oldest and best known in the county. He was quite pleased with this achievement, showing no jealousy at all over the functions and preroga- tives of the other agencies. FL, himself, had little official contact with either the bank president or the newspaper editor (whose office was located in the same building as his own). He had known the bank president for many years, both as an acquaint- ance and business customer. He visited the editor quite regularly, since he sent a weekly agricultural column to the paper, and frequently supplied news items and state college agricultural releases for publication. The editor and bank president both said that FL consulted with them often about agricultural matters, and that he had "several others" in the county30 on whose policy judgment he relied. Theu editor, in particular, said that FL was "not a man to butt his head against a stone wall," and that he never "pushed" a project Of which the leaders of the county did not approve. The one power group in which FL had no determinable 30They named three merchants, an FB director, and an ABA director. 232 participation at all was the Farmers Purchasing COOperative. This was run, seemingly, on an autonomous basis, though taking some policy cues from Farm Bureau Services, Inc., and had its own board of directors. The latter, while made up entirely of power group leaders, remained rather distinct from the other activities of these leaders, whose interest in the organization was traditional,31 as well as commercial. The actual running of the organization was handled by a full-time manager and staff Of employees, who did not par- ticipate visibly in other power or authority group activi- ties. FL had sporadic relationships with the Chamber of Commerce, since he lived right in the county seat, and saw many of the members daily on the street. While he did not attend their regular meetings, he did help to start the annual rural-town banquets sponsored jointly by the Farm Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce. This involved con- tacting leaders, arranging programs and speaker, and a host of other administrative details. AS one merchant said, "FL knew everybody on both sides of the fence" and so was designated as the "logical man to put the thing together." The town-centered activity to which FL had given most 31Via lineal descent, as previously noted; see p. 213. 233 of his time was the county fair. He had always promoted héH club work, and had devoted much effort to it in the absence of a regular héH agent. He helped organize the Fair Board, and served as its chairman for a considerable time. This created for him a heavy load of administrative work and considerable physical exertion. Most of the financial matters and the non-agricultural entertainment were left to the merchants who were board members. This division Of labor probably accounted for the different foci Of interest among farmers and townspeople, and led to their disagreement on the objectives of the fair. FL tended to side with the rural group on this issue, and thought the fair should be held, even if it Showed financial loss. Privately, he was somewhat bitter about the merchants' re- cent decision to discontinue it. This attitude was dis- similar to that of most of the power group leaders, particu- larly those living in town. However, FL made no attempt to organize farmer Opinion to re-establish the fair, even though he probably would have had receptive ears for such a campaign. Despite his own past investment in time and work, he merely said, "Well, if they don't want it, I'm not going to force them into it." The country-centered dairy production groups were all quite similar in their relationships with FL.” He had 23h attended their organizational meetings in the mid-forties, but had gradually dropped out of participation. There had been, from the beginning, much friction among the members, and many controversies centering around the paid employees. A study of FL's annual narrative reports from 19h? on showed a continuous series Of hirings and firings, disbandings, and membership fluctuations. FL expressed disgust at these occurrences, but did not inject himself into any of the squabbles if he could avoid it. The incessant conflicts were the main reason why he ceased to attend the meetings of these groups, even though his own technical specialty was dairy husbandry.32 He expressed the Opinion that the many verbal battles were giving the whole dairy program a "black eye," but as a technical man, he did not believe it was his place to engage in the controversies, and to publicly take sides. Thus the dairy program as a whole languished, partially because FL did not wish to take aggressive steps to prevent it.33 32FL was in frequent demand as a judge of dairy cattle at fairs in neighboring counties. 33Whether this was mainly due to lack of energy and deficient initiative, or to a conscious policy of non- involvement as part of FL's image of his job, was not tablished. It was assumed, in terms of FL'S rating as an agent by his administrative superiors, that the "personal" deficiencies were Operative here. However, the investi- gator's talks with FL indicated that the second reason should not be discounted, at least until more data has been Obtained. FL had made some quite (continued next page) 235 In his relations with the Beef Calf, Livestock and Dairy Cattle marketing groups, FL was more of a collaborator than an instigator. The germinal ideas for all of these organizations had come from groups of farmers,3" who then enlisted FL'S aid in planning the formal structures. This was especially true of the Beef Calf Association, which utilized FL's organizational assistance, but not much else. He felt constrained to even help shovel out the cattle pens after the auction because of the shortage of workers. He gave practically as much time to the Dairy Cattle Cooperative, deSpite the fact that its members were not of the dominant power group, and had acted as sales manager for all of the three years it had been in Operation. Following the above pattern of collaboration, rather than origination, FL was asked by a set of power group leaders to help set up a county Farm Bureau. Subsequently, he contacted the state and regional Farm Bureau personnel and sat in on the formative meetings. This was one private (continued) rational calculations of the consequences of involvement, and was not unaware of the choice he had to make. 31+FL stated that the enthusiasm of the members of the Beef Calf Association was "really surprising," and he had not imagined that such enterprises could capture the sus- tained interest of the peOple. 236 organization whose meetings he attended regularly.35 and he and his wife were actively participating members of a community Farm Bureau group, similar to the one described earlier in this chapter. He seldom took part in the county meetings in his capacity as agent, and was not involved in drawing up Farm Bureau resolutions or recommendations. He felt he was a citizen member, rather than a leadership member through his Occupational status. The Agricultural Advisory Council had never really progressed out of the rudimentary stage. FL had unenthusi- astically organized it at the behest of the state Extension office, but he felt it was unnecessary in the county. It took months to get organizations to designate representa- tives, and it was hard to find meeting times when a majority could or would appear. The sessions themselves were strained and awkward, since many council members were cautious about each other, and preferred to Operate via Old accustomed channels. After a few unproductive meetings, FL decided the group was too unwieldy, and ceased to schedule any more. He knew the state office was disturbed by this outcome, but felt he had made a genuine effort to make the organization work. He believed its failure was not his 35As an "extra" activity he also attended the Midwest Training School of Farm Bureau during part of one summer. 237 fault, but was simply due to the impracticality of the idea at the county level. FL'S interaction with the authority groups was some- what less apparent than with the power groups. Since a number of the authority group and several Of the "outsider" leaders were inclined to be partisan and outspokenly critical of the dominant control structure, they got little positive response from FL, who almost never verbalized his Opposition to people and policies. FL had good relations with the FHA loan administrator, a governmental employee like himself, but had no relationship with the FHA county committee. Likewise, he took little active part in PMA work, and since he had never been called upon to assist in its Operation, he was quite willing to have it function independently. By thus divorcing himself from PMA, he was not identified with it in the heavy criticism to which it was subjected. He also kept contact with the Board of Supervisors at a minimum, and took no part in township politics, such as the school consolidation struggle previously described. He realized that feeling among factions often ran high, and he felt that injecting himself into local controversies would only create resentment and Opposition among certain Board members. This latter, of course, might have jeopardized 238 his ability to get necessary funds for Extension expenses each year. He had already experienced difficulty due to the fact that some Board members continually tried to identify his work as favoring Special interest groups they did not like. It was in soil conservation work that FL seemed to feel more interested than he did in other activities. He himself stated that he "worked more with SCS than with any other group." He had helped get the District organized through calling meetings and leading discussions, and the county had voted overwhelmingly for the prOposal. He worked closely with the SCS farm planner and helped to arrange and conduct numerous farm demonstrations on con- servation practices. Perhaps the ambivalent nature of the SCD committee took the organization out of the purely "interest" group category, yet there was still some public ridicule and skepticism concerning strip-crOpping and other "new-fangled" ideas. However, FL seemed willing to identify himself actively with soil conservation work, un- like his affiliations with other county groups.36 36It seemed that the technical validity of conserva- tion had been accepted by FL, and he was willing to make his stand on the authoritative basis of scientific com- petence. This basis was different than the opinion- centered rationales of most other county groups. 239 The Agricultural Resources Conservation Committee was quite similar in format to the Advisory Council, and it had experienced a like fate. Its members were mostly authority group and "outsider" leaders, but they seemed to have little in common when it came to sitting around a conference table. Consequently, FL did not pursue the matter once the leaders indicated their disinterest. E. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders The major images which the leaders had of FL ranged from mild praise to candid Opposition. 'The "old guard" power leaders, such as the bank presi- dent, the chairman Of the Farmers COOperative, the Chairman of the Beef Calf Association, and several town-oriented directors of these organizations were the most complimentary. There was a general impression that the agent was "over- worked" and that he needed more Extension personnel, par- ticularly a héH agent. The praise was not enthusiastic, consisting mostly of statements like, "FL does a good job," "I haven't any fault to find with him," and "I know some folks don't like him but he's always done well by me." The power group leaders did not seem to think Of FL as an "equal," and certainly not as a "superior" (as FH had 2110 sometimes been regarded in.Aspen and Oak Counties). They thought of him as a dependable assistant who would "pitch in" when asked, and who could be relied on to get things done organizationally. They did not conceive of him as an inner-circle policy consultant, and were perfectly willing to run their organizations comparatively free of Extension influence. Extension specialists were thought Of as independent technicians, and many of them particu- larly in beef, visited farmers without "going through" FL first. 8 The dairy production group leaders were disappointed at the failures of their associations, but none of them blamed the agent directly. One farmer did say he wished FL "had taken hold a little more" in setting up the groups, but this was more nostalgia than recrimination. The ambiv- alent leaders were quite reserved in judgment on FL's per- formance. The previously mentioned "professional leader" thought him "too quiet," and lacking in "ginger." The Farm Bureau-SCD director, however, thought he was "competent, and a real good fellow when you get to know him." None of these leaders had any criticism of the state Extension Service, but all did feel that no centralized policies Should be imposed on agents or county groups. The consensus was to "leave the local people alone and let them decide 2111 what should be done." There was considerable evidence, as the chapter has shown, that the power group leaders of Orange County were doing just that. It was among the authority group and "outsider" leaders that most of the Opposition to FL was voiced. Here again, there was a split. The PMA chairman and more than half the supervisors interviewed had mild praise and felt FL was doing "a pretty good job." They sympathized with his many duties, and hoped he would get more assistance. Other leaders, however, chastized FL for not visiting farmers enough. They complained that he never seemed to have positive answers to technical questions, and that he "was never around where you could get in touch with him." They thought he spent too much time "with those 'big-shots' in (the county seat)." An Extension man was supposed to spend his time with the farmers, "not running errands for bankers." In one sense, of course, these leaders were venting their dislike of the power group leaders by charging that the latter were mis-using and monOpolizing the agent. When asked if they thought the agent could, or should, give personal service to every farmer in the county, all but two of the critical leaders admitted it was an impossibility, but they did feel that FL Spread himself too thin. Since some of the authority group leaders were part-time farmers, 2A2 they had major sources of income other than agriculture. They became more interested in politics for its own sake, and less in the techniques of agricultural production. Therefore, they were more concerned about the power group leaders as antagonists for the control of county organi- zations than they were in the agent as a purveyor and demonstrator of farming information and practices. In summary, the agent, while he aroused no fervent backing,37 had solid acceptance as a collaborator in the dominant control structure. His lack Of aggressiveness made him an appendage rather than a central figure in the battles for organizational control within the county, and even his critics regarded him more as a tool Of the "real Opposition" rather than an active Opponent himself. By and large, there was no widespread accusation that FL aligned himself with some groups against others. 37One farmer, a director of the SCD, contrasted FL with FH, whom he also knew. This farmer classed FL and the SCS farm planner as being similar.‘ They lacked a "per- sonalized approach" and had to be "driven" to get things done. He had been in contact with FH on several occasions with reference to grass silage, and had noticed that FH "kind of wanted things done his way or not at all." In comparing the energy and fund of knowledge of the two men, he said, "Well, up in Oak County they have FH, and down here we have FL--if you know what I mean." Yet he did feel that FL had solid if unspectacular qualities, and that in the long run he "might get along better with people. Thege are plenty of-them in his own county who don't like FH. 2&3 F.' Image of the County and Of the Extension Service by the Agent Taken as a whole, FL's attitude toward Orange County was one Of resignation, bordering at times on a sense of defeat. He had seen so many organizations rise and fall in 'local favor and’support that he was almost unbelieving when one or two did not follow this pattern.38 Therefore, he conveyed the impression to others that, in the end, any project was bound tO.run its course and disappear. He felt that personally he was a peor organizer and a poor speaker, and candidly attributed the small crowds he got at meetings and demonstrations to these personal deficiencies. He felt inadequate when it was necessary to explain to the Advisory Council and the Conservation Committee why they were being formed and what they were supposed to do. He was very much aware Of the frictions and rivalries which existed throughout the county, and implied that these were none of his business as agent. It was difficult enough tO keep farmers interested in Extension activities without antagonizing them by throwing his support to a particular side in a dispute. He firmly believed it was 38See his comment on the continued success Of the Beef Calf Association, p. 235, footnote 3h. 21m not an agent's job to force people into activities. He was there to be of service, and it was up to the peOple to tell him what they wanted. Apparently, he thought this approach worked satisfactorily in terms of keeping him busy, since he claimed tO be "on the gO all day and half the night."39 As previously mentioned, this pattern Of non-aggression was probably not entirely due to FL's lassitude. He was working with many active and partisan groups, and he be- lieved that discretion was a more desirable quality than crusading. He believed that having many groups was a "good thing for the county" since it kept any one group from. getting too strong. ‘He would help anyone, no matter what their alignments or convictions were, but if some sought . him out more than others it was not his fault. His private convictions seemed to approximate those of the power group leaders more than the authority group leaders. But in Observed situations with both types his general behavior and demeanor were quite similar. 39The Observer's three weeks in the county did not , seem to bear out this conception of great activity. 'The agent made few casual farm visits, but did engage in con- siderable organizational and planning work for future county events. Much Of this was carried out in the Office, but he did considerable contacting Of key peOple by phone, letter, and some personal visits. 