.s... ...A..v. w. .. -07.;v5-v A!Idlvl.-'IID ”up" Int-ms V," 1 - —-- ‘9. . 7... ...~ 1 : ... .2: I . .. . . A .33. V . . . taxinw .. . . . . . n35 . Us :. WW. 3 , “m, , T . .. 3 6 he, fi {Iii 5r .‘l' “M: j,— - NT - 3‘} :T ' i CTGR A . “mes GREEN FA f . .. Y 1.? .r: ‘ ,9 m... . .T ‘. 5. —~, , 2.1. 1 I . ‘Avl.~‘. 455.4%,» (a? 1.5.9..- .x. Vfiif—‘lh This is to certify that the thesis entitled Factors Contributing to Ant inomian Orientations Among University Students presented by Daniel Anthony Quirk, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Political Science Major professor Date July 28, 1971 0-7639 ~——————'———— -—— , 7 7 ‘ , ' ,, ’77? a , 7 7777 7 i< 2.5: L IE R is 13:. 2" Michigan 51535;?- Univers-i A are thecl to denote that the t itY than 1 internali2 these 91'0”; C056 of ti: Study to d. tiOn Of ex: favor of i: behaViOr. System SUrf developed 5 ABSTRACT FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ANTINOMIAN ORIENTATIONS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS BY Daniel Anthony Quirk, Jr. The traditional roots of the term antinomianism are theological. The concept has been used historically to denote the attitudes of religious groups who believed that the conscience of any individual was a higher author- ity than the external moral law because the divine was internalized in each person. As a result of this belief, these groups often found themselves rejecting the moral code of their societies. Antinomianism is used in this study to describe a world view characterized by a rejec- tion of external authority--both legal and social--in favor of individual conscience as the primary guide for behavior. In the contemporary period, such a value system surfaces among affluent university students in developed societies who fear the possibility that their humanistic beliefs are becoming historically irrelevant. As a result they find themselves isolated from the cul- tural goals and behavioral norms of their societies. indi‘.'id‘.;:. early ex; posed the related : parents. the pernis ized socig tion. YET a SOCiali: SCCietal 5 a turning Values. 2‘: belmcover: amine-fan his a reaction Cf historic hmanist a9 ,lherefOre I 3‘5"“- a d155, Daniel Anthony Quirk, Jr. This study is an attempt to discover the socio-cultural factors associated with the emergence of such antinomian orientations. Socialization theorists have written that an individual's attitude toward authority is formed in his early experiences with parental authority. Some have pro- posed that rejection of societal authority structures is related to childhood experiences with authoritarian parents. At the same time, others have stated that it is the permissive nature of parental authority in industrial- ized societies which is the cause for youthful disaffec- tion. Yet, I view the emergence of antinomianism not as a socialization question but as being associated with societal status and identity deprivation which results in a turning inward and a rejection of societal norms and values. Thus, I hypothesized that no relationship would be uncovered between parental authority patterns and antinomian beliefs. Instead, contemporary antinomianism is defined as a reaction by affluent middle class students to the fear of historical irrelevance. It is seen as a revolt of the humanist against the restraints of technocratic society. Therefore, it was hypothesized that antinomians would have a different vision of what their future lives would be like than those who do not Share their basic beliefs. 9 l The at; directed a randor i were que: tap the r tance of family sc A Chi Squl data gath. 2-..- bemeen tr individua; OU‘CSide Of dual to hi to be asso tion Of the The future whic share his r antinomian by the imPOJ relatively L Daniel Anthony Quirk, Jr. The antinomian's future expectations would be of an inner- directed life in a relatively unstructured environment. f In order to test these two fundamental hypotheses, a random sample of Michigan State University students were questioned using scales which were constructed to tap the respondent's attitude toward authority, his accep- tance of cultural goals and institutional norms, his family socialization patterns and future life expectations. A chi square and regression analysis was performed on the data gathered to test the hypothesized relationships. As anticipated, no relationship was uncovered between the type of parental authority experienced by an individual and the extent of his acceptance of authority outside of the self. Yet, the adaptation of the indivi- dual to his society's cultural norms and values does seem to be associated with the strictness of parental control. These significant relationships, however, may be a func- tion of the operationalization of these variables. The antinomian was found to have a vision of the future which was distinct from that of those who do not share his rejection of institutionalized authority. The antinomian looks forward to a life style characterized by the importance of close personal relationships and a relatively unstructured and non-professional work environ- ment. While the status deprivation hypothesis cannot be J—.-_ .13.“; .- directly support among on; C ‘ ; ,. tor 'DJe\ styles. Daniel Anthony Quirk, Jr. directly tested with the available data, these results do support the notion that the emergence of antinomianism among university students is related to the conflict between their humanistic ideals and technocracy's need for objectivity, centralized control and formalized life styles. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ANTINOMIAN ORIENTATIONS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS BY Daniel Anthony Quirk, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science 1971 (5) Copyright by DANIEL ANTHONY QUIRK, JR. 1971 T J. for melt original suggestiCT the Educat University concerned methods to that projel It personal de concerns a: problems a: combination cern, his 9 as my disse grateful. I t‘ tainly have 0325‘. ant und dedicated. All 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Ada Finifter and David V. J. Bell for their perceptive and thoughtful criticisms of the original draft of this dissertation and their helpful suggestions for its improvement. A research grant from the Educational Development Program of Michigan State University gave me the opportunity to work on a project concerned with testing new techniques in teaching research methods to undergraduates. This study is an outgrowth of that project. It is not easy to express the intellectual and personal debt I owe Frank A. Pinner. His theoretical concerns and practical solutions to seemingly insolvable problems are the very bases of this study. With a rare combination of scientific discipline and humanistic con- cern, his guidance has been well beyond the call of duty as my dissertation committee chairman. I am forever grateful. I thank my friends without whom things would cer- tainly have fallen apart. And to my parents, for their constant understanding and support, this dissertation is dedicated. All errors in judgment and analysis are my own. ii ‘ ' WV." I" flCfiavng.“ Y, H H p i u “‘5; O. A. "\th C..-;r.;,R I. .z' II. C" III, M ‘A uni 0—7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . v CHAPTER I. ANTINOMIANISM: A QUESTION OF FREEDOM AND Definition of Antinomianism. . . . . 4 Antinomian Movements and Groups . . . 6 Antinomianism in America. . . . . . 9 The Sociology of Antinomian Movements . 15 Contemporary Antinomianism . . . . . 20 II. GENERAL HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY . . . 29 Antinomianism: Alienation of the Affluent Young . . . . . . . . 30 Antinomianism: A Conceptualization . . 35 The Factors Associated with the Emergence of Antinomianism: The General Hypotheses. . . . . . 38 General Methodology . . . . . . . 41 The Sample . . . . . . . . . 42 Interviewing and Coding . . . . . . 44 Operationalization of the Major Variables: The Questionnaire . . 45 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Data. . 50 Computation of Indexes: The Use of Factor Scores. . . . . . . . . 52 III. ANTINOMIANISM AMONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS . . . . . . . . 55 The Validity of Antinomian Measures . . 73 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 77 iii CELRPTE; IV. VI. '1" VII , A“; CHAPTER Page IV. ANTINOMIANISM AND PARENTAL CONTROL . . . 79 Introduction. . . . . . 79 Measures of Some Parental Child- Rearing Practices . . . . . . . 82 Antinomianism and Parental Control: Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . 86 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 107 V. ANTINOMIANISM AND FUTURE EXPECTATIONS . . 112 Introduction. . . . . . 112 The Future Expectations of the Antinomian. . . . . . . . . 116 Operationalization: Future Expec- tations. . . . . . . . . . . 117 Antinomianism and Future Expectations: Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . 125 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 147 VI. THE SOCIAL CORRELATES OF ANTINOMIANISM: A REGRESSION ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . 150 Predictors of Individualism. . . . . 157 Predictors of Anti—formalism . . . . 162 Evaluation of the System. . . . . 162 Familial Generation Gap . . . . . 164 Social Modernity . . . . . . 164 Predictors of Future Life Expectations . 168 VII. ANTINOMIANISM: A CONCLUDING ESSAY . . . 173 The Roots of Antinomianism . . . . . 173 Antinomianism and the Technocracy. . . 178 Antinomianism and the Sense of Community . . . . . . . . . . 180 Antinomianism and Contemporary Political Ideologies . . . . . . 182 Some Notes on Further Research. . . . 184 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 MPENDICES O O O O O O I O I O O O O O 196 iv l 3 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 311 by 4-1 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.10 3.11 4.1 LIST OF TABLES Typology of modes of individual adaptation. Relationship between the dimensions of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . . Distribution of responses to law compli- ance items. . . . Factor analysis of law compliance scale. . Distribution of responses to items measur- ing acceptance of norms of social change. Distribution of positive-negative responses on the three semantic differ- ential scales. . . . . . . . . . Factor analysis of semantic differential . Distribution of responses on modern- traditional scales--se1f . . . . . . Factor analysis--modern-traditional scales: self. I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chi squares from contingency tables relat- ing the two dimensions of antinomianism . Correlations between measures of the two dimensions of antinomianism . . . . . Classification of respondents on one dimension of antinomianism: evaluation of system . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of respondents on one dimension of antinomianism: ‘modernity on social norms . . . . . . . . . Distribution of responses to measures of parental authority . . . . . . . . Page 31 36 56 61 65 68 70 72 73 75 75 76 76 84 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 110 £11 412 4.13 414 Fr. Ch; '(1 n; Fre Chi Dis: 96 Table 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 Distribution of responses to semantic differential on parents . . . . . Chi square values and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and individualism. . . . . . . . . Freedom to express views in the home by degree of antinomianism . . . . . Extent of curfew by degree of anti- nomianism . . . . . . . . . . Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental evaluation and individualism. Parental permissiveness by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and acceptance of social change norms. . . . . . . Extent of curfew by belief in ability to obtain social change . . . . . . Freedom to express views in home by belief in chance of social change . . Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating evalu- ation of system.with child-rearing practices . . . . . . . . . . Freedom to express views in home by evalu- ation of system . . . . . . . . ' Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating evalu- ation of system with evaluation of parents . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of responses to measures of generation gap . . . . . . . . vi Page 85 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 95 97 97 97 100 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 5.1 5.2 5.3 Table 4.15 4.21 4.22 4.23 5.5 Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and perception of generation gap Parents discourage friendships by gener- ation gap in family. Parents permissive-strict by generation gap in family. Means for self, father and mother on each modern-traditional item Distribution of average difference scores on modern-traditional scale Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and difference score between father and child on modern- traditional scales Degree of difference between father and respondent on modernity scale by parents discourage friendships . Degree of difference between father and respondent on modernity scale by closeness to parents Degree of difference between father and respondent on modernity scale by parental permissiveness Distribution of respondent academic majors. Distribution of expected future occupations Average ranking of occupational attributes. Percentages of positive and negative responses to vision of the future scale items Factor analysis of vision of the future Page 100 102 102 104 105 106 106 108 108 118 118 120 121 123 Table 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.15 5.17 5.1a 5.19 5.20 (3 Table 5.6 5.17 5.18 5.19 .5.20 5.21 Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating academic major with measures of antinomianism. . . . . . . . Academic major by degree of antinomisnism Academic major by evaluation of system . Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating future occupation with measures of antinomian orientations . . . . . . . . . Future occupation by degree of antinomiansim. . . . . . . . . Future occupation by evaluation of system Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating future scale items with measures of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating factor scores from future vision scale with antinomian orientations . . . . . Future: settling down by antinomianism. Future: settling down by evaluation of system . . ,. . . . . . . . . Future: professional life by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . Future: professional life by evaluation of system 0 O O O O O O C O 0 Future: no rut by degree of antinomianism. Future: no rut by evaluation of system. . Future: respect earned by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . Future: respect earned by evaluation of system . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 126 127 128 130 131 132 133 135 137 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 Table 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 F; 5.28 F; 5.29 F; 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 s 6'1 Sir. 6'2 Lis 63 Re; 6.4 Reg; 6.5 Reg; 6.5 Reg; 6.7 Regv Table 5.22 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 6.6 6.7 Page Future: contribution to world by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . 141 Future: contribution to world by evaluation of system . . . . . . . 141 Future: no stability by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . . 142 Future: no stability by evaluation of system . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Future: family and friends by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . . 143 Future: family and friends by evaluation of system . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Future: hard work by antinomianism . . . 144 Future: hard work by evaluation of system. 144 Future: devotion to loved ones by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . 145 Future: devotion to loved ones by evaluation of system . . . . . . . 145 Future: competition by degree of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . . 146 Future: competition by evaluation of system . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Simple correlations . . . . . . . . 152 List of variable names and labels. . . . 155 Regression analysis: individualism . . . 158 Regression analysis: civil libertarianism. 161 Regression analysis: evaluation of system. 163 Regression analysis: the generation gap . 165 Regression analysis: modernity of social issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 ix Table 6.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 13.5 0.6 3.7 0.8 13.9 3.10 11,11 11.12 3.13 f“) C) (D 4) '(Y O) t" AC5 Table 6.8 D.10 D.1l D.12 Page Regression analysis: a future emphasizing personal relationships. . . . . . . 169 Regression analysis: altruistic future life style. . . . . . . . . . . 170 Regression analysis: professional future life style. . . . . . . . . . . 171 Regression analysis: future stability . . 172 Degree of antinomianism by parental child- rearing practices . . . . . . . . 212 Degree of civil libertarianism by parental child-rearing practices . . . . . . 213 Degree of antinomianism by evaluation of parents. . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Degree of civil libertarianism by evalua- tion of parents . . . . . . . . . 215 Attitudes toward channels of social change by parental-child rearing practices . . 216 Evaluation of system by parental child- rearing practices . . . . . . . . 219 Evaluation of system by evaluation of parents. . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Generation gap measures by parental child- rearing practices . . . . . . . . 221 Degree of difference between respondent and father on modernity scale by parental child-rearing practices . . . 224 Academic major by measures of antinomianism. . . . . . . . . . 225 Future occupation by degree of civil libertarianism . . . . . . . . . 228 Degree of civil libertarianism by visions of the future. . . . . . . . . . 231 Evaluation of police by visions of future . 233 Table D.14 D.15 13.16 0.17 0.18 3.19 11.20 0.21 9.22 13.23 11,24 (’1 Be f3 wi Table D.14 Evaluation of university administration by visions of the future . . . . . Belief in the ability to obtain desired social change by visions of the future The best way to achieve social change by visions of the future . . . . . . Willingness to go outside legal channels by visions of the future . . . . . Degree of antinomianism by future expectations . . . . . . . . . Degree of civil libertarianism by future expectations . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of the system by future expectations . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of the police by future expectations . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of university administration by future expectations. . . . . . Belief in ability to obtain social change by future expectations. . . . . . The best way to achieve social change by future expectations. Willingness to go outside legal channels by future expectations. . . . . . xi Page 235 237 239 241 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 "a and SIC; CHAPTER I ANTINOMIANISM: A QUESTION OF FREEDOM AND CONTROL--AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" William Butler Yeats "The Second Coming" Writing in 1920 Yeats believed he was witness to the beginning of a new age in world history. The myster- ious final lines of "The Second Coming" leave in doubt the outline of the new era he thought would be ushered in by the new nativity. Yet, the symptoms of the birth were evident to him: "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world" Today, the poets dream of the new age of Aquarius while the scientists plan for the new post-industrial era in world history. Others envision no new birth but see instead the same anarchic signs of change which Yeats witnessed and warn of degeneration and the death of civilization. These pessimists view current social dis- order as a fundamental breakdown in law and order, in respect for authority and in the ties that bind civiliza events a relation authorit; orrentat. Ottoer C 0993. TE tical ice déépest Se (Roszad‘i, 1 1;; alien Van €13 interr civilization together. The optimists contend that these events are inevitable signs of a reordering of cultural relationships which will result in a new definition of civilized society. Which of these visions is the valid interpretation of the future will not be debated here. Instead, it is hoped that the characteristics of Yeats' "rough beast" might be made clearer. The issues of law and order and respect for authority are not themselves the root cause of social dis— orientation in American society. They are the way that a deeper division in society is working itself out into the open. The fundamental disagreement is not between poli- tical ideologies as such but involves a conflict between opposing, and perhaps mutually exclusive, world views or "Weltanschauungen." The problem should, therefore, not be viewed in terms of politics or economics but at the more general yet more basic level of culture because the alienation of mid-century ". . . strikes beyond ideology to the level of consciousness seeking to transform our deepest sense of the self, the other, the environment" (Roszak, p. 49). Numerous articles and books have been written in which various commentators attempt to piece together their own interpretation of what constitutes the basic conflict of the times. Lewis Feurer contends that we are witness to a "conflict of generations" and many researchers, problems technoor I. tore rec: notes ti- character wonder." Speaks of the non-p: lines, J0} those who truth." . develOPmEn Civilizati Th< lead them 1 diSCuSSing radiCal Val I \ columnists and politicians have made the "generation gap" the catch-all cause for a wide range of contemporary problems. Theodore Roszak writes of the battle against technocracy and the emergence of a "counter culture." More recently, Charles Reich in The Greening of America notes that what is emerging is a new Consciousness (III) characterized by . . . a childlike breathless sense of wonder." Stephen Spender in The Year of the Young Rebels speaks of the "moral immoralists" and the "politics of the non-political.” Along similar yet less sympathetic lines, John Bunzel writes in Anti-Politics in America "of those who reject politics in the name of some non-political truth." Kenneth Keniston in more general terms sees the development of what he calls a "post-modern style" as civilization moves into the post-industrial age. Though the biases of these various writers often lead them to somewhat different conclusions, they are discussing the same cultural phenomenon of rapid and radical value change. One reaction to such social change is the emergence of a particular world view to be defined here as antinomian. Rather than merely adding to the already large number of social science concepts, it is hoped that antimonianism will encompass the interpreta- tions offered above and place the basic issues in their Preper historical perspective. against word for denote c. tions in' Testamen Who were conscious found SL1; Paul to t M justi Jesus Chi that We u not by t‘:. Shall no religiOus the xew I MOSES as ChriSt' .. w [Remans I Definition of Antinomianism In its root sense antinomianism means to be against or opposed to the law stemming from the Greek word for law-~"nomos." It has been used historically to denote certain theological movements whose basic assump- tions included the idea that the moral law of the Old Testament of Moses was no longer binding upon Christians who were under the law of grace. Those individuals who consciously believed in this doctrine and acted upon it found support for their position in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians in which he states that "a man is not justified by the works of law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians, 2:16). These religious antinomians found rationalizations throughout the New Testament for their opposition to the Law of Moses as noted in this summary found in The Dictionary of Christian Theology: "Is not Christ the end of the law (Romans, 10:4), were not the representatives of the law the Chief enemies of Christ (Mark, 2:1-3:6), are not those who rely on works of the law under a curse (Gala- tians, 3:10), are they not cut off from Christ and fall from grace (Galatians, 5:4)." I been a"; the has: the var; include . writing ;' antinomia "extreme than the (Sterrett 118010910 underlyin aCtivity ‘ A11 wj the s FEIVe. medias 50 t1}. antinc Cial‘ moral; Despite the fact that the term antinomianism has been applied sparingly to religious cults and movements, the basic definitions of the concept which are found in the various theological journals and encyclopedias usually include its more general meaning. J. MacBride Sterrett writing in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics views antinomianism in its "wildest sense" as pertaining to any "extreme fanatics who deny subjection to any law other than the subjective caprices of the empirical individual" (Sterrett, p. 581). Although Sterrett claims that he does not want to take his discussion beyond its proper theological role, he does believe that the basic principle underlying antinomianism is found in every area of human activity which is organized or institutionalized: All who advocate doctrines subversive of the Family, the State, or the Church, are antinomians. All who pervert the principle that "the end justifies the means" into a disregard for established moral laws, so that some personal or finite end be attained are antinomians. And every individual who pleads spe- cial exemption from obedience to the common law of morality is an antinomian (Sterrett, p. 582). Given the more generally applicable definition of antinomianism quoted above, an individual is an antino- mian if he finds himself in opposition to the accepted fundamental cultural values and norms of his society. Yet, all social protest is not antinomian. A review of some of the groups and so-called movements which histori- cally have been labeled antinomian might be instructive in limiting the definition further. history intensi: One thre troversy dogma an. given the Jesus Chi tidnity k not Spit: had allow follvfier: Mosaic 1. desCribe, Charactez 5901; W11 io Antinomian Movements and Groups* There are two major strains which run through the history of antinomian groups and they differ in the intensity and pervasiveness of their cultural heterodoxy. One thread tends to be concerned primarily with the con- troversy over the meaning of the scriptures, over official dogma and over the necessity of obeying the Mosaic law given the coming of the New Testament and the spirit of Jesus Christ. Many Gnostics in the early years of Chris- tianity believed that the Mosaic law was too formal and not spiritual enough and also that the Old Testament law had allowed too much sexual indulgence. The ascetic followers of Marcion and the Manichaens rejected the Mosaic law for the reason of its immorality and have been described because of their protest as antinomian. The second strain of antimonianism, which also surfaced in the early years of the Christian era, is