. ' _ - HIGHER souCA'IICIN IN THE umso STATES ’ Esncswso As A soc’IIAI. SYSTEM '/ ,I L} f‘ j , i _ ThoIiI for the Degree o! Ph. D i i V ‘ ‘ i 1' * 5'" ' MICHiGAN srm UNIVERSITY Burton Dom Frmdman asst-'5 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Higher Education in the United States Perceived as a Social System presented by Burton Dean Friedman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education //,- L 5 /f . Major pr essor / [Mm February 2Q+_i2§l 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES PERCEIVED AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM BY Burton Dean Friedman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1961 _.u¢.- An.- N ~ .enu ‘nu. "o‘e- -\., ‘ . "H-QI '\ .N‘ \l \. . u. 'i i I; I l 5; was ///oO/(e/ Burton Dean Friedman ABS TRACT Reports on higher education in the United States demonstrate that each observer' s (a) report and (b) frame of reference are personal, i.e., expressive of unique individual perceptions. Any one observer's reports may be scrupulously objective and internally consistent. Collectively, their reports appear to be not only diverse but unsystematic. Lack of systematization impedes study of higher education. Yet such study is urgently required because pressure to expand higher education is great and steadily increasing, and because higher education is becoming a major social and political concern of U. S. society. A consistent, "objective" frame of reference is needed by which to con- ceptualize higher education and in terms of which to collate diverse views regarding higher education. The purpose of this thesis is to construct one objective frame of reference for studying higher education I i in the United States. The method is expository. The I F i technic involves a logical blending of social system theory (With special reference to Loomis“ model for social system analysisl) and perceptual theory (with special reference M l . . Charles P. Loomis, Soc1al Systems. (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. , l9bO) . .w'03. . n ”—Dv‘ . . a u _ .o-o- .- P ‘ \ :9 v‘. "' u I . l e .I s N: 2, .Mmtract Burton Dean Friedman ' . . 2 to Bil-ls personality typology ). Comprised of individuals who interact, higher education nmykm studied as interaction. The concept "social system" mazbe utilized to study interaction within higher education. Penxmtual theory provides one "objective" system for inanpreting individuals' diverse perceptions of higher education. One systematic conceptualization of higher education isckweloped applying the concept "social system," perceptually vnmmd, to higher education. The conceptualization is (a)§mrceptual, (b) "objectively" systematic, and (c) compre_ hmmflve. It allows one to relate higher education with society. Higher education in the United States is defined as thasocial system Which emerges from and is comprised of pmxerns of interaction among members of colleges, universities, amirelated enterprises or associations within the United Stmxmn Each suCh component constitutes a subsystem comprised oflesser units, e.g., departments. research teams, fraternities, emu 2Robert E. Bills, "About People and Teaching," Bulletin oftme Bureau of School Service, Vol. 28 (December, 1955)- Cdflege df Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky. Abstract Burton Dean Friedman Individuals act in accordance with their perceptions of reality. Individuals‘ overlapping perceptions define "social reality,‘ including a modal view of a social unit's situation, worth, and collaborative action. Social reality guides members' actions, creating a modal pattern of predictable "social action" characteristic of the social unit. A perceptual typology is postulated. Predictions are made regarding four constructed types of social systems of higher education: 1. "Self-maximizing" colleges, departments, universities, etc., deem themselves and significant other social systems (e.g., comparable units, local community, etc.) "worthy." They assume neither present superiority nor inferiority. Accurate in perceiving social reality, they balance their i'nterest in self and situation, hence are free to respond to situation. Not excessively concerned with winning recognition or demonstrating superiority, they can lead or follow other Systems. They are well-integrated systems that enjoy: internal solidarity; effective communications; good communi- cation of sentiment]; capable tension management; rational decision-making and facility utilization; principled behavior by members, with broad tolerance for deviancy; and capacity for effective systemic linkage. They attempt to preserve, ‘Rb a... do. ”I. 5‘. 1‘". ‘- 4 Abstract Burton De an Friedman increase, disseminate, and apply knowledge in many areas. 2. "Self-perpetuating" systems assume present superiority. Hypo-accurate in perceiving reality, excessive interest in self and in the "good" status quo makes them oblivious to and unable to cope with external situation. Willing to lead or aggressively to dominate other systems, they are unable to follow. Having extreme integration and solidarity, they are relatively impervious to systemic linkage. They require uniform behavior by members, without tolerating deviancy. The disseminating of specified knowledge is the prime academic concern. This is the modal pattern in U. S. higher education in (a) departments within a college, (b) non-departmentalized and selfi-contained colleges, and (C) multi-college universities. 3. "Self-minimizing" systems assume present inferiority. Hence, despite hyper—accurate perceptions, they lack confidence, are unable to reach decisions, perceive too many problems, and are diSposed to follow other systems (which they aim to please). Lacking integration and solidarity, they are highly permeable but unable to effect desired systemic linkage. Having little agreement on principle, virtually all individual behavior is deviant, hence legalistic social controls ' .. '.II .I' . . ovu“" O "..-‘ I o "tn-r“ l ‘,- .u .-«« n -e- Iv . u .. A., x- u... n ' V . n u n. u...- -. 4 n...“ It. fl) "on. 5 Abstract Burton Dean Friedman predominate. Effort is dispersed, resulting in "smorgasbord" curricula and extensive but ineffective facility utilization. This describes "higher education in the United States." 4. "Self—less" or "apathetic" systems assume their own and others' inferiority. Hypo-accurate in perceiving reality, they are unwilling followers, unable to lead, threatened by external situation, isolated, tradition-bound, and impermeable to (systemic linkage, but subject to authoritarian control. Apparently diverse views of higher education are reconciled within the frame of reference provided by this conceptualization . . .. n e M. p-. ,--~\o ~ c.r.r wu- .. ee- A. .y‘. .-.~ ».~._. "A... ~.~ ‘-~ .e‘- .. ‘14 ll' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the friendship, instruction, and encouragement extended by the members of my doctoral advisory committee: Floyd W. Reeves, named first because my association with him first impelled me to desist from university administrative work and to undertake the doctoral program at this university; Karl T. Hereford, who as committee chairman has been an astute advisor and a patient and perceptive critic; John X. Jamrich; and John Useem ii Other faculty members and fellow dectoral candidates at M.S.U. also have been of greater aid than they know, perhaps most notably in informal discussions. A particular debt is due to Jaime Benitez, Chancellor, whom I was privileged to serve as assistant and director of finance at the University of Puerto Rico. My thanks are due Chancellor Benitez for many courtesies and for his consent to the leave of absence during which I advanced my studies toward the doctorate. I also extend thanks to many other friends and associates at the University of Puerto Rico. There are many others to whom I acknowledge a debt, but they cannot all be listed. Special thanks are reserved for Mrs. Jean. Van Douser; in preparing this manuscript, her help was invaluable. TABLE OF CONTENTS I ! Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LISTOFFIGURES................... vii : Chapter I. CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION . . . 1 Diversity in Higher Education in the United States 5 Diversity Among Views of U. S. Higher Education 8 Unsystematic Views of U. S. Higher Education 19 Problems of U. S. Higher Education 21 Higher Education and Society 25 Reasons for Urgency in the Study of Higher Education 30 Perceptual Theory and Social System Theory 32 II. SOCIAL SYSTEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . 34 The College as a Social Subsystem 35 Related Social Units 38 Systems and Subsystems of Higher Education 40 Rationale 46 Systems and Subsystems 48 Delineation of Social Systems and Subsystems . 52 Social Systems of Higher Education Defined 54 59 Summary «.0? Chapter III. SOCIAL SYSTEMS PERCEPTUALLY VIEWED Social Action The Causation of Individual Behavior Propensity to Change Collaborative Behavior Social Reality and Societal Propensity to Change Social System Action, Activity, and Behavior Personifying Social Systems Social Reality and Institutionalization Membership Elements of the Social System Processes of the Social System Membership Activity and Boundary Maintenance A Perceptual Typology of Social Systems of Higher Education The ++ Social System of Higher Education The +- Social System of Higher Education The —+ Social System of Higher Education The —— Social System of Higher Education Summary iv Page 61 61 61 63 64 65 66 7O 74 75 80 87 89 9O 91 92 92 Chapter IV. HIGHER EDUCATION AND ITS PROBLEMS . . . Diversity of Views of Higher Education Views from Above and Below Views from Inside and Out Sentiment Problems of Higher Education Perceptually Viewed Problems as Perceived by Individuals Problems as Perceived by Social Systems of Each Perceptual Type Relationships Among Social Systems The ++ Social System The +— Social System The —+ Social System The —— Social System An "Objective“ Frame of Reference The Loomis Model and Perceptual Typology Structural—Functional Categories Comprehensive or Master Processes Conditions of Social Action Posture Toward Change V. INTERPRETATION AND IMPLICATIONS Explanation Analysis Individuals and Departments Colleges Departments and Colleges Colleges and Universities Higher Education in the United States Page 94 94 99 102 103 104 110 116 124 126 128 130 131 _‘ 134 134 145 152 160 164 165 167 171 174 175 176 Chapter Prediction Control from Above Change Initiated Below Diversity of Perception Conclusion Appendix A ASPECTS OF PERCEPTUAL THEORY . Appendix B ASPECTS OF SOCIAL SYSTEM THEORY BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . vi Page 182 184 191 193 194 222 249 LIST OF FIGURES I Figure Page 2.1 Elements, Processes and Conditions of Action of Social Systems: The Processually Articulated Structural Model . . . . . . 39 2.2 United States SocietV, perceived as the "master" social system. . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3 A multi—college university perceived as a social system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 ,2.4 Higher Education in the United States—- external pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.5 Higher Education in the United States-— internal pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 _ __..W_f.# 4"- no- -.r. .I -~.: 5‘. .g. CHAPTER I CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Many observers report on higher education in the United States. Their views are diverse. Each observer“ 8 report is personal, i.e., expressive of unique individual perceptions. Moreover, each observer"s frame of reference is personal. Despite the fact that any one observer"s report may be scrupulously objective and internally consistent, therefore, taken collectively the several observers" reports appear to be not only diverse but unsystematic. The lack of system constitutes an impediment to the study of higher education. There is a need for an objectively systematic conceptualization of higher education in the United States, a conceptualization in terms of which description, explanation, and prediction can be ordered. The question is how to meet that need. Higher education is comprised of individuals who interact. Higher education therefore may be studied in terms of interaction. Sociology has developed the concept 0f the "social system, " a concept which provides a framework within which to study and to interpret interaction. The Concept "social system" therefore may be utilized in the Study of that interaction which occurs in higher education. ,,.. A4 _ K i. a. let‘- ...u' - ~ n..- -..~— A u.. __ ‘ -I-. ~.‘ .5 ‘ \. '- vnmm of higher education are expressive of individual pmxeptions. Perceptual theory provides one "objective" sysUmIfor interpreting individuals“ diverse perceptions. Penmmtual theory therefore may be utilized in interpreting pmxmptions of higher education. In short, one systematic conceptualization of higher ewxmtion can be developed if the concept of social system. ggxgptually viewed, can be applied to higher education. This mxmeptualization would be useful for describing, explaining, amipredicting the phenomena of higher education. Several requirements must be met in order for such acxmceptualization to be developed. First, social systems are held to be constituted of commxielements and processes, and subject to certain common cmmfitions, which are diversely combined and articulated in dififinent systems. To apply the concept of the social system toiugher education-requires that higher education be analyzed hitenmsof those elements, processes, and conditions. Second, perceptual theory is held to offer an explae Inthlof the causal factors in indiVIdual perceptions and indhddual behavioru To apply perceptual theory to higher emxmtion requires that individual and institutional behavior inIther education be explained in perceptual terms. I l I no a z . t _..