2145 His attitude toward the Extension administration was almost noncommital. He felt the "state peOple" did not get out into the counties enough, and did not have a realistic view Of an agent's problems. Yet he added that this would be difficult to remedy. His main lack was "support" from the college personnel. They left him to fend for himself almost entirely, and this fostered a feeling Of neglect. He had spent much time and effort in setting up the Advisory Council, and when he finally got it organized, it existed in a kind Of vacuum. 'He was carrying out instruc— tions from the central group, but he was not convinced they knew what they wanted. He had practically no criticisms of specialists, and felt he got along well with all of the Extension personnel with whom he had contact. His overall conception of his job conveyed the im- pression Of disillusionment. His own concern for agricul- ture, over the years, had met with many rebuffs; and he had Often come to expect resistance and apathy from the very people he was trying to help. This mildly cynical negativism.had led him to conclude that the Extension Service, particularly himself, was a kind Of "outside activity" which competed with other things‘for people‘s time. He said bluntly that "if the Extension program were tO cease tomorrow, it wouldnit change things much in Orange 2A6 County." He had resigned himself to this peripheral position, and made up his mind to take each day as it came without getting unduly upset or perturbed, regardless Of the course Of events. 2h"! 7// county seat E§7°h (extension "232% ' office) Figure 11. IVY COUI-ITY City, town, or community centers 1e and 1‘ .42.. N l‘ I Sparsely farmed or non-farming areas Principal farming areas . Location of major agricultural leaders CHAPTER X THE SECOND HIGH-RATED AGENT SITUATION--IVY COUNTY Ivy County had the largest proportion Of its land area devoted to agriculture of the four counties studied. Like- wise, it had the greatest income from farming activities, and the most even distribution of rural population. The county seat was by far the largest community, and contained the headquarters Of all of the governmental agencies connected with agriculture. It dominated Area I (see Figure 11), and was a center Of light industry, petroleum extraction, and retail trade. Many farmers in the northern part of Area I, however, did considerable business in a community about seven miles directly north Of the county seat. Area II was settled heavily by Germans Of Catholic faith who had erected a large church and a parochial school in one Of their communities. These common ancestral and religious bonds encouraged a feeling of delineation on the part of the inhabitants Of Area II with respect to the rest Of the pOpulation. Likewise, many peOple in Areas III and IV felt more identified with their locality centers than with the larger section represented by the county seat. Such a feeling was more evident in Area III than in Area IV, but in neither case was it as manifest or intense as in 2A9 Area II. The foregoing remarks do not mean that there was any marked Spatial isolation of county groups, since good roads and adequate transportation resulted in considerable overall interaction. The ecological separations pointed out here were in the nature of a clustering tendency rather than an actual segregation. A. The Structure of Organized Agriculture The structural arrangement Of agriculture in Ivy County followed a rather familiar pattern, when arranged according to the power-authority typology, as shown in Table VI. Town-centered power groups. Of the town-centered power groups, the Chamber of Commerce was the Oldest and most stable. It was composed mostly Of business and in- dustrial leaders clustered around the county seat. Its most unusual feature was that the current Chamber secretary (its only full-time paid Official) had preceded SH as agricultural agent in Ivy County, and had resigned to take the Chamber Of Commerce position. This ex-agent, therefore, was well aware of rural activities and problems, even though he had become formally identified with a more urbanized group. The County Fair Board had both businessman and farmer 250 TABLE VI EXTERNAL CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LOCUS OF ORGANIZED AGRICULTURE IN IVY COUNTY, 1953 m Functional Control Type Locale Power Authority Town-centered Cooperative Elevator FHA Chamber Of Commerce County Fair Board Country- Three ABA dentered Two DHIA Milk Producers Assn. Two Dairy Breed Assn. Beet Growers Assn. Mixed Farm Bureau PMA Grange Board Of Supervisors Soil Conservation District members, although over the years the town interests had gained preponderance in numbers. The secretary Of the Chamber Of Commerce and the manager Of the cooperative elevator were nearly always members Of the Fair Board. Also, SH gave a large amount Of time to fair work, and 251 served Officially as its executive secretary and business manager. Major fair activities were centered around h-H programs and exhibits, with the chief justification of the whole enterprise being in terms Of youth-service and civic betterment. This appeal enabled the Fair Board to get contributions Of goods and services from the citizenry, and thereby to remain solvent without the usual income from a "midway" Of commercial entertainment. But since fair preparations required considerable time during busy farming seasons, rural people were increasingly disinclined to serve as directors, preferring to give money and labor on an eXpediency basis. Thus the Fair Board leadership be- came concentrated in the county seat and surrounding towns, even though the fair itself remained thoroughly rural in content. The Cooperative Elevator was affiliated with Farm Bureau Services, as in Orange County, but was smaller and more recently established than the latter. It was located on the outskirts Of the county seat, and was managed by the family Of a local farmer, who was gradually doing less farming as the business grew. Country-centered power groups. The ABA and DHIA groups were the core Of the country-centered power groups. The most successful Of the various associations were found 252 among the ethnic group Of Area II, and in the adjacent parts of Area I. In this region were the DHIA which had the highest per cow butterfat record in Michigan in l9uS, as well as the most consistently active Of all the county ABA groups. These two organizations contained a large number Of the power group leaders, most Of whom had been charter members of the groups, and who were proud Of their continuous affiliation. This was particularly true of the DHIA unit, which had a considerable number Of non-German members, some Of whom lived near the county seat. The leaders Of Area II ABA were more uniformly representative of the Area's ethnic pOpulation. The remaining two ABA groups were centered in Areas III and IV. Their leaders were local men, a few Of whom were part-time farmers. Both Of these groups experienced difficult Operating prob- lems, especially the one in Area IV, where the group had already functioned and disbanded twice in the eight years Of its existence. At the time Of the study, it had just been re-activated for the third time. The Milk Producers Association and the Dairy Breed Associations were closely linked with the DHIA and ABA groups. The Milk Producers Association served mainly as a marketing Outlet for whole milk, and was affiliated with the same state milk coopera- tive which handled non-certified production in Moss—Lilac 253 County (see Chapter XI). One Of the Dairy Breed Associations had shrunk from an original twenty members in l9b5 to ten members in 1952, and had thereby become unimportant in the power structure Of the county. The other Dairy Breed Association, however, was comparatively strong, and num- bered about thirty members at the time Of the study. All Of its leaders were men who were active in various other dairy organizations described above. The Beet Growers Association also had once been a thriving group, but had steadily decreased to a handful Of members due to the decline Of the beet sugar industry in the region. Although several power group leaders still raised sugar beets, and served as nominal officers in the Association, few formal meetings were held, and the organi- zation was not influential as an entity in the power struc- ture. Mixed power groupg. The Grange in Ivy County resembled its counterparts elsewhere among the counties in that its leadership and program were not molders of county agricul- tural Opinion. In fact, the Ivy Grange made strong efforts to stay neutral in all types Of controversial issues. The Farm Bureau, on the other hand, was extremely active on the leadership level and was by far the largest Of the power groups. There was no organized Opposition to its dominance, 25h although few of its leaders, or supporters, were found in the ethnic group Of Area II. As in the other counties studied, the Farm Bureau had difficulty establishing itself in places where religious or racial cohesion was high, and where secular influences Of all kinds were regarded with suspicion.1 Many of the active Farm Bureau leaders were young couples who gave much more than routine attention to their duties. Here a new level of leadership seemed to be rising which was distinguishable from the "Old guard" traditional leadership found in most Of the other power groups, where long tenure Of Office and father-tO-son transference Of control were Often found. The Farm Bureau leaders had considerable personal drive, plus a vigorous devotion to their organization not discernible in the other power groups. However, most Of the Older power group leaders were Farm Bureau members, and supported its activi- ties, even though many Of them were not highly placed in 1See Chapter VIII for a similar situation among the Mennonites in Oak County. Yet in both instances, the dairy production organizations, such as ABA and DHIA became very strong in such areas once they were accepted locally. The church leadership evidently did not regard the production organizations as threats to their influence over the be- havior Of their parishioners, whereas the Farm Bureau and similar organizations were suspect on this count. 255 the county organization.2 Power group interaction. Figure 12 illustrates the diversified nature Of the Fair Board, with its town- Town-centered Countpy-centered Mixed r.Cooperative - -Three ABA Farm Bureau 3 Elevator [ ‘/ é—Chamber of {fTwo DHIA . Grange V Commerce‘ A; / / J_COunty Fair iiMilk Producers Assn. Board \\\\ ”\K LDairy Breed Assns. U'Beet Growers Assn. Figure 12. Interlocking leadership of active agricul- tural power groups in Ivy County, 1953. centered emphasis, while the country-centered dairy groups have heavy internal leadership interchange. The Farm Bureau, although connected tO the dairy groups, has remained largely independent in terms Of its own leadership. Authority_gpoups. Turning now to the authority groups, 2This difference between a kind of "Old guard" and "new guard" set Of leaders was also noticed in Moss-Lilac and Orange Counties, and to a lesser extent in ASpen. The most active Farm Bureau workers were Often young married couples, with the wives Often carrying the brunt Of the tasks and Obligations. 256 it was found that while few in number, they were well- centralized in location. The FHA, PMA, and SCD had adja- cent Offices in the same building at the county seat, while the Board of Supervisors met at the county courthouse, about three blocks away. The Extension Office, including the u-H and home demonstration agents, had separate quarters in the United States Post Office. This proximity of Offices again reflected the trend toward spatial unification Of agencies Observed in the other counties. In Ivy County, the FHA functioned somewhat apart from the others, since its work was carried chiefly as a face-to-face confidential rela- "tionship between client and administrator. This, too, followed previously Observed practice. The PMA, on the contrary, was set up with a fairly large Office staff under the direction Of an Office manager. This manager had been a leader in PMA work since its inception under the Old AAA program, and although he spent most of his time in handling Office and administrative duties, he maintained general supervision over the entire PMA staff, including the publicly elected committeemen. Practically all Of these committeemen were small farmers, none of whom were repre- sented in the power group leadership. The SCD Board Of Directors also contained a number Of men who were not participants in other county groups. Three his material issLacVi 3 :pecxal Pumas: \ V ' ' ' «I ': o I. "xiv". ummfimfl%fi< 1g2ed: "D 257 of them, out Of a total Of five, came from Areas II and III, although none were members Of the ethnic group in Area II. At the time Of the study, some internal conflict had arisen within the board, and the above-mentioned three members, two Of whom were part-time farmers, were arrayed against the remaining directors. The county agent had served continuously as Board secretary, and attended all Of its meetings. A full-time SCS farm planner worked under the direction Of the Board, along with two part-time assistants. The Board Of Supervisors exhibited at least latent rural-urban differences. Most of the rural supervisors were in their sixties or more, and were not fully active occupationally. Four Of them had served for more than fifteen years. The supervisors from the county seat area were younger businessmen, whose terms Of service were shorter, and whose attitudes concerning fiscal apprOpri- ations and expenditures were more generous than those Of the farmer supervisors. The "Old guard" power group leaders frequently expressed misgivings about the "spend- thrift" motives and Objectives Of these supervisors from the county seat area. Taken as a whole, there was no apparent interlocking \ leadership among the authority groups. 258 "Cross-leadership." The occurrence Of "cross- leadership" in power and authority groups was present in several organizations, as shown by the following chart: Power Groups Authority Groups COOperative Elevator Chamber Of Commerce FHA County Fair Board "\g'h’ “a PMA DHIA mm‘ “wit" 7m ‘” Board Of Supervisors ‘ .. Milk Producers Assn..;‘: __s ’ 0” ‘UWW '5011 Conservation District Dairy Breed Assns. ,w“ v“ Beet GrOwers Assn,//BEU Farm Bureau’///// Grange Figure 13. "Cross-leadership" among active power and authority groups in Ivy County, 1953. Practically all Of the "cross-leadership" was concen- trated in the SCD, where the power groups had been party‘ tO some Of the factionalism which existed in that organi-. zation. The conflict on the Board Of Supervisors was traceable to the rural and urban origins and interests of the Opposed leaders. However, there was no overt strife among any of the power groups, despite the presence of 259 some Of their leaders on authority group boards. The internal authority group struggles, in turn, were based more upon the Special characteristics Of each group than upon any general dichotomy in the County at large. Individual Power Group Authority Gropp "A" Chamber Of Commerce Township Supervisor Director "B" ABA Vice-President Township Supervisor "c“ ABA Director SCD Director "D" Milk Production SCD Director Assn. Director "E" Farm Bureau County SCD Director Committeeman Figure 1h. Delineation Of "cross-leadership," Ivy County, 1953. B. Behavior Characteristics Of the Significant Power Groups Town-centered power_gpoups. The behavior Of the town- centered power groups was quite similar to that found in Orange County, and the tie-in between the Chamber of Commerce and the County Fair Board was almost identical in both situations. In Ivy County, this involvement Of urban interests in a rural project was intensified by the fact that the former county agent (preceding SH) was serving as 260 a fair director, in addition to being Secretary of the Chamber Of Commerce. As county agent, this man had not been pOpular with the majority Of farmers because of his so-called "independent" attitude, and his refusal to take advice and direction from the local farm leadership. He had attained a reputation for spending his time with businessmen in the county seat rather than getting out in the rural areas. Although his technical competence had seldom been questiOned by anyone, his apparent preference for urban associates and interests had made him unaccept- able tO the farm leadership.3 The present agent, SH, thus came tO the county in the wake Of a long struggle between the Extension and many Of its clients. When the fair was organized, SH invited the ex—agent to serve on the Board, and soon several businessmen be- came involved in underwriting and promoting the project. Yet many farmers identified the fair in the image Of the 3For his part, the former agent felt that the farmers had treated him unfairly, and he had no regrets in changing jobs. He felt that townspeOple were more enlightened, even on farm matters, than the rural peOple; and he remarked that while he was an agent he got more support and funds from town sources than rural ones. He also pointed out that on the Board Of Supervisors, the city members were always willing to boost and finance Extension work, while most of the budget cuts and objections came from the rural supervisors. Thus he felt an agent was justified in spending some effort on urban as well as rural matters. 261 ex-agent, whom they still disliked, and it was sometimes difficult to get them to give their service to fair work. This was eXpressed in terms Of mutual rural-urban criticism. Yet, many of the larger and more prosperous farmers did have close contacts with city peOple, and did not harbor much of this antipathy.Lt The ex-agent, as a spokesman for the town-centered power groups, believed that both the PMA and Board of Supervisors were "reactionary and Obsolete." He was in agreement with most of the Farm Bureau's policies, especially on price supports and on government agencies generally, and he felt that the Extension Service had nO Obligation to seek out farmers in order to assist them. The manager of the elevator, who served as Fair Board president for several years, was one of the ex-agent's strongest defenders. He was convinced that the leadership of the better and richer farmers was inevitable, and that Extension should spend most Of its effort and resources on those farmers. "They're the ones, he said, "who can benefit from all the teaching and can put ideas into practice. Farming today is a business, and "However, several Of the rural power group leaders claimed that townspeOple received preferential treatment on public services, and that their assessments on prOperty were disproportionately lower than that Of farmers. Some Of this feeling, it may be recalled, was also present in Orange County. 