characterized by the beliefs and behavior of the Messa- 1ians and the Adamites. The Messalians were a mystical sect which developed in the fourth century in Syria, Meso- potamia and Armenia who are said to have "practiced a squalid kind of asceticism, mendicancy, promiscuous sleeping together of men and women, and prayer to devils" *The historical review is a summary of "Antino- mianism and Antinomian Controversies" by A. H. Newman, in The New Schaff-Herzgg Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, I, 196-200. (Newman, p. 197). Thus, while both the Manichaens and the Messalians valued the spirit over the law, the former group did not use that belief to justify sexual behavior which the law had declared immoral and the latter group did. Antinomian groups of the Messalian style prospered throughout the Middle Ages. Gertrude Huehns in her book, Antinomianism in English History, claims that a major reason for this extensive religious heterodoxy was that it helped medieval man in his search for "personal certainty which he needed in order to put distance between himself and the increasingly baffling conditions of his time" (Huehns, p. 26). Such groups as the Bogomiles were accused of immoral behavior based on antinomian beliefs as were those who followed the pantheistic Amalric of Bena who claimed that "to those constituted in love, no sin is imputed" (as quoted in Newman, p. 197). These groups along with the Brethern of the Free Spirit believed that it was impossible for spiritual man to sin because "the spirit in him, which is God, is not affected by the flesh and can not sin, and because the man, who is nothing, can not sin so long as the spirit, which is God, is in him" (as quoted in Newman, p. 197). During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the ideas of the Brethern of the Free Spirit are found as the basis for such groups as the Libertines--a pantheistic sect pre the Fan; in 1540. Koran Cal duals w}; '213risor.5 the age :. to write extensivg cal pane Bible and ifiltered ti for What 1 sect present in the Netherlands around 1525--as well as the Familists (Family of Love) founded by Hendrik Niclaes in 1540. Niclaes was a merchant who though outwardly a Roman Catholic all his life became involved with indivi- duals who were committed to the Reformation and was twice imprisoned for his religious and moral heterodoxy. At the age of 39, Niclaes claimed to be a prophet and began to write and publish secretly his ideas. He also traveled extensively in Europe and England and gained many fol- lowers between 1540 and 1560. The Familists were a mysti— cal pantheistic sect who did not reject the law of the Bible and the teachings of the Church so much as they ignored them--claiming that the law simply paved the way for what they called the "age of love." In the seventeenth century the other branch of antinomianism reappears in the hyper-calvinistic teaching of men like Piscator and Gomar in the Netherlands and in the debate between Agricola and Luther over the importance of the gospel of the law versus the gospel of love. Agricola claimed that faith alone without works was suffi- cient for salvation. The last mention of antinomian movements in theo- logical history is in the seventeenth century with both strains evident. The Ranters followed in the footsteps of the Brethern of the Free Spirit and the Familists and carried the basic assumptions of these sects even further by clai: to be St I The; Chr;| less ture cond most' The less seventee: ascertain 150vEwen ts England c by claiming that nothing is a sin but what a man thinks to be so. A. H. Newman claims that They denied the existence of the devil, heaven and hell. Moses they declared to be a conjurer and Christ, a deceiver of the people. Prayer is use- less. Preaching and lying are all one. The Scrip- tures they regarded as cast-off fables and when they condescended to use them at all they practiced the most absurd allegorizing (Newman, p. 198). The less radical antinomian branch surfaces in the mid- seventeenth century in the New England colony of Massa- chusetts. Fortunately, the details of and motivations behind the American movement are obtainable. In order to ascertain some picture of the sociology of antinomian movements, it might prove helpful to look at the New England case in some detail. Antinomianism in America The antinomian controversy in the colony of Massachusetts in the 1630's centered around the religious beliefs of Anne Hutchinson, Joseph Cotton and their fol- lowers but its motivations were social, political and especially economic. As David Hall points out, the anti- nomian struggle of 1636 was vital to the control of the colony and since it came at a time when the new society was still taking shape the results were decisive to the future of New England and maybe even the United States. The religious argument between the antinomians and the ministers of the church was over the correct answer to the question, "How does the saint know that he is save_ material that work tiOn to 1'1 the freE T hWEVer, the OPPOS up of ind by the id in M (118a?reEm about PCB-w. and Cotto; 10 is saved? Cotton contended that the other ministers were "legalists" who preached the "covenant of works"* rather than the "covenant of grace." The antinomians claimed that the Puritan ministers misinterpreted the scriptures when they taught that evidence for one's salvation was found in the outward signs of the works one performed. Hutchinson held that most of the ministers taught that an individual could be sure if he was a member of the elect. if he lived a righteous life and was rewarded by God with material well-being. The antinomians believed instead that works alone were not a measure of salvation. Salva- tion to Hutchinson and Cotton could be achieved only with the free gift of grace. The actual motives for these religious arguments, however, are found in the social and economic position of the opposing groups. Social movements are usually made up of individuals whose personal values or needs are met by the ideological objectives of the group. David Hall in The Antinomian Controversy 1636-1638 claims that the disagreement was, "not about matters of doctrine but about power and freedom of conscience" and that Hutchinson and Cotton were, "rebels against the dogmatic tyranny of the ministers" (Hall, p. 11). While Hall stresses the *Covenant of works refers to the covenant God made with Adam--man without sin could ensure his salvation by perfect obedience to law. After the fa11--works alone no longer earned salvation--the New covenant of grace-gospel of Christ and his love could ensure salvation. PolitiCd motives The! {Eli Hut< werf inté the antinomi on 4179 n Tne date signiflC viewpoin- to the C craftsne there wa. England a of the cc nians, es tions in social st cornitnen' fascinatir than comp 11 political aspects of the antinomian protest, Emery Battis in Saints and Sectaries concentrates on the economic motives by hypothesizing that There was a relationship between the economic and religious views of the Bostonians implicated in the Hutchinson movement; and Mrs. Hutchinson's doctrines were most attractive to those persons whose economic interests were frustrated by the organic morality of the orthodox clergy and gentry (Battis, p. 264). To support his economic interpretation of the antinomian controversy, Battis presents background data on the members of the colony who joined Anne Hutchinson. The data demonstrate that the antinomians differed in significant ways from those who did not accept Cotton's vieWpoint. The protestors tended to be early arrivals to the colony who were professional men--merchants and craftsmen—~residing in the city of Boston. In addition, there was evidence that family and regional origin in England also distinguished the antinomians from the rest of the community. Lastly, a great many-of the antino- mians, especially the core group, had held elected posi- tions in the colony. These, then, were men of high social status with a decided psychological and economic commitment to the new society which makes it all the more fascinating that many of them accepted banishment rather than compromise their cultural and religious beliefs. Yet, a closer examination of the background data shows that the antinomians were men of a particular kind of status which was threatened by the authority of the 12 church and its basic teachings on salvation. These men were entrepreneurs who belonged to a church which sided with the agriculturalists and yeomen of the colony. The landed gentry and yeomen who were in the majority on the General Court--the ruling legislative body--sought strict economic regulation to control inflation. They based their economic beliefs on an organic social philosophy and allied with the clergy who, "insisted on an organic social ethic as an intrinsic part of the Puritan moral code and demanded strict compliance in evidence of a regenerate state" (Battis, p. 263). The antinomians feeling their economic interests inhibited by this organic social philosophy sought to alter the religious doctrine which was its basis. Clearly, these men felt themselves cross-pressured by the incongruity of the teachings of the church and their secular interests. The result of such a value conflict was the emergence of the antinomian world view. In order to comprehend more fully the forces involved, it might prove useful to place the New England antinomian controversy in its proper historical context. Those commenting on the era within which the antinomians found themselves stress the fact that it was a century ‘undergoing radical changes in values: "The organic and uniformitarian concepts which had governed society for centuries were being swept aside by atomistic pressures inplici (Battis.l '12 13 implicit in the new philosophy of science and economics" (Battis, p. 288). Hall in commenting on the reaction of the other ministers to the antinomians points out that it resulted in a return to the traditional definition of their authority. In the previous decade there had been a movement toward a sharing of decision-making between ministers and church members but the antinomian contro- versy was in part blamed on this experimenting with authority. The reaction, therefore, of the ministers to the increased threat to their rule was to reinstitute the formalism of the past. Battis concludes that the antino- mians, "aroused a fresh and inordinate dread of hetero- doxy. The Puritans refused to accept the warning implicit in the event but rather, rallied to the defense of has- tions already crumbling with age" (Battis, p. 289). Antinomian orientations did not disappear from the American continent when Anne Hutchinson and her followers were banished from Massachusetts. According to Laurence Veysey in his introductory essay in Law and Resistance--American Attitudes Toward Authority, there has .been an undercurrent of antinomian attitudes prevalent in Punerican society since the mid-nineteenth century. Veysey does not use the concept of antinomianism in describing these minority cultural assumptions. However, his discus- ‘tiom of this opposition culture follows closely the defi- Imition of antinomianism that I am trying to explicate. Veysey ' of free flict o dominant individ; such as way one basic as hi“Cry. abOlitiC 184018. 14 Veysey contends that there are two different definitions of freedom which constitute the fundamental value con- flict of the American conscience. To the majority and dominant culture, freedom has always meant the right of individuals to do certain public or conventional acts such as voting, holding public office, worshiping the way one pleases, associating with whom one wants and speaking one's mind. But this generally accepted notion of what freedom means is not the only way of defining the concept. As Veysey notes, "There is freedom to daydream, freedom to create what one calls art, freedom to taunt authority symbols, and freedom simply to go barefoot" (Veysey, p. 11). The dominant American culture has always stressed "disciplined self-direction" rather than the "inner-release" desired by the antinomian. The antinomian definition of freedom has been a basic assumption of various groups throughout American history. The two primary groups of this type were the abolitionists and the transcendentalists--both of which became a significant minority voice in the 1830's and 1840's. The spirit of these groups pervades till today the minority antinomian orientations of American society. Though the issues have changed in the past one-hundred years, the basic goal of these radical minority groups laas remained the same--"the legitimization of serious flout non-Christian) inward self-exploration often linked r Cfins i with a tutions has alc. Views : nanipula cosmic)“ view or the domi which it nomian. astrong fomaiis isn ster and tithe terms (r 0f indi‘ “ables grdCe 8' Spirit" which a1 Stem frc (J (T! 1 15 with a contemptuous attitude toward existing social insti- tutions" (Veysey, p. 27). The basic value conflict which has always been present is between two opposing world views: ". . . the pragmatic (matter-of-fact, acquisitive, manipulative) and the transcendental (self-absorbed, cosmic)" (Veysey, p. 27). The Sociology of Antinomian Movements It is clear that antinomianism entails a world view or belief system which finds itself in opposition to the dominant cultural values and norms of the society in which it emerges. But all social protest is not anti- nomian. Only that type of disaffection characterized by a strong sense of individualism coupled with anti- formalism is antinomian. The religious antinomian's over-riding individual- ism stems from his belief that he is part of the divine and thus he views human behavior as important not in terms of how rational or useful it is but purely in terms of individual insight. It is not good works which enables man to achieve salvation but grace alone and that grace stems from the "in-dwelling presence of the holy spirit" (Solt, p. 306). Thus it is individual values which are the most significant because they literally stem from the divine. The cultural antinomian raises the individual conscience above all outside authority. When there is a confli: laeor can per; higher l European Proodhon the abcl and looke sufficiey ing 311 1 Advocati "Civil D Orientat Whit ROI eV'en the injustic that Ther Stgt VlQu all trea Yet anOt 0f Polit °n tie a, f reedom . '1 416.11 is 1 16 conflict between individual conscience and some external law or regulation, the antinomian always sides with his own personal value system because to him there can be no higher authority. In politics antinomianism surfaces as anarchism. EurOpean anarchism has its roots in the writing of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin who believed in, ". . . the abolition of private property along with the state, and looked forward to a society of small, largely self- sufficient, voluntarily cooperating communes, each shar- ing all goods and possessions in common" (Veysey, p. 140). Advocating a less extreme form of anarchism, Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" also demonstrates his antinomian orientations when he states that, "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made the agents of injustice" (Veysey, p. 78). And again when he concludes that There will never be a really free and enlightened state until the state comes to recognize the indi- vidual as a higher and independent power from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly (Veysey, p. 97). Yet another example of antinomian ideas from the history of political philosophy can be found in Rousseau's attack on the Enlightenment and his emphasis on the inherent freedom of man. In the Social Contract he states that, "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." t Agains: hope of of reve antinor; tion and of enoti romantic rules. ' their, "3 intuitior JudEllent whEther i and relig Many 0f t; were Pant] the Datum philOSQPh) mysticism 17 Against the enlightenment's belief in rationality as the hope of the future, Rousseau emphasizes the significance of reverence, faith and moral intuition. There is a strong strain of romanticism in the antinomian world view. The romantic prizes the imagina- tion and in Wordsworth's words the "spontaneous overflow" of emotion. The only feelings that are relevant to the romantic are those which are unforced and free from all rules. The romantic and antinomian are in agreement in their, "insistence on the essential role of instinct, intuition and the feelings of the heart to supplement the judgment of the purely logical faculty, 'the head,’ whether in the province of artistic beauty, philosophical and religious truth, or moral goodness" (Abrams, p. 9). Many of the antinomian cults and sects discussed above were pantheistic and one finds a similar orientation in the nature poetry of the romantic period and in the philosophy of the transcendentalists. Likewise, the mysticism of antinomianism can be found throughout the poems of Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats. The antinomian carries his romanticism to the point of being opposed to the strict observance of any prescribed forms in religion, art, philosophy or politics. It is the anti-formalism of the antinomian revolutionary which most distinguishes him from other types of social protestors. Despite the fact that antinomian dissent is ften they f: With ti called ' hip or any of t the anti externa ‘ - reason wl revolutic nomians c means beg (huehns I group new (Battis, have f 011“. lishfién ts 111C 'v’e me n t s outlaw“: \. “Ethel-lam Re :57) N -\. I ELLE“ ts I 18 often discussed in terms of social movements, rarely do they fit the contemporary definition of such phenomena. With the possible exception of the Familists, these so- called groups had no formal goals, no centralized leader- ship or coherent organization. In fact, the presence of any of these characteristics would be contradictory to the antinomian's individualism and rejection of all external authority structures. The anti-formalism of the antinomian is the reason why he has historically been characterized as a revolutionary in spirit but rarely in practice. Anti- nomians consider themselves above questioning ways and means because, "they live by loving and love by living" (Huehns, p. 15). Battis reports that the Hutchinson group never, "reached the point of actually attempting to achieve specific and definable goals, to have a doctrine officially revised, a basic law changed, a text rewritten" (Battis, p. 280). One reason for this lack of positive action may be the fact that antinomian groups usually have found themselves on the defensive. Threatened estab- lishments have tended to react similarly to antinomian :movements--banishment in New England, condemnation and outlawing in Elizabethan England and inprisonment in the Netherlands . Reading through the literature of antinomian movements, one is struck with their lack of success in 19 turning their religious, cultural or political heterodoxy into accepted modes of thought and action. Yet their seeming failure is understandable when one considers their aversion to any formal means which would be neces- sary in order to achieve social change. The anti- formalism of the antinomian perhaps dooms him forever to a position of being a member of a counter culture. It is possible that the "rough beast" which Yeats both feared and desired can never be born. Except for the information presented above on the Hutchinson group, little is known about the type of indi- viduals who have been drawn into antinomian movements and one must be careful not to generalize from one case. It would be too easy at this stage to conclude that antino- mianism was a result of elite value conflict caused by economic and political change which has not been followed by corresponding change in dominant cultural values. What does seem clear, however, is that antinomian move- ments tend to emerge during periods of cultural change which is associated in turn with political and economic Change. Antinomianism prospered in the years of the Renaissance and the Reformation-~the 14th through the 16th century. This period was a transitional stage in the history of western civilization between the medieval age and the industrial era. The fact that the developed 'world is in another transitional stage-~between the indust: era-n; attitué “rough b By 17 cult bear 596a Pers char mani to p P. 7 20 industrial age and the post-industrial or post-modern era--may in part account for the emergence of antinomian attitudes among large numbers of individuals. Contemporary Antinomianism The antinomian world view has emerged mid-twentieth century to the extent that many are concerned about the breakdown of authority and like Yeats fear what they be- lieve to be degenerate anarchism. The specter of Yeats' "rough beast" is feared, notes Roszak, By many uneasy intellectuals who fear that the counter culture arrives, not trailing clouds of glory, but bearing the mark of the beast. No sooner does one speak of liberating the non-intellective powers of the personality than, for many, a prospect of the starkest character arises: a vision of rampant, antinomian mania, which in the name of permissiveness threatens to plunge us into a dark and savage age" (Roszak, p. 73). These fears are exacerbated by statements such as the following by contemporary antinomian Abbie Hoffman: We shall raise the flag of nothingness over the Penta- gon and a mighty cheer of liberation will echo through the land. "We are Free, Great God Almighty, Free at last." School-children will rip out their desks and throw ink at stunned instructors, office secretaries will disrobe and run into the streets, newsboys will rip up their newspapers and sit on the curbstones masturbating, storekeepers will throw open their doors making everything free, accountants will all collapse in one mighty heart attack, soldiers will throw down their guns. "The War is over. Let's get some ass." No permits, no N.Y. Times ads, no mailing lists, no meetings. It will happen because the time is ripe. Come to the Day of Judgement. Forget about degrees, they are useless scraps of paper. Turn them into Litter Art. Don't hold back. Let the baby- Beatles shut your mouth and open your mind (Hoffman, p. 21). attempt accepte against antinox; using tj:E sibility accused 21 The reaction of the "mainstream" has been to attempt to imprison or banish those who dare to question accepted cultural values and to behave in ways which go against the grain of traditional norms. The current antinomians are accused of licentious activitieS-and of using their beliefs as an easy way out of facing respon- sibility in the same way the Hutchinson group of 1636 was accused of seeking an easy path to salvation. There is ample evidence that many of the contem- porary attitudes and behavior which are causing so much concern are antinomian. The individualism of modern antinomians has been labeled "privatism" by Jeffrey Hadden whose definition of this concept brings to mind the primary characteristics of the antinomian: "This generation rejects meaning or authority outside of the self" (Hadden, p. 32). There is a desire for a return to the "human values" of the past as opposed to the seem- ing emotionless rational plans of the technocracy. The antinomian world view is an alterantive culture to the scientific orientation of modern society. The contempor— ary antinomian believes that the individual has been for- gotten in the calculations of the rational objective expert whose primary concerns are with planning and efficiency. External authority is replaced by personal {experience as the foundation of attitudes and behavior. (Nae rejection of outside authority often surfaces as 22 anti-academicism as seen in this quote from James Simon Kunen's Strawberry Statement, "Gandhi had no Gandhi to read and Thoreau hadn't read Thoreau. They had to reach their own conclusions and so will I" (Kunen, p. 37). The emphasis on individualism and personal expres- sion places the contemporary antinomian in a decidedly romantic tradition. Stephen Spender pointed out this connection when he noted that, Just as the young poets of the Romantic movement responded to a Europe torn between revolution and reaction, first of all with impassioned cries torn our of their lives, so the original protest of rebelling young Americans against America was the Beatnik's one of asserting hysterical rebellious identities against the mechanized dominating con- formism of America (Spender, p. 136). Others, such as Daniel Bell, have argued that the current social protest is nothing more than, "the guttering last gasp of a romanticism soured by rancor and impotence" (as quoted in Keniston, 1969, p. 122). Whether or not it is humanism's last attempt to stem the tide of technolo- gical advancement and the complete domination of the scientific world view, some contemporary "radicals," . . . do indeed have a positive conception of the good society; it is the primitivistic, handicraft- oriented Gemeinschaft ideal first formulated by nineteenth century critics of the Industrial Revo- lution and now, despite its apparent implausibility made far more attractive by the realities of mid- twentieth century technology, bureaucracy and warfare (Veysey, p. 35). The emphasis on personal experience and individual .fieeling logically finds expression in a protest against any at' Roszak nocrac; society 23 any attempt at the institutionalization of human activity. Roszak in The Making of the Counter Culture defines tech- nocracy as, "that social form in which an industrial society reaches the peak of its organization integration. It is the ideal men usually have in mind when they speak of modernizing, up-dating, rationalizing, planning" (Roszak, p. 5). The antinomian finds himself at odds with the technocracy because it demands a formalized life style which the antinomian cannot accept. Kenneth Keniston has summed up the antinomian nature of much of present day protest by contending that . . . in manner and style, these young radicals are extremely "personalistic," focussed on face-to-face direct and open relationships with other people; hostile to formally structured roles and traditional bureaucratic patterns of power and authority (Keniston, 1968). As in the past, the anti-formalism of the anti- nomian makes it difficult for him to express his beliefs in terms of political action. Contemporary radicals are criticized for not having a practical alternative to the accepted means of handling the complex problems of modern society. Yet, the antinomian sees no need to offer such solutions because his life style and world view make them unimportant to him. Charles Reich, for example, expresses -this sentiment in the following fashion, "When we have outlined a different way of life, we have said all we can meaningfully say about the future. The hard questions-- if by that is meant a political or economic organization "hard q because terms b dual ps; , I soc1al : evident What star ling bras Whafl abanl 90in mOVe1 COIL and ] tir81 trip; What PeOpj C0116 with( We 'd What 24 are insignificant, even irrelevant" (Reich, p. 21). The "hard questions" are not even considered by the antinomian because he sees the problem not in social or political terms but instead at the level of culture and the indivi- dual psyche. That there is no sense of an organized social movement in the rhetoric of the antinomian is evident in the following quote from Abbie Hoffman: What would happen if large numbers in the country started getting together, forming communities, hust- ling free fish on Fulton Street, and passing out brass washers to use in the laundromats and phones? What if people living in slums started moving into abandoned buildings and refusing to move even to the point of defending them with guns? What if this movement grew and busy salesmen sweating under the collar on a hot summer day decided to fuck the system and headed for welfare? What if secretaries got tired of typing memos to the boss's girlfriend in triplicate and took to panhandling in the streets? What if they called a war, no one went? What if people who wanted to get educated just went to a college classroom and sat-in without paying and without caring about a degree? Well, you know what? We'd have ourselves one hell of a revolution, that's what (Hoffman, p. 219). There is the sense that once the consciousness of a society has been changed, the hard political and social questions will either be easily answered or more likely prove to have been irrelevant. The current antinomians, like their ancestors, are moved by non-political ideals and commitments which make the political meaningless to them. Contemporary antinomianism is a cultural phenome- non involving primarily young university students from :middle class backgrounds in highly industrialized societies. 