-o.. I ...- v..- <.... -- Third, to be useful, the combination of social system theory-and perceptual theory must furnish a means by which to discriminate among institutions and types of behaviors in higher education. A typology must be developed which describes different perceptual types of social systems in higher educa- tion in terms of distinguishing characteristics of behavior, structure, and articulation. Utilizing this combination of theories, it should be possible to develop a social-psychological conceptualization of higher education in the United States in terms of which (a) its apparent diversity may be ordered, (b) its problems may be delineated, and (c) insight may be gained regarding appropriate and effective means by which those problems may be attacked. To this end, the effort is made in. this thesis systematically to re-view ”higher education .in the United States" through a logical screen comprised of two definitions: (1) "Social system, " a theory of dynamic interaction, and (2) "individual, " a perceptual theory of human behavior. The procedure followed in this thesis consists of the following steps. 1. To illustrate (a) the diversity or variety fcund in higher education in the United States, (b) the diversity of Views regarding higher education in the United States, and (C) the unsystematized frames of reference from which such . _____.7 ,..‘_..__,__,fr f. .n‘ A .l .J... .l . .-- . ”.5 ~-. to... A- - w... u.“ .n... . .«u. n... views are reported. 2. To support the view that a systematized conceptuali- i zation is needed. 3. To review aspects of perceptual theory and the concept 1 i of the social system, and to relate one to the other. | _ 4. To define as social systems and subsystems: (a) higher | education, (b) higher education in the United States, (c) a college or university, and (d) components within each of the i foregoing . 5. To delineate categories of problems of higher education in the United States, basing the categories not upon the specific content of problems but rather upon the agency which creates or which must be called upon to attack, and perhaps to resolve, the problems. 6. To describe four ideal types, or constructed types, of social systems of higher education perceptually viewed, and to postulate the behavior of each type with reference Particularly to the categories of problems delineated. 7. To draw conclusions based upon the foregoing and, in particular, to generate hypotheses regarding behavior in the four perceptual types of social systems of higher education. This first chapter is designed particularly to accomplish steps one, two, and five of those enumerated. Diversity in Higher Education in the United States Higher education in the United States is variously conceived and diversely perceived. It constitutes a social notitution which, in both concept and instrumental manifes- tajon, is of a bewildering complexity. It is a social hmtitution which seemingly eludes definition, evaluation, an even description. It is nevertheless a matter of growing pMflic interest and concern, and of growing political and economic significance. Increasing attention is being drawn UIthe institution and its immediate and future problems. Smflous attention to those problems and their resolution will behandicapped until our ability to comprehend and to evaluate lugher education has grown substantially. The phrase "higher education" refers especially to enterprises termed "colleges" and "universities." It is cmmflicated because, as Brubacher and Rudy note, "American higmm education has never conformed to one uniform pattern, Imedmr of organization, administration, or support": it is dmracterized by what may be termed "unsystematized diversity."l Amxher author refers to "the many—sidedness of higher education" much is "obvious enough if we look around, and see everything M ‘ lJohn S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education Animan§itjgn (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958). p. 379. goo Ha,- — v.5 v. u- u o. u u. 'AII u...“ frmna proprietary school of commerce to a graduate school of oflental languages."2 In more than three centuries, higher emmation in the United States "has yielded a variety of fomm--among them, the New England hilltop college, the state mflversity, the school of technology, the complex municipal cdlege or university, the community or junior college."3 "Em result has been a relatively unregimented and unsystema- fized academic situation. The most diverse types of insti— tufibns of higher education have been founded in the United . . . . . 4 Rates, all claiming to be ‘colleges' or 'univerSities.‘" Among the nation's 1,855 institutions which were listed by the United States Office of Education in 1955 as deserving a place within that broad classifi— cation known as "higher education in America," were 732 liberal arts colleges, 288 separately organized professional schools, 192 teachers' colleges, 505 junior colleges, and 281 municipal institutions. In addition to these, there were great complex universities, land—grant colleges, military institutes, and Sohools of technology.5 Depending upon the scope one WiShes to.giVe the term 'hidmr education," the evidence of variety may be further M 2 . . . Douglas M. Knight, "Purpose and Policy in Higher Emmation," in Knight (ed.), The Federal Government and Higher , ETmation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1960), P.21 3 . Brubacher and Rudy, op. Cit., p. 373. 4 . Ibid., p. 380. 5Ibid. w' P i on: i ov“ l 1 i u.‘ l . l by. hu- -« ~.'\ ‘i \" \ amplified: The United States Office of Education estimates that private commercial schools now (note: this statement is quoted from a 1952 volume) enroll 175,000 high school graudates, and schools for nursing not affiliated with colleges enroll about 85,000. But these alternatives, which attract the largest groups and a higher proportion of women than men, are only two of a great many possibilities. There are special art schools, music schools, barbers' colleges, cosmetology schools, embalming schools, schools for policemen and firemen, schools of acting, schools of dancing, schools for bakers, schools of merchandising, schools of fashion, maritime schools, corporation schools, and a host of others. The number of students attending these add up to almost one-third of regular college attendance.6 Higher education in the United States is many—sided partly because of its origins and history. The first colleges established in the American colonies were patterned after an English model and emphasized classical training for the ministry, the law, and medicine. Much later, universities in the United States were patterned after German models and emphasized the pursuit of science. During three hundred years in a vast and heterogeneous nation, the development of some 2,000 colleges and universities has seen English, Scottish, German, and domestic ingredients blended in many different fashions. Some critics have held that this diversity has led to "chaos, low standards, and scattering of effort," but others point with pride to diversity as a major strength 6 Byron S. Hollinshead, Who Should Go To College (New York: Columbia-iUn'iversity Press, 1952): P. 65- oflflgher education in the United States.7 Strength or newness, diversity is a primary characteristic of higher emxmtion in the United States. Diversity Among Views of U. S. Higher Education Higher education means different things to different pmnfle, and with some justification, for in its variety it does inihct encompass a great breadth and variety of activities, aqflrations, expectations, people, methods, and philosophies. Emmident Harnwell of the University of Pennsylvania has cmmwnted that ”The university presents so many facets to smfiety that it is often not recognized as a single entity, even by those within it. "8 Higher education has many facets, many manifestations, mmnrmodels, and, perforce, many interpretations and perceptions, evmimmen one limits the matter to ”higher education in the Umfied States" and excludes its European, Asian, African, IethlAmerican, British Commonwealth, and other manifesta— thnm. It is scarcely surprising that, as Havemann and West HOUL "The folklore about the American college is endless.“9 7 . Brubacher and Rudy, op. Clt-. p. 380. 8Quoted in Henry M. Wriston, Academic Procession (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959) , P- 82- 9Ernest Havemann and Patricia Salter West, They Went t0_p_. cit., p. 118. I 17 gmfls and the effects of higher education: The idea of education has successfully infiltrated our national culture nevertheless and taken its place among the accepted powers. Our colleges and universities, however, may be in the situation of the churches of today: better attended than ever, bigger and handling nwre gate receipts, while thoughtful theologians wonder whether religiosity doesn't actually provide an anti- body against religion rather than a channel towards it. Eflucation succeeds in emancipating a large proportion of its graduates from provincial roots, only to tie ‘ them the more firmly to the big and more subtly con- . stricting orbits of corporate, academic, suburban, and nulitary organizations. With other graduates, higher education lowers its sights in order to avoid despair, and hoping that some culture will rub off on the denizens in four years, often finds that these are only rubbed the wrong way and come out more anti—intellectual than . they went in, and better able to throw their weight around. Krutch states the role of higher education in this way: Ultimate responsibility for the future rests with the thinkers and educators whose most important social task at the moment is to define democratic culture in some faShion which will both reserve a place for V tumommon excellence and, even in connection with the largest masses, emphasize the highest rather than the lowest common denominator.38 President Wriston expresses his view thus: . college is primarily an intellectual experience. "Training" is involved; vocation is not negligible; social participation should be lively and interesting; physical activity should be vigorous. Nevertheless, 37 . Riesman, op, cit., pp. 51—52. 38 . Krutch, 92, Cit., p. 19. 18 the central objective is the cultivation of the life of the mind.39 Wriston adds: Beyond all else he (the student) must be encouraged to do more and more things for himself and by himself. The title of a recent best seller--on another topic-- carries the root idea: _How to Do Nothing with Nobody All Alone By Yourself.4U Perhaps Chancellor Capen was correct when he said: The American people by and large do not understand the university. More than that, most of them do not even know that it exists. After a fashion, they understand the college, or they think they do; and they think that all institutions of so—called higher learning are colleges, differing only as to size and as to the number of professional schools that may be attached to them.41 Certainly the views even of those who profess to hmmesome basis for understanding and knowledgeability about hhflmr education are not always congruent. As Kelley says, "Shme perception is the usable reality, and since no two onfimisms can make the same use of clues or bring the same emmuimental background to bear, no two of us can see alike."42 Amnmythe diverse views available, only a very few points 39 . . Wriston, pp, Cit., p. 200. 40 Ibid., p. 132. Samuel Paul Capen, The Management of Universities, OmRu'A. Silverman (ed.) (Buffalo, New York: Foster & Stewart Publishing Corp. , 1953) , P- 3: 42 . . Earl C Kelley, Education for What is Real (New Ygflu' Harper & Brothers, 1947), P- 34° ., «~s \. y \ \.\ ~ \‘ (I 0‘ -‘ I . .. \.. .n- .\ vb ‘— .. n-h nu VI; 5' .. .v .. . .. - . .-. .... .. I, .I . av ‘. ... .— Wt «a. an ‘ \ on. n,_ .. nu . .u .n .. 