262 eventually some Of these little fellows are going to be squeezed out. But that's the way it is with everything. You can't penalize a man because he does better than the next man. The ones who get ahead will be the leaders." Both the Chamber Of Commerce and the Fair Board lOoked upon the fair itself as a civic enterprise which they were duty-bound to support, rather than as a money-making venture. Thus the profit orientation was not functional under such circumstances, even though "efficiency of Operation" was a legitimate goal. Country-centered_power gpoups. The country-centered organizations were led primarily by an "Old guard" group Of leaders. This was the case in Areas I and II, which over- lapped in terms of power group membership. The Area II DHIA and ABA groups were inclined to be clannish because Of their ethnic and religious unity,5 and they took little interest in outside groups, whether power or authority oriented. The DHIA membership was almost a kind Of elite, in which vacancies were filled only by "invitation" on the 5This was fostered by the area religious leaders, who were vigilant for signs Of defection, such as not sending one's children to parochial school, or in selling one's farm to "outsiders" not approved Of by the larger community. Competition was common within the Area, but vanished in the face Of threats or inroads by outside influences. 263 part of the incumbents, and total,membership remained small. This attitude Of selectivity was carried over to some extent into the Milk Producers Association, and into 'the major Dairy Breed Association. The leaders Of all Of these dairy organizations were largely the same persons, or their relatives.6 The investigator attended the annual meeting Of the major Dairy Breed Association, held in the county seat. Eight members were in attendance. After routine reports were read, an election Of Officers was held, and the son Of one "Old guard" leader and the younger brother of another were chosen as president and secretary for the coming year. A third leader was re-elected a director ig_ absentia, All Of those present were members of the Area I and II DHIA. The meeting was highly informal, with much joking and story-telling, participated in by SH, who also 'made a short speech congratulating the association on its achievements for the year, principally its butterfat test~ records. The need for having a larger membership was dis- cussed, but mostly in terms Of the financial advantages 6The "Old guard" farmers, being quite similar in their attitudes to those in Orange and Aspen Counties (i.e., their broad tolerance Of others and their confidence in the security Of their own positions) saw to it that their sons and nephews were elected tO various boards of directors in which the Older leaders were actively interested. 26h rather than leadership participation. NO one appeared dismayed or surprised by the small turnout. When one leader was asked about this after the meeting, he replied, "Oh, this is about a normal turnout. You can pretty well figure who is coming to meetings. It's mostly the same Old crowd. I could have told you beforehand who was going to be here." However, not all of the DHIA and ABA groups had un- qualified success. The second DHIA had great difficulty keeping a tester employed during the late l9h0's, and its membership dropped during that period. The other two ABA units were neighborhood-centered in Areas III and IV. The one in Area III was held together largely by the efforts Of a leader who had a great deal Of personal influence in the community. He owned a general store which served as a social gathering-place on off-hours, had a flourishing roof- ing business, and Operated a th acre farm with twenty milking cows. Since he served variously on the SCD and PMA boards Of directors, as well as on PMA and the Farm Bureau, 4 he had the same kind of tolerance Of Opposing points Of view which were found among the other "Old guard" leaders.7 He described himself as "civic-minded," and accounted for 7In addition, his "cross-leadership" in power and authority groups gave him the same kind Of ambivalent loyalties which were previously noted among some Orange County leaders who likewise had "cross-leadership." 265 his wide range of activity by saying most peOple were "too bashful to accept public Office," so that he got many re- sponsibilities through the default Of others. One former inseminator for the Area III ABA was a part-time farmer whose debts had caused him to take a factory job outside the county. Therefore, he had relinquished his ABA duties and was trying to save enough money to get back into full- time farming. He was quite conscious Of his position as a part-time farmer and felt a grOwing social barrier be- tween himself and the current full-time farmers in the neighborhood. He mentioned that he had Often engaged in heated discussions about labor unions in his community Farm Bureau meetings, and he felt that the majority Of Farm Bureau members misunderstood labor's position. Consequently, he was thinking of dropping his Farm Bureau membership. He stated that the number Of farmers he knew who were holding factory jobs was rapidly increasing, and named four of his close neighbors who had taken such employment within the past couple Of years. By so doing, they had removed them- selves, at least partially, from the agricultural activities and organizations of the Area. The Area IV ABA had experienced even more difficulty keeping an inseminator (the last one having been accused of willful mismanagement), and was currently in a dormant state. 266 Many Of the "Old guard" power group leaders were less interested in ABA than they were in DHIA and the Dairy Breed Association because they had pure-bred bulls of their own and were not dependent upon ABA for improving their stock. In the overall county picture, ABA achievements were not consistent, although the DHIA program made minor but con- tinuous gains. As in the other counties, ABA groups were of chief benefit to small farmers who could not afford to keep pure-bred bulls, or to those who wished to bring new blood lines into their herds. As elsewhere, the low per- centage Of successful first services,8 coupled with the required cash outlay for the process, caused much criticism and dissatisfaction among ABA users. The Beet Growers Association was composed Of a few "Old guard" leaders who had something Of a traditional attachment to their crop, which most of them used as a supplementary rather than a main source Of income. Although all Of them were part Of the power group leadership, they had little success in encouraging beet production, and the acreage for the crOp had drOpped steadily every year since 19h5. Even the president Of the Association confided that as soon as the few present growers ceased raising beets, 8 Varying from to to 60 per cent in most counties. 267 the crOp would probably disappear from the county perma- nently. Mixed power groups. With respect to the mixed locale power groups, the Farm Bureau was much the largest and most influential body, having over one thousand member families. Many of its Officers, including the chairman and the secretary,9 were young leaders who were not particularly active in other organizations. These "new guard" people were highly energetic, and were frequently not the most prosperous or well established farmers. The secretary Ob- served that most of the criticism of the Farm Bureau came from what she called "outsiders," who claimed that the state and national Farm Bureau Offices controlled county Opinion. She denied this was so, and said that diversity of viewpoint was encouraged, even though majority rule pre- vailed on final policy decisions. The Grange confined itself mostly to social activities, and none of its leaders were important in the power group structure. Summa y. Essentially, there were no deep schisms within the county-wide power structure. While there was 9A woman in her late thirties who held her job for eight years. 268 some cleavage between town-centered and country-centered groups with respect to the County Fair, and between part- time and full-time farmers based upon occupational differ- ences, no organizational struggles had crystallized within the structure itself. The following figure shows the relationships among the power groups with emphasis upon their attitudes toward each other. In general, the domiy nance Of the major power faction was seldom effectively challenged by the peripheral elements: Major Power Factiopg -Peripheral Power Elements Country-centered "Old {‘“uu- Town centered civic leaders 7 guard' 'OIP’C. lg 0990; 1'. ‘5‘ ~ 1' Mixed "new guard" ‘\-;~;:”C~*yw- Country-centered part- -time E \1fi¥ farmers ; 3% Lv xi" r Country-centered neighbor“ _ hood leaders Figure 15. Delineation and focussed attitudes Of active power structure, Ivy County, 1953. ' C. Behavior Characteristics Of the Significant Authority Groups PMA. The Ivy County PMA was centered around the efforts Of one man, its Office manager. As previously noted, he had been associated with PMA from its earliest days, and had thereby assumed the sort of proprietary 269 interest in it which had also been noticed among long-time PMA leaders in other counties studied. The Ivy County PMA was almost entirely dependent upon this one individual for its Operation, since over the years he had developed his personal role into a full-time job which he alone felt competent to fill. The manager took a critical view of the new Agricultural Conservation Program, in which PMA relin- quished or shared many Of its previous duties with SCS. In spite Of the fact that the Farm Bureau Often criticized PMA, the manager insisted that his relations with other county groups were "100 per cent cooperative." He felt that government support programs were destined to be per- manent, "just like a minimum wage," and that the present PMA system would always have a place in the organizational framework Of agriculture.10 Most Of the PMA committeemen were small farmers who followed the Office manager's lead on most issues and who seldom belonged to any Of the power groups, except ABA. SCD. The Soil Conservation District directors were 10In spite Of the manager's professed COOperation with other groups, most Of the power group leaders were highly critical Of PMA, and thought it should be abolished. Yet was acknowledged by all concerned that many Of the critics, including the more prosperous farmers, partook Of PMA cash benefits whenever they were available. 270 not nearly so well-knit a group as PMA. When the District was first organized, in l9h7, it had been confined to the western half Of the county, and its leaders resided chiefly in Areas II and III. In 1951, the eastern half of the county was annexed to the District, and within a year, several Area I farmers became directors. By 1953, the newer directors had achieved the chairman and treasurer positions on the Board and were in nominal control. Some Of the earlier directors regarded this as usurpation, and they even boycotted the regular monthly meetings. The new leadership was outspokenly critical Of PMA, and corres- pondingly friendly toward the Farm Bureau. The SCS farm planner was a vociferous person who did his best to enhance the independent strength Of his organization by keeping it free Of interaction with other agencies, and publicizing the accomplishments Of his own technical services. At a monthly SCD Board meeting, attended by the investi- gator, the question Of PMA-SCS relationships under the new Conservation Program was discussed. The farm planner pointedly wanted this prOgram curtailed in Ivy County so that his own work-load would not be increased by his having to supervise PMA loans. He urged the SCD Board tO attend a PMA policy meeting scheduled for the following day, and to try to eliminate as many PMA conservation practices as 271 possible. SH, who was Secretary of the SCD Board, then remarked that the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts was making a "power grab" in Washington and_that the local District should not go along with this program. The members present agreed, and felt that SCD and PMA national leaders were conspiring to make agriculture sub- servient to the federal government. At the PMA meeting the following day, the anticipated conflict Of policies did not materialize. The PMA Office manager was able to get most of the allowable practices accepted for the county, and the SCS farm planner got little support for his Objection.ll Thus the animosity between the two groups remained covert under an outward show Of con- ciliation. For its own part, the SCS steadily increased its ser- vices and functions in the county. However, the farm planner, having cOOperated fully with the new leadership, was criticized by several of the Old leaders as being too Opinionated, and only interested in the larger farmers. 11This lack of support by the SCD Board members for their farm planner was difficult tO explain, except perhaps on the grounds that the Board members decided that their participation and supervisory role in the ACP program would Offer a legal means Of controlling PMA Operations. TO them, this was a more important Objective than lightening the work-load Of the farm planner. 272 The planner denied any bias, and said he worked on an equal basis with whomever sought his aid. He did acknowledge that these voluntary clients were more likely to be larger farmers, but felt this was not his fault, and that he had no preferences as far as cooperators were concerned. ‘ng gig; Supervisors. The Board Of Supervisors re- flected a rural-urban split similar tO that found on the County Fair Board in the power structure. The older rural supervisors, although quite conservative politically, were inclined to be sympathetic to the PMA, while many Of the town-centered supervisors and leaders (including the ex- agent) felt that the rural supervisors and the average PMA committeeman were all "the same type Of farmers--generally ignorant and uncooperative." Two Of the rural supervisors who were interviewed showed a definite lack of information concerning the activities and functions of important county organizations, such as the Farm Bureau and the SCS. In fact, one of these supervisors believed that the Farm Bureau was a federal agency Officially linked with Extension. Neither supervisor was very clear about the SCS, except that they knew it was "supposed to help folks save the land," and they were unfamiliar with any Of its field practices and procedures. Although both of these 273 supervisors had large dairy herds12 (one was milking almost fifty cows), neither participated in DHIA or ABA, and both had recent epidemics Of Bang's disease among the cattle. They were aware Of some town vs. country friction, but were inclined to minimize it. They felt that one Of their primary obligations was to prevent "raiding" Of the county treasury by any groups, including Extension, and both vehe- mently denied favoritism in assessing town property over against rural prOperty--a charge which was made several times by rural power group leaders in criticizing the Board Of Supervisors. The rural supervisors were interested in their jobs,‘pg§.§g, even though they felt their efforts were unappreciated by their constituents. One man said, "I like the job although I never put in for it--and I never will. It's kind Of interesting work, and a place where I can use my experience and what I know about the town. I must be doing all right. They keep sending me back." The city supervisors were inclined to be interested in civic improvements and promotional work, and were more willing to spend money on new projects, such as a commercial parking lot and an airport. They voted Extension appropri- ations usually without comment, and expected rural super- 121n each case, the sons of these men had assumed major roles in Operating the farms. 271+ visors to support their municipal programs in return. Yet this reciprocity seldom occurred without some conflict, and Often lengthy debate. FHA. The FHA Office, although located in the same building, had little contact with either PMA or SCS, except as a particular loan might involve the services or advice Of those agencies. Summa y.- In summary, there was little cohesion among the authority groups. The rivalry between PMA and SCS was Often evident in the actions Of both groups, with SCS verging more toward power group cooperation than unity with PMA. There seemed to be more community Of interest between PMA and the Board of Supervisors, particularly in terms Of the type of farmer who served on both groups, but their functions were dissimilar, and the PMA was independent Of the Board Of Supervisors as far as funds were concerned. The SCD Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors exhibited ambivalence and inner turmoil in group behavior, and they were significantly the two authority groups which contained "cross-leadership" in their membership structure (see Figure 13). 275 D. Interaction Of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups SH was well aware Of the fact that his appointment in Ivy County followed the term Of an agent who was unpopular with many segments Of the farm population. Therefore, he 'tried to adapt himself to the various groups and interests which had been neglected or Opposed by the former incumbent, realizing that such groups would be sensitive to his be- havior toward them, through comparison with his predecessor. Relations with the town-centered groups posed this problem from an Opposite point of view because the ex- agent had been extremely friendly with town leaders. ,This was the very situation which some of the rural groups had resented, and SH did not feel he could follow the same pattern. Neither, however, could he avoid the town leaders entirely just to establish his identification with farmers. Since this problem Of town and country relationships was potentially explosive, the agent tried to get both types Of leaders to join together through the medium Of the county fair. SH put a great deal Of organizational effOrt into this enterprise, and during his ten years in Ivy County it constituted the most time-consuming single project he had undertaken. It was his goal, eventually, to step out Of 276 active participation13 and allow the Fair Board to take over completely. However, each year he was called upon to do as much.work as he had done previously, and found him- self so enmeshed in programs and administrative details that he could not escape major responsibilities. Certain frictions remained between town- and country-centered leaders, and SH feared that if he withdrew under leader protest the entire structure would collapse. He felt such a demise might have consequences he could not risk, and he therefore grimly accepted his fair duties as a necessary price to be paid for the working compromise between the town and the rural leaders.lu At times, it tOOk much conciliatory skill to keep the two sets Of leaders from quarreling and breaking Off with one another. While SH was careful to maintain friendly relations with the Chamber Of Commerce and other city groups, and even with the ex-agent, with whom he had discussions occasionally, he devoted most of his attention to the country-centered and the mixed organizations. Both of the 13He served variously as manager, secretary, treasurer, and master Of ceremonies. 