25 The 1960's have been a time of unrest on college campuses around the world and in the United States such discontent reached a level unheard of in the history of the nation. Beginning with the Berkeley Free Speech Movement in 1964, the demands and activities of "student radicals" have increasingly become subjects of analysis by the mass media, politicians, various committees and commissions, as well as by social researchers. The analysis has often concentrated, however, on the fact that the pro- testors were young rather than on what was upsetting them or what kinds of alternatives were being offered. More importantly perhaps, little attempt has been made to place the discontent among university youth into its prOper historical, political, social, and cultural context. It is not the mere fact that a protestor is young that makes him man the barricades or begin living in a commune but more likely something about the relationship of youth as a group to the rest of the society which is the root cause. As Keniston has argued, rather than focussing on the generational conflict or the fact that there are more .young educated people than ever before in order to compre- hend student unrest , More relevant factors are the relationship of those under 30 to the established institutions of society (that is, whether they are engaged in them or not); and the opportunities that society provides for their continuing intellectual, ethical and emotional development (Keniston, 1970, p. 122). explai. cern hv | with t3 1- find e} I do so i ism ten of fund which f. eadust: gained rl human acl appearanl attitude in the h‘ age“Whe: | bEComes 1 Your} becl to the re of the Cl. to the 116-1 marginal E SOCieties In a Sense we triQGe' 26 Any number of theories have been put forward to explain student movements in the modern era but the con- cern here is not with organized protest as much as it is with the emergence of antinomian attitudes which might find expression in political action but generally cannot do so in any sustained and organized fashion. Antinomian- ism tends to emerge as a significant force during periods of fundamental socio-political change professed by groups which find themselves in a state of value conflict. At each step along the way, as the scientific world view gained more and more acceptance in ever-widening areas of human activity, one type of reaction has been the re- appearance of large numbers of people with antinomian attitudes. The world is presently moving into a new era in the history of western civilization--the post-industrial age--when the technocracy with its scientific world View becomes the norm in nearly all areas of human endeavor. Modern antinomianism finds support among the educated youth because of their particular position or relationship to the rest of the society. The humanism and romanticism of the classical liberal arts education are not relevant to the needs of the new society. University students are marginal elites who increasingly find themselves in societies which have no use for their cultural values. In a sense, then, it is a deprivation of status which is the trigger for the development of antinomian orientations but 5: inhib; lectua of ‘31' culture within as much V‘rious of the 1 that the renounce renounc: and thos tEmlous.. P- 35), tiOn, 51$ geHEratiC nonesmb: gorizing. militants, Whose Cor' H to Bourja: u; 27 but status deprivation defined broadly to include the inhibiting of cultural, psychological, emotional, intel- lectual as well as economic and political expectations. It is invalid to speak of American youth or even of university students as though they were one cohesive cultural group. There is no doubt that there are groups within the younger generation who differ from one another as much as they do from older generations in the society. Various authors have attempted to categorize the subunits of the younger generation. Lipset, for example, notes that there are three major groups: ". . . those who renounce modern western society; those who, far from renouncing it, desperately want a piece of the action; and those who as deSperately want to keep the--often tenuous--piece of the action they have" (Lipset and Raab, p. 35). Everett Ladd, in a more sociological categoriza- tion, also sees three primary groups within the younger generation: the established, disestablished, and the nonestablished. Using a more descriptive means of cate- gorizing, Vance Bourjaily notes four groups: the black militants, the New Left, the kids in the middle and those ‘whose concern it is with the formation of a new culture. To Bourjaily what distinguishes this latter group of "street-people" from the New Left is their lack of poli- tical motivations. Bourjaily attempts to define the new culture which he sees emerging in a descriptive sense by cant pl: revisic world \' gap not antinom; in its c Should ti attempt “9738111; .. 28 writing of its origins, history, art forms, nationality, language, economics, educational system, laws, ritual celebrations, heroes and enemies. To what extent the new cultural values are shared by the various subgroups of the younger generation is still uncertain. The signifi- cant point is that it is a new culture and not just a revision of the old and that it is a new culture whose world view is antinomian. The gap which is important, then, is the culture gap not the generation gap. While the fact that this antinomian world view expresses itself generationally in its current manifestation cannot be forgotten, it should not blind one to what actually is going on--an attempt to develop a counter culture by a significant segment of twentieth century industrialized society. CHAPTER II GENERAL HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY In the previous chapter antinomianism was dis- cussed primarily in historical and sociological terms. Based on that essay, the following is an attempt to con- ceptualize the type of individual who can be described as antinomian. The recognition or discovery of types is essential to social research. Carl Friedrich has stated that, "Typology is part of an inquiry into the relation of experience and the conceptualization of it. An issue in typology is an issue about the structure of reality; as such it is closely related to order and ordering" (Friedrich, p. 28). Friedrich believes that the social researcher has three methods of such ordering of reality open to him: the ideal type, the average type and the symptomatic type. He defines the ideal type as describing, "an entity which is characterized in such a way as to be never present in any reality but which is used to assess the reality in terms of the idealization which the concept presents" (Friedrich, p. 30). The antinomian as conceptualized in the following pages is an ideal type. As defined here, 29 then, interv concep 30 then, no antinomian is expected to be uncovered in the interviewed sample of university students. Rather, the conceptualization presented below is Meant to educate the judgement; it is not a hypothe- sis; it is meant to orient the forming of hypotheses. It is not a description of reality but wants to pro- vide unequivocal means for expressing such descrip- tion. It is the "idea" of various existing realities (Friedrich, p. 29). The definition of antinomianism outlined here will, there- fore, be used as a way of measuring the extent to which such orientations existed among the population of Michigan State University in early 1969. Antinomianism: Alientation of the Affluent Young Robert Merton writes in his chapter, "Social Structure and Anomie," that there are two basic aspects of the social structure which must be considered in dis- cussing the sources of deviant behavior: cultural goals and institutional means. Merton defines cultural goals as, ". . . purposes and interests held out as legitimate objectives for all or for diversely located members of the society" (Merton, p. 132). Institutional norms or means are those aspects of the cultural structure which, . . . define, regulate and control the acceptable modes of reaching out for these cultural goals. Every social group invariably couples its cultural objectives with regulators, rooted in the mores or institutions of allowable procedures for moving toward these objectives (Merton, p. 133). *3 g. H an i: 31 Table 2.1 is Merton's typology of the different ways that an individual can adapt himself to these two fundamental aspects of society. TABLE 2.l.--Typology of modes of individual adaptation. Modes of Adaptation Culture Goals Institutional Means I. Conformity + + II. Innovation + - III. Ritualism - + IV. Retreatism - - V. Rebellion i i Note: (+) signifies acceptance; (-) signifies rejection (i) signifies rejection of prevailing values and substitution of new values. The mode of adaptation which Merton labels "retreatism" is relevant to the concept of antinomianism. Merton's "retreater" rejects both the cultural goals of his society as well as the institutional means of achiev- ing those goals. My conception of antinomianism and Merton's definition of retreatism are very similar, espe- cially when he states that, . . . those who adapt (or maladapt) in this fashion are, strictly speaking, in the society but not of it. Sociologically, these constitute the true aliens. Not sharing the common frame of values, they can be included as members of the society (in distinction from the population) only in a fictional sense (Merton, p. 153). The an basic Unlike does n; Instea; from 91-; destruc cultura because organize not allcl OBS tro}, . i Meaning ( that the ature. Seeman la aliEnated value to < valued iri \T 32 The antinomian is the true cultural heretic rejecting the basic cultural values and behavioral norms of his society. Unlike the "rebel," as defined by Merton, the antinomian does not wish to institute a modified social structure. Instead, the antinomian's goal of individual liberation from external authority can only be achieved through a destruction of social structure of any form. He is a cultural anarchist unable to destroy the system he rejects because such a task would involve a battle by means of an organized social movement which his basic beliefs would not allow him to wage. Thus, the antinomian withdraws or retreats from the culture and institutions he cannot destroy. Melvin Seeman in his now classic article, "On the Meaning of Alienation," summarized the five basic ways that the concept of alienation had been used in the liter- ature. Antinomianism is the type of alienation that Seeman labels "isolation." He defines this type of alienated individual as "those who assign low reward value to goals or beliefs that are typically highly valued in the given society" (Seeman, p. 789). Gwynn Nettler employs this conceptualization of alienation in his article, "A Measure of Alienation," by using the fol- lowing definition: ". . . an alienated person is one who has been estranged from, made unfriendly toward, his society and the culture it carries" (Nettler, pp. 671-672). tion t} outling ing Sug limi 1969 33 The antinomian retreats and is isolated from cultural goals and institutional norms of his society. Yet, the antinomian is not a mere autist or psychotic because he does substitute a certain type of value system to replace that which he has rejected. In order to further explain the type of aliena- tion that the antinomian expresses, I will use an approach outlined by Kenneth Keniston. Keniston makes the follow- ing suggestion: In brief, then, while the concept of alienation in every variation suggests the loss or absence of a previous or desirable relationship, it requires further specification in at least four respects: 1. Focus: Alienated from what? 2. Replacement: What replaces the old relationship? 3. Mode: How is the alienation manifested? 4. Agent: What is the agent of the alienation? These four questions provide a basis for a virtually limitless number of varieties of alienation (Keniston, 1969, p. 454). I have already discussed the foci of the alienation of the antinomian: the cultural goals and behavioral norms of his society. The antinomian replaces this rejection with a belief in the moral superiority of his insights, opinions and desires as well as those of every individual. The conscience of the individual takes precedence over the general will of the society manifested in its cultural goals and institutional authority. Therefore, the mode or manner in which this alienation manifests itself is "auto- plastic" and not "alloplastic." In other words, the anti- nomian makes no overt act to change the world. Instead, his C; Chang; tion, tion, Howeve this t‘ mian 1:: status their c °Pment Merton'. with th. Fror Stri OCCL tiOn the bUt duct The anti} the outCé the goals th Warted 34 his concern is with self-transformation as a means of changing the world. In answer to Keniston's final ques- tion, there is no external agent which imposes the aliena- tion, rather, it is freely chosen by the individual. However, there are certain social conditions from which this type of alienation tends to emerge. Battis concludes that the impetus for the antino- mian beliefs of the Anne Hutchinson group was a sense of status deprivation--the inability of this group to fulfill their desired cultural, economic and psychological devel- opment given the social structure of their society. Merton's discussion of the roots of retreatism agrees with this conclusion. Merton writes that, From the standpoint of its sources in the social structure, this mode of adaptation is most likely to occur when both the culture goals and the institu- tional practices have been thoroughly assimilated by the individual and imbued with affect and high value, but accessible institutional avenues are not pro- ductive of success (Merton, p. 153). The antinomian is not an individual who has always been the outcast of his society. Following Merton's notion, the antinomian is one who has been taught and accepted the goals and norms of his society only to find success thwarted by the authority structure of his community. Antinomianism was in the Hutchinson case, and is in the contemporary period, a retreatism or alienation of the seemingly successful and affluent whose new goals cannot be achieved through the use of existing societal 35 institutions and norms of behavior. Merton summarizes Durkheim's comments on this phenomenon as follows: ". . . such disruptions maybe found in the 'anomie of prosperity' when Fortune smiles and many experience radical upward shifts, and not only in the 'anomie of depression,’ when Fortune frowns and apparently exits for good" (Merton, p. 188). In summary, Merton writes of the inability of the antinomian to achieve internalized cultural goals and new ones through established and accepted channels, Durkheim of the "anomie of prosperity," Everett Hagen and Battis of status and identity deprivation and Keniston of "his- torical loss." Speaking of contemporary antinomianism, Keniston specifically puts the blame on the technological world view when he concludes: Thus, paradoxically at the very moment when affluence is within our reach, we have grown discontented, con- fused, and aimless. The "new alienation" is a symptom and an expression of our current crisis. The indivi- dual and social roots of our modern alienation, as I have tried to suggest, are complex and interrelated; yet, if there is any one crucial factor at the center of this alienation, it is the growing bankruptcy of technological values and visions. . . . we must tran- scend our outworn visions of technological abundance, seeking new values beyond technology (Keniston, 1969, p. 429). Antinomianism: A Conceptualization In Table 2.2 I have attempted to demonstrate the relationship between the two dimensions of antinomianism outlined above: (1) the type of authority relied upon in TABLE; Aut Inte N+. &. 36 TABLE 2.2.--Relationship between the dimensions of antinomianism. Attitude toward Cultural Norms and Values Authority Referant Acceptance Rejection Legalist Authoritarian External + + Allegient Political Apathetic Situationalist Antinomian Internal + + Pragmatist Anarchist Note: + Relation to the political system of each type of moral decision-making. the making of behavioral decisions and (2) the evaluation of the cultural goals and institutional norms of one's society. Individuals who fall into the upper left hand quadrant are called "legalists" defined by Joseph Fletcher as those ". . . who enter into every decision making situation encumbered with a whole apparatus of prefabri- cated rules and regulations" (Fletcher, p. 18). He has internalized the values and norms of his society and looks on them as directions to be followed in the making of moral decisions. In relation to his political system this type of individual would be classified as an alle- gient. The Situationist (lower left hand quadrant) has also internalized the values and norms of his society not.as directives but as "illuminators" and he ". . . is prepa: aside doing l he si With w I such a. implies problef author: his soc VaIUes any ex t. rules Of been tau come to 37 prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside 'in any situation' if love seems better served by doing so" (Fletcher, p. 26). As Fletcher defines him, the situationist is not concerned with what is "good" or with what is "right" but what is "fitting." In politics such an individual is a pragmatist. This definition implies the ability to intellectualize or rationalize problems and, thus, not to blindly follow orders. The polar opposite of the situationist is the authoritarian who unlike the legalist follows the rules of his society not because he has internalized his culture's values and norms but simply because he is submissive to any external authority. The authoritarian accepts the rules of his society as authoritative because he has been taught to comply and not because he has rationally come to accept the authority as legitimate. However, the unthinking submissiveness to the authority of a society whose values and norms he has not internalized leaves him open to mobilization by extremist movements. The polar opposite of the legalist is, of course, the antinomian. He is isolated from his culture's norms and values and does not rely on external authority in the making of decisions. Instead, the antinomian ". . . enters into the decision making situation armed with no principles or maxims whatsoever, to say nothing of rules" (Fletcher, p. 22).‘ Unlike the pragmatist, the antinomian 38 has not internalized the values and norms of his society and instead of using its rules as directives or illumina- tors he does not use them at all. Unlike the authori- tarian, the antinomian does not comply with the external authority of his society because he has been taught to but instead looks inward for guidance. In purely politi- cal terms, the antinomian is a passive anarchist. The Factors Associated with the Emergence of Antinomianism: The General Hypotheses This study is an investigation of the extent to which the antinomian world view was present in the atti— tudes of Michigan State University students in early 1969. An attempt is made to uncover what socio-cultural factors are associated with the emergence of antinomian orienta- tions. The thesis is concerned with the relationship of the student's perception of his past--experiences with parental authority--and his future-~expectations of future life style--with the degree to which he professes anti- nomian attitudes. Antinomianism has been defined as a reaction to a sense of historical loss in terms of status and identity deprivation. According to socialization theory an indi- vidual acquires his fundamental political and social identity through contact with his family, school, various peer groups, the mass media and his direct experience with the social system. On the macro-level of analysis, prise paren‘ hetert Yet, 5 learni childh the C39 theoris Of SUCE Culture qUite s (301)591-V missive: 39 socialization is the method by which the culture of a nation is passed from one generation to another. To most socialization theorists, the family is the most important agent in this cultural learning process and it is no sur- prise that some commentators and researchers have blamed parental child-rearing practices for the current cultural heterodoxy among some of America's university students. Yet, socialization theorists also point out that cultural learning is a continuous process which does not end with childhood. While they stress the effect of the family on the development of individual cultural orientations, these theorists have not disregarded other agents and the effect of such world events as economic depressions and wars. Cultures are constantly changing and sometimes they change quite significantly in spite of the usual stabilizing and conservative effect of the family. Thus, to blame con- temporary student disaffection primarily on parental per- missiveness or authoritarianism is short sighted. This study will give evidence to support the claim that the breakdown of authority and respect for estab- lished institutions and the law among some contemporary university students is not the result of permissive or strict child-rearing practices. Instead, the alienation of the antinomian is a cultural phenomenon associated ‘with the relationship of these cultural heretics to the dominant norms of the technological society. While on an indiv: psych: type c it is tices with 5* P€rson3 nomic C a grou; 0f life emergen underly_ Vance “0 stleent belief i This a he whos SYst like they when Past inev P. l hla Sim; 40 individual level it may be possible to explain certain psychological or political orientations by analyzing one's type of family socialization experiences with authority, it is simple-minded to believe that child-rearing prac- tices account for all types of culture change. Antinomianism is conceived as being associated with status deprivation or societal inhibiting of desired personal development be it emotional, intellectual, eco- nomic or political. In other words, a situation in which a group believes that its expectations of a certain kind of life style are being thwarted is conducive to the emergence of antinomian attitudes. This notion is an. underlying assumption of the theory of historical irrele- vance which has been used by some to explain contemporary student disaffection. Keniston has summarized this belief in the following manner: This theory assumes that we are moving rapidly into a new age in which technology will dominate, an age whose real rulers will be men like computer experts, systems analysts and technobureaucrats. Students who are attached to outmoded and obsolescent values like humanism and romanticism unconsciously feel they have no place in this post-industrial world. When they rebel they are like the Luddites of the past--workers who smashed machines to protest the inevitable industrial revolution (Keniston, 1969 p. 122). In a similar vein Lipset has written that the pressure to adult authorities becomes more intense among youth when uncertainty exists as to whether the roles toward which the student is advancing will be available in the futu. open occu; rest: new ; antin' isolat a SUN/e: UniVErS: ary of Pinnel. i ScienCe The Clds Stages 0 tionnair. sample a 41 future. And Pinner has stated that two alternatives are Open to the student: "He can either prepare himself to occupy a position in society or commit himself to a restructuring of society that would make new roles and new positions available" (Pinner, 1968, p. 142). The antinomian student takes neither position but, instead, isolates himself from his society and its demands. It is hypothesized here, then, that the anti- nomian will have a decidedly different vision of his future life style than those who do not share his basic value system. Following the theory of historical irrel- evancy, it is this different set of expectations and the belief that they may not be fulfilled which is the trigger for the emergence of antinomian orientations. General Methodology The data analyzed in this study were gathered in a survey research project conducted at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan in January and Febru- ary of 1969. The study was directed by Dr. Frank A. Pinner in conjunction with the teaching of Political Science 29l--Introduction to Political Research Methods. The class was to some degree involved in all the various stages of the survey project: the writing of the ques- tionnaire, the gathering of the data, the drawing of the sample and the coding of the data. I served as research assis tiona Unive State was ne sense the co. This s‘ gation the 98.”