19 would seem to be congenial to all observers: (1) there are such things as colleges and universities, and (2) colleges and universities do 'form part of something termed "higher education. " Unsystematic Views of U. S. Higher Education The many observers cited in the foregoing are not entirely in the position of the several blind men who likened an elephant to a rope, a wall, a tree, and so forth. They dgknow a college or university when they see one. However, they have not developed a standardized way of looking at one, and they do not all look at the same one. When they generalize, they do not all talk to the same point, about comparable institutions, or about the same aSpects of different institutions, and they do not distinguish between what is and what ought to be. In Short, their views are not only diverse; they also are unsystematic, unorganized. The point is this: The predominant frame of reference for viewing higher education seems to be (a) personal, i.e., eXpressive of unique individual perceptions, and (b) objectively unsystematic. In discussing higher education, observers are Prone to confuse _i_s_, was, ought _’_t_c_>_ be, and will be, and prone to lose contact with social reality, with each other, and Wlth their audiences. :3 20 The framework for an integrative composite description of higher education is therefore lacking. Various approaches to the study and comprehension of higher education in the United States are possible, plausible, and perhaps necessary. Certainly the phenomena involved are sufficiently complex and varied that descriptions from many different points of view may be useful and interesting. The question is whether they need to be both personal and unsystematic. If, as Kelley says, "no two of us can see alike," the reports prepared by those who view and discuss higher education must necessarily continue to be personal, i.e., perceptual; one can report only what one perceives. However, the frame of reference need not continue to be unorganized. Higher education could be perceived from a frame of reference which is nevertheless objectively organized, ordered, systematized . Lacking such a frame of reference, the study of higher education is seriously handicapped. It is now extremely difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend higher education in the United States. Comprehension of the situation being so difficult, attention to problems of higher education is unorganized, as are the views of higher education. The concepts of higher education in the United States that are now available, personal and unsystematic as they are, do not . . - __._ 21 comprehend the problems of highereducation. Unless a conceptualization of higher education comprehends its problems, it is useless. Therefore, there is a need for useful conceptualizations of "higher education in the United States." These must necessarily be perceptual; they must be objectively systematic; and they must comprehend the problems of higher education. Problems of U. S. Higher Education In one sense, of course, "problems of higher education" means ___a_l_l_ those problems with which higher education must deal, regardless of their source, regardless of their causes, and regardless of their content. It is clear that the problems do not originate or reside exclusively within higher education. They cannot, because colleges and universities are not segregated from other elements of the society within which they exist, by. which they are nurtured, and which they serve. It is therefore clear that there exist (1) problems created within higher education and (2) problems created for higher education by forces abroad in the larger society. It is also quite clear that among the "problems of higher education" are (1) problems to be dealt with substantially or exclusively within higher education; (2) problems to be dealt with Substantially or exclusively within the larger society; and I r l ,.-.l __.v- - u.. . ' - 22 CM problems to be dealt with jointly by higher education and by the larger society. Therefore, a useful conceptualization of higher education in the United States must satisfy four criteria: as already enumerated, it (a) must be perceptual, (b) must be systematic, (c) must comprehend the problems of higher education; in addition, it (d) must relate higher education to the larger society. To pursue this matter a bit further, the problems of higher education may be viewed in several ways. It may be useful to suggest the types of problems which fall into the several categories indicated above. Some problems of higher education are self—imposed, i.e., created and dealt with within higher education. Morale is such a problem. So also is turnover. Internal administra— tion is in this category, as are many aspects of curriculum development, instruction, staffing, and planning. Some problems of higher education are imposed upon others, i.e., created within higher education but requiring flueattention of other aspects of society. The type of education offered by colleges and universities is one such problem: higher education provides to its students the type of schooling which it deems appropriate and society must (within limits) "make do" with what is provided. The demand .. 1n. ,.... .w ; _u.» H ,.-. 3:» 23 imposed upon society by higher education for additional physical and economic facilities is such a problem. The admission requirements specified by higher education constitute‘a third problem of this type, imposed in this case upon the secondary schools.‘ Still other problems are imposed by others upon higher education, i.e., created by forces abroad in society but to be dealt with by higher education. The availability of staff personnel is such a problem: , the conditions of the "market" in the larger society strongly affect the ability of colleges and universities to acquire suitable personnel. Similarly, society determines the availability of physical and economic resources to be utilized by higher education. The conditions in society have a marked effect upon the volume of student demand, both in general and inspecifics: as the belief becomes prevalent within society that "everyone" should go to college, the demand for college entrance grows; more specifically, the public demand for particular programs of study varies with fluctuations in the market and in world affairs (witness the Sputnik reaction) . Any problem identifiable within higher education can be classified in this fashion. To classify problems in this manner has the virtue that it indicates by what agency or agencies each problem may appropriately be considered and fi‘,4« __-.. 24 perhaps resolved. It has the further virtue that it demonstrates the futility of considering higher education only as a discrete phenomenon segregated from the remainder of society. Several of the principal problems of higher education have been alluded to above. They include: administration, the problem of internal control of operations of colleges and universities; facilities, the problem of physical and financial resources; staffing, the problem of human resources; standards, the problem of who is to be educated, in what manner, and to what degree; curriculum, the problem of what is to be taught; instruction, the problem of how and by whom (or by what devices) teaching is to be performed; research, the problem of increasing knowledge; service, the problem of applying knowledge; academic freedom, the multifaceted problem of institutional freedom from societal restraint and individual freedom from institutional restraint. Limiting attention to the category of problems to be attended to or resolved exclusively within higher education, Still another basis for classifying problems is available: Ely. problem to be dealt with within higher education requires (1) individual effort and (2) cooperative group effort; a Specific problem requires one type of effort more than it does the other, and problems may be classified according to 25 the type of effort to be emphasized. To illustrate: individual effort is especially required in (a) classroom instruction, (b) innovation and I mxmthmaactivity, (c) "empire building,’ and (d) some varieties of research. The mutually valued cooperative effort of the fmuflty is especially required in: (a) the design of academic pnxflams and curricula, (b) the design of common procedures, k9 developing standards, (d) team teaching, (e) program remxuch or interdisciplinary research, and (f) the implemen~ tmflon of innovation. Higher Education and Society Thirty years ago, in the introduction to Five College lemh John J. Coss reviewed developments in higher education thattmd occurred during the years following World War I. hilanguage nearly identical to that employed by others a gammation later, Coss noted unprecedented gains in attendance, flumsands of new students, possible dilution in the quality ofumrk done, increased concern for exceptional students an flnrindividual differences, increased variety in types OfPrograms, etc. He also offered the following observations: This rapid review of some of the elements in the postawar collegiate ferment may cause one to turn from the consideration of the college as merely a thing of today to some reflections upon its nature as an institution 26 with a long history. Perhaps we shall understand our~ selves better and be both less disturbed and more confident if for a moment we think of the college as an institution. As such it is like all other institutions. It rises to meet a need, a need of an actual temporally conditioned situation. It meets this need more or less successfully, becomes expert in meeting it, develops a pride in its accomplishment and a vested interest in its exercise. It also assimilates certain other values in addition to its utilitarian. Such an amsimilation is, for example, the social prestige Which accrues to those who penetrate the rather select company of the collegiate fold. But in the history of man the scene of social accomplishments, economic achievements, and political adjustments changes. New needs arise, needs which did not exist when first the now well established institution came into being. But it is well established, its routine is perfected, its champions stout defenders of its methods, its values, its rights, and their own superior knowledge. In such a situation, there is a gap between social need and institutional service. Change in the social order is rapid, change in institutional operation is slow, and to the discerning the institution lags. In crises leaders in institutions sense this lag and strive to catch up to their social duties and to change the institution sufficiently to meet the new need yet preserve the old instrument. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes wholly new methods of meeting the social need arise because the institution cannot Change. In this succinct and insightful statement, Coss tmmmed upon several of the points noted in the foregoing dimnmsion; to some extent, he anticipated considerations tokm elaborated in the pages which follow. 43 = M John J. Coss, "Introduction to H E. Hawkes, 2;. al., EHELCollege Plans (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), pp. 4—5. 27 He recognized that the college and its society are inextricably related one to the other. He recognized that the college is an instrument of society, and, from society's point of view, has a utilitarian role; it is for this reason that certain of the problems of higher education are problems which it shares with or receives from the parent society. He noted that the college becomes more or less expert in meeting the needs which confront it; this expertise is particularly applicable to those problems which are created and attended to substantially within higher education. He perceived that a college develops a vested interest in the exercise of its role and assimilates values centered about itself rather than about its utilitarian purposes as these are prescribed by society; this self—consciousness is a source of or a factor which aggravates certain problems shared between the institution and society, it is responsible in part for the varying rates at which change occurs in the college and in society, and it is directly related to certain problems caused by higher education for society. Other authors have observed the interrelationships that exist between higher education and both society in general and differentiated aSpects of society. Much of Veblen's emphasis in The Higher Learning in America is placed upon the influence of commerce within higher education, for ..:.. u a. I .. w; L 6. .5. .C H .2 .. i. .. i, 28 exmmfle, and the same is true of Sinclair's The Goose-Step. mfiswold notes another such relationship: " . . . our colleges andlnuyersities depend upon the schools for their most emsmujal raw material, and if the schools cannot or do not semithem properly qualified material the Whole fabric of hidmn education becomes a bridge built upon rotten pilings."4 Dean Gauss related what he perceived as problems of higmn education to broader patterns of culture within U. S. society: Vocational schools or courses then have become immensely popular since they are supposed to lead to financial success-—which is the supreme aim of our life. This same general tendency has made American business- men and Chambers of Commerce believe to a degree that has never been true in any other age or nation, that they are in fact and by prescriptive right the dominant force in our culture. So long as our economic interests are our highest interests, . . . higher education will not be an end in itself and can do little to further the search for truth and.the welfare of mankind. Fbrtme malady of nationalism, said Gauss, "the universities thmmelves are responsible." This ailment of higher education, amxuding to his perception, was developed within higher edmxuion and to some extent at least grafted into the cmlUue. On the other hand, "The vocational trend, in part atleast,‘has been forced upon us. The nationalistic trend A 44 . A. Whitney Griswold, "Educating the Common Man," inIQutch (ed.), Is The Common Man Too Common?, p. 97. 