1"Thus, while the Fair did give SH a vehicle for getting cOOperation from varied groups, it had the "unan- ticipated consequence" Of involving SH himself intO-the enterprise on a seemingly permanent and ever-widening basis. It controlled him even more than he could control it. 277 DHIA groups were in Operation before he entered the county, and these functioned quite autonomously under the control of the "Old guard" leaders. Two ABA groups were inaugu- rated during SH's first year as agent, and although he attended their meetings occasionally, he did not participate directly in their affairs. In fact, even after the Area III ABA ran into financial and inseminator trouble, SH did not try to salvage the group directly. He did attempt tO locate another man to begin training as an inseminator, but only at the request Of the ABA Board Of Directors. He also attended the meetings of the Milk Producers Association and Of the major Dairy Breed Association, both of which he had helped to organize. Since many of the leaders Of all Of these dairy groups were the same men in each case, SH established a working relationship with them based upon "easy access." These leaders, mostly Of the "Old guard" group, were successful in getting SH's attention whenever they felt they needed it. He, in turn, called upon them for advice and consultation on an informal demand basis. If he was thinking about starting up a new group or imple- menting an Old one, SH telephoned or visited several Of these leaders to get their views, upon which he relied heavily. In fact, one Of the leaders made the comment, "SH comes over a good deal and asks me about things I don't 278 even have an interest in. Sometimes they sound awfully foolish, like whether to let a fellow back in DHIA after he had quit on his own. Now what would I care about a thing like that when I'm not even in that group! SH just gets mixed up in tOO many things, and runs himself ragged trying to make a good showing. The only time he relaxes is when a bunch Of us get together tO play cards on a Saturday night." Likewise, when SH helped get an ABA group started in Area III, he worked almost entirely through the neighbor- hood leader (previously mentioned in this chapter) and two or three other large farmers. He left most Of the re- cruitment and organizational details to them, with the result that difficulties arose in keeping prOper records and accounts, and in securing personnel to do the work effectively. Since its inception, this ABA had just about held its own in terms Of members, although there had been some increase in the number of cows serviced. Although the Beet Growers Association was practically defunct, SH had made several attempts to aid in increasing beet acreage through contracts with local sugar processors and through advertising. He did this even though he admitted privately that he felt sugar beets were an un- economic crOp for the county and that it was a waste of 279 time and money to "sell" the idea to the farmers. Yet two Of his closest advisers were beet raisers, and one Of them stated that SH Often discussed his personal problems with him and asked for his counsel. In such cases, SH apparently felt that sheer economics was secondary to maintaining good personal relationships, even when his own technical judgment was subverted. SH made a special point of being at all Of the social as well as business gatherings Of the dairy groups, particu- larly those in which his inner circle Of "old guard" leaders were interested. He made a speech at the Milk Producers Association yearly banquet (which was held during the period this study was being made), and Offered the use Of facili- ties Of the Extension Office to help the major Dairy Breed Association in a membership drive. ' Among the mixed power groups, SH was most involved with the Farm Bureau, on whose board Of directors he had long been an 35 OfficiO member. Each year he was provided with a pre-paid membership card, and he participated in a number Of discussion groups with community Farm Bureaus each year. However, he attended no community group Of his own, and was an irregular attendant at the monthly county level meetings. Nevertheless, he praised the Farm Bureau highly in his public statements and in his annual Extension 280 narrative reports. As far'as the Grange was concerned, SH had very little to do with it in terms Of his own activi- ties, although he did respond affirmatively tO requests for speaking engagements, moving pictures, or other special programs. By and large, in his relations with the power groups, SH relied chiefly upon his interaction with the "Old guard" leadership, whose presence upon the eight boards Of directors of the active dairy associations constituted the backbone of Ivy County agriculture. Since his contact with this nucleus was relatively intimate, SH felt no com- pulsion to establish an Extension Advisory Council, or any similar entity for program planning. He felt that present means of leadership communication were adequate, and that new organizations Of this type were unnecessary function- ally, as well as simply adding tO his over-burdened meeting schedule. By such rationales, he accounted for his decision not tO organize his agricultural contacts into any formal structure. I SH's relations with the authority groups were generally less frequent and less intimate than those just described. As in most Of the other counties studied, the agent had very little to do with FHA Operations. His connections with the Board Of Supervisors were also fairly well standardized in 281 that he seldom had dealings with the Board except in terms of his own budget. He was usually supported in his finan- cial requests by the city supervisors and by several rural ones who lived close to the county seat. He was not averse to asking several of the "Old guard" power leaders to appear before the Board to support the Extension case,15 and several of those leaders remarked that they had assisted SH numerous times by making such appearances. Except for this required interaction, SH avoided the Board of Supervisors as much as possible, since his program was primarily geared to power group activities. Likewise, he tried to minimize his relations with PMA, whose program he personally felt was superfluous and wasteful. Furthermore, he believed that the PMA Office manager was attempting to solidify his own position, and thus represented a continuous potential threat to Extension's access tO the farmers. However, in the meeting on the new Agricultural Conservation Program, which re- defined PMA-SCS-Extension relationships, he cooperated in helping to choose applicable county practices, and agreed to accompany the PMA manager and the SCS farm planner on a township-by-township series Of county meetings to explain 15This technique was also utilized by the agents in Moss-Lilac and Orange Counties. 2.82 the arrangements to the farmers.16 Although Extension Offices were Spatially removed from the authority groups, SH did cooperate enthusiastically and voluntarily with the Soil Conservation District. He served as secretary Of the board of directors, although he was careful not to expound his own Opinions tOO forcefully during the regular monthly meetings. He rather skillfully used the SCD as a buffer against PMA by suggesting that "perhaps" PMA was trying to "horn in on something we've built up here in the District." He tried to stay neutral in the internal "eastern directors" versus "western directors" struggle for supremacy on the board, but when the "eastern" group seemed to win out, he worked with them just as he had with the "western" grOup in previous years. SH was not overly fond Of the SCS planner personally, and he sided with some Of the "Old guard" power leaders, who considered the planner too rigid in his thinking and tOO dogmatic in his discussions. Yet SH realized that the farm planner, who was vociferously antagonistic to the PMA generally and its Office manager in particular, was a valuable ally in keeping PMA under control. Yet he also léln an actual situation, when he felt he could no longer manipulate Opposing forces, or avoid taking a stand on an issue, SH tended to make formal compromises rather than risk "Showdowns" with any county groups. 283 wished to keep the SCS technicians from becoming tOO inde- pendent, and was very assiduous about keeping active on the SCD board Of directors. In private conversation, SH stated that he felt all government agencies Should come under the jurisdiction of Extension in order to "promote efficiency and prevent waste to the taxpayers." He believed the county agent should be a kind of administrative head with wide coordinating responsibility, while the several agencies continued to do their Specialized tasks on the functional level. Thus, it can be seen that the agent worked with author- ity groups either to gain Specific ends, such as monetary support, or to manipulate them for the purpose Of restrain- ing their competition for agricultural control in the county. Whereas SH exhibited considerable dependency upon "Old guard" power group leaders, he showed slightly more independence and a willingness to take risks in his inter- action with authority groups. Yet, as he himself pointed out, his main Objective was "not to Offend anyone," and he was quite concerned about other people's Opinion Of his work.17 DeSpite his close ties with the dairy groups, he 17For example, in closing his 1951 narrative report, he expressed his gratitude that "no criticism was voiced against Extension programs and policies." 281; was wary of the consequences of too great intimacy with particular interests. The more controversial a local issue, the more he avoided taking a position on it, and he stated that it was his policy to "go along with whatever group is in the driver's seat." This latter attitude was evidenced by his conduct during the SCD board Of directors' struggle mentioned previously. Consequently, when any county Situation arose which involved a clarification of relationships between Extension and the power groups, SH believed it to be his duty to adjust himself to the wishes and Opinions Of the power grOups, not the other way around. This type Of adaptation was less evident in his relations with authority groups. E. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders The large majority of power group leaders were highly satisfied with SH's work and methods of Operation. They were the same individuals who were leaders during the tenure Of SH's immediate predeceasor, yet they made few invidious comparisons between the two men, except to say that SH was "more Of a diplomat," and that he "gets out with the farmers instead Of being with the city folks so much." These power group leaders, particularly the "Old guard," were not 285 unfavorable in many Of their judgments about the ex-agent's technical knowledge and ability. They Simply felt that SH's techniques and procedures for getting things done were more successful. The leaders were impressed with SH's energy and his Sponsorship Of group activities. Most of them approved of his heavy commitment to the county fair, even though it meant that he had less Opportunity to work on other things. All Of the power group leaders, especially the Old guard, stated that they had easy access to SH, deSpite his busy schedule. They were confident he would always "make time" for them if they requested it. As one expressed it, "Sure, I go in to see SH any time. If he's around, he's always ready tO talk to me. If he isn't, I leave word at his Office that I want to see him, and he usually shows up in a day or SO. He never forgets you." Thus the power group leaders believed that SH was more or less at their service, and that they could legitimately call upon him for advice or assistance at their own discretion. Although SH worked with_many groups, the power leaders still dealt with him on a face-tO-face basis. In fact, these leaders were inclined to consider the whole Extension Service princi- pally as a resource for solving individual problems, and they used the agent freely for that purpose. 286 On the other hand, the part-time farmer leaders, particularly those in Areas III and IV, were less certain about the success Of Extension work. None of them criti- cized SH directly, but they had some doubts that Extension programs were geared to their needs. Since they were away from their farms a good deal Of the time, their contacts with neighbors and with SH were scattered and unpredict- able.18 This loss Of intimacy and Of participation en- couraged a cleavage in the communities which was enhanced by the different kinds Of perspectives which the part-time farmers had as a result of their outside work. They criticized the anti-union position of the Farm Bureau, and contended unions were necessary, even going SO far as tO suggest that farmers organize in Similar fashion. Numerous spirited arguments occurred in Farm Bureau discussion groups, with the result that several part-time farmer leaders believed they were unwelcome in Farm Bureau circles, and so ceased to attend meetings. One man, who used to be treasurer Of the Farmers Union when it was Operative in Ivy County said, "Most peOple around here have the wrong '18As an illustration Of this, three part-time farmer leaders were visited four times each before an interview was Obtained. They were busy during evenings with such activities as union meetings, lodge meetings, and ShOpping. Two failed to keep appointments because they "forgot." 287 idea about unions. They think all unions are black and they themselves are white. Sure, I have plenty of arguments, even in my church group, about it. Farmers and union men just don't talk the same language, and it's time we did something about it. Most little farmers like me have to 'work out' in order to keep going. Anyway, it isn't such a bad idea. I've learned a lot I didn't know when I was sticking to home, and I don't think I'd go back to full- time farming even if I could afford it." Thus, while there appeared to be identification Of SH with the full-time farmers, there was no concerted Opposi- tion to him personally. There was more latent than manifest criticism Of the whole Extension program, which some felt was not providing for the needs of this growing group in the agriculture of the county. The "new guard" power group leaders regarded SH as an ally, since they noted that he Often went out Of his way to publicly commend them on their activities. However, they did not claim, or seek, the kind Of personal accessibility to him which the "Old guard" leaders possessed. The town- centered leaders, including SH'S predecessor, likewise felt that he was doing a good job, and that no one in the county had good reason to be dissatisfied with Extension's per- formance. The tendency among all of these leaders was to 288 feel that it was up to the individual farmer to seek the help Of the Extension Service, which was equally available to all who had the desire and initiative to utilize it. None of the leaders felt they received any special treat- ment from SH, or that they had any undue influence upon his behavior by virtue of their close relations with him. Their attitude was, "If you work well with a man, he'll work with you. That's the way it ought to be. Extension is no different from anything else, and you can't shove it down people's throats. If people don't want to better themselves that's their business." Even the authority group leaders, such as the PMA Office manager, and the chairman of the agricultural com- mittee of the Board Of Supervisors, expressed approval Of SH's work.19 As the latter put it, "Well, I admire SH for always being on the job. I hardly ever get a chance tO see him myself, so I guess that's a pretty good Sign he's keeping busy." Undoubtedly, these authority group leaders did not feel they were close enough to SH tO command his attention whenever they wished. But although SH did not 19Of course, critics Of SH in Official positions might well have been wary Of expressing candid Opinions Of him to an outsider, particularly if they regarded the questioner as one Of SH's friends. Comments by other informants indi- cated that the PMA Office manager was Often less enthusi- astic about SH than he admitted to the investigator. 289 cultivate these men, he tried to avoid any hostility toward himself or his work. F. Image Of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent When SH first came to Ivy County, he realized that he would have to create a pattern of Operation different from that followed by his predecessor. His key behavioral principle, from the beginning, was "Don't Offend anyone if you can help it."' This applied mostly to the people Of the county, and if there were ever a question of whether his first loyalty was to them or to the Extension hierarchy, his choice was the former. As part Of his conscious campaign for personal accept- ance by the people, he assiduously attended meetings and built up relationships with the "old guard" leaders. A considerable amount of social capital was established on both Sides Of this interaction. Programs were Often in- formally initiated, but found their public expression in the activities Of various groups, particularly of the dairy organizations. SH explained that he worked with groups now almost exclusively, and that it was becoming impossible for any agent to work individually with most Of his clients. Besides, as he said, "Some Of these farmers know more about 290 certain phases Of farming than I'll ever know. In fact, I sometimes ask them for advice. Anyway, an agent doesn't need to be a specialist any more. All he needs to know is where to get the information, and he can give this to the farmers to carry on from there themselves." SH felt that it was an agent's Obligation to work with whatever groups had the greatest active strength in the county, and he prided himself on being highly adaptable in this reSpect. From the standpoint Of sheer work load, he was convinced that functioning through proven channels Of behavior was the most satisfactory way Of accomplishing his job. 