. analei W811 as Versity surVey the more Homi an E 42 assistant on the project which was funded by the Educa- tional Development Program (EDP) of Michigan State University. The Sample In order to facilitate my research, Michigan State University students were selected for study. It was never assumed that any antinomians in the absolute sense would be included in the sample. The definition of the concept presented above serves as an ideal type. This study was intended from the first to be an investi- gation of the emergence of antinomian orientations among the general university population and not an in-depth analysis of a few cultural heretics. For that reason, as well as for the sake of convenience, Michigan State Uni- versity was considered appropriate as the site of the survey research project. In addition, it would be all the more significant to discover the development of anti- nomian attitudes on a campus which is considered to be relatively conservative both culturally and politically. .At any rate, since I have hypothesized the existence of a general cultural alteration manifested by a changing attitude toward authority, evidence to support my claim should be found at Michigan State as well as at a Berkeley or Columbia. The sample was drawn randomly from the Michigan State University student directory. Appendix £3 gives a 43 detailed explanation of the actual sampling procedure. All graduate students, foreign students and those under- graduates living outside the East Lansing area were excluded from the sample. As the study developed, the exclusion of graduate students proved to have been unnecessary. Initially, one primary concern of the pro- ject was the effect of four years of experience at Michigan State on student cultural attitudes and, there- fore, graduate students, most of whom come from other universities, were not included in the sample. Students living outside the East Lansing area were not interviewed to avoid the problem of transportation of student inter- viewers. The number of individuals living at some dis- tance from the university community was relatively small and there is no reason to believe that this exclusion in any way biased the final sample. As expected in a sample drawn from a population of college students, the refusal rate was fairly low at 3 per cent. However, approximately 20 per cent of the students in the original sample could not be found for interviewing. The following are some of the reasons which were given by interviewers for their inability to locate certain respondents: moved, student teaching that term, withdrawn from the university, and graduated last term. The cause for this high number of unlocated indi- viduals was the use of the student directory for sampling. The s enrol was d term. 770 i: Politi Method. can GOx 44 The student directory is a listing of all students enrolled at the university for fall term and the sample was drawn in January--after the beginning of the winter term. Therefore, beginning with a sample of 1,000, 770 interviews were completed. Interviewing and Coding Approximately 160 students enrolled in either Political Science 291 (Introduction to Political Research Methods) or Political Science 300 (Introduction to Ameri- can Government) served as interviewers for this study. These students were trained in interviewing techniques and instructed as to the primary problems involved in the procedure. Each student was held responsible for five interviews. The fact that the interviewers were not pro- fessionals does open questions as to the reliability of the data. The questionnaire was, however, written with this problem in mind and contains very few open-ended items. In order to make the job of the interviewer as easy as possible, a heavy reliance was put on the use of scales which were practically self-administering. In addition, special concern was given to checking on the quality of the work done by the students involved in the interviewing. During the week in which the interviewing was done, some measure of communication and control was effected by the service of ten undergraduate and graduate assistants who worked for us all year on various projects rela meth doml. they intei inclt any c doubt which questi interv done by mately C. mianism- SEHSe of SUperiOr: lsoiation 45 related to the teaching of the introductory course in methods. Follow-up telephone calls were made to a ran- domly selected number of respondents to check on whether they had in fact been interviewed. The work of any interviewer which was considered unreliable was not included in the final sample and during the coding stage any completed questionnaire whose reliability was in doubt was, of course, discarded. Of the 770 interviews which were completed, a total of 24 were omitted due to questions of unreliability (2.4 per cent). Thus, 746 interviews are included in this study. The coding of the completed questionnaires was done by the students in Political Science 291 (approxi- mately 55). The instructions to the coders and a general description of the procedure will be found in Appendix C. Qperationalization of the Major Variables: Theyggestionnaire Two dimensions of the dependent variable--antino- mianism--have been defined theoretically: (1) an extreme sense of individualism or libertarianism which entails a rejection of external authority and a faith in the moral superiority of personal insight, opinions and desires and (2) a rejection of the cultural goals and institutional norms of one's society labeled "retreatism" by Merton and isolation by Seeman and Nettler. Before discussing in INC of the :re 5:. ask: deb purpos dent b1 conscii antinor to rea POint s P e O. mo: fig 3 A Con; pages retreat; the reSp tures, asthma C huqtezb my} 534/, ",A. ‘ “Us 0%. 46 more detail the relationship between these dimensions of the concept, it would I think prove useful to describe the method employed in operationalizing these two aspects of antinomianism. The antinomian's concern for self-expression is measured by the use of a twelve item Likert scale which asks the respondent to react to statements in which indi- vidual conscience and societal rules and values have purposively been placed in conflict. The more the respon- dent believes that an individual should follow his own conscience rather than the rules of society, the more antinomian he is. For example, the respondent is asked to react to the following statement using the Likert five point scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree": People who believe the draft to be unjust are morally justified in using obstructive methods against it. A complete list of these twelve items can be found on pages six and seven of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). The second dimension of antinomianism--the retreatism or isolationism--is operationally defined as the respondent's evaluation of certain authority struc- tures, accepted social norms of behavior and established :methods of achieving social change. The antinomian's idesire to live as free as possible from outside control inevitably results in a personal dislike of the cultural goals and institutional norms of his society. The primary 47 method of measuring this anti-formalism of the antinomian is the use of three semantic differential scales on the system, police and university administration (see pages 2, 4 and 5 of the questionnaire--Appendix A). The lower the evaluation of these authority structures the more the respondent is isolated from his society. The second method of measuring this isolation of the antinomian is to tap the respondent's belief in the traditional norms of his society. A scale was devised on which the respondent was asked to rate himself as to the modernity of his opinions on religion, race relations, sexual morality, patriotism, obedience to authority and observance of social conventions (see page three of the questionnaire--Appendix A). The term modern was defined for the respondent as applying to people who welcome changes in society and in social standards and traditional as referring to those who do not welcome or oppose such changes. The antinomian finds himself opposed to many of the dominant and inflexible social norms of his society and, therefore, is expected to rate himself as very modern on these scales. The antinomian is a "modern" because he rejects the restrictions imposed on his self- expression in these various areas of social behavior. Thus, he welcomes a change in these norms in order to be as free as possible from external control over his behav- ior. The use of the term modern in this scale is not to be c the reje mian techr tradi of cc tions} tradi* tradit 0f lin 48 be confused with the previously discussed attraction of the antinomian to typically gemeinshaft values and his rejection of the technological world view. The antino- mian rejects both the imposed social order of a modern technocratic society and the organic social order of traditional society. The antinomian desires the sense of community and the importance of close personal rela- tionships typical of traditional cultures without the traditional restrictions on social behavior. The modern- traditional scale is expected to measure the rejection of limitations on social behavior. The third method of operationally defining the retreatism of the antinomian is related to the notion of powerlessness or low sense of efficacy. Seeman defines powerlessness as "the expectation or probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or reinforce- ment, he seeks" (Seeman, p. 784). Yet, it is not so much that the antinomian feels powerless to affect social change as he sees himself isolated from the very notion of an organized social movement. Any type of organized social action is alien to the antinomian's overriding concern for individual self-expression. He does not believe that morality can or should be legislated by the state because the solutions lie at the level of personal commitment. Whether discussing pollution, racial soc; ing He h es ta‘; achie disc: it is - P ' ' ' - -_ _- ' - 98 I ah he deg; He retr is aUtc the am: the fOl If . iSSL of 3) 49 prejudice or the Vietnam war, the antinomian's call is not for an organized social movement to solve these prob- lems but simply for a personal life style which by itself will destroy what he sees as the immorality of modern societies. The antinomian is not concerned with organiz- ing either legally or illegitimately to Change the world. He has withdrawn from the both the goals and means of the established order. Thus, he has a low regard for the established channels of social change because they cannot achieve the changes he desires. Merton has stated in discussing the impetus for such complete retreatism that it is . . . an expedient which arises from continued failure to near the goal by legitimate measures and from the inability to use the illegitimate route because of internalized prohibitions, this process occurring while the supreme value of the success-goal has not yet been renounced. The conflict is resolved by abandoning both precipi- tating elements--the goals and the means. The escape is complete, the conflict is eliminated and the individual is asocialized" (Merton, p. 153). The antinomian does not believe that the changes he desires can be obtained in the society in general. He retreats from the society and, thus, his alienation is autoplastic in nature. It is, then, this isolation of the antinomian from the processes of social change that the following three questions are expected to measure: If people in our society get aroused about some issue, do you think they have quite a good chance to get some changes made, some chance, not much of a chance or no chance at all? stud; surve this Open error Popula the we due tol t0 art additir made bi resedrc of thee HOWBVer matic. dEntus . atthe e 50 Do you feel that significant changes can be obtained through the use of established channels and proce- dures, or does it usually take some extra-legal pressure? Do you think that people today are more willing than they were in the past to go outside normal channels, or not? Strengths and Weaknesses of the Data The inadequacies of the data analyzed in this study are of two general types: those present in any survey research project and those which are peculiar to this study. In general, a survey research project is open to a variety of different types of error. Sampling error occurs any time a sample is taken to represent some p0pulation. Interviewing error is due to differences in the way the interview is conducted. Reporting error is due to the inability or unwillingness of the respondents to articulate precisely his feelings and attitudes. In addition, coding, tabulating and analyzing errors are made by even the most experienced and knowledgeable researcher. There is no doubt that to some extent errors of these various types have been made in this study. However, it is my opinion that none of these are syste- matic. Surveys are often criticized for being too super- ficial, for not penetrating deep enough into the respon- dent's attitudes and feelings and for emphasizing scope at the expense of depth. While I would agree that sur nain min: more tio: enla crea; excl: cult; 0f li thus . using univey Circurr Sent a eXPeCte the res neithez- reality I‘espOnd‘j through that the resu1t 1 data. 51 surveys often lack depth, I believe that the question- naire used in this study was written with that problem in mind. Thus, the length of the interview schedule is due more to an attempt at various types of operationaliza- tions of these variables (depth) than a search for an enlarged scope. The depth of this study is also in- creased by the fact that the questions were written explicitly to tap the attitudes and perceptions of sub- culture of American society-university students. Potentially, all surveys are open to the problem of lifting the respondent out of his social context and thus invalidating his responses. One of the hopes of using student interviewers to interview students on the university campus was that this type of problem could be. circumvented as much as possible. The survey is concerned with investigating a pre- sent attitude based on past experiences and future expectations. The questions asked, therefore, require the respondent to use his memory and his imagination-- neither of which is always a very reliable measure of reality. In addition, the attitudes and values of the respondents' parents are measured in a second-hand nature-- through the eyes of the child. Thus, I wish to point out that the method of operationalizing these variables does result in the problems inherent in the use of such recall data. Certainly, memories of the past are colored by 52 intervening events and present attitudes. But one is faced with the problem of not being able to gather infor- mation on past family socialization which is any more reliable. The questioning of parents is, of course, possible but again one is faced with the same problem because their memories are also prone in some measure to distort reality. Thus, bearing in mind the problem that such an operationalization of socialization variables creates, one is forced to treat these measures as the most reliable data which is available to the researcher in this field. In addition, many of the questions con- cerning parental control used in this study--curfew, parents discourage friendships, did you have to go to church, etc.--are the type which are not so easily dis- torted by intervening events. Computation of Indexes: The Use of Factor Scores The scales which are used in this study to measure the primary variables were newly developed and not previously tested. Therefore, when it became neces- sary for the purpose of analysis to compute overall measures from these scales (norm compliance, modern- traditional, semantic differentials) it was decided to inake use of factor scores. A preliminary factor analy- sis of there various scales demonstrated that they were :not unidimensional and thus ruled out the possibility sca put: on g each as 1 deci SCOl’i — H-Qap’.r‘*f‘*r‘f#7h’nu H-rvv O D f) (D A data C Points Oflmr Phenom1 either ”nine- \ H unique I 53 of giving equal weight to all items included in a given scale. Two feasible alternatives remained open: (1) com- puting an index using only those tests which loaded high on particular factors or (2) computing factor scores for each respondent on each factor. In the hope of wasting as little information as possible the latter approach was decided upon. Rummel has summarized the computation of factor scores in the following way: Each variable is weighted proportionally to its involvement in a factor; the more involved a vari- able, the higher the weight. Variables not at all related to a factor would be weighted near zero. To determine the score for a case on a factor then, the case's data on each variable is multiplied by the factor weight for that variable. The sum of these weight-times-data-products for all the vari- ables yields the factor score. This weighted sum- mation will give cases high (or low) scores of their values are high (or low) on the variables involved with a factor (Rummel, p. 150). Once computed the factor scores can be interpreted as data on any variable are interpreted. Yet, as Rummel points out factor scores have one characteristic which other variables do not have and that is that they contain phenomena which are highly interrelated in time or space (Rummel, p. 152). There are two methods of analyzing n variables either in terms of common factors only by inserting unities in the diagonal of R or in terms of common and unique factors by inserting commonalities in the diagonal of for Fac: Soci from Varia 54 of R. The factor analysis employed here follows the former method. . . . the factor solution Z=AF is in terms of n common factors. Since A is a square non-singular matrix in this instance it will have an inverse. Then the required factor measurements are given simply by: A‘lz. This solution is determined exactly and involves no estimation (Harmon, p. 338). Factor analyses reported in this study were generated by Factor AA-a program of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research at Michigan State University. In the following chapter, the factor analyses from which factor scores were computed for the primary variables of this study are reported in full. CHAPTER III ANTINOMIANISM AMONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Before attempting to analyze what factors are associated with the emergence of antinomian attitudes, it must be shown that such orientations did in fact exist on the Michigan State University campus when the survey was conducted. The discussion which follows is an analy- sis of the responses to survey questions devised to measure antinomianism. The individualism of the antinomian is measured by a twelve item scale which, as discussed in the pre- vious chapter, asks the respondent to react to statements which place demands of individual conscience and societal rules in conflict. As reported in Table 3.1, a sizable minority believes that individuals should rely on their conscience in determining their behavior rather than doing what society tells them is correct. There is, of course, no way to demonstrate from these figures alone how consis- tent respondents were in answering these questions. There is a decided fluctuation from question to question in the number of respondents who favor the society and 55 litii‘ O \HI r 4,. w mm.v GQMOQ \AHDCOMUW .H OJMMUQCOEOU CU Ufimflz .N ONHHNCOHUMH mHQMQQHQ 3M4 -H. o mutau.“ UUEHVHJHHHEWVU BcH. O\v EMU-unarhfl‘VfiNai‘rVIN H59 :A‘Viylvfli-afi m ..~ a 7m. Wa~||| c H u at ...~.~o§<.- 56 Amvnuzv H.oon m.h o.mm o.HH v.mm N.hH “vehuzv m.mm m.¢a m.~v m.oa m.~m 0.5 wN.HuQm mh.Nqu02 moummmflo aawcouum commando topsompco ooumd moum4 mamcouum .m .v .m .N .H mzmH unwomu xmoum ma.auom mm.mnammz omummmao mamconum moummmflo conducts: ooumd momma wamcouum .m .v .m .N .H posuumno N08 muoumflmmu Dunno Amseuzv ".00“ v.m H.5N o.va m.vv wm.HH mh.mnom mo.Hucmm2 moumomwa hamcouum moummmflo powwoopso oommd moumé mawcouum o Hvam oumuumcoaot on usmwm Amsnnz. mH.Huom mH.mucmmz c.ooH H.m moummmwa hamcouum .m m.aq omummmwa .s m.h powwoopca .m m.em momma .m m.m gonad mamcouum .H .w DHEHH pommm poooxm Amshuzv ma.auom m¢.~ucmoz o.ooa H.m moummmwo hamsonum .m H.mH moummmwa .v m.oa couscous: .m m.mv momma .m m.mH omumd mamcouum .H .v mBMH movemcm wowwmm Ameenzv so.Hnom m.~ucmmz o.onH o.v ooummmwo mamcouum .m H.mv oonMmflo .v m.ma pmofloopco .m m.mm magma .m wm.v ooumé hamcouum .H .m onwamcowumu muoxmonn 3mg .H .mEmuw mocmwamEoo 3nd 0» noncommmn mo coflusnauumwoun.a.m mamme \Ii 0 u Omwhbg. >H020hum .H mCOHDHODM HMOQHHH OZ MCOHUMHSWQH MCHDHMWUHmflD TUQOU omw a“ 57 Amehnzv o.ooH H.h m.mm m.mH m.mm H.MH 0N.Hflnm mh.mucmmz mmummmwa mamcouum moummmwn powwoopco moumd gonad mascouum .m .v .m .N .H wowono Hmsow>fipca accounaunz lmqeuzv o.ooH Assenzv “.00" b.om m.hv m.0H o.ma m.N oo.Hnom mm.mncomz moummmwo hamsonum commando powwoopcb nomad moumd mamcouum .m .w .m .N .H Hoonom xooHn muonuoz vo.Han mm.mucmo2 commando mamzouum .m moummmwn .v powwoopsb .m omumd .m mouwd mamconum .H mcowuuonm ammoaaw oz .NH .OH .m Amvnnzv mo.anom mm.mncmoz o.ooa H.m ooummmflo mamcouum m.om commonflo m.h popfloooca o.m~ momma m. momma hamconum O HNMV'ID cowumummuaw uncammw moxwuum Hoosom Amsnuzv mo.uom mm.~ucmmz H.coH m.m commando mamcouum .m >.om omnmmmwo .v v.va powwomcco .m m.mv momma .m H.~H momma mamcouum .H mmwanun mumnomoe Anchuzv HH.Huam ov.mucmmz bhbbw N.oa commando mamcouum .m m.mm moummmwo .v h.m couscous: .m m.H~ moumd .m m.m momma mamcouum .H ncowumazmou mcwpummoumflc mpoou .HH .h th: QUE TEE shc one to s thert libe: to CL Cent break Cent a Cnild instif Per Ce 58 those who side with individual self-expression. On those questions which involve questions of civil liberties, the respondents are more likely to agree that individuals- should follow their conscience. For example, 55 per cent of the sample think that a group is justified in holding a demonstration even if government or university officials forbid such a protest, 74 per cent oppose a strict pro- hibition of abortions, 52 per cent agree that the use of marijuana should be an individual decision not a societal one and 61 per cent believe that teachers have the right to strike for better wages and working conditions even if there is a law which forbids such action. A similar liberal or left-wing orientation underlies the responses to questions involving racial integration. While 52 per cent of the sample say that persons have the right to break laws which enforce racial segregation, only 27 per cent agree that mothers who oppose the bussing of their children to achieve racial balance in their schools are justified in blocking the school entrances and only 25 per cent respond that those who favor segregation have the right to organize school strikes against integration. However, on those questions which do not entail distinct civil liberties issues, the respondents are more likely to say that the society has the right to impose its will on the individual. For example, 57 per cent of the sample agree that opposition to the military draft on Ope enf On: the to E not hour S COp "Peog law a Stude and 4 figur break. verSi‘. in the analy have libert was De: rm he Pri 59 on moral grounds does not justify the obstruction of its operations and 63 per cent agree that policemen should enforce a law even if they personally think it is unjust. On questions which are not as politically controversial the response is similar: the individual is not thought to have the right to decide when the speed limit on superhighways can be broken (51 per cent) and coeds are not believed justified in violating rules governing their hours even if they think those regulations are beyond the scope of the university's legitimate control. Lastly, on the most general of the scale items-- "People who break civil law in the name of some higher law are merely rationalizing their own desires"--the students divided fairly evenly with 47 per cent agreeing and 41 per cent disagreeing with the statement. These figures do show, however, a sympathy for "moral law breakers" among a sizable minority of Michigan State Uni- versity students which surfaces at various intensities in the responses to the other questions. In the factor analysis which follows the responses to this question have been reflected so that a response of "l" is the most libertarian answer on each item. As a first step in calculating a cumulative measure of antinomianism, an orthogonal factor analysis ‘was performed on the twelve item scale discussed above. ! The principal axesysolution was used, followed by a Pose whit? Other tiOn in t“. SPEed COeds latiO] a fac. Case : 6O varimax rotation. The resultant factors and loadings reported in Table 3.2 demonstrate that the scale is not unidimensional but contains at least four factors (the Kiel-Wrigley criteria having been set at 3*). Taken together these four factors account for 55 per cent of the variance. Of the four factors obtained from the analysis, there are two which are not relevant to my definition of antinomianism. The questions of whether an individual has the right to decide for himself the appropriate speed limit on superhighways and whether coeds are justified in disregarding what they think are unjust regulations of their hours load together on what is an a-political factor. These two scale items are similar in that they pose questions of a relatively non-controversial nature which in comparison to the conflicts presented in the other questions are politically unimportant. The reac- tion of society to those who violate the laws involved in these questions is minor. Usually one is not caught speeding and if he is the result is a traffic ticket. Coeds found breaking restrictions on their hours face no more punishment than a further tightening of such regu- lations. Punishment for violation of the laws and rules *Kiel-Wrigley criteria: varimax rotation until a factor is encountered in which fewer than k (in this case 3) variables have their highest loading. I 61 .mmcflcmoH amonmwm 8 ammm. omen. Nona. mama. moamhum> unmoumm m>fiumaasso Hows. hmoa. wads. mama. cmchmaaxm moamwum> coauuoaoum mach.a vamm.u Hmmn.u moms. schemes umonmflm «~mon.u doom.u HHNO.I some. nonmhume Hmsoh>flucfl .mcmsflflumz mmao.n maca.| «Hmob.l mmho. coaumumoucw umcflmmm mmxwuum Hoonom mmha.n mmmo.u «hmsn.u ammo. Hoosom empmummuafl seeds mumauoz «Homo.u smmfl. omom.u mmmo. maflxauum mumnomma .mmmm.u Hmma.- vaH. mmma. muoflunonm Hammad“ oz mooe.u .oasa.n mmmo.u seam. mgoflumasmmu eummmumfio momoo omNH.u ommm.u asoo. «swam. mama umhomu xmmum osmo.u .vamm.n moma.u mmmo.u ufisaa ommam smmoxm vame.- moma.u mmma.u .mmme. possumno mumpmflmmu human mava.u spec. hvaa.u .mmam. msma monomcm mosses .Nomm.u mmoa. mmma.u ommm. mhmuumaosmo on unmflm mmoa.u coma. ammo.u moms. muflamaoflumu muoxmmun 3mg mwfluumnaa Hw>wo HmOfluflHomld cowumumoucH cmaeocwucd .mamom mocmwameoo 3MH mo mammamcm Houommll.~.m mqm<9 Segr: me t} CODC€ I to pr Steac integl think pOWer items 0n the -.| Qeflne DOn. the it 62 involved in the other scale items is harsher because the subject matter--abortion, marijuana, draft resistance, etc.