29 . "45 is in much larger measure a creation of our schools. Thus Gauss, in this brief statement, offers one example (nationalism) of a problem created within higher education and another (vocationalism) of a problem created for higher education by forces abroad in society. Whether it is or should be a purpose of higher education to perpetuate the culture or the society is a moot point. There can be no doubt, however, whether higher education and culture or higher education and the parent society are interdependent. Higher education could not hold itself entirely aloof from society even if it would, in the first place. One reason is noted by Riesman, who has written of what he terms "the area . . ,,46 of political control over colleges and schools. Another reason is noted by John W. Dodds, who says, "No university . . . "47 can be culturally healthy in a culturally Sick soc1ety. Moreover, higher education should not hold itself entirely aloof from society even if it could; as Dodds adds, "To deal with life and yet to render it sterile is the unforgivable academic crime.“48 Finally, if President de Kiewiet is correct I 5Gauss, op. cit., p. 343. 4 . . 6Riesman, 9p. Cit., p. 157 47John W. Dodds, "The Common Man on the Campus, " in Krutch (ed.), Is The Common Man Too Common?, pp. 113, 110. 48Ibid. 30 himmm'education would not hold itself entirely aloof from smfiety even if it could; all problems of the parent society mxaper so problems of "higher education." President de Kiewiet says: Education in a democracy is a form of statesmanship whiCh seeks a wise middle course between participation and isolation. One reason for the existence of universities is to provide an intellectual refuge for -those who know how to honor and reward the privilege. But there are periods when the compulsion toward participation is strong. A merely passive spectator— ship of our uneasy world is unethical. The humanities today cannot be a shelter from the world of action. 13 scholars refuse to admit this they must not be unhappy if the world of action ignores them.49 Reasons for Urgency in the Study of Higher Education President de Kiewiet wrote an essay in which he annms that our universities must "globalize," and that they mum:do so soon. To emphasize the urgency, he related this anecdote: A Zulu mineworker once collided heavily with me as 1w dashed down a Johannesburg road towards the rail- road depot. "Hal Sorry, Baas," he said, "time is few!" and dashed off to catch his train. In Asia and Africa, time is few, very few. 49 . de Kiewiet, 9p, Cit., pp. 121—22. 50de Kiewiet, Ibid., p. 120. 31 "Time is few" for U. S. higher education also. A boom is under way. Colleges and universities in the United States are growing. They are increasing in number, size, scope, constituency, clientele, and social significance. As a result, they attract increasing political attention. Decisions are made, implicitly and explicitly, affecting the present and future of higher education. In preceding pages, it is held that a conceptualiza- tion is needed of higher education in the United States, one which would be perceptual, systematic, and comprehensive, and which would treat both of higher education and of its arti- culation with society. Given such a conceptualization, current major decisions might be based on a useful theoretical basis, thereby increasing the likelihood that they would be wise decisions. Given both theory and supporting evidence, decisions could be wiser still. In the absence of theory, evidence available to decision-makers may not be pertinent to the problems. Immediate and future problems of higher education will be resolved, theory or no theory. There can be no moratorium on decision—making, and in any case every decision is arbitrary in the sense that a decision—maker never has _a_l_l_ the evidence. However, decisions rooted in theory and supported by evidence Eire less arbitrary than others. The outcomes of a decision 1...! -A ' p ' .l QU u 0- nan-u ‘ - \- - loot”: \u— - _ r A. . v ‘ I ._,.,_~ . ~.'...u -- ‘u u.‘ -A "‘ - u. ..:.‘ ~.' N": :‘l u . -.: ‘ h‘.”‘ y ‘ 7‘s ”“‘~~u 5“. ‘I "‘1\§n "“H. . . ‘H : ~. . a “C \‘m H.“ 32 depend upon luck to the extent that the choice was arbitrary. The sheer magnitude of higher education makes it unwise for society to rely heavily upon luck. The more prudent strategy would be to minimize the part played by fortuitous circumstance in selecting models for higher education or in deciding among patterns for its growth. Four decades ago, Sinclair wrote that "Colleges are growing like those prehistoric monsters, the size of a freight— . . . , 51 car, With brains that would fit inSide a walnut—shell." Another major expansion of higher education will occur during the decades of the sixties. It would therefore seem appro— priate swiftly to develop a suitable theoretical framework for the. study of higher education in the United States, and to document it as quickly as possible, so that it may be utilized by present and future decision—makers. Perceptual Theory and Social System Theory This thesis sets forth a conceptualization of higher education in the United States which draws heavily upon Perceptual theory and social system theory. In particular, extensive use is made of Charles P. Loomis” model for analysis of social systems and of Robert E. Bills' perceptual typology M— 5 . lSinclair, The Goose—Step, op. c1t., p. 398. 33 of individual personalities. In the body of the thesis, it is assumed that the reader is already acquainted with the essentials of perceptual theory and with the concept of the social system. Extensive reviews of these theoretical approaches, it is believed, would interfere with the development of the main line of thought presented in the thesis. However, extended discussions of them are provided in Appendix A, "Aspects of Perceptual Theory, ” and Appendix B, "Aspects of Social System Theory.” Chapter II defines higher education in the United States as a social system and offers a justification for so. regarding it. 34 CHAPTER II SOCIAL SYSTEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Each component of the Loomis model for social system analysis can be perceived within a college, a university, an academic department, and higher education as a whole. The mnmeptualization provided by the social system approach qmears to fit, so to speak, higher education and its component units. Viewing a college, for example, as a social system, an observer can readily perceive manifestations in the behavior ofits members which reflect or meet the descriptions of each dement and process designated by the Loomis model, and the coMege can be described in terms of the model. The purpose of fins chapter is to describe and define social systems of higher education. In order to study individual and corporate behavior hlhigher education, an observer may focus his attention at eiflmr of the several levels enumerated below. 1. Individual: the individual as member. 2. Individual: the individual as authority or control figure. 3- Lesser social subsystems: cliques, departments, etc. 4. Enterprise: a college or a university. 5- Nation-wide higher education: a community of diverse 35 enterprises, e.g., higher education in the United l States. 6. Society: a community of diverse social institutions, e.g., higher.education, commerce, government, etc. 7. Higher education: a world—wide aggregation of diverse communities (e.g., higher education in the U.S.S.R., higher education in the U. 8., etc.), each of which is comprised of diverse enterprises. As herein conceived, "higher education" is a world— wide social system. "Higher education in the United States" is a national social system which comprises all the colleges, l l ? mflyersities, accrediting agencies, and related units within i Hm United States. A university is conceived to be a sub— ! system that embraces lesser units called colleges, schools, i dqmrtments, etc. A college is conceived to be a subsystem flmt includes lesser units called departments, divisions, etc. I Higher education in the United States, as a major mflmystem of United States society, is comparable to such oflmr subsystems of that society as commerce, organized labor, I religion, government, etc. Higher education in the United States, as a major subsystgm_of world—wide higher education, iscomparable to such other subsystems as "higher education I UiBritain," "higher education in Mexico,‘ "higher education in Germany. " etc. The College as a Social Subsystem The college is characterized by group designs for living A ...~ ~.\ 36 '. which differ from the pattern found in the surrounding society. f i The member of the college subculture knows and typically subscribes to norms, values, beliefs, etc., which differ from those of the surrounding culture but are part of the college subculture. Certain facilities, symbols, rituals, ceremony, rewards, sanctions, etc., are found to be unique or uniquely regarded within the college. The goals and norms of the college are not identical to those of the parent society, and the discrepancy between actual and ideal may be both different u and differently regarded within the college. A social structure may be perceived to exist within the college; that is, there is a patterned system of relation- ships between and among established status—roles, i.e., teacher, student, administrator, etc. Some of these relation— , ships are deemed significant by the members. They therefore are defined carefully by norms, diffused throughout the membership by socialization, observed and evaluated as performed, and preserved through techniques of social control which may involve the application of sanctions against deviant behavior. Norms may be perceived to govern the use and selection Of means by which to conduct instrumental, adaptive, integrative, and expressive goal-seeking activities. A pattern of super- and sub—ordination may be perceived t0 constitute within the college a hierarchical ranking system .N S . m." . ... H... .E I uh. .., . i I .1... . . . .. .. c. _L .1. u. 3 2,. u. .1 i... .. 3 . .... . .3. .0 .2. .... \ .\ . . ..\ 37 that includes faculty, staff, and students. Patterns of authority may be perceived to have developed around status— roles occupied by college personnel and by students, alumni, etc. Patterns of influence and of the exercise of non- institutionalized coercive power may be perceived to have developed around particular members. Norms may be perceived to govern an individual member's passage from one status- role to another. Bonds based on intimacy, affection, and common goals may be perceived to link members together. In each college, it may be useful to ascertain whether the process "tension management" is. so activated that sentiment complements or instead handicaps the goal-oriented activities of the college. At this point, a brief parenthesis is appropriate in order to note that "tension management" would appear to be the problem at the core of the social system approach to administrative theory developed by Getzels. Getzels distinguishes between the "nomothetic" or normative aspect or dimension of activity and the "idiographic" or personal dimension of activity in a social system.1 The nomothetic dimension involves institution, role, and expectation; the idiographic involves individual, \- Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process, " in Andrew W. Halpin. (ed.), Administrative Theory in Education (Chlcago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958), PP. 150 ff. .150 :4 e .. 38 personality, and need—disposition. In Getzels' words, "needs and expectations may both be thought of as motives for behavior, the one deriving from personalistic sets and propensities, the other from institutional obligations and requirements."2 Loomis' term "tension management" may be thought of as referring to the process of mediating between the two sets of motives for behavior described by Getzels. Resuming the previous discussion, the college may be perceived to be a social subsystem in equilibrium, a dynamic system. Attention may be directed to ascertaining the source of initiative for and the direction, velocity, and type of change that takes place within the college. Attention may be further directed to a consideration of provisions for making decisions regarding change, for initiating change, and for achieving or effecting change (or for maintaining the status sue)- Related Social Units Beyond this, it may readily be perceived that the COllege is not an isolated social system, but rather that it is a subsystem of a larger unit and that it is furthermore articulated with other social systems through the process of SYStemic linkage. This is illustrated by the fact that N 2 Ibid., p. 155. tresses L Cognit: a va.‘ Ia] Ten; :d b) cf sen . ,4; a 39 { Structural- é functional Processes (elemental) categories Elements D Cognitive mapping Belief and validation Knowing (knowledge) N a) Tension management and b) Communication of sentiment Feeling . Sentiment M a) Goal attaining activity and b) Con— comitant "latent” End, goal, or activity as process Achieving objective Norming, Stand— ardizing, Pattern— M Evaluation ing Norm M Status—role Dividing the Status-role , , performance functions (position) ! l M a) Evaluation of 1 actors and b) Alloca— 3 1 tion of status—roles Ranking Rank N a) Decision making and b) Initiation of action Controlling Power m Application of . sanctions Sanctioning Sanction 9) Utilization of _ , facilities Facilitation FaCllltY Cmflmehensive or Master Processes U Communication 3) Systemic linkage 5) Sociali— N Boundary maintenance 4) Institutional— zation ization 6) SOClal control Conditions of Social Action U Territoriality 2) size 3) Time ‘ *Source: Social Systems by Charles P. Loomis 8 (Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand CompanYr Inc., 1960)' p. ' FiWHe 2.1 Elements, Processes and Conditions of Action of Social Systems: The Processually Articulated Structural Model (PASM)* 'o- ‘lull _’..u' man “an! . ,. up. 1.