'He believed that the current organizational structure was adequate for this task, and he was not in favor of setting up new groups for special jobs. This attitude accounted for his resistance to the idea Of an Advisory Council, which he felt would be burdensome and unnecessary. He was quite aware of the factional pressures and demands upon him, and was wary of any new group which might add to them. Thus, he responded favorably and enthusiastically to the established power groups and their leaders, but was anxious to keep the status gpo arrangements if he could. He acknowledged his dependence upon these leaders, but was willing to accept this as the price Of harmony and personal acceptance. 291 [His conception of authority group leaders was less definitive, since he was prone to adOpt any policy with them which he felt advantageous at agiven time. He never criticized authority groups or their leaders Openly, but would try to manipulate them as "counter irritants" which could neutralize one another (he used this tactic in his relationships with SCD and PMA). By such neutralization, and by maintaining his own Official position in SCD, he was able to keep any Single authority agency from becoming tOO independently strong. In private conversation, he made no secret of his belief that the Extension Service, personified by the agent, Should have jurisdictional control over all other government agricultural agencies in the county. He felt this was an Objective worth working for. He was aware Of the problem Of how tO reach the part-time farmers, but was SO busy with current projects that he was able to by- pass it in terms of action, and even to eliminate it from his thinking and planning during his busiest seasons. He was aware that his commitments and connections with the power groups excluded him from working with the less organized segments Of the pOpulation, but could not see any way out Of such a dilemma. His attitudes toward the Extension administration were more negative than they were toward either the power or 292 authority leadership within the county. He felt that the administrators did not have close enough touch with county Situations to be of any great assistance to the agents. The ideal agent, he felt, was a good public relations man, not a technician. He thought many state-level peOple did not understand this, and that they were tOO rigid in their thinking and actions. He said he would have no hesitation in Opposing the state administration, if he felt the good Of the county demanded it. For, by building up his own acceptance among the power group leaders, he had created a buffer between himself and his administrative superiors on county policy matters. However, he also criticized the procedures employed in the district Extension meetings, for which the agents had to spend a couple of days traveling and listening to what he termed "useless Speeches and pep talks." What the agents Of an area really needed, he thought, was "a chance to get together informally and talk about their problems without the state peOple around." In summary, SH felt he had developed a satisfactory mode Of operation within Ivy County through his methods Of dealing with both power and authority group leaders. He measured this at least partially by the fact that there was no real Opposition among groups in the county (at least compared with his predecessor) and that there was very 293 little criticism Of Extension programs or its personnel. He felt his own cooperative attitude was largely reSponsible for this acceptance, and he received much personal satis- faction in having achieved this. On the other hand, he seemed not to regard the state Extension administration as a necessary part Of his working pattern, and he was willing to risk Official censure whenever he felt his county support was sufficiently behind his actions (e.g., his Opposition tO the formation of an Advisory Council). Apparently his eXperience had demonstrated that resistance to the state administration need not have undesirable consequences if his local power resources were adequate and demonstrable. 29h ”I extension . office Figure 16. MOSS—LILAC comm I county line Legend N T a City, town, or community centers [S;::;::! Sparsely farmed or non-farming areas E Principal farming areas , Location of major agricultural leaders CHAPTER XI THE SECOND LOW-RATED AGENT SITUATION-- MOSS-LILAC COUNTY This agent Situation, although it involved one com- plete county and part Of an adjoining one.(see Figure 16), will be treated here as a unit. The added area was so Sparsely pOpulated that its participation in agriculture was largely confined to a pair of small localities, one of which straddled the inter-county boundary. Therefore, for practical and analytical purposes, no county distinctions were necessary in terms of the agent's work Situation. Agriculturally, the county1 was divided into several distinct areas. Tree-fruit orchards predominated in Area I; Area II contained the largest and most prosperous dairy farms, most of the large poultry producers, and several other Specialty livestock enterprises; Area III had the greatest number of farmers, mostly Of the general type, and contained three definable ethnic centers among the agricultural pOpulation; Area IV was a fairly isolated community with neighborhood characteristics; and Area V was 1TO facilitate discussion, this agent Situation will be referred to hereafter as the "county," even though two are involved. Thus, "Moss-Lilac" with be considered as a single entity. 7 296 almost completely untouched by the county Extension prO- gram. The county seat was a city of about 10,000 pOpulation, whose main occupations were retail trade, some medium and light industry, and considerable lake traffic and tourist activity. This city drew its labor force from all over the county, particularly the western half. The second largest community was the site Of the Extension Office and of all the major agricultural agencies, both public and private.2 Its location was almost central in the major farming region. The remaining communities were local ShOpping centers where varied retail and service facilities were maintained. I A. The Structure of Organized Agriculture In accordance with the procedure adopted in previous chapters, an attempt was made to classify the relevant organizations in Moss-Lilac County in the power-authority typology, resulting in the alignment Shown in Table VII. From this table, it can be seen that the arrangement of county groups roughly paralleled that found in preceding counties. The only inactive organizations were two whose 2This separation Of county seat and agricultural cen- ter is reminiscent Of Oak County. Certain animosities be- tween the centers existed in both county situations. 297 TABLE VII EXTERNAL CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LOCUS OF ORGANIZED AGRICULTURE IN MOSS-LILAC COUNTY,'1953 _—-__— — ‘— f A, h Functional Control Type Locale Power Authority Town-centered Rotary Club (E) Rural Electrifi- cation COOperative Grange County newspaper (E) Country- Two Dairy Breed centered Assns. Fruit Growers Assn. ABA Dairy and Farm Services Cooperative Mixed Dairy Assn. PMA Extension Advisory Board Of Boards Supervisors Agricultural Extension Soil Conservation Council* District Farmers Union Farm Bureau *These organizations were not actively functioning at the time of this study, October, 1953. (E) This Rotary Club and county newspaper were located in the same town as the Extension office. The county seat had Similar organizations, but they were not active in agriculture. 298 members were also represented in other Specialized groups and whose general purpose was the coalescence of leadership Opinion with respect to county agricultural planning. Al- though a few leaders subscribed tO this general purpose, the majority were not motivated by it, and the county agent did not call more than one or two meetings of these groups per year. Town-centered power groups. These groups were not exclusively oriented toward agriculture. This was readily understandable in both the Rotary Club, which contained only about one-tenth farmer members, and the county news- paper, whose editor had primarily town and city contacts. The Grange, however, was somewhat surprising, even though its substantial non-farm membership had been noted in other counties. Yet in Moss-Lilac, the "urbanization" Of the Grange was even more pronounced. Its county master was employed in the tax Office in the county seat, and its main meeting hall was situated in that city. Many Of its mem- bers were drawn from the Older, rural non-farm peOple, and those who engaged in part-time farming, either by necessity or preference. Therefore, the Moss-Lilac Grange was con- siderably removed from the main stream Of occupational agriculture, even though it professed many rural interests, such as roads, schools, and health and marketing problems. 299 Country-centered power groups. These groups were led by many of the dominant agricultural figures in the county. The Dairy Breed Associations, of which there were two in Operation, were numerically small, never numbering more than twenty active members each. There was a rivalry Of breed between them, partly based upon the comparative pro- ductive and physical qualities Of the cattle, and partly upon jealousies attributed to the alleged arbitrary preferences of Extension personnel.3 The Fruit Growers Association was confined almost entirely to Area I, and utilized the services Of a district horticultural agent for technical assistance. The fruit growers had marketing and seasonal labor problems which were quite foreign to dairy and general-type farmers,so that these Specialty differences tended to isolate the fruit farmers to some degree from the other groups. The geographical concentration of these fruit farmers within one area tended to minimize the individual frictions which might have Occurred if they had been dispersed among the dairymen throughout the county. It also permitted efficiencies in dealing with the group as a cohesive unit, with respect to the services Of the horticultural agent and 3This will be discussed in a later section of the chapter. 300 to the harvesting and marketing of the crop. The ABA, while it had its own group of Officers, was closely allied with the Dairy and Farm Services COOperative. In fact, the two inseminators, one full-time and one part— time, were the same individuals who staffed the Cooperative. These groups were basically production organizations, as in the other counties studied. Most of the users Of ABA were small farmers, having ten cows or less, who did not have registered herds. The larger farmers, with purebreds, pre- ferred keeping their own bulls and doing their own breeding.)4 The Dairy and Farm Services Cooperative had been organized to consolidate within a single organization all fee-charging dairy services5 to farmers. Although the ABA remained administratively separate in this respect, its two inseminators happened to be the manager and the assistant manager Of the COOperative. The functional co- Operation of the two groups was therefore strong. The COOperative had desk and filing space within the main Extension Office, and the soil testing laboratory was 10- "A few of these farmers resented ABA because they claimed it prevented them from selling young bulls locally from their own herds. 5Such as milk testing, soil testing, etc. 301 cated there. From this central location, telephone calls and personal visits were handled promptly, with free asSistance from the Extension secretary. Mixed ppwer groups. The Dairy Association was a recently organized group Of smaller farmers, mostly shippers Of Grade B and uncertified milk, who had banded together to preserve the market for their product. It was precipitated by the fact that a privately owned local creamery had suddenly gone out Of business, thereby creating a serious milk marketing problem. Even the larger certified pro- ducers had no outlet for their surplus milk, and a majority of dairy farmers were faced with heavy losses or outright ruin. A mixed group Of authority and power leaders, faced with this common economic threat, formed a citizen's com- mittee and negotiated with the largest milk cooperative in the state to take over the defunct creamery. At the time Of the study, this transfer had just been completed. AS will be noted subsequently, this unification of diverse leadership elements in a time Of felt crisis had created the same kind of leadership ambivalence previously noted in Orange County. The Farm Bureau was much the largest power group in the county. As elsewhere, many Of its leaders were fairly young peOple, who possessed considerable energy and a 302 strong identification with the principles and programs Of the organization. The structure, consisting of numerous community groups plus an overall county committee, was Of a standard variety, and differed little from the arrange- ment in the other counties studied. Various kinds of group and personal insurance were among the major tangible benefits available to members. A The Farmers Union, although far smaller than the Farm Bureau, had a Similar county and state structure. There the similarity ended, Since the views and programs Of the two organizations were frequently antagonistic. In Moss— Lilac, the Farmers Union had been formed by a splintering Off of a small group of dissidents in the Farm Bureau in the mid 19h0's. This faction then_organized,as.a Farmers UniOn group, which had its greatest strength and appeal among the smaller and the part-time farmers. The differ- ences between theSe groups at the county level were con- sistent with those reflected at the state and national levels. Power group interaction. Figure 17 illustrates the patterns of interlocking leadership stemming from differ- ences and similarities among the power groups. The chart shows the tendency for town-centered groups to be isolated 303 Town-centered Country-centered Mixed l—Rotary Club Dairy Breed Assns. Dairy Assn. _—j] I a g Grange Fruit Growers ‘gflDairy and Fariji E Assn. {xylr-f'”... Coop. i ; . ; saw/"xx 1”“, \‘x T 1 LCOunty ABA<<:;\\ '\\ Farmers Union—4~- Newspaper ““rwengy a ’” *uFarm Bureau *“—“ Figure 17. Interlocking leadership of active agricultural power groups in Moss-Lilac County, 1953. from the other two types.6 The Grange, the Dairy Breed Associations, and the Fruit Growers Association had little interaction with other groups. Although the ABA and the Dairy and Farm COOperative were production-minded, two of their leaders were active in Farm Bureau. The Farmers Union was a minority faction in the power structure, and its only interaction was with the Dairy Association, which was like- wise connected with the Farm Bureau. The chief cleavage in power group harmony came from rivalry between the Farmers Union on the one hand, and a loose confederation Of the remaining groups, spearheaded by the Farm Bureau, on the other. This confederation constituted what might be called 6This is not tO say that many Of these groups did not have joint members. Quite a few Rotarians, for example, were members of the Farm Bureau. However, their leadership ' influence tended to be minor, or at least informal. 301; the major power faction. Authority_groups. The authority groups had less con- tact with one another than did the power groups. The Rural Electrification COOperative was primarily a business service organization which was set up according to public statutes and regulations. While its directors were local peOple, with the chairman being a leader in the Fruit Growers Association of the power structure, the organization took no Official part in the regular agricultural activities Of the county. The PMA maintained separate Offices in the same town as the Extension Service, and employed two full-time clerical personnel. Its leaders were either Farmers Union men or "outsiders" who had no power group affiliation at all.7 Practically all Of the committeemen were small farmers, several Of whom were part-time Operators. The Board Of Supervisors had the most diverse repre-- sentation Of any authority group. Since the county seat was, by virtue of its pOpulation, entitled to three super- visors, non-agricultural interests were present on the 7Four were active Farmers Union members, three were non-affiliated farmers, and one was a vocational agricul- ture teacher in the public school system. 305 Board. Also, one township in which an ethnic group pre- dominated usually chose its supervisor from among that group. While the city supervisors were generally business- men, the rural supervisors were predominantly small farmers over fifty years Of age whose public Office provided an important source of personal income. The agricultural committee of the Board was composed chiefly Of these rural members, whose recommendations were seldom questioned by the Board as a whole. The SCD board of directors, as in Orange County, had representatives from both types Of control groups, as well as "outsiders." The composition Of the board over the years had considerable variation, but the power groups were preponderant in its membership. However, no one set Of leaders had continuous control. A chief farm planner, and an assistant planner were full-time employees, along with two part-time assistants, and all were under the local jurisdiction of the SCD board. The Offices of the board and Of the SCS technicians were located in the same building as the Extension Service. "Cross-leadership." The phenomenon of "cross- 1eadership was present in the county, as illustrated by the following chart: 306 Power Groups Authority Groups Rotary Club l/Rural Electrification Coop. \\\ / \ / Grange ‘2' ‘//// PMA County Newspaper "\Ku__ , Board Of Supervisors ‘3'/ r" ””1.- Dairy Breed Assns. A, igISOil Conservation District Fruit Growers Assn. ,ji , ' 8Q; {If f, :5: ABA "‘ // Dairy Association Dairy and Farm Services; f-V COO erative /,fi p artffi - Farmers Union”p *g' j ,. "f"'( Farm Bureau. ‘ '"” ”F' Figure 18. "Cross-leadership" among power and authority groups in Moss-Lilac County, 1953. The data in the above diagram indicates that the major power faction accounted for most Of the "cross-leadership" noted. The SCD committee was heterogeneous, containing authority and power leaders, as well as "outsiders." The minority power faction, with its hub in the Farmers Union, had strong representation on the PMA committee, and on the Dairy Association board of directors. Thus the minority and majority power groups each interacted with certain of the authority groups. The results of such interaction were noticeable in the behavior of those groups having "cross- leadership." 