--is considered more threatening to the control and stability of society. The other factor which does not pertain to my definition of the antinomian's sense of individualism is an anti-segregation factor on which two items load negatively-~those involving the right of individuals opposed to integration to protest against it. It might be argued that an antinomian would view the organizing of school strikes to prohibit integration and the bussing of children as an attempt to uphold the social norm of segregation in American society. However, it seems to me that a consistent antinomian, as I have defined the concept, would have upheld the right of these individuals to protest instrusion by society into their lives. In- stead, the apparent bias of the sample in favor of racial integration, as well as a lack of consistent ideological thinking, caused even the antinomians to side with the power of the state on these questions. It is significant that the two anti-integration items discussed above do not load negatively or positively on the remaining two factors. Antinomianism, as I have defined it, is not a purely liberal or left-wing phenome- non. In fact, the antinomian's concern for the rights of the individual may have its roots in traditional measu bette; liberé CiPlec desire PoliCe enfOrC< 63 conservative libertarianism rather than in the old left's concern for civil liberties because of the modern liberal's belief in a strong centralized state to ensure economic security. The fourth factor in Table 3.2 is a civil liberties dimension in a decidedly old left or liberal tradition involving the political and social free- doms of the individual. Four statements load highly on this factor: (1) the individual's right to demonstrate, (2) the right of the individual to obtain an abortion, (3) the right of teachers to strike and (4) the indivi- dual's right to use marijuana. At the same time, the fact that the two pro-segregation items do not load posi- tively on this factor is even further evidence that it is a measure of civil liberties rather than of a general left-wing orientation. While the civil liberties factor is a fairly good measure of antinomianism, the first factor is an even better one because it is much less a measure of purely liberal attitudes. The antinomian believes that the prin- cipled or moral law breaker is not rationalizing his own desires but that his actions are a genuine expression of a position. Likewise, the antinomian would say that the police should follow their own conscience when asked to enforce laws they consider to be unjust. The other two items which load highly on this factor are clearly measures of left-wing or liberal antinomian attitudes: LI ix. 1}; .- 60470: does E Such mm that h:' 64 the belief that those opposed to the draft have a right to obstruct its operations and that those who favor integration have a right to break state laws which enforce segregation. Neither the civil liberties nor the so-called antinomian factor are pure measures of antinomianism as I have defined the term. However, given the fact that the present application of the concept is a new one I am not disappointed in the results of the factor analysis. Factor scores were computed on both of these factors for each respondent and will be used as one measure of anti- nomian attitudes in attempting to locate the socio- cultural factors which are related to the emergence of this world view. As discussed in the methodology chapter, one means of tapping the anti-formalism of the antinomian in this survey research project was to ask questions involv- ing the ability of individuals to achieve desired change in their society. While the antinomian is not necessarily concerned with any organized attempt at social change, he does believe that the prescribed channels of achieving such change are ineffective. He would say that morality cannot be legislated by the state but that it involves a purely individual commitment. The percentages reported in Table 3.3 indicate that while a sizable majority of these students feel that N F" L" fi‘ 2: . Chang they means smml arous Chane: 50 peJ reQUir PEr Ce willin Chafine 65 TABLE 3.3.--Distribution of responses to items measuring acceptance of norms of social change. Item and Responses Per Cent Chances to obtain Changes? 1--Good chance 14.8 2--Some chance 58.9 3--Not much of a chance 15.7 4--No chance 1.2 5--Depends 9.3 (N=745) 99.9 Going through Channels? 1--Established channels 26.4 2--Extra-legal channels 50.7 3--Depends 21.1 (N=745) 98.2 People more willing to go outside channels? l--More willing 87.4 2--No more willing 12.7 (N=743) 100.1 changes are possible within the American political system, they also believe that those changes require extra-legal means in order to be realized. Only 17 per cent of the sample felt that people in American society who were aroused by some issue had no chance or not much of a chance of getting some changes made. At the same time, 50 per cent of the sample believe significant changes require some extra-legal pressure. In addition, over 87 per cent of the students think that people are more willing now than in the past to go outside normal channels. V81 ize- form: tic C StrUC admin fulfi StrUc. EValu‘ side .3; atten; his 0,} 66 These figures indicate that Michigan State Uni- versity students believe that the prescribed and formal- ized channels for achieving social change are ineffective but that change is possible by relying on some means other than those set up by the society. The antinomian has a low evaluation of most authority structures and forms in his society because they limit his definition of individual freedom and liberty and that negative atti- tude is reflected in his disdain for the legal channels of social change. In the antinomian world view cultural change is certainly desirable and possible but cannot be achieved through normal channels because change to the antinomian means the ultimate destruction of those very channels and no system would consciously destroy itself. Another means of operationally defining the anti- formalism of the antinomian consisted of devising seman- tic differentials on the following societal authority structures: the system, the police and the university administration. The antinomian feels he is kept from fulfilling his individualism by the dominant authority structures of his society and, therefore, would negatively evaluate them. Since he is opposed to any authority out- side of the self, the antinomian believes unjust any attempt by the society to control his ability to express his own values. eva. of j both as d to b the . mOre Summa View be pr UniVe. tain h Only t tion C on eflcf 67 As reported in Table 3.4, the results of these three semantic differentials are summarized by the addi- tion of the positive side and the negative side of the continua. There is a striking similarity in the overall evaluation of the three authority structures with the system receiving the most negative ratings. For example, the system is thought by a plurality to be dishonest (41.2 per cent), unfair (48.1 per cent) and irrational (42 per cent), while the police and university adminis- tration receive a much more positive response on these evaluative adjectives. In what might be either evidence of inconsistent thinking or a cynical view of democracy, both the system and the police are rated by a plurality as democratic, while at the same time they are thought to be restrictive. Yet another interesting result is the fact that the police are believed to be somewhat more personal than the university administration. In summary, the negative attitude of the antinomian world view toward societal authority structures is found to be present among a sizable minority of Michigan State University students. The semantic differentials discussed above con- tain both evaluative and potency adjective pairs. Since only the evaluative dimension is pertinent to my defini- tion of antinomianism, a factor analysis was performed on each of these scales to separate the two dimensions. IUCIHG CALAum lr |_ CL Q>NUWCOCI®>flUHm0Q N0 C0~HU3n~fiHUWNQII¢.MM~qmdAH 68 .moamom Hmwucmummmwb m.m~um.vv m.amum.qv mvus.~m HmcoflumuuHuHmcoflumm m.omuo.av m.a~:m.se H.mvuo.m~ Hammaouuflmm m.~ano.om o.m~up.om ~.Heua.am ummaonmhauummaom «.msus.ma a.mm-m.mm o.vmuo.s HmcomummsHuamcomumm maus.~m m.mv-m.mm v.mmnn.¢~ onumum-oflsmqmo h.~m- we m.m~nm.mv ma-m.an xmmznmaouum o.mmne.¢¢ emosaocH uoz m.amua.ma o>ammmmum>fluo< m.mmao.mm m.osua.oa m.ahum.va m>auohnummmum>hmmflsumm m.mm:n.mm m.vm|o.vv m.nmth.~v UAuMHOOEmUCDIOHuMHooEoQ oaucmaom owns» or» so mwmcommmu m>wummmcno>auwmom mo coausnfluumwnléimnmqm¢a 69 As reported in Table 3.5, the scales on the system and the university administration do contain measures of both potency and evaluation with the adjective pairs: strong- weak and active-passive, loading highly on the potency factor. The semantic differential on the police has the expected evaluative dimension and a second factor which might better be categorized as a measure of police con- trol rather than potency. Factor scores have been computed from the evaluative dimensions for each respon- dent and will be used on the following chapters as one measure of antinomian orientations. The antinomian is a cultural heretic whose world view is radically different from that of the rest of his society. Traditional norms and values are alien to his desired life style. In order to tap this cultural heter- odoxy of antinomianism, six modern-traditional scales were devised in which the respondent was requested to rank himself and his parents. The distributions reported in Table 3.6 demonstrate a self-perception of modernity on all of the topics but especially on religion, race relations, sexual morality and observance of social con- ventions. The students think of themselves as a good deal more traditional in their patriotism and obedience to authority. A factor analysis of the responses to these six scales reveals (see Table 3.7) that the race question factors out by itself. Factor scores computed I I. ||.|Il1 III I '|: .HflvflnvzmHmvmnhfiflmu UflUCQEUN N0 Nflmxfifiucm HOUUMRNII-W-M. muqndfifi 70 smHHm.I Nmom. 0>flmmflfil0>flflud va-.| «mmoh. HmcowumuquaMGOmumm ommo.| «ommm. Hammsaluwmm mmmo.| «cave. ummsonmwouumocom mmmo.n «mmmm. HMsOmummEHIHmGOmumm mmmm.| «Odom. owumumIOAEmchn «abom.| omho.u xmmzlmcouum memo. emmmh. o>auowuummm|m>wmmmahmm mmmo.| «Hmmb. owumuooamwcolo«umuoosmn ”cowumuumwcflecd wwwmuo>flca so mmom. mmmm. mosmwum> unmoummlo>wumasfiso mmha. mmmm. mocmwum>|20fluuomoum mmam.n meme. mcmcmoq ummsmmm «mmmm.| veam. m>wmmmmnm>wuod mmav.| «mmvm. HMGOflumuquamcowumm ~mmm.| «menu. Hammconuflmm momm.| «Hmhm. phononmwalumocom mmma. Hmhw. aMCOmHomEHIHMGOmHmm mHHm.n «mmam. omumumuomsmamo «mnHm.| mmma.l xwmzlmcouum omaa. «mmoh. m>wuofiuummmlo>wmmfl8umm Hm~H.I «mmah. owumuoosmpsDIOflpmuooama “Emuwwm map so mocmuom m>aumsHm>m .Hmwusmuommwp caucmEom mo mamaamcm “cpommnu.m.m 1‘ mamma +. whov. OOCmHHM> UCQOHOQI®>WUMHDEDU moms. mnov. mocmwhm>ICOwuh0Q0Hm anom.l ommm. mCHUmOQ umwfimflh .mmsaumoa ummnmwm k 71 Hmmm. wham. mosmwum> unmouomnm>wumasfiso mama. mhmm. mocmmum>tco«uuomoum momm.| hmmm. mswpmoq panama: moao.u «amen. HmcoHumuuHuamcoflumm mmma. «hmmm. Hammsauuflmm memo. «mmvh. uneconmwnlummsom mmom. «amen. HMGOmHmmfiHIHMGOmHmm ammo.- V «vmmm. omumumuomsmamo «momm.n mnma. xmmzlmcouum mmmam. ombm. m>fluownummm|0>flmmwaumm mvom. mohmh. cauMHUOEopcouowumuooEoc "momaom may no Hhvm. meow. oocmwum> uswoummlm>wumasesu mama. meow. mosmaum>ncowuuomoum Ahom.l ommm. mcwpmoq ummnmwm TABLE 3. l. Reli TABLE 3.6.--Distribution of responses on modern-traditional 72 scales--se1f. Religion 1. 32.1% 2. 29.8 1-3 = 77.2% 3. 15.3 4. 7.3 5. 5.2 6. 7.1 5-7 = 15.5% 7. 3.2 Mean = 2.58 SD = 1.69 Sexual Morality 1. 23.1% 2. 28.2 1-3 = 70.5% 3. 19.2 4. 12.5 5. 7.9 6. 5.4 5-7 = 17.2% 7. 3.9 Mean = 2.86 SD = 1.65 Obedience to Authority 10.1% 19.2 1-3 18.5 I 47.8% . 16.2 15.2 5.2 36.1% \IONU'I-thH Mean = 3.75 SD = 1.74 Race Relations 1. 38.2% 2. 35.9 1-3 = 87.7% 3. 13.6 4. 7.0 5. 3.1 60 108 5-7:: 5.4% 7. .5 . Mean = 2.08 SD = 1.22 Patriotism 1. 14.9% 2. 15.6 1-3 = 47.1% 3. 16.6 4. 16.9 5. 13.1 6. 14.4 5-7 = 36% 7. 8.5 Mean = 3.75 SD = 1.88 Social Conventions 1. 16.4% 2 = 26.1 1-3 = 64.8% 3. 22.3 4. 17.2 5. 9.4 6. 6.6 5-7 = 18.1% 7. 2.1 Mean = 3.05 SD = 1.55 ! TABLE 3- TOpi} Religior Race Re; Sexual 3 Patriotil Obedienc ObservanI Highest . Portion c Cumulatix \ i: from the as a meas: 73 TABLE 3.7.--Factor analysis--modern-traditional scales: self. . Social Topics Values Race Religion .6438* -.1367 Race Relations .1393 -.9722* Sexual Morality .7106* -.0222 Patriotism .6568* -.3245 Obedience to Authority .8004* -.1350 Observance of Social Conventions .7152* -.1189 Highest Loading .8004 -.9722 Portion of Variance Explained .4204 .1837 Cumulative Proportion--Variance .4204 .6041 *Highest loadings. from the other factor for each respondent will be used as a measure of individual cultural heterodoxy. The Validity of Antinomian Measures As one method to check on the validity of the various measures of antinomianism used in this study, con- tingency tables were run relating two measures of respon- dent's attitude toward external authority with two of the three measures of rejection of cultural norms: evaluation of authority structures and modernity on social norms. Table 3.8 reports the chi squares resulting from these contingency tables. In every case the chi square is large enough to allow rejection of the null hypothesis of independence at the .001 level. As a second method of che report. various dimensi followi Autho; Refert Extern Intern GiVen my I Political dents in quadrant . The relat; Sh°uld dixl I relating t difoI‘th \ 74 of checking on the validity of the measures, Table 3.9 reports the product-moment correlations between the various measures of the two dimensions of antinomianism. In Chapter II the relationship between the two dimensions of antinomianism was conceptualized using the following two-by-two table: Attitude toward Cultural Authority Norms and Values Referent Acceptance Rejection Legalist Authoritarian External + + Allegient Political Apathetic Situationist Antinomian Internal + + Pragmatist Anarchist Given my general impression and knowledge of American political culture, I assume that the bulk of the respon- dents in the sample would be found in the allegient quadrant with the fewest number classified as antinomian. 'the relatively small number of remaining respondents should divide fairly evenly between the pragmatist and authoritarian quadrants. Tables 3.10-ll report the number of respondents found in each of these four quadrants relating the two measures of authority referent and two different operationalizations of isolationism from TABLE 3 I Antinom: Factor Civil Libertar‘ Factor 1- Antino; 2- Civil Liberta ' SOCial SYStem PoliCe 75 TABLE 3.8.--Chi squares from contingency tables relating the two dimensions of antinomianism. Evaluation University Mogggnity System Police Administration Norms Antinomian 68.4(16) 64.5(16) 35.6(16) 191.1(20) Factor p=.001 p=.001 p=.005 p=.001 Civil Libertarian 65.8(16) 68.6(16) 69.7(16) 211.8(20) Factor p=.001 p=.001 p=.001 p=.001 TABLE 3.9.--Correlations between measures of the two dimensions of antinomianism. l. Antinomianism 1.00 2. Civil Libertarian .00 1.00 3. Social Norms .21 .42 1.00 4. Evaluation System .27 .31 .31 1.00 5. Evaluation Police .30 .30 .32 .40 1.00 6. Evaluation University . Administration .17 .30 .23 .46 .36 1.00 7. Chance-Change .08 .10 .07 .17 .17 .18 1.00 8. Extra-Legal Channels .02 .20 .08 .20 .20 .16 .06 1.00 I TABLE 3 Antinom: Civil Li Factor I 76 TABLE 3.10.--Classification of respondents on one dimension of antinomianism: evaluation of system. Positive Negative . . Low 525 102 Antinomian Factor High 108 11 Civil Libertarian Low 547 79 Factor High 86 34 TABLE 3.11.--Classification of respondents on one dimension of antinomianism: modernity on social norms. Traditional Modern . . Low 517 147 Antinomian Factor High 52 29 Civil Libertarian Low 540 124 Factor High 51 30 societ using variab placed 0.0 to that w} lined a ent met measure 77 societal values and norms. These tables were assembled using the factor scores computed to measure each of these variables with the dividing line between high and low placed at 3.0 (factor scores varied approximately from 0.0 to 5.0). In each case the frequencies approximate that which was expected from the conceptualization out- lined above. It is hoped, then, that these three differ- ent methods give some evidence as to the validity of the measures used. Conclusion It is doubtful that one true antinomian exists among the 746 respondents included in this study. Yet, the data which have been presented in this chapter demonstrate that antinomian attitudes do exist among the students on the Michigan State University campus. Many students have a concern for the right of individuals to express their personal values in the face of societal restrictions and have a negative view of many of those structures, norms and rules which are supposedly cherished by most Americans. In the absolute sense of what it means to be an antinomian, few if any of these students find themselves totally outside and completely opposed to dominant American cultural beliefs. What is significant at this point, however, is not so much the extent to which the antinomian world view is shared by Michigan State stu- dents but that its'existence has been uncovered. ‘ i able, 1 Mmflmi decreas level. reflecr us beli that itl While anI strUgglt' views, 1' socio-cu 0f antin Objectiv 78 Since comparative data over time are not avail- able, it is impossible in any reliable way to ascertain whether these antinomian orientations are on the increase, decrease or have simply always existed at the present level. Intuitively, the tenor of the times which is reflected in contemporary political rhetoric would have us believe that antinomianism is not only on the rise but that it poses a threat to the stability of the society. While avoiding any final judgement on the outcome of the struggle between the antinomian and technocratic world views, it does seem important to try to discover what socio-cultural factors are associated with the emergence of antinomian orientations. Such an investigation is the objective of the next few chapters. CHAPTER IV ANTINOMIANISM AND PARENTAL CONTROL Introduction In the preceding chapter, I hypothesized that the emergence of antinomianism was a reaction to a sense of status and identity deprivation and could not be viewed as a question of socialization experiences. Yet, there are two fairly prevalent theories which purpose to explain the contemporary rejection of institutionalized authority among a vocal minority of the educated young by investigating the early experiences of the child with authority in the home. One approach stresses the fairly permissive nature of parental control in industrialized and affluent societies and concludes that the young have come to expect a degree of freedom.which other societal authority figures cannot or will not give. Therefore, these "coddled" children of affluence inevitably come .into conflict with societal authority figures because their expectations of freedom from control are not fulfilled. The other view--ca11ed here the conflict of generations--conc1udes that youthful dissatisfaction is 79 relate author: belief rebelli authori has sta tioi can its star domi eXpe stud HESS and Values 1 (H888 an Phillip no evidey VieWS is (NOQEe an by Eleano when they OCCur Wit} who rePOrt 50 that funda: 80 related to a revolt of the young from stringent parental authority. Lewis Feuer, for example, persists in the belief that student radicalism is an outgrowth of oedipal rebellion--hatred of the father transferred onto other authority structures in society (Feuer, 1969). Feuer has stated that, . . . a student movement has its roots in an emo- tional revolt against the older generation. It can be radical, revolutionary or reactionary, but its driving force is always an assault on the status quo. The conservative, the person not dominantly motivated by generational revolt, will experience no emotional need to participate in a student movement (Feuer, p. 376). Hess and Torney conclude that alienation from parental values is directly related to child-rearing practices (Hess and Torney, 1967). At the same time, however, Phillip Nogee and Murray B. Levin report that there is no evidence that revolt among children from parental views is related to the strictness of parental control (Nogee and Levin, 1958). Another approach was proposed by Eleanor Maccoby, Richard Matthews and Anton Morton when they concluded that rebellion among youth does not occur with those who report an average amount of parental control and is more likely to occur among young people who report either strict control or none at all (Maccoby, et al., 1954). Both the permissiveness and conflict theories are based on the idea of some socialization theorists that fundamental attitudes toward authority are formed 81 early in life through one's experience with the first authority structure we all come into contact with--the family. One of the more behavioral definitions of poli- tical socialization was formulated by Kenneth Langton when he wrote that Political socialization is basically a continuous social and psychological process composed of four elements. It involves (1) an interaction- acquisition process (2) between the individual being socialized, (3) the agency which acts as the vehicle of socialization and (4) the political behavior patterns, perceptions, and attitudes which he learns (Langton, p. 8). Of all the socializing agents, it is the family and its influences on the young that most political socializa- tion experts believe is decisive in the development of one's political culture. Family socialization is said to operate at both the manifest (direct) and latent (indirect) levels. Manifest socialization refers to "processes in which the content of transmitted or devel- oped orientations is specifically political" (Dawson and Prewitt, p. 64). On the other hand, latent socialization entails "the acquisition of predispositions which are not in themselves political but which subsequently influence the development of the political self" (Dawson and Prewitt, p. 63). One of the primary methods of latent political learning was identified by Robert Hess and Judith Torney in their book The Development of Political Attitudes in Children as interpersonal transference. They outline the this concept as follows: This fc sively develop use the t0 expl. authori antinomi Parenta] Of a sen analysis will be or the C Porary s orientati ”1 Contr. some PiCt1 82 This model assumes that the child approaches expli- cit political socialization already possessing a fund of experience in interpersonal relationships and gratifications. By virtue of his experience as a child in the family and as a pupil in the school, he has developed multifaceted relationships with figures of authority. In subsequent relationships with figures of authority, he will establish modes of interaction which are similar to those he has experienced with persons in his early life (Hess and Torney, p. 20). This form of indirect political learning has been exten- sively applied to studies of how authority orientations develop and is the underlying assumption of those who use the generational conflict or permissiveness theories to explain youthful disaffection from institutional authority. I have theorized, however, that the emergence of antinomian orientations is not a reaction to either parental authoritarianism or permissiveness but a result of a sense of historical loss. Therefore, in the data analysis which follows, I hypothesize that no evidence will be uncovered to support either the permissiveness or the conflict of generations explanations of contem- porary student disaffection. Measures of Some Parental Child-Rearing Practices Central to this conception of how authority 'orientations are learned is the amount and type of paren- tal control exercised over the child. In order to obtain some picture of the child-rearing practices experienced 83 by this sample of Michigan State University students, the respondents were requested to answer some questions about the regulations imposed on them by their parents. As reported in Table 4.1, most of these students had a fairly permissive childhood. Such a result is consistent with what various studies and theorists have concluded in the past--that American family socialization patterns are participant oriented and non-authoritarian. Almost half of the sample did not have a curfew while in high school and, of those who did, nearly half replied that the curfew was not really enforced. Only 5.4 per cent of the sample replied that they were not free to express their own views within their families and very few reported that parents discouraged friendships. Finally, while three-fourths of the parents of these students consider religion important, 43 per cent were not required to go to church except when they wanted to. A second method of measuring the relationship of the respondent to his parents is the use of a semantic (differential scale on "Your Parents." As reported in trable 4.2, the generally permissive and non-authoritarian liature of American family life is evident in the replies tx: these scales. Parents are judged to have been very fair and consistent in their child-rearing practices. Most.of the students feel relatively close to their Parents and a majority thinks that their parents were Etna—rt UMwNS oN “Rum-Hugo mmOAWEW. mucma 0H: .iUflHOfiUDM HMUCTHQQ W0 QQHDWMUE 0U mmmcommmh N0 C0flUSQflHUWflQII.H.V HQQSH 84 Ammmuzv H.00H 0 HM \OCDMV‘ I O. WMNID Q‘ @woflam WO-NNCflmz on news cozz haze .m osflu on» m0 umoz .m manuasmmm .H acousso 0» cm 0» o>om mm.HuQm vm.aucomz maoumm maamsoflmoooo soumo oz . O OHNM mmmflzmpcowum smousoommp mucoumm Ammmuzc o.mom m.om m.mm mm.~m am.uam m~.Nn:mmZ madmmu uoz .m maumoz .N mow .H «twosomso manoeuum 3mmuso mm: Amvmuzv o.ooH m.s~ oz .m «.mm was .H .m mucounomEm commwaou nocmmsoo mucouom Amemuzv mm.uom mm.Hu:mwz H.ooa v.m Ham on man“ uoz .m «.mv mono masses .m m.mm mono mmmusmomna .H .v mmswm> mmoumxo on moum Amvmnzv mm.auom sm.aucmoz H.00H m.m~ usoamsouns .a h.ma moses“ coaches .m m.h oHOEonQOm nmsoune .m m.~ :msammum mmao .H mm.mv 3mmuso oz .0 .N m3omuso omommfl mucoumm .H .mufluocuso anaconda mo nonsmomfi on momsommou mo compsnwuumaolu.a.v wands TABLE .1. a F O 3 1234567 85 TABLE 4.2.--Distribution of reSponses to semantic differential on parents. Close-Distant 1. 27.1% 2. 37.8 1-3 = 79.9% 3. 15.0 4. 8.4 5. 6.0 6. 4.3 5-7 = 11.7% 7. 1.4 100.0 Mean = 2.47 (N-758) SD = 1.45 Fair-Unfair 37.6% 36.4 1-3 10.7 . 84.7% . 8.9 3.5 2.4 5-7 = 6.4% .5 100.0 Mean = 3.88 (N=742) SD = 1.70 \lO‘U‘lwaH Liberal-Conservative 1. 8.2% 2. 18.0 1-3 = 42% 3. 15.8 4. 20.2 5. 17.3 6. 14.7 5-7 = 37.8% 7. 5.8 100.0 Mean = 3.88 (N=751) so = 1.70 2. Strict-Permissive 1. 2.8% 2. 8.2 1-3 = 23.8% 3. 12.8 4. 16.6 5. 20.6 6. 29.0 5-7 = 59.6% 7. 10.0 100.0 Mean = 4.70 (N=742) so = 1.57 Consistent-Inconsistent 1. 33.9% 2. 37.9 1-3 = 84% 3. 13.2 4. 6.6 5. 4.1 6. 3.0 5-7 = 8.5% 7."'1.4 10071' Mean = 2.23 (N=751) SD = 1.36 ‘— genera scale measur. author; III wij test tk is not The re: by fact! dimens i I 86 generally permissive. Only on the liberal-conservative scale was there a symmetrical distribution of responses. Antinomianism and Parental Control: Data Analysis In the following data analysis, the various measures of the antinomian's rejection of external authority which were discussed at some length in Chapter III will be related to measures of parental authority to test the hypothesis that the emergence of antinomianism is not associated with family socialization experiences. The rejection of institutionalized authority is measured by factor scores on the civil liberties and antinomian dimensions of the twelve item law compliance scale. Table 4.3 reports the resulting chi squares with their appropriate degrees of freedom and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating these measures of antinomianism with the six measures of paren- tal child-rearing practices. The only chi square which is significant at the .05 level is from the contingency table relating freedom to express views with antinomian- .ism which is reported here in Table 4.4. It is the :individual who felt he was the least free to express his \riews who demonstrates the strongest antinomian attitudes. YITiis relationship does not support the permissiveness 11c>tion but the generational conflict theory. In general, hcmvever, the null hypothesis of independence between the TABLE ~ from cc Curfew Curfew EXPress Discoura REligiOn HaVe to Degrees C = Conti 87 TABLE 4.3.