“. - III-v ‘I... -~ ~ no; nu... “On 'b—Q \.. u r. '9‘“ :1- "~. ‘.I “ ~ » 1_____f 40 hfltiative for changes in the college may originate outside flmacollege. The external forces promoting change may be 'umhnological, as when television and teaching machines are offlued for use; they may be moral and represent a shift of Immms in the parent society; they may stem from the fact of pnwdation growth or from changes of educational expectations wiflun.the parent society. Systemic linkage is assured to mme extent simply by the fact that members of the college are almaummbers of and enter the college from the parent society. hunover of personnel provides another means of articulation, ine., of systemic linkage, with society and with other systems. It may be perceived that the board of trustees and the fuesident of the college perform status—roles whose function isin.large part that of assuring systemic linkage. Attention Imw'then be directed to ascertaining other ways in which Inessures from outside are articulated with the college, to immt extent outside pressures dominate the college, to what mdent the ends and means chosen by the college and by outside mnuces of pressure converge or diverge, and to what extent Umme pressures are perceived by members of the college as flueats which evoke strong boundary maintaining efforts. Systems and Subsystems of Higher Education The Whole of higher education may be perceived and fixwied as a social system. So also may all of higher education Figure 2.2. 4-1 United States s0ciety perceived as the "master“ social system, Overlapping, competing, sometimes 'conflicting, interdependent social_systems of great variety exist within it and link it together with other societies. One such social system is higher education. 9n x ‘ 42 in the United States. In either case, analysis may be conducted in terms of the elements and processes of the social system model developed by Loomis. The multi-college university, a college, a subsystem within a college or university (e.g., an academic department), or a subsystem within U. S. higher education (e.g., an accrediting association or an inter— collegiate athletic conference), each may be analyzed and dissected in terms of the common elements, processes, and conditions, i.e., each may in one sense be treated as a social system, although each is in a larger sense a sup— system with a major unit. Within a multi-college university, members of each college may engage in vigorous boundary maintaining activity; within a college, members of each department may be similarly engaged. This may create a serious problem of systemic linkage: how best to articulate the subsystems within the one university. The same problem may be perceived to exist at other levels. For example, public higher education within a state may be perceived as a subsystem (of the state grid of U. S. higher education) in which the problem of systemic linkage, made difficult by strong boundary maintaining activity, iS evidenced in pressures for and against state systems of higher education, branches of existing universities, junior or community colleges, combined boards of trustees, . Figure 2.3. 43 A.multi—college university perceived as a social system. Many of its component subsystems are indicated. .., '--. r“ M . u if 44 supra-boards of trustees, and the like. Within a single university or college, many subsystems may be perceived to exist in addition to the few mentioned above. There are various faculty peer systems, student- faculty systems, and student systems, e.g., fraternities and other student associations. A careful observer may also perceive major subsystems whose overlapping memberships are composed of: all teaching personnel; research personnel; personnel possessing academic rank; all "professional" personnel (i.e., all possessors of academic degrees); profes:—' sional "academic" personnel; professional "non-academic" personnel; non-professional personnel; non-professional, non-academic personnel; all non—academic personnel; all personnel occupying a given building; and so forth. Within the single university or college, the matters of boundary maintenance and systemic linkage may perhaps be perceived as particularly interesting manifestations of the existence of its subsystems. These processes may be observed, for example, where the question remains at issue whether the status-role "assistant librarian" is to be conceded membership in the subsystems whose members are "personnel possessing academic rank, " "professional academic personnel, " or "Professional non—academic personnel." The same processes may also be observed (1) where existing academic departments ...~v ”.1... “ml. I ‘ \ gt; l———_—_7 45 simultaneously undertake to explore disputed academic territory, e.g., where a department of sociology and one of psychology jointly claim rights to what is called "social psychology," or (2) where several departments converge upon such hitherto uncharted academic regions as that called "communications." Vigorous boundary maintaining activity may also be encountered within a college or university in which like courses are offered separately by various departments under different guises, e.g., "educational psychology" in the college of education versus "psychology of education" in the department of psychology, or "educational sociology" versus "sociology of education." A related example is furnished by the numerous courses labelled "administration" offered independently by the many academic departments which decline either (a) to concede that "administration" pertains to some _o_r_1_e_ existing department or (b) to determine that it constitutes a distinguishable academic "discipline" which should be recognized by the creation of a pew department. In these paragraphs, it has been suggested that a number of identifiable social units may be perceived within higher education. In the remainder of this chapter, the rationale behind this point of view is elaborated in terms of both perceptual theory and social system theory, and "higher education in the United States" is defined as a social system 46 which embraces a multitude of subsystems. Rationale In the specialization and division of labor of society, status-roles of teacher, student, scientist, researcher, etc., are established and approximately defined. To these status— roles there is assigned a major share of the responsibility for activating the processes of "socialization" (i.e., transmitting'the social and cultural heritage) and of "cognitive mapping and validation" (i.e., developing and utilizing know— ledge, belief, and conceptual tools). Facilities are made available to and utilized by actors in these status—roles. The complex» of status—roles, facilities, belief or knowledge, goals, etc., is institutionalized and labelled higher education. This complex is made manifest in a number of enterprises. These enterprises are labelled colleges and universities. In terms of the ”master social system" which is Society, the activity of colleges and universities is "goal-— attaining activity" calculated to develop belief and knowledge and to socialize certain members of society. From the point of view of society, these goals are largely instrumental and adaptive, hence are part of society's "external" pattern of relationships. The activity of colleges and universities is "goal—attaining" in terms of the subjective dispositions—— motive, design, aim, and purpose——of the members of society. 47 That is, the activity is goal—directed or goal—oriented, in tame of What Merton refers to as "explicit ppgpfipryipy" of society.3 It may or may not be goal—attainim in terms of what Merton refers to as "observable objective consequences." In pursuit of specified goals thus institutionalized, actors within each college or university establish an organi— zation and set forth specific purposes for their corporate behavior. This behavior presumably or purportedly will satisfy societal expectations regarding purposes and behavior of the enterprises. Each enterprise or institution is managed by actors who occupy certain status—roles. They plan, organize, staff, and control the enterprise and its operations. They also evaluate the enterprise and operations in terms of their goal-attaining adequacy. Other members of society also perceive each college and university. They perceive the results of college and university operations in general and of each such enterprise in particular. Further, they evaluate the adequacy of what they perceive. They do this in terms of their particular Perceptual fields (i.e., in terms of their needs, values, beliefs, etc.) and in terms of their perceptions of the 3Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structur_e_ (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, rev. 1957), p. 24. 41bid . ‘~ ._\ , , , ; w. \i ‘5‘ \I 48 World, the particular situation, the complex of colleges and ! universities, and each specific college or university. As a result of evaluation, their perceptual fields may be modified. The degree to which individual perceptions of reality overlap may thus be modified. Hence, societal expectations for colleges and universities may be altered. As members of society arrive at a new basis for concurrence, consensus, or acquiescence, goals for colleges and universities may be re—examined and adjusted. The new societal expectations become known to the actors within colleges and universities, and they modify or confirm the organization and purposes of each such institution. ‘ The cycle continues in this manner: expectation, activity, . evaluation of activity, decision—making, and renewed or revised goal—seeking ac tivity . Systems and Subsystems . Each college or university is the locus of a subsystem of society, the "master" social system which nurtured it. Patterns of interaction develop at each institution. Each institution may also be perceived to be divisible into a further complex of subSystems: "any group with a population I 5 larger than two can be divided into subgroups . . ."5 M 5George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1950), PP- 835-536- 1____7 49 Each subsystem may be perceived to be constituted of the same elements, activated by the same processes, and subject to the same conditions of social action that are perceived to comprise the master social system. Thus perceived, a college or university is a social system which emerges from interactions among actors designated ‘ as students, administrators, alumni, teachers, trustees, and 3 others. Interactions become patterned over time, and many of the patterns are very persistent. Perceiving a multi— ‘ college university as a social system, each college within i it.is then seen as a subsystem. Academic departments comprise i a further layer of subsystems. Depending upon the perspective from which one views the university, a host of additional ! strata of subSystems may be perceived: professor—student interactions, faculty peer relationships, student peer relationships, player—coach relationships, etc. A student fraternity may be perceived as a subsystem; so also may a clique within a fraternity; so also may the aggregate of I "Greeks" on the campus, or the aggregate of "Barbarians." Depending upon the level at which one wishes to study inter— actions with the complex, any of these may be treated as a separate social system or all may be perceived to be SUbSYStemS of the social system "university." The university may in turn be perceived as a subsystem of society. I“ u »u .‘i . e... s-v - \ . ..‘ 'v- \\u .[__7 l 50 Higher education as a whole also may be perceived to be a social system. Each college or university then logically ' constitutes a major subsystem of both (a) society and (b) higher education. Colleges and universities throughout the world are linked together by many and elaborate interaction patterns. For example, professors of a given academic discipline interact with their colleagues through memberships in national and international professional societies. Within the United States, presidents of colleges and universities associate in several professional societies. Similarly, registrars, librarians, bussiness officers, personnel officers, and persons who enact other institutionalized status—roles interact in various regional or national professional associations. The local chapter of a student fraternity or professional honorary fraternity is both a subsystem of a national fraternity and a subsystem of its college or university. The national fraternity is a subsystem of higher education in the United States and it also may be a subsystem of a parent international association. Representatives of many colleges, universities, academies, and secondary schools form regional and national accrediting or evaluating associations; these also may be perceived as social SYStems and may be affiliated with international associations. It is clear that patterns of interaction among college 1...-.. ._ :5! -,-~ , I"; ..m m: : -..- Q. ...