307 Geographically, county leadership (mostly Of the power variety) was concentrated in Area II. power-oriented, Area I was also though weaker in numbers. Area III con- tained more authority and "outsider" leaders, while Area IV was a stronghold Of the minority power faction. Authority Group SCS Farm Planner Rural Electrification Cooperative President PMA Chairman PMA Chairman PMA Committeeman SCD Director Township Supervisor SCD Director Delineation Of "cross-leadership," Moss-Lilac County, 1953. Individual Power Group "A" Rotary Club Program Chairman "B" Fruit Growers Assn. President "C" Dairy Association President "C" Farmers Union Director "D" Farmers Union Director "D" Farmers Union Director "E" Farm Bureau Community Leader "F" Farm Bureau County Committeeman Figure 19. B. Power Groups Behavior Characteristics of the Significant The conflict between the majority and minority factions 308 permeated power group behavior within the county. In one sense, this conflict was a manifestation of the national antagonisms between the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union. Locally, these were Often expressed in purely doctrinaire fashion.8 However, the power leaders on both sides were able to translate these diffuse abstract differences into specific empirical ones, in which personal animosities and preferences were prominent. The major power group consisted Of leaders from the Dairy Breed Associations,9 Fruit Growers Association, Dairy and Farm Services Cooperative, and the Farm Bureau. For the most part, the major power group leaders were the 10 larger, prosperous farmers. Many Of them regarded the 8This mechanical repetition of arguments over current issues occurred Often at the community and county meetings Of both of these groups. Material sent from state and national headquarters was dutifully discussed, and usually the local vote confirmed the state or national position on an issue. Actual knowledge Of an issue was not essential to "taking a stand" on it. Other criteria of judgment (political, ethical, religious, etc., symbols) were even more influential that the "facts." 9One disturbing factor in this structure was the rivalry between the two major dairy breed associations. Whenever the question Of breed comparisons arose, there was a considerable amount of acrimony between the groups. But if a different type of problem was at hand (such as the desirability of PMA, or support Of the Farmers Union), the attitudes Of both organizations were unified. 10AS noticed in other counties, there was a tendency for the sons Of these leaders to follow their fathers as group leaders. At the time Of the (continued next page) 309 "outsiders" and the minority power faction as radicals who were trying to get something for nothing at the expense Of those who had been legitimately successful. However, several Of these leaders, particularly the Older ones, made " who were inclined to be more up a kind of "Old guard, tolerant Of behavioral differences than the younger gener- ation of Farm Bureau partisans. The latter were more vehe- mently Opinionated than the "Old guard," and were more inclined to condemn the minority power faction on personal grounds. This difference of the attitudes within the major power group structure was illustrated by the following comments. Said one "Old guard" leader, "I go along with the Farm Bureau most Of the time, but the Farmers Union has some good men in it, too. The only reason the Farmers Union got started here in the first place was because certain Farm Bureau people rode them too hard in the meet- ings. You can't step on everybody who disagrees with you. They got these other people mad, and now maybe they're sorry." Another put it this way. "Well, you hear a lot of talk about what these organizations do (Farm Bureau and (continued) study, six sons were taking active roles in power organizations, and were being "pushed" for top leadership jobs. 310 Farmers Union). Personally, I think they all get some orders from the top and take credit for things they don't do. That's human nature, I guess. I think the Farm Bureau is a good thing for agriculture, and we need a thing like that to Speak up for farmers. But they can push that too far sometimes." Conversely, the partisan Farm Bureau leaders were less broad-minded, believing that "the gang over in _____ (Area IV) is a bunch Of Reds," and "the trouble with them (Farmers Union) is that they're poor (in a technical sense) farmers and think the rest Of us Should take care Of them. If they did more farming and less stirring up trouble we'd all be better Off," and, finally, "that outfit (Farmers Union) is run by labor, anyway. They're not farmers, they're just stooges for the 0.1.0. A lot Of them learned this stuff working in factories. , They're not for the farmer, they work against him." 'ngp-center d p212; ggoups. On most agricultural matters, these groups followed the policy lead Of the major power faction. Many Rotarians belonged to the Farm Bureau and subscribed to its political and economic positions. There was cordiality between the two organizations, which was expressed in their cooperation on numerous community and civic enterprises. The master Of the Grange not only belonged to the Farm 311 Bureau, but promoted it vigorously throughout the county. Although his job in the tax Office at the county seat was not in itself agricultural, he harbored strong feelings about farm policy matters. His Opposition to PMA and the Farmers Union was just as vehement as his support of the Farm Bureau. Undoubtedly this attitude influenced the points of view of rank and file Grange members. The newspaper editor tried to remain neutral in sentiment, with respect to the power factions because, as he said, "I don't believe a newspaper Should take sides among local groups, but should simply present the facts." He was, however, a member and strong booster of the Rotary Club, and several Of the major power group leaders were his personal friends. Country-centered power groupp. The Fruit Growers Association was chiefly under the influence Of "old guard" leaders who, while generally in favor of Farm Bureau prO- grams, did not participate a great deal in its activities. The fruit growers had their Specialized kinds Of marketing and labor problems and they seldom worked on outside pro- jects. The president Of the Association did serve on the regional fair association and on the dormant Extension Advisory Board, but he was not overly concerned about non- occupational political or policy issues. As he put it, 312 he was "civic-minded" because he regarded this as a citizen's "duty to serve the community," but he eschewed partisanship. The general vigor Of the dairy groups reflected the coordination of services and Operating personnel which had been established in the county. Instead of having several ABA groups, plus autonomous DHIA units, the entire set Of functions was performed through a central manager and one assistant. Thus, enough income was available to keep these men at their jobs. They were both energetic, particularly the manager, and kept detailed and accurate records Of their work. Although many Of their clients were not in the major power faction, particularly in ABA, the cOOperative manager and assistant were both oriented toward that faction. The manager felt that the Farmers Union generally attracted "unsuccessful" farmers and that the "good" farmers were the ones who got the most out Of Extension. He thought PMA had outlived its usefulness, and that the Extension Service should concentrate on marketing problems, not pro— duction. He himself was concerned with quality, not quantity, and he believed the Grade B milk producers would never come out on top. The assistant manager was a director Of Farm Bureau and had served as chairman of the annual meeting described below. For economic reasons, then, the dairy production organizations showed no formal preference 313 toward either of the Opposing power groups, although indi- vidual leaders definitely classed themselves as partial to the major power faction. Mixed power groups. TO illustrate the attitudes and procedures which characterized the Farm Bureau's organi- zational behavior, a brief account of its 1953 annual meeting has been included here. There were about eighty persons present, at least three-quarters of whom were over fifty years Of age. A major order of business was to con- sider policy resolutions submitted by the resolution com- mittee. On national issues, such as abolition of PMA payments, flexible price supports, and a return to private credit, there was not a dissenting vote on any resolution. A few requests for clarifying information were made from the floor, but these were seldom answered directly. For instance, someone asked whether the abolition Of national trade barriers would depress farm prices by "flooding the country with cheap stuff." There was much confusion among the leaders but no one seemed to know what would happen. In desperation, the chairman called for a vote, and the resolution favoring abolition Of trade barriers passed unanimously. Following the voting, the chief Speaker, an assistant state lobbyist for the Farm Bureau, was intro- duced. He told the assembly that their organization was 311; "a multi-purpose tool, which is flexible and can change its Objectives at any time." He said the Democrats had been "taken over" by labor, and that the Farm Bureau Opposed this. He stated that certain Republican members Of agri- cultural committees in Congress, "who certainly don't act like Republicans," were listening to the Farmers Union and the C.I.O. instead Of the Farm Bureau. ‘He urged those in his audience who might disagree with the Farm Bureau on one or two items to still support it as a whole. "Remember," he concluded, "there are only two teams in this country-- the one Of government centralization and the one of indi- vidual freedom. Don't be misled by the demagogues who want to destroy your local government." From the tone and con- tent of this meeting, there remained little doubt that the Farm Bureau had every intention Of mobilizing county Opinion along partisan lines. This included the naming Of its Opponents and presenting strategy for their defeat. The minor power faction was epitomized by the Farmers Union,11 which was concentrated in Areas III and IV (see Figure 16), contained many part-time farmers. It proved impossible to secure any membership figures, either for the 11There were several "outsiders" who, by either initial choice or by disillusionment, were independent Of both factions. 315 county or the state, from the local Officers. Although highly critical Of Farm Bureau methods and policies, these minority leaders used similar practices themselves. For example, while attending a monthly community meeting of the Farmers Union in Area IV, the investigator was subjected to close questioning as to his motives and his group affili- ations. There was a definite defensive and suspicious attitude on the part Of the twelve persons attending which was never entirely diSpelled. At the start of the meeting, reports and an information sheet from the Union's national Office were read, punctuated by a continuous berating Of local major power faction groups in terms of the points being discussed. In a later discussion, after the formal meeting, the members were asked by the investigator to define such terms as "family farm" (which they used fre- quently as a value symbol), and "parity or better." There was some annoyance at this request, and no satisfactory or coherent explanations were forthcoming. The PMA was highly praised, as was the Dairy Association, but almost all other groups in the county were condemned as "reactionary" and against "the little guys" (which most of the Farmers Union believed themselves to be). All but three Of those present at the meeting were part-time farmers. While this Farmers Union group was vocal and well-knit, 316 it was numerically small, and its material resources were meager. Yet it used them effectively in influencing the behavior of one or two other county organizations which had control Of concrete community services, such as PMA. The Dairy Association, embracing as it did both major and minor power group factions, was something of an anomaly in the power structure Of the county. Its president was a top Farmers Union man and its secretary-treasurer was a Farm Bureau director. The president, who was generally given credit on all sides as the originator Of the group, explained the ambivalence Of the group as follows, "It was when the creamery folded that I knew we had to do sOmething all together. We had to get a milk market. I asked (the Farm Bureau director) if he would give me a hand. We needed everybody to write, talk, and sign petitions. I said this was bigger than any group, and it didn't matter what a man belonged to. A Farm Bureau man could starve just like anybody else. I didn't want peOple to think the Farmers Union was in charge Of this. I really acted as a citizen, not as a member Of any group, but peOple wouldn't have believed it. It would have been a failure if the Farm Bureau hadn't been in On it." Thus it was clear that an economic crisis had persuaded some leaders to bury their usual differences, at least for 317 the time being. Since many rank and file members were small farmers shipping Grade B milk, there seemed a good chance that the minority power faction might gain more control as time went on. However, since the organization was less than one year old at the time Of the study, there was little indication of how long the truce would last. At the Association meeting which the investigator attended, no Signs of power conflict were Openly in evidence. The only vestige Of disharmony came when the president claimed that he and the other three directors (two of whom were "outsiders") were willing to serve another year without pay. At this point, the Farm Bureau county chairman, who was a rank-and-file Association member, proposed that the directors be paid five dollars per monthly meeting plus mileage. This was more to obligate the directors to do a good job, he said, than to reward them for past efforts. The directors were not anxious to take this recompense, and made Objections on grounds of extravagance, but the motion was finally carried. There were about two hundred fifty members in the Association, of which more than one hundred turned up for the meeting. AS one farmer commented, "There's plenty of 'em here now, but I wonder how many will Show up next year." In order to summarize graphically the varied attitudes 318 of the power groups toward one another, the chart below indicates the significant relationships: Major Power Faction Minor Power Faction "Old Guard" "Dissidents" tolerant ——~> 6” Opposed 5 - g " Outsiders" & é“... critical -1 g. "New Guard" Opposed -—w~2 Figure 20. Focused attitudes of power structure leaders, Moss-Lilac County, 1953. C. Behavior Characteristics of the Significant Authority Groups PMA. The PMA was the authority group counterpart Of the minority power faction. Since its chairman was a Farmers Union leader, there was acute awareness of the anti- PMA feeling found in the Farm Bureau and in other major power groups. While practically all county leaders, what- ever their affiliation, admitted past values in the PMA program, most believed it was no longer needed. Only the minority power faction and several of the "outsider" leaders were stanch supporters of PMA as it now stood. By legislative fiat, the Agricultural Conservation Program Of 1953 had made PMA and SCS joint partners in 319 carrying out conservation practices, but each looked upon the other as a potential rival.12 At the PMA-sponsored meeting in Moss-Lilac to discuss the new arrangement, the role of SCS zipcgrgip PMA was discussed warily. The PMA chairman regarded SCS as definitely under the wing of the major power groups, and saw this new "cooperation" as a possible entering wedge to undermine his own leadership in PMA. The investigator attended this meeting, at Which two SCS personnel and SL were also in attendance. The latter three said very little, while various committeemen were vocal in their criticism Of the proposed list of permissable ACP practices. A noticeable coolness existed between SCS and PMA representatives, and it was apparent that future relations in carrying out these joint functions would be somewhat strained. Board of Supervisors. As was evident in counties already described, the Moss-Lilac Board Of Supervisors was seldom preoccupied with agricultural matters, except during the period when appropriations for the Extension services were being considered. At such times, it was up to Extension Officials and their supporters, whether on the Board or not, to justify the requests made. The tendency f 12A situation similar to that noted in Ivy County. 320 among the rural supervisors was to conceive Of themselves primarily as guardians of the county treasury, and to assume that a request for funds was excessive unless proven other- wise. Their county-wide prestige was not high, particularly among the power group leaders. In two Moss-Lilac townships, the major ethnic groups had each managed to keep one of their number in the supervisor position for many years.13 By contrast, one of the Area II supervisors was a young Farm Bureau and ABA leader who first had run for office "reluctantly," but found he liked the job after a year or so. He soon became the chief sponsor Of Extension measures and requests in Board meetings, and admitted he did quite a bit of "arguing and persuading the rest of them" to get an increased Extension budget. This younger member also ob- served that the non-farm supervisors from the county seat rarely Opposed Extension apprOpriations, and he labeled I them as "more enlightened" than many of the rural members. The latter regarded themselves as "independents," and seemed to strike back at the major power groups and urban leaders by Opposing them on specific issues, of which 13The feeling of the Older seasoned supervisors was that new men, particularly young ones, were easily hood- winked by the experienced members, and that it took a good many years to achieve the guile and shrewdness tO cope with one's fellow board members who were wise in the ways of politics. 321 Extension apprOpriations was one.1h As one of these rural supervisors put it, "Extension has a lot of ideas but they don't get to the people. SL doesn't get out on the farms enough, and when he does it's to the big ones. People don't like it, and if the real farmers had the whole vote they probably wouldn't have an agent at all." The Board of Supervisors, as a whole, was a stronghold of the "outsider" type of leader, who was critical of almost every other faction and organization. There were, however, a few supervisors who belonged to, or at least followed, the major power group leadership and who "carried the ball" for Extension15 in securing appropriations. The main body of supervisors, by identifying Extension work as a major power group project, attacked the Extension budget as a means of combatting power group dominance in general affairs. This kind of attitude transference was also observed in Orange 1"Here again was the paradox of rural Opposition to agricultural agencies, which derived solid support from city and non-farm sources. 