--Chi square values and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and individualism. Civil Liberties Antinomianism Curfew 12.06(16)* 18.3(16) p=.70 p=.50 c=.12 c=.15 Curfew Enforced 1.44(8) 7.9(8) p=.99 p=.70 c=.06 c=.14 Express Views 11.86(*) 16.8(8) p=.20 p=.05 c=.13 c=.15 Discouraged Friendships 5.4(8) 4.9(8) p=.80 p=080 c-.ll c=.14 Religion Important 6.27(4) l.03(4) p=.20 p=.90 c=.09 c=.09 Have to Go to Church 5.7l(8) 8.0(8) p=.70 p=.50 c=.09 c=.10 ‘ * IDegrees of freedom in parenthesis C: = Contingency coefficients. TABLE 88 TABLE 4.4.--Freedom to express views in the home by degree of antinomianism. Degree of Antinomianism Freedom to . Percentage . High Low Express Views 5 4 3 2 1 Total (is) (is) (‘15) ($5) (53) Absolutely free 5 14 31 34 17 101.0 N=352 Fairly free 1 11 33 38 16 100.0 N=353 Not free at all 5 23 25 43 5 101.0 N=40 Note: Chi square = 16.80, Degrees of freedom = 8, Contingency coefficient = .15, n = 745, p = .05. variables cannot be rejected. The contingency table reported in Table 4.5 is typical of those summarized in Table 4.3 and reported in full in Appendix D. A compari- son of those who had no curfew and those who had a curfew throughout high school shows little difference in their level of antinomianism. At the same time, there is no «evidence here of the existence of a curvilinear relation- ship between antinomianism and parental control. A second method of measuring parental authority vras the use of a semantic differential scale on "Your Ilarents" which was discussed in Chapter III. Table 4.6 IBInmmarizes the chi squares and contingency coefficients) resulting from contingency tables relating the measures Only fres Up to UP to Throu. NOte: 0f indi differe IGSult to allov. dEan. meaSUreS mianiSm A Compar Support Sive the 9811C}, ta“; 89 TABLE 4.5.--Extent of curfew by degree of antinomianism. Degree of Antinomianism Extent of . Percentage High Low Curfew 1 2 3 4 5 Total (95) (‘8) (’25) (‘6) (’25) No curfew 3 12 35 33 17 100.0 N=364 Only as a 10 5 29 48 10 102.0 freshman N=21 Up to sophomore 3 10 29 38 19 99.0 N=58 Up to junior 1 20 29 39 11 100.0 N=102 Throughout 3 14 28 40 16 101.0 N=200 Note: Chi square = 18.26, Degrees of freedom = 16, Contingency coefficient = .15, n = 745, p = .50. of individualism with the scale items from that semantic differential scale. Only two of the contingency tables result in chi squares which are statistically significant to allow a rejection of the null hypothesis of indepen- <flence. Table 4.7 is the contingency table relating Ineasures of parental permissiveness and student antino- rnianism with a significant chi square at the .05 level. 2% comparison of percentages across, however, lends no Stipport to either the parental authoritarian or permis- The other contin- sive theories of youthful disaffection. gency tables summarized here can be found in Appendix D. TABLE contin Close-L Permiss Fair~Un Consist Liberal- DEgreeS C = Coati 90 TABLE 4.6.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental evaluation and indivisualism. Civil Liberties Antinomianism Close-Distant 16.8(16)* 16.9(16) p=.50 p=.50 c=.15 c=.15 Permissive-Strict 15.0(20) 31.8(20) p=.80 p=.05 c=.14 c=.20 Fair-Unfair 16.3(16) 37.7(16) p=.50 p=.005 c=.15 c=.22 Consistent-Inconsistent 22.5(16) 23.9(16) p=.20 p=.10 c=.17 c=.18 Liberal-Conservative 22(20) 25.1(20) p=.20 p=.20 c=.17 c=.18 ¥ * .Degrees of freedom in parenthesis C: = Contingency coefficient TABLE Strict Note: II for Culture; COI’)sistE existing SOcial C or Fermi relating 91 TABLE 4.7.--Parental permissiveness by degree of anti- nomianism. Degree of Antinomianism Parental . Percentage . . High Low PermiSSiveness 5 4 3 2 1 Total ($5) (%) (%) (%) (%) Permissive 3 ll 36 31 20 101.0 N=289 4 19 31 32 14 100.0 N=153 2 10 28 47 13 100.0 N=123 4 7 29 43 16 99.0 N=95 2 20 28 43 8 101.0 =61 Strict 0 19 33 29 19 100.0 N=21 Note: Chi square = 31.8, Degrees of freedom = 20, Contingency coefficient = .20, n = 742, p = .05. Three different methods were outlined in Chapter II for operationalizing the antinomian's rejection of cultural goals and norms. One of these measurements f such formalized structures because of overly strict C11 permissive family experiences, then contingency tables rwelating these variables should yield significant results. 92 The underlying assumption of this idea is the notion that the child who is included in the decision making process in the home will transfer that positive experience with authority to other societal authority structures. However, the data summarized in Table 4.8 do not demon- strate any consistent relationship between one's belief in the ability to obtain social change and the type of parental child-rearing practices experienced by the individual. For example, as reported in Table 4.9, there is little difference in attitude toward the possibility of social change between those who had no curfew and those who had one throughout their high school career. Nor is there any evidence of a curvilinear relationship which would support the conclusions of Maccoby, gt_§1. Though the chi square reported in Table 4.10 is not sig- nificant at the .05 level, an analysis of the percentages does give support to the conflict of generations theory. Thirty per cent of those who felt they were not free at all to express views in their home also believed that there is not much chance of obtaining legal social change. At the same time, only 15 per cent of those who were absolutely free to speak in the home had a negative view of the channels of change. The remaining contingency tables summarized in Table 4.8 can be found in Appendix D. In conclusion, the fact that these data give little support to the notion that there is a relationship between TABLE contin Curfew Curfew Enforce ExPress Discour Importal HaVe to to ChUrc \ * Degrees c = COnt 93 TABLE 4.8.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and accept- ance of social change norms. Willing to Go Chance of Established Outside Legal Changes Channels Channels Curfew 22.2(16 5.9(8) 4.4(4) p=.20 p=.70 p=.50 c=.17 c=.09 c=.08 Curfew 7.9(8) 4.9(4) 1.1(2) Enforced p=.50 p=.30 p=.70 c=.4 c=.1l c=.05 Express Views 12.9(8) 7.9(4) 8.5(2) p=.20 p=.10 p=.025 c=.13 c=.10 c=.10 Discourage 8.7(12) 19.9(6) 8.6(3) Friendships p=.80 p=.005 p=.05 c=.10 c=.16 c=.10 Religion 1.5(4) 1(2) .54(1) Important p=.90 p=.70 p=.50 c=.04 c=.04 c=.03 Have to Go 11(8) 6.5(4) 1.2(2) to Church p=.30 p=.20 p=.70 c=.12 c=.09 c=.04 * Degrees of freedom in parenthesis. c = Contingency tables. TABLE Extent of Curfew No Cur Only as Freshma Up to SOphomo UP to Junior ThrOUghc Chi Squa Degrees 0:743 Continge 94 TABLE 4.9.--Extent of curfew by belief in ability to obtain social change. Extent Belief in Chance of Change Percent- of age Curfew Good Some Not No Total Chance Chance Much Chance Depends No Curfew 14 61 16 2 8 101.1 (N=364) Only as Freshman 33 38 24 .00 5 100.0 f(N=21). Up to SOphomore 23 53 19 2 4 101.0 . (N=58) Up to Junior 13 63 12 2 11 101.0 (N=102) Throughout 14 58 16 .00 13 99.0 (N=200) Chi square = 22.23 Degrees of freedom = 16 n = 743 p = .20 Contingency coefficient = .17 95 TABLE 4.10.--Freedom to express views in home by belief in chance of social change. Freedom Belief in Chance of Change Percent- to e age Express Good Some Not No Total Views Chance Chance Much Chance Depends Absolutely Free 17 58 15 .00 9 100.0 (N=352) Fairly Free 13 61 15 9 100.0 (N=353) Not Free At All 8 48 30 13 101.0 (N=4o) Chi square = 12.9 Degrees of freedom = 8 n a 743 p = .20 Contingency coefficient .13 an ir Chang the p famil cultu 96 an individual's trust in societal channels of social change and freedom experienced in the home leads one to the position that the connection between participant families and the development of a participant political culture may have been exaggerated by some theorists. The second method of operationalizing the anti- nomian's rejection of cultural goals and norms involves the use of semantic differentials which measure the attitude of the respondent toward societal authority structures. Table 4.11 reports the chi squares and con- tingency coefficients resulting from contingency tables relating parental child-rearing variables with evaluation of the system. Only one contingency table results in a significant chi square and it is presented here in Table 4.12. Those who were not free to express their opinions in the home have a decidedly more negative attitude toward the system than those who were allowed to speak freely in their families. However, in general the hypotheses of independence cannot be rejected between evaluation of system and level of parental control. The remaining contingency tables can be found in Appendix D. At the same time, however, a positive relation- ship was uncovered between evaluation of the system and parents. Table 4.13 reports the chi squares and contin- gency coefficients resulting from contingency tables relating evaluation of parents with evaluation of the TABLE from c ==== Child- Curfew Curfew; Freedc: Freedo: Religic to pal Have tc *Degree P Sig| C con TABLE 4 K Freedox ExPress \ §b§01ute falrly f Not free \ 18:24.9, -I c 97 TABLE 4.1l.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating evaluation of system with child-rearing practices. Child-Rearing Practices Evaluation of System Curfew 12.94(l6)* p = .75 c = .13 Curfew enforced 3.21(8) p = .95 c = .09 Freedom to express views 24.98(8) p = .005 c = .18 Freedom to choose friends 10.41(12) p = .75 c = .12 Religion important to parents 8.77(4) p = .10 c = .10 Have to go to church 2.65(8) p = .975 c = .06 *Degrees of freedom in parentheses p = significance level c = contingency coefficient TABLE 4.12.--Freedom to express views in home by evaluation of system. Evaluation of System Freedom to Percentage Express Views Positive Negative Total 5 4 3 2 l (’3) H5) (95) (’3) ($5) Absolutely free 4 10 33 34 19 100 (N=352) Fairly free 2 14 37 36 11 100 (N=353) Not free at all 3 5 15 63 15 101 (N= 4) x2=24.9, df=8, p=.005, c=.18, n=745 TABLE 4.13.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating evaluation of system with evaluation of parents. ‘ Evaluation of Parents Evaluation of System Strict-Permissive 9.92(20)* p = .99 c = .11 .Fair-Unfair 39.50(16) p = .001 c = .22 (Consistent-Inconsistent 28.12(l6) p = .05 c = .13 (Zlose-Distant 27.93(16) p = .05 c = .19 JLiberal-Conservative 30.30(20) p = .10 c = .20 ¥ ‘kDegrees of freedom in parentheses 5) significance level <2 contingency coefficient syst one' syst can the s of pa sity may b ables betWe The p, on th: 98 system. In each case, the more negative the opinion of one's parents, the mOre negative the attitude toward the system. The contingency tables summarized in Table 4.13 can be found in Appendix D. Though not reported here, the same relationship was uncovered between evaluation of parents and attitude toward the police and the univer- sity administration. However, these significant results may be a result of the operationalization of the vari- ables rather than evidence of a valid relationship between parental control and rejection of cultural norms. The problem will be discussed in full in the conclusions on this chapter. The third method of operationalizing the antino- mian's rejection of cultural goals and norms involves the question of the existence of a generation gap. As I have theoretically defined the concept, the cultural heterodoxy of the antinomian usually places him in con- flict with his parents. In modern American society, anti- nomianism tends to emerge among middle class university students and thus might be called a student movement. However, in the introductory essay I made it clear that I perceive antinomianism not as a socialization phenome- non but as a cultural one which, given its basic charac- teristics, will not develop into an organized social movement. I agree, then, with those who say that a generation gap exists on many fundamental social values but ( of pa that Michi belie gener 70.6 in An< that : their Per Ce and 43 result of SuC ated i- exiSte: thEir Such a: of the nearly QViny and "SO indiCati CeptiOn' 99 but disagree with those who view such a gap as a result of parental permissiVeness or strictness and hypothesize that the data analysis below will support that conclusion. The data presented in Table 4.14 demonstrate that Michigan State University students are more prone to believe that a generation gap exists in society in general than in their own families. It is believed by 70.6 per cent of the sample that a generation gap exists in American society at large; only 8.1 per cent says that it does not exist. However, when questioned about their own families the response is quite different: 56 per cent says a generation gap exists in their families and 43.9 per cent replies that it does not. These results tend to support the belief that the existence of such a gap has been so widely discussed and exagger- ated in the mass media that individuals believe in its existence even though it is not a valid description of their own family experience. Further evidence to support such an interpretation is the fact that only 4.8 per cent of the sample said that their parents were the source of nearly none of their values, while the rest divided evenly between their parents being the source of "many" and "some" of their convictions. The chi squares which are reported in Table 4.15 indicate that there is some association between the per- ception of a generation gap in one's family and the Genera in you Are pa source TABLE Contin K Parent; curfew curfew Free tc Views DiSCOu] Friends Religic HdVe tC to Chu: Strict. DegrEe C = 100 TABLE 4.14.--Distribution of responses to measures of generation gap. Code Frequency Percent Is there a Exists 526 70.6 generation gap? Does not exist 60 8.1 Exists to some extent 159 21.3 Totals 745 100.0 Generation gap Yes 416 56.1 in your family? No 325 43.9 Totals 741 100.0 Are parents Many 354 47.6 source of values? Some 354 47.6 Nearly none 36 4.8 Totals 744' 100.2 TABLE 4.15.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and percep- tion of generation gap. Generation Gap Parents Source in Family of Values Standard Score 48.11(4)* 17.59(8) Parental Control p=.001; c=.25 p=.025; c=.15 Curfew 9.3(4) 10.01(8) p=.10; c=.11 p=.30; c=.12 Curfew Enforced 4.6(2) .324(4) p=.10; c=.1l p=.99; c=.03 Free to Express 19.2(2) 16(4) Views p=.001; c=.16 p=.005; c=.15 Discourage 31.5(3) 31.8(6) Friendships p=.001; c=.20 p=.001; c=.15 Religion Important .945(1) 4.2(2) p=.50; c=.04 p=.20; c=.07 Have to Go .635(1) 7.02(2) to Church p=.50; c=.04 p=.05; c=.12 Strict-Permissive l4.79(6) 10.78(12) p=.05; c=.14 -.7o; c=.12 'U I ¥ * Degrees of freedom in parenthesis c: = Contingency coefficients. stri< whic? stem ences signi avera views best resul theor; the e; 101 strictness of parental control. Likewise, the extent to which a respondent believes his values and convictions stem from his parents is related to his childhood experi- ences with authority. Not all of the chi squares are significant at the .05 level but those involving the average z-score on parental control--freedom to express views and choose friends--are and these seem to be the best measures of parental authority in this study. These results would tend to support the conflict of generations theory of youthful disaffection at least in relation to the existence of a generation gap. For example, Table 4.16 reports that only 48 per cent of those whose parents never discouraged friendships perceive a generation gap in their families, while 82 per cent of those from families where restrictions were placed on friends respond that a generation gap exists between themselves and their parents. In Table 4.17 it is even more evident that strictness of parental control is related to the perception of a generation gap in the family. As strict- ness increases so does the perception of a generation gap on the part of the respondent. The remaining contingency tables can be found in Appendix D. A second method of measuring the existence of a generation gap involves the use of the modern-traditional scale on various social issues. The "modernity" of the individual was discussed in Chapter III as one measure of TABLE Discor Friend NO Rarely Occasi Often 102 TABLE 4.16.--Parents discourage friendships by generation gap in family. Generation Gap in Family Discourage Percentage Friendships Yes No Total No 48 52 100.0 (N=36l) Rarely 58 42 100.0 (N=263) Occasionally 75 25 100.0 (N=91) Often 82 18 100.0 (N=28) Chi square = 31.51 Degrees of freedom = 3 n = 738 Contingency coefficient = .20 p = .001 TABLE 4.17.--Parents permissive-strict by generation gap in family. Generation Gap in Family Parental Percentage PermiSSiveness Yes No Total Permissive l 46 54 100.0 (N=74) 2 50 50 100.0 (N=215) 3 57 43 100.0 (N=153) 4 61 39 100.0 (N=123) S 58 42 100.0 (N=95) 6 68 32 100.0 (N=61) 7 76 24 100.0 (N=21) Chi square = 14.79 Degrees of freedom = 6 n 737 Contingency coefficient = .14 p .05 paren betwe tiona the f. both I each j more 3 Sexua; simila differ the St to Cong reporti reports SCOres subjecg that m that t‘ and a H, _ — f i — 103 the antinomian's rejection of traditional social restric- tions on his behavior. In responding to these six scale items on sexual morality, religion, race relations, patriotism, obedience to authority and observance of social conventions, the student was asked to rate his parents as well as himself and the reported differences between parents and offspring is used as a second opera- tionalization of the perception of a generation gap in the family. The means on each of these six scales for both parent and child are reported in Table 4.18. On each item the respondents view themselves consistently more modern than their parents with the largest gap on sexual morality. Fathers and mothers are perceived as similar in their attitudes on all these social issues. Since I want to test the hypothesis that the difference between parents and children is related to the strictness of parental authority, it was necessary to compute some overall measure of the differences reported on the modern-traditional scale. Table 4.19 reports the distribution of the average-difference scores over the six scales between Subject-Father, Subject-Mother and Mother-Father. A score of 0 means that there is no perceived disagreement, a minus score that the respondent is more traditional than his parents and a positive score that the student is more modern. Reli Race Sexu Patr Obed Obse 104 TABLE 4.18.--Means for self, father and mother on each modern-traditional item. Scale Subject Father Mother Religion 2.58 4.66 4.86 Race Relations 2.08 4.16 4.04 Sexual Morality 2.86 5.51 5.66 Patriotism 3.75 5.22 5.15 Obedience to Authority 3.75 5.52 5.54 Observance of Soc1al 3.05 5.03 5.13 Conventions Using the average-difference scores from Table 4.19 as a measure of generation gap, Table 4.20 reports the chi squares from contingency tables relating this variable with various measures of parental child-rearing practices. The results are almost as confusing as the conclusions of past research in this area. While the imposition of a curfew does not seem to be related to a difference between the respondent and his father on social norms, the enforcement of that curfew if it was imposed, as well as the freedom to express views and choose one's friends are associated with the perception of a gap between parent and child on the observance of various social conventions. In these cases, as exempli- fied by Table 4.21, the more stringent the parental con- ‘trol the wider the generation gap. In the case of this table, those individuals who had parents who discouraged friendships also claim to have little in common with TABL Fath1 M £11621 Mother 105 TABLE 4.19.--Distribution of average difference scores on ‘ modern-traditional scale. Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Father-Subject: -6 14 1.88 1.88 -2 2 .27 2.14 -l 10 1.34 3.49 0 48 6.43 9.92 l 198 26.54 36.46 2 223 29.89 66.35 3 150 20.11 86.46 4 71 9.52 95.98 5 28 3.75 99.73 6 2 .27 100.00 Mother-Subject: -6 2 .27 .27 -2 l .13 .40 -l 8 1.07 1.47 0 46 6.17 7.64 1 185 24.80 32.44 2 233 31.23 63.67 3 166 22.25 85.92 4 68 9.12 95.04 5 34 4.56 99.60 6 3 .40 100.00 Mother-Father: -6 16 2.14 2.14 -3 2 .27 2.41 -2 10 1.34 3.75 -l 53 7.10 10.86 0 555 74.40 85.25 1 90 12.06 97.32 2 16 2.14 99.46 3 3 .40 99.87 4 l .13 100.00 _.—.—_..———_ ._—-. at .— —-_-_——-— TABLE contir score Curfev Curfev Free t Discor Strict Close- K * Degre C=CO I TABLE dent o \ Averag‘ Differ: \ 0 l 106 TABLE 4.20.--Chi square and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating parental authority and difference score between father and child on modern-traditional scales. Difference Father-Subject Curfew 10.9(20)* p = .95 c = .12 Curfew Enforced 20.9(10) p = .025 c = .23 Free to Express Views 23.6(10 p = .01 c = .18 Discourage Friendships 45.8(10) p = .001 c = .24 Strict-Permissive 34.9(30) p = .30 c = .21 Close-Distant 90.9(30) p = .001 c = .33 * Degrees of freedom in parentheses. c = Contingency Coefficient. TABLE 4.21.--Degree of difference between father and respon- dent on modernity scale by parents discourage friendships. Discourage Friendships Average Percentage Difference No Rarely Occasionally Often Total 0 55 33 ll 1 ' 100.0 1 55 36 8 1 100.0 2 50 35 12 4 101.0 3 45 38 12 5 100.0 4 38 24 24 4 100.0 5+ 27 33 20 20 100.0 Chi square = 45.8 Degrees of freedom = 8 n = 743 p = .001 Contingency coefficient = .24 their Likew the p child abili ship L attit~ in Ta; in cor their remair mian, does n t‘i’pe Q corr987 . I OrIEnt. with P5 tude tC Um POJ V $0cieté tyPe 0f COntact 107 their parents on these measures of social modernity. Likewise, the measure of parental closeness is related to the perception of a generation gap between father and child (see Table 4.22) which gives evidence of the reli- ability of the data rather than any significant relation- ship because both variables are measures of the same basic attitude. Finally, an analysis of the percentages across in Table 4.23 indicates that those who say they have more in common with their father are more likely to say that their socialization experiences were permissive. The remaining contingency tables can be found in Appendix D. Conclusions As anticipated, the individualism of the antino- mian, which was measured by the law compliance scale,. does not seem to be related in any consistent way to the type of parental authority experienced by the individual. The rejection of authority outside of the self with the corresponding emphasis on individual values is not an orientation which is acquired through one's relationship with parents and transposed in later life to one's atti- tude toward the basic laws and norms of society. What the concept of interpersonal transference overlooks is the possibility that an individual can find certain societal laws and rules unjustified regardless of the type of family socialization patterns he has come into contact with. Cultures do change and sometimes they TABLE res; Avera: Differ f“ Chi Sq Degree COntinI TABLE . rESpc Differe 5+ I Squa egrEGS. cratingE TABLE 4.22.--Degree of difference between father and 108 respondent on modernity scale by closeness to parents. Average Parental Closeness Difference Close Distant 0 28 44 13 6 4 4 1 1 37 40 12 5 4 3 l 2 28 38 16 9 5 2 l 3 21 41 18 9 5 5 2 4 17 29 17 14 14 6 3 5+ 11 11 ll 21 18 25 4 Chi square = 90.97 n = 738 Degrees of freedom = 30 p = .001 Contingency coefficient = .33 TABLE 4.23.--Degree of difference between father and respondent on modernity scale by parental permissiveness. Parental Permissiveness Average Difference Permissive Strict 0 7 32 22 20 12 7 l 12 31 22 15 12 5 2 2 10 30 19 18 ll 8 2 3 9 29 17 15 15 ll 3 4 9 22 24 20 14 6 4 5+ 14 7 28 7 14 21 10 Chi square = 34.9 n = 742 IDegrees of freedom = 30 p = .30 (Iontingency coefficient .21 109 change at a quicker pace than political systems whose regulations, which were once considered legitimate, are eventually found by certain groups to be unjust. On the whole, however, there is more support in these data for the Hess and Torney idea of interper- sonal transference than I had expected. The rejection of cultural norms does seem to be related to childhood experiences with parental authority. Three methods were used to operationalize this rejection: attitude toward legal avenues of social change, attitude toward authority structures and the perception of a generation gap on issues of social morality. As hypothesized, no support was uncovered for either the permissive or conflict theories when relating measures of parental control and attitude toward channels of social change. However, support was uncovered for the conflict theory in that one's evaluation of parents is positively correlated with one's evaluation of other societal structures. Those with a negative view of their parents are more likely to have a negative evaluation of authority structures such as the system, the police and the university administra- tion. Similarly, it was discovered that the more strin- gent the parental control, the more likely the student expresses the existence of a generation gap in his family. These results are evidence as to the validity of the Hess and Torney notion of interpersonal transference and 110 the conflict of generations theory as an explanation of student disaffection. The question which is immediately posed, however, is why there is a significant relationship between one dimension of antinomianism-—the rejection of cultural norms--and parental control and not between the other dimension--the belief in the moral superiority of the individual conscience--and the type of parental authority experienced by the respondent. It is possible that the former significant relationships are in part a result of the operationalization of the variables involved. The association between evaluation of parents and evaluation of other authority figures and the expression of a gener- ation gap may be a function of present attitudes coloring memories of the past (a problem discussed in Chapter II) rather than evidence of a causal relationship. It is very likely that one's present attitude toward authority figures and current belief in the existence of a genera- tion gap on social values might in turn distort one's present evaluation of past parental authority. What especially leads me to this interpretation is the lack of support for the conflict or permissive press theories in relation to the measures of student individualism--rejec- tion of external authority in favor of individual con- science. Here we are dealing with a dependent variable which is not as likely to distort one's memories of past 111 relationship with parents and no significant relation- ships are uncovered. A respondent's belief that an individual is justified in ignoring social laws he deems illegitimate would not necessarily distort his memory of childhood experiences. On the other hand, one's present evaluation of authority figures and belief in a generation gap might very well result in a distortion of childhood memories. It is the possibility of such a bias which leads me to question some of the support uncovered here for the conflict of generations theory. CHAPTER V ANTINOMIANISM AND FUTURE EXPECTATIONS Introduction I have defined antinomianism as a world view which tends to emerge within groups who fear for their future cultural development. The antinomian rejects authority outside of the self and any social forms and norms which try to impose restraints on his liberty. The cultural heterodoxy from the norms of organized modern society becomes pronounced and noticed at periods when the scientific world view gains influence and con- trol of additional areas of human activity. During these periods Yeats' rough beast rears its head in a courageous but usually suicidal and ineffectual attempt to hinder the development of technocratic society and the further destruction of romantic ideals. The above analysis explains why in the contem- porary period antinomianism tends to emerge in developed societies among middle class university students where it appears in the guise of generational conflict. It is exactly this segment of modern society which has the least to gain and the most to lose from increased 112 113 societal organized and control. The older generations have made their adjustments and conciliations to techno- cracy in the name of economic and national security. Working class youth on the other hand are willing to accept and reconcile themselves to the demands of the scientific world view in the hope of obtaining a "piece of the action." But middle class university students in the industrialized societies already have economic security and, therefore, view the further extension of the technocracy as an unnecessary evil which will only limit their freedom to fulfill their individuality. While the government's regulation of society can expand the liberty of all by enlarging the opportunities avail- able, complete reliance on the scientific world view inevitably is a restraint on liberty--defined by Karl Deutsch as "the opportunity to change one's mind--and to change it freely, even playfully, without narrowing external constraints or political pressure or economic scarcity, and without excessive internal constraints of one's personal anxieties, ideology or culture" (Deutch, p. 37). To Deutsch, spontaneity is one aspect of liberty which he ultimately defines as "the opportunity for many- sided cumulative growth." It is exactly this opportunity that certain middle class university students in indus- trialized societies believe is being destroyed by techno- cratic society. 