‘ u: u: 'l- u 51 andtnfiversity personnel in their professional capacities txanscend the boundaries of a single institution. In his Exofessional capacity, a college professor is a member of the axial system comprised by the college to which he pertains mmlof various subsystems within that college. If his college is part of a multi—college university, he is a member of that Jnger system. He may be a member of regional, national, or hnernational professional associations, each of which comprises asmcial system and within which he may interact with persons blindustry, commerce, government, secondary education, and oflnfl segments of society as well as with fellow professors. Thus, higher education may be described or defined assiworld-wide international social system which emerges fnmnand is comprised of patterns of interaction among members Nicolleges, universities, and related enterprises or asmxfiations. A multitude of subsystems may be perceived naexist within it. It is entirely appropriate to undertake 'flm analysis of higher education at the topmost (world-wide) lewfl.and to consider all of its components as subsystems. HoweVEr, it is more useful to undertake the analysis at a hmmr level, a point described more fully in the following section. 52 Delineation of Social Systems and Subsystems Homans writes, "At Whatever level we look at the web dfinteraction, it always shows certain thin places, and the lines between groups fall there."6 In Loomis' terminology, Ulneans of delineating a social system is furnished by the mamaintense and frequent occurrence of specific types of hueraction among members than among non-members, within a :fituation having both physical and symbolic aspects."7 A "thin place in the web of interaction" delineates flmzacademic department,. for example, as a social system; Nuthin a situation having both physical and symbolic aspects," fluenembers of the department interact with each other more huensely and more frequently than with non—members in specific tnxm of interaction. Similar "thin places" delineate colleges, mxdemic senates, committees, universities, and related pnflbssional associations as social systems. Regional, nationalf. mfl.international social systems of higher education may be shfilarly delineated and perceived. In terms of "specific types of interaction," geography nssignificant. "Thin places'r that delineate social systems 6Ibid. 7 . . Charles P. Loomis, Soc1al Systems (Princeton: D. varlNostrand Company, Inc., 1960), p. 4. 53 are found at boundaries of buildings pertaining to a college, at boundaries of the university campus, at boundaries of the sphere of activity of a multi—state regional accrediting association, at the boundaries of a state, or at the boundaries of a nation. Thus it may be perceived that colleges and universities within a state are more closely related to each other than they are to institutions elsewhere, if only specific types of interaction are considered; "within a situation having both physical and symbolic aspects, " their members interact in certain ways more frequently and intensely with each other than with non—members. When other types of interaction are considered, however, a state's land—grant institution is more closely related to land—grant colleges elsewhere than it is to other colleges and universities with the state. Thus higher education might be defined as a state—wide social system some members of which are also members of the system "land-grant colleges and universities in the United States." The web of interaction is markedly thin at the boundaries of nations. Although higher education is a world_ wide social system, the political, cultural, and geographic barriers between nations delineate national social systems of higher education. These national systems differ substantially each from the others, although they may not differ as strikingly as their parent societies do. One purpose of social system _‘_ c a u “no ... ~v ”on .o—‘I Ill 54 analysis is that of facilitating comparisons between related social systems. National social systems of higher education are the largest units of higher education between which comparisons may be made. This fact is one reason which makes it appropriate for the purposes of this thesis to view "higher education in the United States" as the principal social system under consideration. Another reason is that a fruitful examination of world-wide higher education would require knowledge of comparative education not possessed by the writer. Social Systems of Higher Education Defined For the purposes of this thesis, "higher education in the United States" is the principal social system under consideration. It is defined or described as the social system which emerges from and is comprised of the patterns of interaction among members of colleges, universities, and related enterprises or associations within the United States. Constituent subsystems within higher education in the United States are identified as the multitude of colleges, universities, aCcrediting bodies, student organizations, professional Societies, boards of trustees, alumni associations, related philanthropic foundations, and so forth, the interactions among Whose members comprise the major social system termed higher education in the United States. 55 4.) s: H‘0 «,5 l 0 >4 3“; /' O <9 / / \/ HIGHER EDUCATION ’0 K70 4:? -. 1 9,04, [[8, g 4 m m 5 GP / TI“V m 0 o H is 4" i/ w a? 3 w o C d H Figure 2.4. Higher education in the United States-~external patterns. This figure emphasizes.the external’ pattern of relationships”and indicates some of the points at which the process of systemic linkage is significant, higher education being perceived as one of many major differentiated subsystems of society. A 56 For some purposes, it is convenient to focus attention upon a single college or university and to regard it as though it were the major social system. However, a college or university is here described or defined as a major subsystem of "higher education in the United States." Each such major subsystem, i.e., each college or university, is a social unit which itself contains many lesser subsystems. Each emerges from and is comprised of patterns of interaction among members of Schools, departments, colleges, institutes, fraternities, committees, boards, and related enterprises, organizations, and associations within it. The "master" social system is perceived to be United States society. Higher education is perceived to be one of many major social systems within society; other such major social systems include commerce, organized labor, the armed forces, political parties, industry, organized religion, etc. At a second level, taking higher education in the United States as the major social system under study, each college or university, foundation or accrediting association, etc., is perceived to be one of many principle subsystems Within higher education. At the next level, viewing a given college or university, each department, school, board, committee, etc., is perceived to be one of its many subsystems. A Figure 2.5. Higher education in the United States-~interna1 pattern. ‘ . 57 rn '13:; be . 1 .<--« n H Lil...A8u . , H: -:-.-1( ‘4' u‘v- .S'Cén OI - 1.... 1 v A. .u—bn U. ‘2!” A... _ , “Osvi . run. J‘ ‘ n "‘5‘ -t; u. to | ‘ _ IV ‘. n.- in.-.‘ q ‘u i.‘ l\\. H t \u a. I! \ 1“ '\ ‘,¥‘:‘ “\ ,. ‘.s'\\ 58 Social system analysis may be undertaken at any level, it may be noted, and the articulation of elements and processes examined. That is, one may profitably focus his attention at the national level, the institutional level, the departmental level, or the level of informal cliques. However, it is the burden of the argument presented in Chapter I that it is desirable and necessary to find order amid the diversity and variety in higher education in the United States, to find order in the diverse views reported of higher education in the United States, and to find a means by which to develop a systematic conceptualization of higher education in the United States. Although for other purposes attention may well be" focused upon the clique as a social system, attention to the clique would not appear to be the most fruitful approach by which to find order amid higher education in the United States. It would appear more useful to concentrate attention at two levels: (a) higher education as a major social system within U. S. society, and (b) the college or multi—college university as a major subsystem within U. S. higher education. In examining U. S. higher education, the focus of attention may be upon either the external pattern of relation— ships or the internal. The external pattern involves the relationships between higher education and other major social Systems within United States society. The internal pattern f"- I ~I‘. --V ---~ "v. u.- v“ n: w 59 involves relationships between and among the component prinCJipal subsystems of higher education in the United States, i.e., colleges and multi—college universities, etc. In examining a college or university, attention may also be focused upon either external or internal relationships. The external pattern involves relationships between a university and such other social systems as: the local community in which it is located; a governmental jurisdiction, religious organization, or other sponsoring body; similar institutions that are fellow members of an intercollegiate athletic conference; accrediting associations,- foundations; etc. The internal pattern involves relationships between subsystems and between individuals within the college or university. Summary The purpose of this chapter has been to demonstrate that the social system concept may fruitfully and logically be applied to the study of higher education in the United States, and to define and describe the social systems upon which the remainder of this thesis is focused. The next chapter describes social systems in terms of Perceptual theory. It follows the present chapter, instead 0f preceding it, in order that higher education may be assumed to be a social system and that illustrative examples may be I": :y". . rfilt .u. A—' ll‘. III- .nu Fab ,u..v u. .hU .- a a... u u a -. nnn . u . u u . I'll If.l ‘rc_ 6O drawn from higher education. The object of the next chapter is to explore the manner in which the study of social systems can be strengthened by perceptual theory, which is held in this thesis to complement social system theory. a N ’ unw- :n ,- s.‘ h .‘V‘ 61 CHAPTER III SOCIAL SYSTEMS PERCEPTUALLY VIEWED This chapter has the purpose of indicating that perceptual theory and social system theory are compatible mkicomplementary. It includes (1) a perceptual explanation (flfsocial action and (2) an examination of several aspects of anaconcept "social system" in perceptual terms. Social Action Perceptual theory attempts to explain and to facilitate 'flw prediction of the manner in which people are likely to bduwe. That people do behave is clear. They walk and talk amivmrk. They talk to and work with others. For example, 'dmy establiSh and manage together such enterprises as colleges and universities. Qéllsation of Individual Behavior One question is why people behave as they do. Rnteptual theory holds that an individual's behavior is fifluposeful, relevant, and pertinent" to his perception of reafiiyu The individual is held to behave in manners calculated Unsatisfy his needs, chief among which is the need to maintain multo enhance his self concept. The pressure to satisfy this nemiis held by perceptual theorists to be the causal or 62 motivating factor behind the individual' 3 behavior, whether that behavior is solitary or collaborative. The individual holds concepts of his actual and ideal selves. He may also have an image of his social self, i.e., a concept or perception of the way in which others see him. Others may see him quite differently, to be sure. Social reality is determined by the overlapping perceptions of the many. His self concepts may, in terms of social reality, be more or less accurate, therefore, but they are his concepts and real for him. The individual is held to behave in ways designed at the minimum to maintain his self concept. The disparity between actual and ideal may make the individual less than entirely content with the status quo, and he may strive to alter his actual self and his social self in ways which he perceives to be enhancing. Each individual thus is held to have a built~in self—starter. The difference between his concepts of actual self and ideal self is held to be sufficient to prompt behavior. The difference between social self as he sees it (i.e., his perception of the way in which others see him) and social self as he would have it also prompts behavior. These differences between being or having and wanting are perceived by the individual in terms of a complex network Of knowledge, beliefs, Ill": uvv‘h . N. \ 63 needs, wants, values, and aspirations, etc., which constitute his perceptual field . Propensity to Change Each individual has certain propensities. He behaves in certain ways in order to maintain his concepts of self. He has a propensity to behave in ways which will enhance his self concepts, will bring about change in certain respects and in certain directions. To some extent, the individual's beliefs, values, and aspirations overlap and approximately coincide with those of other persons, thereby giving rise to what has been termed social reality. Since each individual has a propensity to change, a propensity which responds to his need to maintain and preferably to enhance his self, and since the individual is the common denominator of human groups, the propensity to change of each individual and of all individuals collectively brings a dynamic element to their social relationships. Coll aborative Behavi or Individuals expend energy in their behavior or action. They act in manners consistent with their perceptions of the World and of specific situations. Their actions are goal- oriented in accordance with their beliefs and sentiments. A Person's perceptions being relatively consistent, his behavior i 1 i | a V; n 0' b- u .A- u - .