15This support was not wholly confined to Board mem- bers. The president of the Fruit Growers Association stated that "many times" he had been asked by SL and others to appear before the Board and "plead for the money" which Extension had requested. He realized SL was "not too pOpular" with the Board, but felt it was his duty to see that Extension work in the county was not penalized because of that antagonism. He added that he himself had no great regard for many of the supervisors, but felt they would "listen to me.‘ 322 and Ivy Counties, where country-city conflicts often occurred. §QQ. For its own part, the Moss-Lilac SCD had some of the leadership ambivalence which was characteristic of it in other counties studied. In terms of conservation accom- plishment, the District had one of the outstanding records in the state. It was among the first to have been organized (l9h2), and showed a history of steady progress over the years. In 1950, the District won recognition as having the best annual record of achievement in the state. Although one major power group leader had been an SCD director since its inception, much of the current leadere ship came from "outsiders." One of these, a poultry farmer who had been in and out of both the Farmers Union and the Farm Bureau, was quite aware of the power structure of the county, and tried to influence the selection of SCD directors who were, as he put it, "non-partisan like myself." With such diverse leadership representation, District meetings were often lively, and in the words of one other director, "kept everybody on their toes. You came to the meetings because you knew if you didn't, somebody might try to slip something through on you." The technical SCS personnel demonstrated that they were aware of the power cleavages in the county, particularly 323 as they were reflected on the Board. Consequently, they had a flexible work schedule, and responded to pressures exerted by cooperating farmers for services. The more vocal and insistent a farmer was, the more likely he was to get attention. Very often these were the larger, more pros- perous farmers who could afford to carry out their farm plans. The farm planner was trying to develOp a "neighbor- hood group" system of organization to broaden the base of conservation practices. Frequently, the leaders of such groups were the same ones employed by Extension on its pro- 16 jects. The SCS work in the county received high praise from all of the major power group leaders and most of the "outsiders." The minority power faction was more critical, principally making the argument that the big farmers got a disproportionate share of the technicians' time. More than 70 per cent of the active SCS cooperators resided in Areas I and II. It seemed clear that SCS personnel was working mostly within the major power groups, simply as a line of least resistance, and because these power groups were pro- ductive enough to give them a good record of accomplishment. 16One indication that the SCS technical personnel might not have been thoroughly neutral was the membership of the farm planner in the Rotary Club, in which he took an active role. During a Rotary Club meeting, he discussed farm policies with the investigator, and voiced heavy criticism of PMA. 321; The farm planner, especially, looked with distaste upon his enforced role as collaborator with PMA on the Agricultural Conservation Program. His relations with the SCD directors were kept smooth and friendly by meticulous effort on his part to carry out their instructions. The authority groups, then, showed little cohesion with one another. All had been infiltrated to a varying extent by power group leaders, and thereby reflected certain biases which these leaders had. Thus the clashes which authority groups had with one another were traceable to power group cleavages which had been carried over into the authority group structure. These differences, primarily in the case of the SCD, seemed to invigorate the organiza- tions and to have resulted in a large amount of productive work. The SCS personnel, cognizant of the power struggle within the county, chose to work with whatever groups demon- strated control strength, and in most instances these were the major power groups. Overall, the behavior of the authority groups also re- flected, to a considerable extent, the main conflict between the two power structure factions.l7 17This was not the case with the Rural Electrification Cooperative, which had few relationships with other groups, due to the narrow range of its activities. It was run solely as a business enterprise even though its genesis had been a source of community conflict about ten years ago. By the time this study was made, the conflict had largely been dissipated. 325 D. Interaction Of the Agent with Power and Authority Groups SL was a person who found individual face-tO-face re- lationships difficult to engage in. He preferred working with groups, and was quite aware Of the fact that he was not an outgoing personality, saying, "It just isn't natural for me to go up and slap a fellow on the back." By and large, he had very little contact with the town- centered power groups, and had practically nothing to do with any power groups in the county seat. He did not be- . long either to the Rotary Club or the Grange, although he occasionally came to their meetings as a guest, or as part. of a program. His activities in the Dairy Breed Associations were more pronounced, and did engender some Opposition among the farmers. The #1 Association claimed that he showed par- tiality to the newer #2 Association in the county. A #1 Association leader was particularly bitter about this, although he had remained one of SL's main COOperators on most other Extension programs. Likewise, most of these #1 Association leaders were "Old guard" power group individuals who still got along with SL generally, even though they thought he had "gone over to the other side," as far as the dairy breeds were concerned. Yet they felt strong enough 326 to carry on their own group without his support. SL ad- mitted his professional preference for the #2 breed, but denied he showed favoritism in his organizational work. He was merely helping the new association to get established because he was technically convinced the #2 breed was the best one for local conditions, and because it was his Obli- gation to aid any organization which requested his help. He had helped to start the ABA, principally with a number of major power group leaders, and had been instru- mental in organizing the Dairy and Farm Services Cooperative, which included DHIA, owner-sampler testing, and soil testing. He was very proud of this program and the good record it was making, while at the same time giving full credit to the energy and enterprise of the Cooperative's manager. SL believed that organizations should "stand on their own feet" once they were organized, and he purposely avoided in- fluencing COOperative or ABA activities, although they often invited him to their meetings. His relationships with the Cooperative's manager and the latter '3 assistant were friendly, as evidenced by the fact that they used part of the Extension office as a work center. SL's contacts with the Fruit Association were sporadic, although he did help to secure seasonal labor for the growers during harvest time. However, the fruit men seemed 327 desirous of doing their own recruiting and did not rely on SL for assistance. Both growers and agent commented on the lack of contact between them. SL felt that,since he was not a fruit specialist, he had better leave the main tech- nical work to the district horticultural agent. Yet many fruit farmers had some dairy cattle or poultry as a side enterprise, and claimed they would have welcomed more atten- tion from the agent. Actually, SL depended a great deal upon the support he received from two major Fruit Associ- ation leaders.’ This, however, was more Of a personal kind 18 of dependence than a case of group interaction. As might be expected, the Farm Bureau-Farmers Union dichotomy had basic consequences for SL's behavior. Though seldom publicly vocal or expressive as to his Opinions, he had strong affinity for the Farm Bureau orientation. It" was significant that this preference stemmed from personal convictions about economic and political principles, and not from an assessment of the relative power positions of the groups concerned. Indeed, SL had been a charter member of the Farm Bureau in the county, and had even served as secretary during its early years. He attended county—wide 18As noted previously, SL had several times requested the president of the Fruit Association to intercede for him in getting apprOpriations from the Board of Supervisors. 328 meetings regularly, and participated in a local community discussion group. Yet from Observation, it was apparent that he exercised no influence on Farm Bureau policies. He frankly admitted that the county leaders "don't always follow my suggestions." He also felt that the "new guard" president of the Farm Bureau was "not too strong" as a leader, and that he (SL) felt him "too boisterous." In spite of SL's Farm Bureau preferences, he felt that his job required him to work with other groups, including the Farmers Union. He said that some of the latter were very "radical" (and mentioned a film shown which featured a lot of material about Russia and Stalin) and that they were used as "toOls by outside interests." Yet he praised sOme of the leaders as "good men" personally. He was aware of the criticism which his efforts for either group engendered in the other, but felt it his duty to be as impartial as he could while on the job. Although not a politician in this very political situation, he made an elaborate attempt to see the pros and cons of every move he contemplated. This rigorous process mollified his participation generally, since for every line of action he could discern negative consequences or possible alternatives. Therefore, while his manner of participation appeared tentative and cautious, it was not from ignorance, but the reverse. 329 The crisis of the defunct creamery, which gave rise to the bi-partisan Dairy Association was a case in point. SL was slow in taking initiative because he did not believe it was his job to decide what should be done. He did not feel he had the right or authority to obligate the Extension Service in any financial transaction. Therefore, except for acting as a consultant to the leaders, he left the entire matter to the people themselves. While some persons condemned him for incompetence and lack of interest, others praised him for allowing people to decide for themselves what to do. Whether or not the early success of the Dairy Association was due to SL's position is difficult to answer. Yet it could not be denied that the course of events was eminently satisfactory from the farmers' financial stand- point, and that at least a temporary liaison was created between the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union. SL's experience with the Extension Council and the Advisory Board paralleled that of agents in the other counties studied. He had organized these groups, but had called few meetings because he was unsure of how to utilize them. He also believed that existing groups were sufficient- ly effective avenues by which to gain leadership opinion. These Opinions were not shared by all of the Board and Council members (mostly the same peOple in both organiza- 330 tions) who felt that valuable ideas and needed coordination might result from the meetings. However, SL preferred to work closely with the "old guard" major power group leaders who had been his bedrock supporters ever since he had come to the county. V Interaction with the Board of Supervisors was meager; and since SL was not overly pOpular with "outsider" leaders, he needed power group support. Except when necessary, he avoided contact with the supervisors, whom he regarded as Opinionated and often vituperative individuals, who were usually hot-tempered and biased against Extension. With PMA, he exercised great restraint, but was pre— pared to discharge his duties under the new ACP program as well as he could. Since PMA was dominated by Farmers Union leaders, SL did not feel welcome or comfortable at the policy meetings. His recommendations were received coolly, and were often pointedly rejected by the minority faction leaders. Thus SL entered the PMA office only in line of formal duty, but he made a strict point of responding to every invitation extended to him in order to demonstrate his willingness to help any group. His relationship to the SOD, and particularly the SCS personnel, was considerably strained. Although he had helped organize the District as one of the early ones in 331 the state, it had quickly shown signs of independence. Specifically, the farm planner and his assistants had ex- hibited much energy in their work and had approached the farmers directly without going through, or even consulting, the Extension office. SL viewed this as an affront, and a deliberate attempt by one government agency to circumvent another. He tried unsuccessfully to bring the SCD under his own jurisdiction. "Outsiders" soon replaced many "old guard" leaders on the board of directors, and these new- comers did not feel obliged to submit to SL's control. Besides, SCS work soon became so pOpular throughout the county, even with many major power group leaders, that SL did not try to attack it openly. It was ironical that he had concentrated his own brand of Opposition upon an authority group like his own, and that his only allies in criticizing SCS were the minority power group leaders, who were outspokenly critical of him in other contexts. The SCS personnel were alert to SL's antagonism, but they care- fully avoided any Open conflict, preferring to rely on their board of directors as a buffer whenever relations became tense. From the foregoing, it can be seen that SL's degree of participation in various groups was highly variable, and that most of his interaction was with the major power 332 groups. He played key roles in the formation of some of the important agricultural organizations, and absolutely none in the origin of others. The success or failure of any group did not seem to depend upon SL's connection with it, and the organizations themselves gave the impression of self-generated vigor rather than dependence upon Extension leadership. One of SL's extra projects was his promotion of a series of.economic policy forums. He utilized Speakers from the agricultural economics department of the state college and invited as many farm and business leaders as he could to attend the discussions. Taken as a whole, he felt that these meetings were highly beneficial and that they aired the pros and cons of problems which were every- one's concern. Despite his vigor and persistence, however, attendance at the forums was unpredictable and showed a slight decline from year to year. E. Image of the Agent and of the Extension Service by County Leaders The "old guard" power leaders had the most favorable group image of SL. Through long personal association, they had come to regard him with the same self-assured tolerance which they felt for the rest of the county. They freely 333 admitted his faults, such as indecision, lack of energy, and restricted technical knowledge, but were inclined to believe that "in the long run, SL is about asgood a man as we could expect to get anyway." In their Opinion, the Extension Service was there to be used, but it was not the agent's job to force people to use it. Therefore, they felt that people had no right to complain about SL when the real fault lay with themselves. These "Old guard" leaders did feel that more emphasis should be placed upon marketing problems and less upon production. They were aware of the trend to larger farms and quer full-time farmers on the one hand, and more small, part-time farmers on the other. The gap between these two groups was growing wider, and the major power group leaders were convinced that the full-time farmers should get the major share of the agent's time. This, of course, was the category which they themselves were in. The "new guard" leaders were more critical of SL, principally because he seemed to spend some time with the minority power faction. This they regarded as a defection from their own ranks, since they were not able to conceive of SI's job in an objective fashion. This bias was not true Of all the partisan power leaders, but it made many of them impatient with SL's rather cautious approach to 33h issues, even though he was personally on their side most of the time. Most of the "outsider" and minority power group leaders were Openly critical of SL and the entire Extension hierarchy. They regarded both as "committed to the Farm Bureau, lock, stock, and barrel," and pointed out SL's personal preference for the major power group point of view. They charged that SL worked only with the bigger farmers, and that he didn't get out to visit other farmers the way he should. While some of these leaders said that they had "nothing against SL personally" and that "I wouldn't take on his job for a million dollars," they regarded him as a symbol of the major power groups whom they disliked, and used him as a focus of their attacks. SL was not adroit enough politically to avoid his aim identification with one faction as against another. This antagonism carried over into the authority group structure, where both the PMA and Board of Supervisors were inclined to take issue with the entire Extension program. The PMA saw SL as being in the camp of the Farm Bureau, and many supervisors looked upon Extension as little more than a fund-seeking body which had to be kept in check, and which produced meager returns for the money it received. The Soil Conservation District directors and the SCS technical 335 personnel Often felt the agent to be an opponent. Their reaction was not to fight SL Openly, but rather to circum- vent his obstructions. As the chief planner said, "We know SL doesn't care for us, but it's really not our fault. We have our job to do and the peOple want us to do it. Sure, we'd like to be more friendly, but that isn't going to stOp our program. We're not going to fight with SL. but if he doesn't want to play ball with us, we'll just have to play along without him." Without doubt, the SCD was well-enough established in the county to survive with- out the agent's assistance. The image of SL, then, was highly variable, but except for the "tolerant approval" of the "Old guard," it was in- clined to be negative. SL was pictured as vacillating, unimaginative, and lazy by leaders from all groups. Para- doxically, others claimed he was one-sided and stubbornly opinionated. The more partisan leaders were likely to have