114 Kenneth Keniston has written that interpreting contemporary student radicalism as a reaction against "historical irrelevance"--as the above explanation does-- is a false notion because he neither believes that the future is determined nor that students subconsciously know they will become obsolete. Instead, Keniston has hopes for the birth of a new period in world history-- the post-industrial age--where qualitative values replace quantitative ones as the goals of mankind. To Keniston, the student radical anticipates that new age and is, therefore, simply ahead of his time leading the way. I do not share Keniston's optimism that we are witnesses to the beginnings of a new historical era. It is not a new morning we are awakening to but a reaction to the culmination of technological development. However, my objective is not to debate the out- come of the current emergence of the antinomian world view but to try to uncover some of the factors associated with its surfacing. I have hypothesized that its devel- opment is related to a feeling of future obsolescence and restraint in cultural development. An underlying assump- tion of this interpretation is the belief that individuals not only have some view of the future--regardless of whether it is valid or not--but also that some of their present attitudes and behavior are based on that vision. As Keniston has written, it is possible that 115 Rebellion springs from the unconscious awareness of some students that society has left them and their society behind. According to this view, the ultimate causes of student dissent are sociological rather than psychological. They lie in fundamental changes in the nature of advanced societies--espe- cially, in the change from industrial to post- industrial society (Keniston, 1969, p. 28). The contemporary student antinomian anticipates a future society in which his individualism and personal identity will be sacrificed to the demands and needs of the scien- tific world. His reaction is to reject the accepted cultural norms and authority structures which reflect technological society. If the theory of historical loss outlined above has any validity, then, the antinomian rebel will have a decidedly different vision of his future than those stu- dents who do not share his basic beliefs. It is expected that antinomian orientations are more likely to be pro- fessed by students in those academic disciplines which have no definite career goal in mind--specifically the humanities and liberal arts. In addition, it is hypothe- sized that the antinomian student will have a vision of his future style of life which is fundamentally different from the non-antinomian. What remains to be outlined is the antinomian's vision of his future and how it differs from that of his peers. 116 The Future Expectations of the Antinomian The kind of future life style which the anti- nomian looks forward to is, of course, related to his basic attitudes and orientations. The personalism of the antinomian is reflected in his anticipation of a life style which is inner-directed--an existence which might be called parochial. Developing meaningful personal rela- tionships with friends and family is a primary concern of the antinomian. His romantic and humanistic ideals result in a desire to lead a relatively simple life close to nature where he would be fairly free from external author- ity and restraints. He wants to be left alone so he can "do his own thing" whatever it may be. Coupled with this emphasis on inner-directed fulfillment is a traditionally left-wing concern for the institutionalized inequalities of society. Thus, the antinomian would prefer a world free from poverty, war and racial prejudice but he believes these problems are solvable only by relying on the inher- ent goodness of man and not on organized governmental action. The anti-formalism of the antinomian is reflected in his desire for a future life which is not structured. He is opposed to the idea of a professional or specialized career which the technocracy seems to require. The anti- nomian equates too much stability in his own life with 117 getting into a "rut" but desires societal stability so he can be allowed to do his own thing. Operationalization: Future Expectations Three methods are used in this study to measure the future expectations of the respondents. First, the student's academic major should give some picture of what kind of future life style he envisions for himself. Various studies have found that student radicals tend to be liberal arts majors rather than in engineering, educa- tion or any academic discipline which leads to a definite specialized career. The theory of historical irrelevance and my notion of the causes for antinomianism are explana- tions for this previously discovered relationship between major and political radicalism. I hypothesize that a similar association will be uncovered in these data between academic area of study and antinomianism. As reported in Table 5.1, all the major academic disciplines are represented in the sample with a fairly even distri- bution throughout the eight code categories. The expected occupation of the student serves as a second measure of anticipated life styles. Those indi- viduals who are looking forward to professional careers in specialized fields are not expected to express antino- mian attitudes. The fact that one-third of the sample is looking forward to a job in the teaching profession (see Table 5.2) reflects the role of Michigan State University 118 TABLE 5.1.--Distribution of respondent academic majors. Major Percent No-Preference 10.8 Arts and Letters 15.8 Social Science 15.8 Natural Science 11.3 Professional Curricula-Arts and Letters 10.9 Professional Curricula-Natural Science 8.4 Engineering 6.1 Business 10.4 Education 10.7 Total 100.2 (N=742) TABLE 5.2.--Distribution of expected future occupation. Occupation Percent Undecided 7.3 Teaching, education 33.3 Independent Professional 11.5 Government Related 6.3 Professional-Private Business 20.6 Helping Professions 8.8 Arts 3.0 Engineering and Technology 7.3 Housewife 2.0 Total 100.1 (N=742) 119 as a producer of secondary and elementary school teachers. One-fifth of the students expect to have professional careers in private business and 11 per cent anticipate employment in the independent professions such as law and medicine. Surprisingly, only 7 per cent of the sample were undecided about their future occupation. An additional question of some significance to this general subject consisted of a list of seven occupa- tional attributes which the respondents were requested to rank according to how important they considered them in looking for a job. The attributes, as reported in Table 5.3, included: money, meeting people, chances to get ahead, challenge, variety, status, work satisfaction and security. The means reported in Table 5.3 demonstrate the lack of interest that these students have in status and chances to get ahead and the emphasis that they place on challenging careers which they find personally satis- fying. The responses to this scale will not be used in the following chi square and regression analyses but they do show the idealism of the sample, the emphasis on the quality of life style and the lack of importance given to economic and status attributes. The third measure of expected life style is the most subjective and direct. It consists of a scale of ten statements about the future. The respondent is asked which of these statements comes fairly close to describing 120 TABLE 5.3.--Average ranking of occupational attributes. Attributes Average Ranking Work satisfaction 1.99 Challenge 3.43 Variety 4.31 Money 4.57 Meeting people 4.59 Security 5.75 Chances to get ahead 5.57 Status 6.62 his feelings about what his future will be like and which ones do not. Table 5.4 reports the results obtained from this ten point scale of expected life style. As noted above in discussing the ranking of occupational attributes, there is evidence of a privatism in the responses to this scale with a clear concern for quality of life style and personal relationships. In general, most of these stu- dents look forward to settling down in a community of congenial people but not so settled that they end up in a "rut." They see themselves working at professional careers where hard and persistent work pays off but where the ability to compete is not of prime importance. Most wish to devote their.lives to close personal relation- ships by earning the respect of those around them. While these general expectations are held by a majority of the 121 own o.mw «.ma .ucsoo haaoou Hams ouomaoo on zuflawno on» muons ammuso momma meow cm mamxnos on manonoum Hams H .oa men b.m m.mo .ome as on meadows o>mm mass has» m>oH H macro on aomuo>om m.oH .m as» o.HH m.om .mumsou mom mamas Haas sues unmummmumm mam mums our» games H pan .mmmm on Hams mums our» oases H .m was m.m~ m.mv .mpcoflum was mHflEmm sums mcuoocoo an toumcaaoo on on maaom mum mo>HH Mao zaflosuso>o pony song m5 m0 umOE .3os Hoom o3 30: mousse oz .5 wow m.mm m.vv .osoom on» ouocwsoo >uum>om was .uowamcoo moon .uos mm msoa 0m mo>fla H90 am mosamnmom 0: on gas; muons has» remap amuse H .m van m.n m.mn .Umounm Ho anussoo mflsu ca mGOflumpsoo mo usofiuouuob map onmsou sowusnwuusoo meow arms 0» exam m.H mmnmmmoa Ham um mH .m was m.w m.mh .oE canons omosu mo “common on» show 0» on Haws msoaquEo he no mac .6 men m.Hm m.mv .usu mo peas oEom cw =ssoc mauuomz on pass uo>o u.soo H not» mush Em H unannoxma on Ham3 oHSuSM we pass meta on o>o£ H .m was m.mH H.mm .now usmuuomfia was mswumouousw so mswop somumm HosOAmmowoum o mm maumofi maomme mo xcmsu H .N men m.mm o.vm mamoom amasomsoo mo muwssfieoo m CH c300 mamauuom ou pumsuom msmxooH so H .H nonfisz oz mow mucosoumum unsusm on» no .mEouw mason soflmfl> op momcommou o>mumoos was o>mummom mo mommucoouomuu.v.m mamas 122 students, a quarter of the sample do not look forward to a professional career nor to settling down in a small community of individuals whose primary concern is with family and friends. An orthogonal factor analysis was performed on this ten item scale to find out whether certain items measured similar visions of the future. Four factors were uncovered (see Table 5.5) and they account for 55 per cent of the variance. The first factor is a "per- sonal relationship" dimension with three high loading items all emphasizing the importance of face-to-face meaningful associations: (1) settling down in a commu- nity of congenial people, (2) concerning oneself with family and friends and (3) obtaining meaning from life by devotion to loved ones. The antinomian would respond that these statements describe his future expectations but I do not think that this dimension necessarily dis- tinguishes the antinomian from those who are willing to accept external authority and a structured professional life style. Therefore, the relationship between the various measures of antinomianism and factor scores on the personal relationship dimension of the scale is expected to be slight. The third factor contains three high loading items which the antinomian would definitely reject as descriptions of his desired life style: (1) a 123 mUCmUMOH umonmwm * mamm. mame. mmmm. mmma. ooamaum> on» no coauuomoum m>mumHsEso mmma. mmma. eama. mmea. mocamamxo oocmmum> may no cOmuuomoam emmm. mmomm mmam.n momm. maaomoa homemam mmea.- mmmm. .mamm. mmam.- ucmuuoosa :oaoaoomsoo uoamoso omuma ca omaa .ma mmmo. ommm. mmom.u .momm. mono oo>oa op :oaoo>oo mo omaa a .m mmma. .mmom. ameo. mama. mommzou mum moans aaa3 xuos oumm .m amao.u mmao.u memo. .mmmm. mocoauu one maasma canons anoucoo mmwa m .n .emmm. emoo. maaa.u amaa. uoaamcoo moon .muuo>oa .mmz Baas moaaaomom oz .m emao.u mmea. emmam.u ommm.u mcoaoaoaoo oauos mo newshouuob oo oosnauocoo .m mmma.u «aamm. mmmo.u mmmm. as museum omen» mo poommou snow on use: .e «emmm. amma.s mmmo. mmmm.u one o ca s30p mauuom on paws u.coo .m moma.- .mmom. mmea. oomm.u mcaomomooaa mucouuomfimnuoouoo moccammououm .m mmmm. mamo. amma. .mmmm. oamooa amaaomaoo azuwssafioolssoo mamauuom .a mmHQmGOmumaom muaaanoum aocoammomoum oaumasuoam aogomuom ucosoumum .oamom magnum onu mo cemmw> mo mammamco Houoomll.m.m wands 124 professional person doing an interesting and important job, (2) earning the respect of those around him and (3) hard and persistent work will bring rewards. This professional factor reflects a life style which is centered around one's career and accepts the Protestant work ethic. It is exactly this kind of existence that the antinomian is revolting against because it does not allow for individual spontaneity and creativity and requires the acceptance of technocratic cultural values and norms. The second factor obtained from the analysis con- sists of two items which load highly in opposite direc- tions: (1) a desire to make some contribution toward the betterment of conditions in the world and (2) a vision of life in a large company where competition is the key to success. The antinomian would certainly reject the latter expectation because it leads to a structured life where his individuality would be sacri- ficed to professional success. The altruistic orienta— tions of the antinomian would cause him to respond positively to the "world betterment" item. What this dimension measures is a "Peace Corps mentality" which the antinomian expresses because it entails personal com- mitment but in a relatively informal and unstructured fashion. 125 The final factor is a stability dimension on which the following two items load highly: (l) uncer- tainty about the future but an aversion to settling down in a "rut" and (2) a belief that there will be no sta- bility in our lives until we eliminate war, race conflict and poverty in the World. This factor reflects a desire for a future life in which societal stability is obtained but where personal spontaneity is maintained. The anti- nomian would definitely respond positively to both of these items because they reflect his liberal concern for the betterment of conditions in the world and his desire for a personal life free of formality and unnecessary structure. Antinomianism and Future Expectations: Data Analysis The chi squares reported in Table 5.6 lend little support to the hypothesis that antinomianism is associ- ated with academic major. The null hypothesis of indepen- dence can be rejected at the .05 level only when relating individualism with major. None of the various measures of anti-formalism yield significant chi squares when associated with field of study at the university. Thus, these results hint at some relationship between the anti- nomian's rejection of authority outside of the self and his area of academic study but do not demonstrate that low evaluation of authority structures and channels of change are related to major. 126 TABLE 5.6.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating academic major with measures of antinomianism. Antinomian Variables Academic Major Individualism 46.5(32)* p=.05 c=.24 Civil Liberties 44.3(32) p=.10 c=.24 Evaluation of the System 32.9(32) p=.50 c=.21 Evaluation of the Police 29.6(32) p=.75 c=.20 Evaluation of University _ _ Administration 30'4(32) p—.75 C—'20 Chances to Obtain Changes 28.8(32) p=.75 c=.l9 GOing through Legal Chan- 18.3(16) p=.50 c=.16 nels--to get change Willing to go outside = = Legal Channels 6°2(8) P ~75 C -09 *Degrees of freedom in parentheses. c = Contin- gency coefficient. A closer look, however, at the percentages within each type of academic major does in part support the theory of historical loss. Those students studying in the social sciences and in arts and letters have the highest percentages of extreme antinomians (see Table 5.7) and along with education majors have the most nega- tive evaluation of the system (see Table 5.8). It is the engineers, business majors and those in the natural sciences who are the least antinomian and have the most positive attitude toward the system. As was hypothesized, 127 TABLE 5.7.--Academic major by degree of antinomianism. Degree of Antinomianism Academic Major High Low Peggigfage 5 4 3 2 l (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) No Preference 4 10 33 38 . 16 101.0 (N=80) Arts and Letters 4 18 28 36 14 100.0 (N=ll7) Social Science 5 21 35 29 9 99.0 (N=ll7) Natural Science 1 13 35 32 19 100.0 (N=84) Professional 4 9 38 37 12 98.0 Curricula (N=81) Social Science Professional 2 13 25 34 23 98.0 Curricula (N=62) Natural Science Engineering 0 2 42 27 29 100.0 (N=45) Business 2 8 32 41 16 99.0 (N=77) Education 1 ll 22 47 19 100.0 (N=79) Chi square a 46.54 n = 742 Degrees of freedom = 32 p = .05 Contingency coefficient = 24 128 TABLE 5.8.--Academic major by evaluation of system. Evaluation of System Percentage Academic Major Positive Negative Total 5 4 3 2 l (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) No Preference 5 15 33 34 14 101.0 (N=80) Arts and Letters 5 12 29 36 18 100.0 (N=1l7) Social Science 3 7 30 43 18 101.0 (N=1l7) Natural Science 2 14 31 42 10 99.0 (N=84) Professional Curricula in 2 14 25 49 10 100.0 Social Science (N=81) Professional Curricula in 2 8 45 31 15 101.0 Natural Science (N=62) Engineering 0 9 44 36 11 100.0 (N=45) Business 4 14 38 27 17 100.0 (N=77) Education 3 ll 38 29 19 100.0 (N=79) Chi square = 32.99 n = 742 Degrees of freedom = 32 p = .50 Contingency coefficient = .21 129 it is those students who are in disciplines which are required by technological society who are the least anti- nomian and those students whose majors lead to careers not necessarily needed by the technocracy who are prone to reject institutionalized authority. The remaining contingency tables summarized in Table 5.6 can be found in Appendix D. Very similar results are obtained from contin- gency tables relating future occupation and the various measures of antinomianism (see Table 5.9). Once again the only chi square significant at the .05 level involves the primary measure of antinomianism--the factor scores on individualism from the law compliance scale. None of the measures of anti-formalism yield significant results and the null hypotheses of independence cannot be rejected. However, more support is observed for the his- torical loss thesis in the contingency tables reported in Tables 5.10 and 5.11. Those students who believe their future occupation is going to be in the professions-- either in private business or independently--engineering and government related, are the least antinomian and have the most positive attitude toward authority. On the other hand, those students who are undecided about their future occupations or believe they will be working in the "helping professions," the arts or teaching are more likely to profess antinomian orientations both in the 130 rejection of external authority and societal authority structures. The remaining contingency tables summarized in Table 5.9 can be found in Appendix D. TABLE 5.9.--Chi squares and contingency coefficients from contingency tables relating future occupation with measures of antinomian orientations. Antinomian Variables Future Occupation Individualism 46.5(32)* p=.05 c=.24 Civil Liberties 34.3(32) p=.50 c=.21 Evaluation of the System 24.5(32) p=.90 c=.18 Evaluation of the Police 22.6(32) p=.90 c=.17 Evaluation of University _ Administration 33’l(32) p-.50 C='21 Chances to Obtain Changes 24.5(32) p=.90 c=.18 Going through Legal Chan- 12.8(16) p=.75 c=.13 nels--to get change Willing to go outSide 7.7(3) Legal Channels P=.50 c=.0 *Degrees of freedom in parentheses. c = Contin- gency coefficient. The data presented in Tables 5.12 and 5.13 support quite strongly the hypothesis that there is some associa- tion between one's vision of the future and the extent to which he is an antinomian and rejects external authority. Table 5.12 reports the chi squares and contingency coeffi- cients resulting from contingency tables relating each of the ten future vision items with the various measures of antinomian attitudes. While not every chi square is 131 TABLE 5.10.--Future occupation by degree of antinomianism. Degree of Antinomianism . . Percentage Future Occupation High Low 5 4 3 2 1 Total (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Undecided 6 20 43 22 9 100.0 (N=54) Teaching 4 14 27 40 15 100.0 (N=247) Independent 2 13 33 36 15 99.0 Professional (N=85) Government 0 9 49 23 19 100.0 Related (N=47) Professional 1 10 28 39 21 99.0 Private (N=153) Business Helping 5 20 32 37 6 100.0 Professions (N=65) Arts 5 l4 18 45 18 99.0 (N=22) Engineering 2 4 41 31 22 100.0 (N=54) Housewife 0 13 33 40 13 99.0 (N=15) Chi square = 45.14 n = 742 Degrees of freedom = 32 p = .05 Contingency coefficient = .24 132 TABLE 5.11.--Future occupation by evaluation of system. Evaluation of System Future Occupation Positive Negative Peécintage 5 4 3 2 1 05‘ (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Undecided 2 7 35 35 20 (N=54) Teaching 4 10 34 34 18 (N=247) Independent 2 9 32 44 12 (N=85) Professional Government 2 13 30 43 13 (N=47) Related Professional 5 17 31 33 14 (N=153) Private Business Helping l 9 31 45 14 (N=65) Professions Arts 0 18 32 36 14 (N=22) Engineering 3 7 46 35 7 (N=54) Housewife 0 13 47 33 7 (N=15 742 .90 Chi square = 24.63 Degrees of freedom = 32 Contingency coefficient = .18 '03 133 aa.uo uSim ma.uo uTram ma.uo imm.uo aa.no imm.uo imce.m imam.ma imca.ma Amve.ma coaoaoomsoo .oa NH.uo mmm.um NH.uO “mm.nm NH.no “moo.um mH.flo «moo.um mono ©w>OH amvm.ma imcm.oa imvm.mm amcm.mm ou coaoo>oo .m ma.uo iao.uo ma.uo umm.ua ma.uo imm.nm ma.uo immo.um .mvo.am .mcm.ma imam.ma amvm.ma auoz ohms .m ma.uo immo.um ma.no imm.nm ma.uo immo.um ma.uo “ao.nm moaoaum imcm.ma .mco.m imam.mm amvm.am one maasom .m ea.uo «ma.na ma.uo iao.um mm.uo uacacia ma.uo ummoia imvm.ea imma.om amcm.me imvm.ma moaaaomom oz .m ma.uo imm.um ma.no immo.um ea.uo imm.um ma.uo «ao.ua oases imva.ma imcm.ma imam.ma imam.mm -aoaosnaooaoo .m aa.uo imm.um ma.uo umm.nm ma.uo “ma.um ma.uo Nmore imvm.m imco.aa imvm.ma imam.ma smegma homomom .e ma.uo ummoia am.uo iaoo.ua mm.uo NSofia em.uo NSoda mmea.mm amvm.mm imam.am Amvm.me has oz .m aa.uo NSim ea.uo Nmain ma.uo Nmm.nm om.uo Naoofia amva.m imam.ma imcm.aa imva.mm amaoammomoum .m mm.uo iaoo.uo ma.uo “mo.nm em.uo iaoo.ua em.uo macorn zmvm.mm amvm.ma imam.me .zmmm.me czoo oauoom .a mamaom Eoumhm momuuman o>muosam>m o>auosao>m aa>mo Emmamsow>mch II .Emmsmwaosmuso mo nonsmoos sums mfiouw mason onsusm mcwumaon moans» mocomsmusoo Eoum mucmwommwooo monomswucoo was moumsvm msUI:.NH.m mamca 134 mucmwoammmoo mocmmcwucou u o mammnucmnmm ca Eovmmum mo amoummn fl mo.uo “om.no oH.no uSoda mo.uo “om.uo Ha.uo uomio Amvm.a ona.ma .mvv.o Amva.m coflpfluooaoo .oH Ho.flo «mm.um vo.uo “om.um mo.uo «om.nm NH.HO umN.Hm mmao Um>OH Amvmoa. zoom.a Amo~.o Amvm.aa op nofluo>oo .m mo.uo «om.uo mo.uo u85o «H.uo “ca.no Ha.uo uSham Amvmoo. zoom.a zoom.oa Amvh.m xuoz ouoz .m No.uo uomio mo.uo “mom.uo HH.uo uom.uo ma.no «mm.uo mocozum Amvofim. zovnmo. Amvm.m Amvo.ma oao szEoz .h mo.uo uomio oa.uo “ca." oH.uo ummodo H~.no NSofia Amvo.o ono.h zoom.ma zoom.mm zuflazoopm oz .o mo.uo “om.no ma.uo «mmo.no ma.no «m~.uo ma.no umafia oauos Amvmmo. zoom.ma “www.ma Amvo.ha -cowusofluuoou .m Ho.uo «mm.uz oo.uo “mh.uo ha.uo «Ho.uo oH.no uSim Amvmao. ono.~ Amvm.am Amvn.oa ooouoo uooomom .o mo.uo «om.nm no.no “om.um NH.HU «mm.um ma.uo «moo.um Amvo.a ono.m zoom.oa “mom.o~ poo oz .m mo.uo «ca.nz oo.uo “mp.nz oa.uo “m>.no oo.no «mn.no Amvm.m onh.m “ovo.h Amvm.m Honoflmmomouz .m oo.uo “oa.no mo.uo um~.no oH.no ummoio ma.uo NSofia Amvm.m “ovo.o Amvo.ma “mom.m~ oaoo odouom .H mcwmuso ow mawccmno mmcmzo comumnumflcflsv< on mcflaaflz mvwmuso mmocmnu u.muw>HsD m>aumsam>m 135 ucmfloflwmmoo hocmmcflucoo u o mammnucmumm aw Eonmmnm mo mmmummo ¥ oa.uo Nowing no.no uom.uo mo.uo uomio mo.no “m~.no oozmuzo zoom.m “mom.m zoom.o ona.o om o» mozaafiz ma.uo .“oa.uo no.uo .“mh.uo oa.uo «mmo.uz oo.no “mm.uo zmvmdm onm.m .mvo.ma zoom.m mfioocozo ooflmoso m~.uo “m~.uo mH.uo “m~.um oa.uo uom.uo oH.uo NSim zoavn.o~ Amavo.na zoavm.ma onvo.oH omoozo monsoon ma.n0 «Hoo.um va.uo “om.nm ma.uo «ca.um wH.nO “om.nm coaumuumflcwswd wuwm Aoavm.oo zmHVH.oH zoavm.o~ zoavm.ma -uo>floz o>auosao>m mH.uo «mo.uo oa.uo uamid oH.no Nom.uo om.uo ummoio Aoava.mm Amavo.oa AoHV~.mH Aoavm.mm oozaom o>fluosao>m m~.uo uScrum ma.uo uSim -.uo «moo.uo ma.uo «ca.uo zoavm.~v “mayo.om Aoavo.nm Aoavm.o~ soumzm o>zuosao>m mm.no uSofia ma.uo Nmmodo ha.uo “m~.uo m~.uo uSofia Aoavo.mo Amavm.o~ Aoavh.~m “mayo.ov mozpnooflq Hz>flu m~.no u80.no mH.uo N83am mH.uo nmmoio H~.uo NSim onVm.mo Amavm.n~ zoavo.m~ «zoava.om amzflooofl>flocH mflnmcowumamm auflAflnwum Hmcoammmwoum Emwsuuad anaemumm .maowumucmwuo cmwsocwucm nuwz wamom cowmfl> mususm Eoum mmuoom uouomm mcwumamh mmapmu wocmmcwucoo Scum munmwowmmmoo mocmmcwucoo can mmumsvm flaunu.ma.m mqm arm 9 99mvo.9. o~m99.9 «~099.9. m9n19.9 09009.9. 