— w». .4,- — bani \ "a e... -~.. u... “A\ ~ - 64 is relatively consistent also. Individuals strive to achieve through coprorate action as members of social units that which they cannot attain alone. Individual energies are then expended in common behavior, collaborative behavior. To the extent that they are divergent, competition or conflict may arise among the beliefs, values, and aspirations of individuals. Divergence may be with regard to ends, means, or both. Collaborative behavior comes about when there is concurrence, consensus, or acqui— escence on the part of individuals each of whom finds in such behavior an avenue for self maintenance or enhancement. S_ocial Reality and Societal PropensitLto Change Through repeated mutual behavior, members of a social unit are enabled accurately to predict the responses of other members, i.e., to empathize. To the extent that they also sympathize, i.e., to the extent that individual perceptions of reality and of values and goals are congruent or overlap, individual propensities are mutually reinforcing. There develops some common perception or social definition of reality and of values. There develops some common understanding of social relationships as they are and a common sense of direction of change toward their modification. In short, as a part of their individual versions of reality, the several persons develop similar concepts of actual society and ideal society. .‘u :I Hg 6 ,.,~.\:-I l t. --q ‘Rf‘ 1 L. at .- ~-~- Auwv l _ ‘ nuay-l I . .. . --“.‘\ 'vuv. lg- , u .‘. _gl" ' uhy.‘ . I .‘ ~n~ ~ '- \ in... -\ -.‘~ .\ .. M. s” h, b “. I .- ‘5‘ “ u . my I._ ' \ u‘ ~ -. ‘ s u u ‘..‘ . .A ‘ n "‘33? ‘1 ‘\ V N“ 0t 65 There develops therefore a societal propensity to cmange, expressed by the discrepancy between actual society amiideal society. Individuals in the social unit initiate lphavior‘Which they believe will, when undertaken by others aflso, maintain or enhance their own concepts of self and of society. To the extent that individual concepts of ideal self mxacommunicated and are known to overlap, there develops a gmmeralized ideal self concept. It is known to some extent lureach individual within the society, and is valued by most. Astmis socialized ideal self concept is defined and refined, :hflividuals within the society may modify their personal idealizations. Individual concepts of ideal self and the mxfial concept of ideal self modify and reinforce or weaken emfl1other. Through time, the nature of the ideal self concept manhange. Thus the popular personification of the ideal may flnra time resemble King Arthur, then George Washington, Andy Cbckson, Honest Abe, or Davy Crockett. The Social System These concepts of perceptual theory blend well into t1leconcept of the social system, providing a plausible causal exPlanation of charactemdstics attributed to a social system. PerCePtual theory and social system theory appear to complement emfllother. Perceptual theory appears to offer a plausible . ,2..:- .nnd" .Illfl' Mb. 'u., "ugh u-u, I... 3;? en... "en. s I..~ 66 causal explanation of the phenomena described by social system theory . Action, Activity and Behavior Within the context of the social sciences, the words action, activity, and behavior refer to the expenditure of energy by human beings. One may speak of individual behavior, activity, or action. One may also speak of social behavior, activity, or action. In either case, individuals expend energy and individual action is involved. Reference to social activity or action merely recognizes that at some times and for some purposes the actions of a plurality of individuals are sufficiently alike that one may speak of action by a social system, of social action as "the activity of social‘ . l . . . units." Interaction, or reCiprocal action, is "the core 2 . . . . datum of sociology. " The uniformities of human action are . , . 3 _ . conceived to comprise the SOCial system. The SOCial system is studied in order that the structural characteristics of human interaction and the processes that maintain and alter it may be ascertained. 1Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. , 1960), p- 2- 2 Ibid., p. 3. 3Ibid. ”a“ It.-. n." \ v-oi u... \ u'v- '4‘. n.“ . r t I' 67 Loomis observes that four assumptions are made in the axial sciences regarding action.4 First, action is assumed 'u>take place in situations, i.e., "human beings act in siUfiuions including relevant aspects of the physical and axial world."5 In terms of perceptual theory, it has been Ixied that the behavior of every individual is held to be pmrposeful, relevant, and pertinent to the situation as he Inflerstands it, i.e., to the "effective scope of his world." hithis, the two sets of theory are compatible. Second, action is assumed to be conducted in terms of "mnicipated states of affairs," i.e., thman beings orient their behavior towards ends, objectives, or goals-—or otherwise miempt to adjust to anticipated states of affairs."6 Perceptual theory is compatible, holding that the overriding lmupose of each individual is to behave in ways which will mflisfy the basic need to preserve or preferably to enhance the self concept. Third, action is held to be "motivated." Loomis' sole mmment regarding this point is that "human beings expend amigy or effort in carrying out their action and hence Ibid., p. 2. 5Ibid. Ibid. i=1: Ll.» 68 fl demonstrate “motivation“ . Perceptual theory assumes that f- action is motivated and that human beings can initiate action. The need to maintain and to enhance the self concept is the prime source of motivation for individual action. The discrepancy perceived between actual and ideal concepts of self, and the discrepancy perceived between actual and ideal concepts of society are indications of the direction of action that an individual may initiate. Fourth, it is assumed that action is "normatively regulated, " i.e., "that human beings conduct themselves in orderly fashion thereby indicating 'regulation‘ or the normative orientation of activity."8 Perceptual theory is compatible. D:holds that each individual's behavior is consistent with i his personalized concept of reality, and that individual i behavior is therefore predictable. To the extent that w individual versions of reality overlap, thereby defining social reality, behavior is consistent with social reality and in that sense predictable. The four assumptions are that individual action is situational, purposive, motivated, and consistent. Social action, or the action of social units, is a particular category 7 Ibid . 8Ibid . -- 'l ,. -4 a. " - ‘ .v " u u N .M u'. .:.. no'J- ”v: "M n-v -.. n \ s”... tr... '. Ho» ‘... ‘\\ 69 afindividual action. Hence, social action also is held to IR situational, purposive, motivated, and consistent. When miobserver studies an individual, he studies that person's idiosyncratic style of individual behavior and the relation lmtween that behavior and situation, purpose, motivation, and cxmsistency. 'When an observer studies a social system, he axdies the individual behavior of many persons, their behavior Ming, in Loomis' terms, "mutually oriented through the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and shared swflxfls and expectations."9 The observer studies a social :netem's style of social action and the relation between that anion and situation, purpose, motivation, and consistency. In one case, the observer studies the individual human hang as a unit. In the other case, the observer studies the axial system as a unit. In both cases, the observer studies imfiNidual human behavior and seeks consistency and predict- aility of a unit's behavior with reference to situation, jmnpose, and motivation. In both cases, differences are noted bebwmm.the behavior of the unit observed and the behavior Ofciher units, i.e., emphasis is placed upon the observation Of<flmracteristics peculiar or unique to the unit observed. In short, perceptual theory and social system theory 9 Ibid., p. 3. I—— 70 both assume the View that human action (or human activity or behavior) is situational, motivated, purposeful, and consistent, whether viewed at the level of abstraction of the unique human personality or at that of the multi—member social system. Personifying Social Systems Social systems are personified in writing for convenience and economy of language. Social systems are said to perceive, to act, to hold belief and values and goals, etc., as though the reference were to individuals capable of perception, action, belief, purposing, etc. In other words, the social action of a social system is spoken of as though it were the behavior of an individual person, social reality as though it were an individual‘s perception of reality, and the motivation and purposing of a social system as though they were an indi- vidual's motivation and purposing- In point of fact, of course, social systems do none of these things, for abstractions cannot think or act. How- ever, for purposes of study both an individual and a social ' system are viewed as a unit, as indicated above, and it is convenient to refer to a unit‘s situation, purpose, motivation, etc. The personification of social systems may be further rationalized. Part of social reality is the definition of expectations regarding performance by the occupants of ,- ..p- u-bi - I.-. Inv- - "u - a \ h \ ‘~ I: 71 , status-roles, i.e., by individuals. Another part of social reality is the definition of expectations regarding performance of specified goal—directed activities by the various specialized subsystems of society. That is, society defines a status- role "writ large" to be performed by one of its differentiated subsystems. The subsystem is perceived as a unit and the performance of the tasks assigned it is judged accordingly by members of society. From outside, the unit's social action is viewed as action by the unit, rather than as differentiated action by discrete individuals. The unit"s social action is so viewed by its members as well; although the members' views may differ one from another, their overlapping per- ceptions produce a modal view of their unit's social action. In short, from within and without, a social system is per- sonified by its viewers. _Egpial Reality and Institutionalization In perceptual terminology, it is said that each individual expends energy acting in a manner consistent with , his perceptions of the world and the situation. He orients his action toward certain goals in accord with his beliefs and sentiments, etc., with his self concepts, and with his need for self—maintenance and self-enhancement. There is communication between individuals as actors in a social unit. ‘~_ \. n. .i. 1.“ >s 72 , {Hm relationship between them has duration, a time dimension \Wich lends it an on—going character. There is purpose or (xiective involved in their relationship, and individuals tengibly influence each others' "overt actions and state of mind." In short, they interact. Through interaction, the perceptions of the actors cxme to overlap and they create and share social reality. fflmy share belief, sentiment, goals, norms, etc., to the mdent that there is concurrence, consensus, or acquiescence ammg them. Patterns of culture are thus established. When I the actors legitimize a pattern of culture as rightful, it is said to be institutionalized. Thus the definition of what perceptual theory terms social reality may be seen to be a rmcessary prerequisite for institutionalization. Institutionalization, says Loomis, "is the process flurmgh which organizations are given structure and social . anion and interaction made predictable."lo Each of the axuctural-functional categories enumerated by Loomis is afliect to institutionalization, which is "a global master process." Belief, goals, sanctioning, facilitation, etc., all Imw'be institutionalized. The extent to Which they are Ibid., p. 36. ‘ ui. h. o 'A- mm 7,. . 73 institutionalized is a variable, and very few or very many patterns of culture may be so legitimized. Merton, for example, has pursued this aspect of social theory, as did Durkheim, and writes of "anomie" or the normlessness which results from an absence of institutionalized norms and goals.ll The number and scope of the patterns of culture that are institutionalized is one variable. Another closely related variable refers to the degree of rigidity involved in their institutionalization and the ease with which the patterns of culture may be changed. Becker, using the sacred-secular variable for the purpose, has developed a model of ideal types of society along a continuum of readiness or reluctance to change, readiness being related to "secular" and reluctance to "sacred.