this latter point of view. The presence of these rather inconsistent criticisms of SL may well be an indication of inter-group conflicts within the county, rather than a sober evaluation of SL as a professional worker. F. Image of the County and of the Extension Service by the Agent SL made few attempts to create a generally favorable 336 impression of himself, either among the people in the county or in the state Extension administration. He was quite frank in his own self-appraisal and was well-informed as to the criticisms which were levelled at him by various groups. He made a great effort to somehow reconcile his per- sonal preferences with his concept of the county agent role. In so doing, he tried to weigh carefully the pros and cons of almost everything he did. Most of the time this involved a comparison of his social and political convictions, which he believed fundamental to his own integrity, with his equally strong desire to treat all individuals and groups with impartiality. This inner struggle was manifest in the Farm Bureau-Farmers Union conflict. SL's convictions and background were all on the side of the Farm Bureau, yet he forced himself to participate with the Farmers Union be- cause of his sense of obligation to treat all groups with equal consideration. Thus, SL's dilemma was one of ad- herence to an internal moral principle in a political situ- ation which did not recognize any such principle. So, by trying to allocate himself professionally, to both power factions, he ended up working closely with neither. He recognized that one solution was to reject the minority faction completely, and in an individual sense this could easily have been done. Yet as a county agent he could not 337 bring himself to do it. From long experience, he regarded the "old guard" power group leaders as his confidante and supporters, and he often discussed prOgrams with them informally and asked their help in situations where his own efforts were not sufficient to gain desired results (i.e., getting apprOpri- ations from the Board of Supervisors, laying out the pro- gram for Grass Day, etc.). He was rather proud of his dairy program, and the growth of production services via the Dairy Cooperative. He also pointed out that the SCD, while it had done "as good a job probably as any other in the state," had accepted much assistance from Extension but had rarely given his program a boost in return. This lack of cooperation, as he saw it, was disturbing, and he be- lieved that the Extension office could have handled soil conservation just as well as a new agency. To a considerable degree, SL was troubled by the fear that he was not doing a good job generally. He worried about the rising number of part-time farmers, about where he should put his efforts to best advantage, and about whether his "group approach" through key leaders should be modified to an individual approach stressing more face-to- face contact. Basically, he wished to avoid conflicts among groups, since taking sides distressed him, yet at times he 338 felt impelled to stand by his principles publicly. He felt that he was wrestling with these problems pretty much on his own, and he had difficulty communicating them to his Extension superiors at the state office. He believed the central administration was too permissive in its approach to agent behavior, and that he needed more concrete help and support on policy questions than he was receiving. His economic forums were an attempt to involve higher-level Extension specialists and supervisors in some of the per- plexing issues of the day, but he suspected that this process was still superficial. He believed the agent's main function was to help initiate projects, but not to be active in them once they were underway. Every organization eventually should stand on its own feet, even at the cost of some of its Operating efficiency. SL avoided becoming emotionally partisan in a cause or a program, since this would have resulted in a kind of commitment to one course of action which his self- skepticism would not permit. He was a man whose external behavior exhibited a relativism which was the direct antith- esis of his internal ethical compulsions. PART THREE AN ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM OF RATING AGENT PERFORMANCE CHAPTER XII COMPARISON OF COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTION In the preceding chapters of Part II, a considerable amount of material has been presented which might be used in comparing the performances of the agents involved. Although there are many ways in which such comparisons could have been handled, it was necessary to select certain aspects of the data for particular relevance to the control theory developed in Part I, and to the agent rating pro- cedures followed in the Michigan Extension Service. Most of the content of these descriptive chapters has dealt with power and authority groups within the counties. Consequently, agent relations within the larger framework of Extension have been treated only from the county point of view.1 The following are the comparative structural and behavioral foci which will be discussed for the four2 agent lAgent-state administrator interaction is a dimension of the research which will be treated as part of the next chapter, dealing largely with images and judgments. 2Except where the discussion requires actual differ- entiation, ASpen and Oak Counties will be treated as a single unit, even though they have been described separately in the text. 3A1 situations: (a) Patterns of county organizational structure. (b) Agent relations with county power groups. (c) Agent relations with county authority groups. A. Patterns of County Organizational Structure The representation of groups related to agriculture is quite consistent within the four counties (see Tables VIII and IX). A composite picture of this organizational struc- ture is shown in Table VIII. From this table, it is clear that the widest range of incidence occurred among the power— Oriented groups. Dairy production associations were not only the most heavily represented as a whole, but also showed the widest internal variation, as between Ivy and Orange Counties. There were also a sizeable number of marketing associations, most of which were concerned with dairy and beef products. In most categories, however, there were no marked patterns or differences between high- rated and low-rated counties, except for the above-mentioned contrast between Ivy and Orange. However, even part of this can be explained by the fact that Ivy contained more farms than any of the other counties, and could therefore support more ABA and DHIA groups. However, the weakness of Orange County in dairy production associations was not explained 3A2 TABLE VIII INCIDENCE OF ACTIVE COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE, 1953 a Number of organizations Control High-rated Low-rated orientation counties counties Total Aspgn Oak Ivy Orange Moss-Lilac Power Service club Fair board Dairy production association Dairy marketing association Other marketing association Purchasing COOperative Advisory and planning board Farmers organization Other HUI 18 <3n) <3 F‘ +4 <3 G: CDF' IOC) <3 C) <3 C) \» CH4 <3n> <3 #4 to #1 ~q FH4 road <3 h‘ to F1 +4 <3r4 PJuJ :4 C) r4 P‘ #7 <3+4 \JICDHW 0U) O\ H U'I \O H [\J Sub-total 8 SO Authority Board of Supervisors Soil Conservation District Board PMA committee FHA Other OHHO H OOHo H OHHH H OHHH H HOHH H mew m Sub-total 3 2 A h hr 17 TOTAL 11 8 19 13 16 67 3M3 by this factor of numerical difference in farm units. A general shift from dairy to beef production had occurred to some extent in all four counties, but had been most pro- nounced in Orange. The shift had brought with it a strong interest in marketing problems, and Orange County beef farmers had taken the lead in establishing marketing associ- ations, several of which had become regional in sc0pe. In this process, three of the four dairy production organiza- tions had become inactive, although their formal structure had remained intact. Aside from these particular varia- tions, the control groups in the counties appeared quite uniform, particularly with respect to authority-type groups. Therefore, if real differences existed in agent performance, these could not be ascertained from the data in Table VIII, since the structure of agriculturally- related organizations was similar in both the high-rated and low-rated counties. The interlocking leadership of the power groups in the four counties showed the distribution indicated in Table IX. This table illustrates no marked pattern based upon high and low ratings, except that cohesion within lo- cales seemed more prevalent in the high-rated counties. Also, ASpen-Oak power groups showed a generally higher occurrence of interlocking than the other counties. This 3AA TABLE IX INCIDENCE OF INTERLOCKING LEADERSHIP AMONG COUNTY POWER GROUPS, 1953 INumber OTIorganizatIons High-rated Low-rated Group locale counties counties Total Aspen Oak} Ivy Orange Moss-Lilac Town-centered A - 2 1 1 8 Country-centered 3 - 3 O O 6 Mixed 0 - o o 3 6 "Cross-locale"L h - 2 S 3 1h TOTAL ll - 7 6 7 may have been due to agent FH's direct participation in the selection of county leaders, and his conscious effort to get those with whom he could work. However, the fact that the other three counties showed little difference in totals suggests that the Aspen-Oak level of interaction may have 3Although none of the power group leaders in Oak County were officers in more than one group at the time of the study, Mennonite preponderance in the power leadership resulted in a high degree of cohesion among the power organizations, see Chapter VII, Section II. Thus the Oak County power structure could be considered unified in a functional, if not a formal sense. "This refers to interlocking between a group in one locale and a group in another. 3&5 been idiosyncratic. The data in Table IX can be misleading in that it does not indicate the factional strife between two major power groups in Moss-Lilac County. While the larger faction was unified in much the same manner as the power structure in other counties, it did have to deal with an organized minority group which vigorously challenged its supremacy. This factionalism was, of course, disjunctive to the over- all power group unity in the county. In contrast with the power groups, none of the authority groups in any county, except Orange,S had inter- locking leadership. This meant that the authority groups were considerably less unified on the county level than the power groups were, and that their measure of control over agriculture in the county was limited mainly to their specific legal duties. This situation provides some clue as to the direction an agent's behavior might take if he were desirous of working with the prevailing control groups in the counties. In addition to the two previous types of interlocking leadership, the incidence of so-called "cross-leadership" was examined. The distribution of such leadership was as follows: 5Even here, there was just One individual who was serving on two authority group directorates. 3A6 TABLE x INCIDENCE OF "CROSS-LEADERSHIP" AMONG COUNTY CONTROL GROUPS, 1953 Number of organizations High-rated Low-rated Groups involved counties counties Total Aspen Oak Ivyg Orangg Moss-Lilac Power 3 O h h S 16 Authority 2 O 2 2 h 10 TOTAL 5 o 6 6 9 26 The tabulation of "cross-leadership" shows no out- standing county differences, except perhaps in the case of Moss-Lilac, where the split within the power structure seemed to have encouraged both power factions to try to gain control of certain authority groups in order to out- maneuver one another. More significant than the number of groups involved was the fact that the farmers organizations, particularly the Farm Bureau, were the power groups most likely to show "cross-leadership." Furthermore, the Soil Conservation District was the authority group with the heaviest "cross- leadership," and, in the three counties which had Districts, most of the "cross-leadership" in those counties was con- centrated in the SCD board of directors. This meant that 31+? each board was at least vulnerable to internal strife among various types of leaders, including those "outsiders" who were not identified with major power or authority constel- lations within a county. Due to this situation, it might be expected that agents would have a rather difficult time dealing with a group as heterogeneous and ambivalent as an SCD board of directors frequently was. Two other structural characteristics of county agri- cultural structure deserve mention for their possible effect upon agent performance. The first was the "town versus country" rivalry which, though often overplayed in both fiction and research, was found to exist, at least in latent form, in each county. However, the empirical cir- cumstances varied in each. It was strongest in Ivy County, where the agent preceding SH had supposedly so allied him- self with "urban" interests that his resignation was brought about by rural leaders. The dichotomy was least noticeable in Aspen County, although no overt clash had occurred in FH's entire career as agent. In Orange County, the Fair Board was the focus of some merchant-farmer ani: mosity, and in Moss-Lilac, the Board of Supervisors showed division between supervisors representing the county seat_ and those from the more rural townships on many issues. Being a legal representative body in each county, the Board 3u8 quite naturally would be likely to bring out whatever rural- urban differences might exist. There was no evidence that the presence or absence of such differences was a corollary of rated agent performance. The second characteristic was a noticeable separation of leadership in the power group structure between what have been called "old guard" and "new guard" leaders. In all of the counties, the older leaders were concentrated in the country-centered dairy production and marketing organizations, and were likely to be the larger and more prosperous farmers in the county. The newer leaders were found in the mixed-locale farmers organizations (except in Oak, which had no such organizations) and in marketing organizations other than those containing older leaders. They were likely to be either non-farmers, part-time farmers, or farmers who were in an early stage of economic development. The chronological age of the "old guard" group was generally higher than that of the "new guard" group, although in many cases "old guard" leaders had channeled young sons or relatiVes into official leader- ship positions as their own successors. As in the case of rural-urban differences, this "old guard-new guard" sep- aration was apparently not correlated with county agent ratings, since it was most noticeable in high-rated Ivy and 3A9 low-rated Orange Counties, and to a lesser extent in Aspen and Moss-Lilac Counties. Furthermore, in none of the counties did this separation of leadership result in a schism within the major power structure. There was, on the contrary, more agreement than antagonism, even though the two sets of leaders were dissimilar in many ways. B. Agent Relations with County Power Groups As pointed out in the preceding section, the behavior of the power groups had no obvious relationship to agent ratings. All of the counties, except Oak, had a measure of conflict between the Farm Bureau and the PMA. The stand taken by all of the county Farm Bureaus was nearly identical in terms of PMA. This suggested that neither the stated position nor the reasons for it were arrived at indepen-» dently by each county Farm Bureau unit. ’ Consistent Operational difficulty also occurred in all the county versions of ABA and'DHIA programs. Problems of hiring and training testers and inseminators, poor success in artificial breeding, and high expense and inconvenience of testing procedures were present in all of the counties. Although Orange was the overall lowest performing county in its dairy production program, and had the fewest active groups, Ivy County also had one totally disbanded ABA group, 350 and Aspen had eXperienced highly erratic interest in both its ABA and DHIA organizations. Only in Moss-Lilac, one of the low-rated counties, did the dairy production groups seem well-organized and confident. Here the unification of services had been accomplished in a special organization formed for that purpose, and the hired personnel were not only capable, but were satisfied with their prOSpects Of making a good living at their jobs. Since the dairy production organizations were of great importance in most of the power structures examined, some data were investigated with reference to the activities of these organizations in the four agent situations. The county indices chosen were percentage of cows on butterfat test, and percentage of cows artificially bred. These data covered the period from 19h? to 1953,6 although some gaps were caused by the fact that not all counties had DHIA or ABA units during the entire period. 6Most of the base figures of cow pOpulation ( which consisted of milk cows and heifers two years old and over) were furnished by the office of the State Statistician, Lansing, Michigan. The estimates were derived from a ques- tionnaire mailed to.a sample of farmers selected by popu- lation on existing mail routes. Yearly replies have averaged 50 per cent of total sample. Results are tabu- lated annually, using the previous year and the last five» year agricultural census as checks. Spot enumerations throughout the state indicate that estimates have been accurate within 5 per cent of actual cow pOpulation. 351 Figure 21: Percentage of Cows on Regular Butter-fat Test (through DHIA or equivalent procedure) , 19);]-53 Isa: -—-FH ( Aspen) - --SH (Ivy) "*‘“*FL (Orange) ‘”"*SL (Ross-Lilac) N , , , ' ' 1 I 2 , l l A l_ # H47 H48 H47 NJ" I“? ' I70. 176': Vang The Orange county DHIA disbanded in 1953. ~| ZNBNMV 33 32 3, 30 .11 18 17 ‘ 16 Figureznd: l9h7-53 352 T— ._ ‘_ .p____ 7%, 1r—-~-e~»u ~ "m“ .~.- — .1--. ”and; —. -ma + I I i l P : .u—a— -O-——-—v H . g—o-»ix-- .L—-_ ._.__.... .g. mfi..”_ . \ ~O Q Q 3: $9 YEBR Percentage of Cows on Regular Butterfat Test, Oak Count yQD u---I-o* I757 Oak county is diagrammed separately because the numerical percentages involved differed widely from those of the other four counties, and it was not feasible to include them in the first diagram. fishnamv EB Figure 22: Percentage of Cows Bred Artificially (through ABA or equivalent organization), 19L7—53 aliax '—"'FH (Oak) , r- FL (Orange) --—-FH (Aspeg SL (Moss-Lilac) """SH (Ivy) 30 < - ---~-*-~-m--~—0~—-~-—~~-~ f -... ”vim” ,, _ ______‘_ .-.. _. 7 I 1 +— , 2.! ~— 1 9 20 -—————— M m I} I s , i o I l ’ T E I _./' l ; / i! I ‘ 2 A \ /_I A / t- 1‘ I a’ 5V 1’ ' " v” \. 1’ . ’,a¢’ ,/ ~\ ./ ‘ / ' / A. \v 3 1” __,..~— ' __.._.H~—""" ’0