09999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 9m on or 0v 9v 0' v0 Nn'nOKOO 99: 999 999 9999 491 pom 999 9<>m m>m has 999 99>w 4>299292 9>999292 9>¢waupt 9999999: 9999 992 :99: 992 92909999 9999 999 99992999 >999 999 99 29 9999 29 994: 24 9299 2< >9ox99 ~ 9299 m u 92 >< .2 >< 99 >4 999 99299929 99999 99 999 999 999 9292 N99 99 99999 99999 «9192 999999 29299992 99922920 92429920 99999999 929999 9 29999299 999299 9.9 9 9.9299 9 9999 9 2999 9 99999 a 992 999 9299.99: 929999_9 3m_> mum 1E53 9999.99 9.99.... 99.9-m9. 99999n9. «9.99.9. 99.9.m. 99999.. 999.9... 99....9 9.9: 9.9 99 9 a"... 9 .u9w... 9 9“... 9 9 ... 9 99... . 99.9.. 9 9.9m9. n BN0©QI 9.99.... 9.99... 9 999... 9 9... . 9 99.... . 99.... 9.999.. 9 999.. 9 .9999. 9 9999. 9.9..m.. 9 9.9... 9 99.... ..99... . 99.". 9 9.9. 9 9.9.. . 99.... 9 99.... 99.9... 9.99. 9 9.....9 9; “muco 999... .99.... 9..9... .99... 9...... 9.9... .999... 99.9... 99 .9... .9 9.... 9..99.. 99...... 9999.... .9.9.... .99.... 99.9... 99.... 9999... 9.9... 99.99... 99...... 99.99... ..999.. 9.999.. 9999... 9.9.9.. 9999... 9...... 99.9... .9999... 99.9.... 9...... 3“... I ‘1‘ .IC\ at ”“999 9999.... 9.99... .99.... 99.9... 9999.... 99.9... ..9.... 9.999.. 99.9... 99.9... .9.99... .9999... 99.9... 999.... ..99.... 99.99.. 99.9... 9...... .99.... 9.9.9... 99.9.... 9....... 999.9... .99.... 99.99.. ....9... 9999.... 99...... 99.9... 99.99... .99.... 99.9... 9...... I 99999.9 ua9.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.99 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 v9.99.9 99999.9 99999.9 9999.... 99999.9 nova-.9 99999.9. 99999.99 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9- 90999.9- 99999.9 9.999.. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.99 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99'99.9o 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 9.99... .9....9 twmhau 99999.9 99999.9. 9.99... 9999.... 999.... 99.9.... 9999.... 9999.... 99999.9 9.99.... 99999.9. 99999... ..999.9 99999.9. 99.99... 99999... 9999.... 9999... .9999... 99999.9 999.... 999.9... 9999.... 9999... 9999.... 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 999.... 99999.9 scmonmo ommnm99 99999u9 291w999. 99999m9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 9999999 99999.. «0999.9. 99.9... 09999.9. ns~99m90 99999.9 .9999.9. 999~9m9 .9999". «9999m9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 ~9999u9 9999999. onv99.9o 99999.9. 99999.9 9999999 9999999 99999.9. 99999.9. 90999.9. 99999.9 99999... 90099.9. 09999.9 non99190 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99.99.. 99999... 99999... ...99.9 99922999 99 99.99... 99999.9 99999.9 99999.. 99999... 99.99.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99.99... 99999... 999.9... 99.99... 99999.9 99999.9 99999... 99.99.. 99999... 99.99.. .9999... 99..9.9. 99999.. 9999.... 99999.9 99999.9 99999.. 99.9.... 99.9.... 99.99.. 99.99... 9999... 99.99... 999.... 9.9.9.9 99999.9. .9999... 99999.9 99999.. 9.999... 9.999... .999... 9.9.9.9 92.2999. .9 99999.9. 99999.9 999.... 99999.. 999.9... 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 9...... 99999.9 999.... 999.9... 999.9... 999.... 9.9.9.9 9999... 99999.9 99999.9 9..99.. 99999.9. 9.99.... 999.... 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 999.9.9 999.... 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. .999... 9.9.9.9 9999.... 9999.... 9999.... 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 9.9.99.9 99 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 9.999... 99999... 9.999... 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999... .9999... 99.99... 99999.9 999.... 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 9999<> 9 99 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 .9999.9 99999.9 99999.9. .9999.9. 99999.9 99999... 99.99.. 99999.9 99999.. 9.999.. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99999.9. 99999.9. 99.99... 999.... .9999... 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9. 99.99.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 99999.9 .9 >. .9 >9 .9 >9 999 9929.939 9.99. am 9m 999 999 99. 99>m 9>9 9o. 9>m 9<>9 9>¢99299 9>999992 9>9u..9x 9>999992 99.9 9.2 :99: 9.: 92999.9. .999 .9. .999999. >99. 99. 99 z. 999. z. 999. z. 9299 2. >99... 9 .299 9 9 9: >9 9: >9 .9 >9 999 9999.999 9.999 99 .9. 999 94. 9291 9.9 .9 99.99 99.99 999.: 99999. 2.99999: 99992919 92929929 .9..99.9 ummJ<> s .1554 .>u.nz.: .. ........ .o..... n....... .m...... .nn..m.. noo..3.. no...n.. ....... mac” 2. n «.00.... .w..... .....w.. .0..... .m...... .o..... .0...m. .....w. .n...... .o..... u....... ~o...... .«...m.. ....... ........ ....... u....... ....... ....... 4......t .. ..~.... ..~.... ..0.... ........ u .....u a .u... .«u.... ....... ....... 42m. 2. a. ........ . .....c .......u ..0....u .......c .o...... .aan...t ...0... u......u .a.... . «nu... . ..... . ..... . a....u . anua.u . .....c . 0.... . 0..... . ..... ....... J......: N. .o...... m...... .«o.... .o..... .o...... ....... m...... .u..... ........ ....... >moz<4 N an .o...... no.~n..o ........ ~....... ...».... ...n.... ....... m...... o..0... m...... ........ m...... m...«.. .m...... ~n...... ....~... .m...... mooun... ....n... ~...... ....... m... ..x a. .o..... n...... .u..... o...... ....... .m..... ....... 0....... .«a..... .o...... ....... .zou . u .. ........ n...... on»...- .n..... ....... 0...... 0...... .n..... ....... n...... ........ n....... ....... ~...... .u..... .o...... .o..... ...0... ....... a....... ........ ....... 543 has an coo...” nxoz m.x .. 0....... snow“... ....~... ....n... ........ o....... ...-.. ...~... .ono... ...~... ..~.... ....... a: >. o. «and... nm...... onnu.... n....... u...... no...... .o.~... Noon... ...n.... .0.....- ........ ..0.... onvnu... nn0.-..- a...... ....... -oa.... .«...... .noo... .n.~... .«n.... nNoN... .<. 4... .n .n...... ....... osmoobau o. 0....... n...u..u o....... 0......- n...... ........ ~.n.... n...... ..nm... o...... o....... ....... ....... .x >. o. ...n... ~.0.... mane... ....~.. ....... ~«..~.. ~.-... n...».. n...... ...~... ....... n....... o....... n...... ....... ...0... N...... .m..... ....... ........ ........ .«..... 4.. .o. .. .m.n~.. o...... .....a. u... .3. on ...0.... no..... nmmn... n.~n... .mm.... ~...... .oo.... «.onon. .om..... ...0... ...n... o....... .o..... ....... u. »< hm «on....u venoa.o o..0... ~n.o... somoomoo manna”. n...... .oowwao ..~.~.. .«a.n.. once... choonool omnwuuou 0...... nonvoca 0...... mnvuuoc n...... tune... o....... .onumooo no..... 40m 4<>w o. omnvo... «awon.a ooaoo.as coo...» .o...».. .n .m..... .m..... .nn.... o...... ~..~... .m..... ..nm... ........ m...... .non...u «~.«~.. ..nm.... 0...... .o...... ....... xm. o. ....... ~...... ........ .m...... 0....... .o0.... .m..... .m...... .m..... .0...... .0..... o..n... on0..... ...0... .m..... .«o..... o....... ........ .o.0.... .o...... 0...... .o..... m». .o. .. ...n... .o...... n...~.. .o0..... ....... >... .3. on 0....... ...~... n...... ....... .0..... .o-... .o...... .o...... .«n..... ..-... .00.... .o...... .n...... .o..... ........ ....... .aznzax. a. o..0.... .0...... n....... .o...... n...... ~vn....o m...... n...... .o..... .m0.... ~.~..... .«..~.. .o..... ~....... .u..... n....... .nonm... .n0..... ~o..... ..~.... ....~.. .«..... m». 4.>m o. .u..... noon... o..n... mou.... .mnm... .c..... N. z. a. 0...... ....... o0.0... ....~.. o....... .n..... ~.n..... on...... ~n~0.... .n...... «new... nan..... ~..n~... .m..... ~...... .H.o... ....... a—awm cm 0...... .a...... .n...... n....... ....... .aouu... .n0.... ..u..... .ou0... .u...... .a..... oo....0 n...... .«...... o....... on.....- n....... .o...... a...... .n..... 0...... o....... 4......x .. ...~... o...... .m..... nonn... co..... 0...... ....... m... z. .n moo~.... ..0.... name... .m..... o..~... .mm.... .nn.... o~.~... ..o..... ....... n....... .0.~.... “0...... m0..... nomua... no..... 0...... ......u .m ... nu ....... om.n... n.~m... ~.~0... n...... m...... anon...- .N...... ~.o..... annau... .nsn... m......- .o...... .n..... mwun... ....... ..o.... .o..... ~.nn...- 0......- once...- .m..... «m on at on st 00 av «m cm at s. at cc nv «v av on an on an vn an 0v 0v av av vv an at on on on an on an nn «9 on 94: he; o<3 J<>m 40m we. 40; 4<>m m>m pom m>m 4<>m 4......2 ... .o. .<. 4... 4.. .o. 4......m a». .o. m». a... 4....x.z .>u.mx.x 4......1 4......2 m... a». x..z a»: .x...... .o.. .3. ...J.... .... .a. a. 2. «cm: z< ... .o. ... 4... 4.. .o. 4.. 4... m». .o. ....4..m 4....x.x J....:.. 4......: 4......x m... a». xmoz a»: ozmoo.:. .oz. ... .ua4:.:. >... ... «a z. a... z. m... z. a... z. >....4 u .z.. m u 155 TABLE 6.2.--List of variable names and labels. Variables Labels 1. Freedom to express views in the home Exp View 2. Freedom to choose one's own friends Disfdshp 3. Religion important to parents Religimp 4. Familial rules--reasonab1e and stable Rls Rst 5. Closeness to one's parents P Close 6. Permissiveness of parents P Perm 7. Fairness of parents P Fair 8. Consistency of parents P Consis 9. Liberality of parents P Lib 10. Generation gap in society Gengap 11. Generation gap in one's family Gengapfm 12. Source of one's values--parents P Valsrc 13. Feeling of dissatisfaction with the system Dissatft l4. Chance to obtain social change Chgchanc 15. Effectiveness of legal channels of change Channels 16. Willingness of people to go outside legal channels Woutchan 17. Future occupation Futocp 18. Academic major Major 19. Class at the university Class 20. Grade point average at MSU ' Grade Pt 21. Population size of one's hometown Siz Home 22. Father's occupation Fat Ocp 23. Father's educational level Fat Ed 24. Religion Relig 25. Frequency of church attendance Churchgo 26. Sex of respondent Sex 27. Average difference between Father and child on modern-traditional scale Av FI 28. Average difference between Mother and child on modern-traditional scale Av MI 29. Average difference between Father and Mother on modern-traditional scale Av FM 30. Average z-score on parental control Z P Cont 31. Average z-score on law compliance scale Z Lawobv 32. Factor scores--individualism dimension of law compliance scale An Genl 33. Factor scores--racial integration dimension of law compliance scale An Race 34. Factor scores--personal importance dimin- sion of law compliance scale An Pers 35. Factor scores--civil libertarianism dimension of law compliance scale An G2 36. Factor scores--personal relationship dimen- sion of future vision scale Fut Prov 37. Factor scores--altruism dimension of the future vision scale Futwldct 156 TABLE 6.2.--Continued. Variables Labels 38. Factor scores--professiona1 dimension of the future vision scale Fut Prof 39. Factor scores-~stability dimension of the future vision scale FutCosmo 40. Factor scores--social norm dimension on modern-traditional scale: self MTS Norm 41. Factor scores--race dimension on modern- traditional scale: self MTF Race 42. Factor scores--social value dimension on modern-traditional scale: Father MTFsocvl 43. Factor scores--persona1 value dimension on . modern-traditional scale: Father MTFpervl 44. Factor scores--social value dimension on modern-traditional scale: Mother MTMsocvl 45. Factor scores--personal value dimension on modern—traditional scale: Mother MTMpervl 46. Factor scores--eva1uation dimension from semantic differential on the system Eval Sys 47. Factor scores--potency dimension from semantic differential on the system Pot Sys 48. Factor scores--evaluation dimension from semantic differential on the police Eval Pol 49. Factor scores--potency dimension from semantic differential on the police Pot Pol 50. Factor scores--evaluation dimension from semantic differential on university administration EvalUAD 51. Factor scores--potency dimension from semantic differential on university administration Pot UAD 157 The procedure continues until a variable selected as a candidate for deletion meets one or more stopping criteria (Rafter and Rbule, p. 1). The variable which is selected to be deleted next is always that variable which has the highest significance probability and this deletion procedure continues until the significance probability of the candidate for dele- tion is less than or equal to .05. The final regression equation and related statistics will be reported in the analyses summarized in this chapter along with the order of deletion. Predictors of Individualism In the first regression analysis presented, indi- vidualism (measured by factor scores from the law com- pliance scale) is the dependent variable with various measures of parental authority and future life expecta— tions as the independent variables. In addition, the set of independent variables includes a measure of social class--father's education, religion, modernity on social norms and evaluation of the system. The independent variables taken together (see Table 6.3) only account for 16 per cent of the variance in the dependent variable. Yet, of more significance in this exploratory study of the factors associated with antinomianism, is the dele- tion order of the independent variables. The first independent variable to be deleted is the measure of parental permissiveness from the semantic differential 158 bNHmH.o vhhho.o1 mmo.o osmv.v mnommmma.ml ma mmmau hmama.c oaona.on mooo.ov ammm.am vwmmnmma.on we mam Hm>m mvmma.o Hmmmo.o moa.o mmmm.m mvmammmo.o ow EH02 mu: mmwma.o oooma.o mooo.ov mvo¢.ma vmammmma.o mm OEmoousm mHNvH.o mnmma.on Hoo.o oa¢¢.NH mmommama.on mm moum pom Nmm¢H.o mmmHH.OI Noo.o momm.m mmmmhmoa.ou hm uoUH3usm mmnma.o mmmva.ou mooo.ov mom>.ma mnmmmoqa.ou mm >0Hm pom mooo.ov mmmm.mmm mmammmaa.mhm o ucmumcoo mmumama mmmoo HHOU me mm mvcmfiowmmmoo Hm> mm Hmflpnmm cowmmmnmmm mmmm.o vmva.o mmmm.o voma.o mom m m Ham m m mm mmmoo HHOU mamfluasz mooo.ov «www.ma mam m "cowmmmmmou Hamuo>o How >04 ma ma mm vH cmsoasoz mamccmnu xmm ocmsomso utmuoamo Hmbuo ca mmHQMHHm> .Hsmw cm .mm GHQMflHm> ucwtsmmmo .Emwamspw>flocfl “mammamcm newmmmumwmll.m.m mqmda 159 on parents. The lack of predictive value in the type of parental control the individual has experienced reinforces the conclusion reached in Chapter IV that antinomianism is not related to past experiences with authority in the home. After permissiveness the independent variables are deleted in the following order: religion, freedom to express views in the home, modernity on social norms, father's education and closeness to parents. The remain- ing five independent variables with significant probabili- ties at the .05 level explain 15 per cent of the variance in the individualism measure--the four measures of future life expectations (the factor scores on the four dimen- sions of the future vision scale) and evaluation of the system. While the amount of variance accounted for by these five variables is not large, these results do support the conclusion reached in the previous chapter that one's vision of the future is related to the extent of his antinomian attitudes. The low significance proba- bility of the variable--system evaluation-~is explained by the fact that the antinomian in his attempt to protect and fulfill his individualism rejects the repressive authority structures of his society. In fact, system evaluation has the highest partial correlation coefficient and accounts for more of the variance in the dependent Variable than any of the other independent variables. 160 Similar results are reported in the second regres- sion analysis (see Table 6.4) in which civil libertarian- ism is the dependent variable. After the deletion of independent variables with high significance probabilities, the following remain: three of the four measures of future life style expectations, modernity on social norms, evaluation of the system and belief in the effectiveness of channels of social change. These six independent vari— ables account for 25 per cent of the variance in the dependent variable--civil libertarianism. The other independent variables were deleted in the following order: religion, willingness to go outside legal channels of social change, freedom to express views in the home, father's education, professional future life style, class at the university, belief in the chance of obtaining social change and parental permissiveness. Of these variables, modernity on social issues is the best single predictor of civil libertarianism with a .30 partial correlation coefficient. The association between these variables is explained by the fact that a commitment to a life style in conflict with accepted cultural norms would require a libertarian society in order to avoid repression. 161 000mm.0 NMhmm.0 Hwhbd.0 hmvmm.0 m00mm.0 mmovm.0 mmumama mm mm xmm ocmzocno 0H N¢m¢d.0 mmhvd.0 mmvom.0l mwmmH.0l 00H50.0 whmm.0 mmmou Huou Hanuumm mhmv.0 Hmm m 0H mmmau m000.0v m000.0v m000.0v m000.0v 0v0.0 500.0 m000.0v me mhvm.0 N Hmm m mwmoo uuoo mm Loam bum hmhm.0a hm¢¢.ma mmmm.mh 0050.0H vmmw.m Hmhm.h hhov.mma mm mmom.0 m madfibfisz mm Um pom momamhaa.ma wavmomwa.0 wvmmmmom.0| wmmnmvva.on mommmmoo.0 Hmmmmwm.0 m0nmmnm0.mvm muswwowmmmou soflmmmummm mmmm.0 mm ma 0v 0v mm mm mm Hm> m000.0v mam mamccmsu mam Hm>m EH02 mp2 OEmooudm pooazusm >oum usm pamumcou NON0.Hv m "coflmmwummm Hamuo>o How >o¢ H m 3mfl> mxm mmoao a cmaounoz o sham a «m mHHmm "twumaot “mono cw mmHnmwum> .mo ca .mm manuaum> usmocmmmp samwcmeMprnHH Hw>flo "mwmwamam scammmnmmm|l.v.m wands | ‘1' 162 Predictors of Anti-formalism Evaluation of the System In the third regression analysis reported (see Table 6.5), evaluation of the system is the dependent variable and is used here as the primary measure of anti- formalism. The set of independent variables includes measures of future life style, attitudes on channels of social change, parental authority and various demographic measures. Together the independent variables explain 15 per cent of the variance in the dependent variable. After deletion of those independent variables which have low significance probabilities, the four measures of future expectations, attitude toward established channels of social change and perception of a family generation gap remain and account for 14 per cent of the variance in system evaluation. As in the previous regression analyses, the expectations of future life style measures are fairly good predictors of the dependent variable-- another operationalization of antinomianism. These results support the conclusions reached in the analyses of contingency tables in Chapter V that future life expec- tations are related to antinomian orientations. The evaluation of legal channels variable is a good predictor 0f evaluation of the system because they are measuring different dimensions of the same attitude--rejection of societal authority structures. The predictive value of 163 HmMHH.0 00¢ma.0 mmmNH.0 NmHMH.0 v0NHH.0 mmHmH.0 mammH.0 mmumama mm 0H cwbousoz HN¢0H.0I H¢NOH.0 hemma.0 vsmHH.0 thmH.0 mmoma.0 00H0H.0I mmoou “you Hmauumm 000m.0 Hmm m H 3mfl> mxm Homo: m00.0v mmmm.m~ SMOHHMFH.0I m00.0 mmmm.» monaonmo.0 H00.0 mamw.ma mnmmwoma.0 H00.0 Hth.0H hmavmoaa.o mooo.0v m¢H0.nm mommmmmm.ma H00.0 nvmm.0a naoommmw.oa 000.0 hmom.h mvmvvwvm.mal mooo.0v mvmm.voa mhmwvvhm.onm UHm mm mpcwflowmmmou scammmnmmm mmma.o vmhm.o ovva.0 m Hmm m m mm mmmou Huou mamfluaoz omnousbu mm mm 0m 0m ma vH HH Hm> mooo.o mam OEmoouom woum usm uopazusm >0Hm unm mamccmcu ocmcombo Ewmmmcmw ucmumsou v mamn.hH m "commmmnmmu Hamuw>o How >o¢ mm mm Hm. mm mEom Nam xwm Gm How an mcmuu 0 Emma m 0N 0H mmmau "omumamo prno cw mmemHHm> .mv mammauw> ucmtcwmmo .Ewbmwm on» «o cowymsam>m .mwm Hm>m "mammamcm cowmmmnmmmnu.m.w mqmda 164 the generation gap variable reinforces the conclusion reached in Chapter IV that there is some association between evaluation of parents and attitude toward other societal authority structures. Familial Generation Gap The regression analysis summarized in Table 6.6 lends support to the notion that differences between parent and child on social issues are not related to the type of parental authority experienced by the offspring in the home. The dependent variable in the analysis is the average difference between the respondent and his father over the six item modern-traditional scale. The set of independent variables involved here includes: various measures of parental authority, father's educa- tion as a measure of social class and sex. These six independent variables account for only 3 per cent of the variance in the dependent variable. After deletion, freedom to choose one's own friends and parental premis- siveness remain and explain only 2.5 per cent of the variance in the measure of generation gap. The existence Of a generation gap--or at least the perception that it exists--between parent and child does not seem to be related to strictness of parental control. Social Modernity The antinomian is a cultural heretic who finds himself alienated from societal structures and norms of 165 mmvH.0 mHmoH.0 m00.0 0000.5 mmmvomoH.0 0 Show A HmvH0.0 mmmoH.0 «00.0 mmHm.0 hmmmHmmH.0 m mnmommHo m000.0v mmhn.Hmhm 0~mmH¢mv.> 0 unnumcoo mmumHmo mmmoo uuoo me mm mpcmHonmoou um> mm HManmm conmmHmwm 0HmH.0 0~m0.0 vmmH.0 wmm0.0 Ham m N Mom m m mm mwmou Huou mHmHuHsz mooo.ov mamo.m 3m m "GOHmmemoH HHmHm>o MOM >o¢ mm mm H m om pom xmm 30H> mxm QEHUHHmm "Umpont Hoouo :H mmHQMHnm> .Hm >4 .mm mHQMHHm> usmocmmmo .mmm COHumumsmm mnu umHthmsm conmemmmll.m.0 mamfls 166 behavior. The dependent variable in this regression analysis is a measure of modernity on such social issues as race relations, sexual morality, patriotism, observ- ance of social conventions, obedience to authority and religion. The results of the analysis as reported in Table 6.7 generally support the conclusions of those who claim that parents have a strong influence on the social attitudes of their children in a direct or manifest fashion. The significance probability of parental per- missiveness--a measure of indirect political socializa- tion--in predicting the score of the respondent on modernity is the highest of the independent variables included in the analysis. After deletion of parental permissiveness, sex and social class measures, the remaining independent variables explain 22 per cent of the variance in the modernity variable. Four of the remaining independent variables are measures of parental attitudes on social issues, closeness to parents and source of the respondent's values. While these indepen- dent variables do not explain a great deal of the vari- ance in the measure of social modernity, these results ‘point out the continuing importance of the family in the shaping of cultural attitudes. Knowing the position of one's parents on social issues and the relationship between parent and child, enables the researcher to fairly well predict the attitude of the child on those same social issues. 167 mmmHN.0 mhhoH.0I m00.0 0000.0 Nm0mNMHm.0I 0H mmMHU m000N.0 wmmmH.0 0000.0v m0mH.mH mmhmH00m.v 0H HOnmz m000m.0 MHHNH.0I H00.0 H000.0H mvhmm0HH.hl m omOHU m 0HmmH.0 mvth.0| 0000.0v mmn~.vm mmmmmmv0.v~| NH oanm> m vommH.0 H0m0m.0 0000.0v H0~0.Hm mmomHmhm.m mm omcousnu mmmnH.0 mmmmm.0 0000.0v H00v.vv mmmommHm.0 mw H>Hmmfiuz mm00H.0 mmmmm.0 0000.0v mmom.mm mvhmmmmm.0 vv H>00mEuz 0000.0v Hamm.m0H mm00v00>.>Hm 0 usabmcoo mmpmHmo mmmoo uuou 0H0 mm mucmHOHmmmou um> mm HMHmem GOHmmmummm 0v0v.0 mmHm.0 man.0 hmmm.0 Hmm m N “mm m m mm mmmou HHOU meHpHDZ mooo.ov amma.om mam m "cowmmmummu Hmnw>o How >o€ me me mm mm om 0m 0 H>oommnz H>Hmaubz cm umm moo pan pa mwmuo xmm suma a ”poponb Hmpuo :H mmHQMHHm> .EHOZ we: .00 pomHHm> ucmwcwmmo .mmsmmH HMHOOm so huchmpoE umHthmcm conmoummmIl.h.0 mamma 168 Predictors of Future Life Expectations Four separate regression analyses were performed using factor scores from the four dimensions on the vision of the future scale as dependent variables. The results of these analyses, reported in Tables 6.8 through 6.11, are disappointing in that the independent variables explain at most 12 per cent of the variance in the depen- dent variable. In all four analyses, the primary measure of antinomianism--individualism--has a significant proba- bility and a partial correlation coefficient varying from .10 to .17. Other measures of antinomianism also have significant probabilities in predicting future life expectations such as civil libertarianism, social modern- ity and evaluation of the system. As logically expected, in two of the four regression analyses future occupation is a fairly significant predictor of future life expecta- tions. 169 0000H.0 00000.0 000.0 00000.0 Hamma.0u 0000.0v 00000.0 00000.0- 000.0 mm000.0 00H00.0 000.0 00H00.0 00HHH.0 000.0 05000.0 0HO0H.0 000.0 0000.0v mwfimflmfl mMQOU .HHOU UHm mm Hmanuma H000.0 0000.0 Ham m m umm m mMGOU .HHOU 0m Hm Hm QUMHU 050mm NHW 00H00.0 mmmv.MH 0000.0 NHmm.0 mm0m.m 000v.h 0HOH.hhH mm 50mm.0 m mamfluasz 0m xmm mmmnmmoH.0 mm mm :4 00m00mmH.0I mm ch0 a0 mmnomvoH.0I 00 Euoz mu: m0moom00.v mm 0m umm 0mmmo¢Hm.m 0H mmmHU mnmm0HHH.0 m mmoHU m 00000H00.mom 0 ucmumsoo mpcmHowmmmou Hm> conmmummm 0moH.0 mm 0000.0v omHH.vH mam m “QOHmmmHmmH HHmHm>o new >om vm 0H 0H 00 mHHmm avenum uoflmz mam Hm>m "omumHmU Hmpuo CH mmHanHm> .>oum yam .00 mHAMHHm> ucmwcmmmw .mchmcoHpMHmH Hmcomnmm mcHNHmmsmEm manusm m ”mHmaHmcm sOHmmmummmuu.0.0 mqmda 170 00000.0 m0H00.0 000.0 0000.0 0HO0H000.0 00 00 cfl 00000.0 0mH0H.0I 000.0 0000.0 0000000H.0I 0m H000 :4 HOH00.0 00000.0 000.0 HOHH.0 000H0000.0 00 mam Hm>m 00000.0 00000.0 000.0 0000.0 0000m000.0 00 x00 H0000.0 mmmmH.0| H00.0 0000.HH 0m000000.0| 0H 000050 0000.0v 0000.000 000Hm0om.000 0 ncmumsou mmumHmo mmwoo HHOU 0H0 mm mucmHonmmoo Hm> mm HwHunmm 000mmmummm 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 H00 0 0 ~00 m m 00 mmmou Huoo 0HmHuHSE 0000.0v 0000.0 000 m "coammmumwu HHmum>0 H00 >00 0H 00 00 H0 00 0H 0 00 00002 00 000 Euoz was 0800 000 um momma mmMHU mmoHU m mHme “cwpmec umcuo cH mmemfiHm> .uoca3nsm .00 mHanHm> 0200:0000 .mHmum 00HH manusm OHumHsuuHm "mHmmHmcm scammmuwmmuu.m.0 mqmda 171 00000.0 0000H.0| 000.0 00H0.0 0H00000H.0| 00 H000 :4 0H000.0 00H00.0| 000.0 0000.0 0HOH0000.0| 00 5002 mp: 00000.0 0000H.0I 000.0 0000.0 000H0000.0| 0H “ohm: 00000.0 000HH.0I 000.0 0000.0H 0000HO0H.0| 0H acousm H0000.0 0H000.0 000.0 0000.0 000H0000.0 0 mmoHu m 0000.0v 0000.000 H000HO0H.000 0 unnumcoo mmpmHmo mmmoo uuou 0H0 mm mucmHonmmoU nm> 0m HMHuHmm conmmHmmm H000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 Hmm m 0 Hum m m 0m 00000 HHOU mHmfluHsz 0000.0v 00HH.0H 000 m “aonmmHmmu HHMH0>0 How >04 00 00 00 0H 00 H0 00 00 x00 mflHmm um momuw mmmHo mmm Hm>m 0500 ~00 00 04 cm umm "cmumHmw vano :0 mmemem> .moum 0:0 .00 . mHanHm> ucmccmmmw .mHaum mMHH 0H9psm Hmconmmmoum "mHmmHmcm :0Hmmmumwmul.0H.0 mamas 172 00H00.0 0000H.0I 0000.0v 0HHO. 00000.0 00HOH.0 0000.0v 000m. HOHHH.0 HO0HH.0 000.0 0000. 000HH.0 00000.0I 000.0 0000. 0000.0v 00H0. mwameQ mmmou HHOU 0H0 mm mm HMHHHmm 0000.0 00HH.0 0000. Hmm m N Hmm m m 00 0000000H.0| 00 00 ad 00 0000000H.0 00 H000 cm 0 H000000H.0 00 EH02 mu: 0 00H00000.0| 00 cm umm 00H 00000000.000 0 unnumnou mucmHOHmmmoo Hm> GOHmmmHmmm 0 HO0H.0 00 00000 HHoo mHmHHHsz 0H 00 00 0H mmmHU mam Hm>m um mGMHG H0002 0000.0v 0000.00 0H0 .0 ”QOHmmmHmmH HHMH0>0 How >00 0 00 0H 00 H0 mmoHo 0 x00 moousm 0HH0m mEom NHm ”cmumHmo HmcHo 0H mmHanHm> .0Emoopsm .00 memHHm> ucmccmmmv .MHHHHbmum mHnusm “mHmmHmcm conmemmmnn.HH.0 mqm