“12 The patterns of culture institutionalized within a social system may be many in number or few, broad in scope or narrow, and rigidly fixed or readily subject to change. The l . Robert K. Merton, "SOCial Structure and Anomie," in figgial Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, rev. l957), pp. l3l ff. Howard Becker, "Current Sacred—Secular Theory and Its Development," in Becker and Alvin Boskoff, Modern §Qc_iolog'ical Theory in Continuity; and Change (New York: Dryden Press, 1957) , Also, "The Sacred and the Secular," in Robert Bierstedt (ed.), The Making of Society (New York: Modern Library, rev. 1959), pp- 526 ff~ ’1'. .y.» . a-va - t Inch . - .-A l .- via-\- ~ .a-- or.- n..- 'h .- uuv‘ ‘n. . 'Iv‘ "is, '«n . all ‘a\ u... u M . ‘~ 74 point is that a plurality of actors have come to share in what Ixiceptual theory terms "social reality,‘ which is a common lxfly of belief, sentiment, norms, and other ideas or meanings. axmasuch ideas have been legitimized as rightful. The ébfinition of social reality and the institutionalization of ampects thereof orient and pattern the interaction among the actors in the social system. Thus, that which perceptual theory would term the piecess of defining social reality is, in terms of social snetem theory, that which marks the emergence of a social snetem. In Loomis‘ terms, "The social system is composed of Huapatterned interaction of members. It is constituted of the interaction of a plurality of individual actors whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and shared 1 amtmls and expectations." 3 That pattern of shared meanings is the part of social reality peculiar to a particular social system. Membership A social system holds meanings: belief, norms, Saninent, goals, etc. These are perceived someWhat differently Loomis, op, cit., p. 4. ~.-, -4- .uh. -n.‘ o.- ~ a... l on. - a" ‘o -‘ 75 by each individual who may be aware of the social system, for each individual's perception is unique to him. Yet the social system holds a core of meaning for its members in general that it does not hold for non-members. Member here means "incumbent of a status—role of the system." In terms of perceptual theory, the social system may be said to loom larger in the perceptual field of a member, generally, than it does in that of a non—member. Some of the social system's meanings are very likely to lie within the perceptual field of a member but outside that of a non— member; such meanings are "symbols and expectations" that are truly peculiar to the social system. In terms of the "figure" and "ground" components of the perceptual field, even if the symbols and expectations of a social system are known Unboth member and non—member, they are more likely to enter into figure of the member“s perceptual field than of the non— member's. gifiEEHELgiithe Social System Each of the nine elements of a social system enumerated bylpomis can be described in perceptual terms, as in part the elements belief, norm, sentiment, and goal are described abOVe. In a Complex society, there is concurrence, consensus, 76 cn-acquiescence with regard to specialization and the division cf labor. The members of society engage to a considerable extent in corporate or collaborative activity. Through both less than four different levels of abstraction: 1. At the level of social philosophy, viewing higher education and its problems in terms of ultimate ends or concepts of man—hood. 2. At the level of politics, viewing higher education and its problems in terms of society's self—preservation and enhancement. 3. At the level of administration, viewing higher edu— cation and its problems in terms of self—preservation and enhancement of the institution ”higher education” or of a particular enterprise, e.g., a specific university. n._] O tl) rt) 23. U - "Hm ". Iv.“ 3‘ . . : 1236 "Li 98 4. At the level of individual behavior, viewing higher , education and its problems in terms of the individual‘s self—preservation or maintenance and enhancement. For several reasons, a divergence of views is normal, and the diversity of perception reported in Chapter I is to be expected. First of all, one's perception of higher education depends upon one's vantage point; an individual's View depends upon his locus, whether within higher education or outside it. Ihuthermore, regardless of locus, the ”effective scope of a nmn‘s world” is limited. An individual's perceptual field 5 contains that of which he is aware, and the portion of the field termed ”figure" is occupied by that which he perceives , l ‘ ix>be important. For the individual, that which is important i Empears as immediate and proximate; that which to him is un- 1 important is remote, not in ”figure” and in sharp focus but in W I 'bround” and blurred. Moreover, the perception one has of 1 social.systems of higher education depends upon the direction l hihmich one faces, whether up or down. . J The View from inside is quite different than the View ‘ i frOInoutside. The View from above is very different than the VdeW'from.below. The view of one who deems a social system hmxutant is different from the view of one who deems it un- important. nus h it i. ‘v i. ' ‘I \‘Q “I‘ H- “k. 99 Views‘from Above and Below From the point of view of society, higher education is a device with which to attain instrumental or adaptive goals of society. From the point of View of society, therefore, the "problem of higher education" is quite simple: how to induce (a) or coerce higher education to carry on social action that will be effective in attaining society’s goals and (b) will be efficient. In this respect, “efficient" denotes two attributes: (l) economical utilization of" facilities, and (2) achievement of desired ends without unanticipated or undesired consequences In a hierarchiCal sense, one looks down from any social as from the point of view of system toward its subsystems, society one looks down at higher education. In the same sense, one looks down from the central administrative office of a university toward one of the university's colleges, or from the vantage point of a college down toward a department. The View from above is consistently apt to be that described in the Preceding paragraph: power viewing weakness, master viewing servant, society viewing its agent. The problem perceived from above is consistently apt to be the same: how to induce or coerce the sybsystem into goal—directed action that will be bOth effective and efficient. one looks up from From the opposite point of View, higher education toward society, from college toward university, I.“ Q! : w . "w- 13»- as. . "u; ‘ l'f‘ I“; "H g s.“ I!“ up“ . 5": V.‘ \“ ;\’ ‘n MS lOO cn'from department toward college. The view is quite different. The problem posed is quite distinct. From the point of View of the subsystem, the instrumental or adaptive goals specified by the higher social system are not the only goals that are per- tinent. The subsystem may well subscribe to those goals, certainly, but it has other goals as well, integrative and . expressive goals. The subsystem's reason for existence is the pursuit of instrumental or adaptive objectives of society. Ebwever, pursuit of those goals creates tension in the internal pattern. Tension management is a problem. Boundary mainten- ance is a problem. Stated another way, the problem as viewed from above may be examined coldly and rationally. The mood is affectively neutral or Gesellschaft-like. The problem as viewed from kelow is more nearly Gemeinschaft—like, and rational consid— erations are joined by affective considerations. Decision making in the subsystem must consider other factors than merely :Umtrumental goal—achievement. Views from above and below differ even within a single social unit, much as they differ between high- and low-ranking r :fimtems. Within a system, the View from above is that of such authority figures as president, dean, business manager, depart— mental Chairman, etc. The view from below is that of members .hiother status—roles. The authority figure is a man in the 5 YfiIl t .C Cfiat l! .‘A’, m: thu Wear :EfLMErS Sistent Ember lOl middle: top—ranking member of a subsystem, his role requires that he articulate the subsystem with the next higher system, transmitting sentiment, knowledge, norms, etc., from above to the members below him and from them to higher levels. The authority figure therefore is required to perceive Ins subsystem both from the point of view of the members and ' ikom the point of view of the next higher system. As compared to that of his own superior, the authority figure's perception of his subsystem may well be relatively affective; but as com— ;mred to the perception of the rank—and-file membership of the subsystem, the authority figure's is relatively neutral affec— tively, relatively rational. He does not emphasize instrumental and adaptive goals to the exclusion of others, as his superior may do; he cannot deemphasize them in favor of integrative and expressive goals, as lower—ranking members may do. Furthermore, the occupants of such status~roles as Luesident or dean find, by Virtue of their positions, that the institution "enters into figure” for them, i.e., receives their careful attention, for long periods of time, more often and for hflmer periods than is true of other members. They engage in memberShip activity more often, more regularly, and more con~ sistently than do other members. Because an authority figure's own behavior is so often 'mmmbership activity" calculated to make the college a viable L— “‘1‘"‘ers . . \‘h\ "\Lai \ 102 entity, he may very easily attribute apathy to fellow members, mmom he perceives 92: to be engaged in such activity. The rank-and-file, looking toward the top of the hierarchy, may easily attribute to "the administration" a totally gratuitous seeking-after—causes upon which to build crises. For the ; administrator, the college is normally in figure; for the rank—and—file, the college is normally in ground. Within a social system as between systems, the view from above and the View from below are not alike. Views from Inside and Out The members of a social sybsystem (e.g., a college) are more like each other than they are like non-members. They develop a version of social reality that differs somewhat from social reality as defined by the larger system (e.g., the university) and that differs still more significantly from social reality as defined by society. Viewed from outside, a given subsystem is perceived by nonemembers to be a monolithic unit. The social action of a.department, for example, is viewed from outside as action of the department, not as the resultant of vectors which are differentiated actions by individual members. It is perceived from outside that the department acts quickly or slowly, does cm'does not hold certain belief or sentiment, is or is not 900d, successful, capable, etc. :are Va C‘EE HIGH iffere I; t, c In): 4' duel, NA ‘ c ‘1 ~'0‘“! h \A .1 -:rcem In: 5 V A~n. iwwers a. K‘; A ‘ "Vst d ‘ I I xii. \r~ ‘:\he“ 103 i The View from within is both more highly detailed and more varied. A member perceives the department as a unit, but he also differentiates other members. He has a perception of social action of the department, but he also perceives that cme member performs one set of tasks whereas another performs different tasks, that one member is slow whereas another is fast, and that individual members do or do not hold specified belief, do or do not evince certain sentiment, are or are not good, successful, capable, etc. The members' overlapping perceptions of the department as a unit produce, as part of their social reality, a stereotypic view of the department and its social action, belief, norms, goals, sentiment, etc. The members' overlapping perceptions furnish corresponding stereo- typic views of other departments, of the college as a whole, cf the university, etc. §Emtiment Views from above and below, inside and out, differ largely because of the influence of sentiment. Sentiment represents ”what we feel” for whatever reason. As Osgood's research indicates, belief or knowledge and norms, etc., are laced with sentiment. One's orientation to goals of the internal pattern is imbued with sentiment; so also is one‘s cuientation to goals of the external pattern. Whatever a member's primary attachment, orientation, allegiance, etc., . .§ rower ,v lav-.A . tinsel "W «In; w. '...Ll :‘N‘a £- ~-~'..U L. . 1": mar. .m‘ \- :‘.‘,’T ‘~-:u0n d . “ \I~ ‘a' '9‘.“ . . ."M 104 that allegiance is partly affective; sentiment is present whether one emphasizes the external or internal pattern. The internal pattern emphasizes those sentiments which are appropriate for expressive and integrative activity, mfljyity in which the ”relations and interactions are ends in themselves and spontaneity and enjoyment the very essence of I the pattern,‘ for in the internal pattern "the chief reason for interacting is to communicate liking, friendship, and love among those Who stand in supporting relations to one another and corresponding negative sentiments to those who stand in antagonistic relations.” The external pattern emphasizes affective neutrality mmxg'the members, with sentiment being concentrated in moti— vation "to achieve goals, to conform to the norms, and to carry mnzsystematic action. 3 w Problems of Higher Education Perceptually Viewed In Chapter I, it was observed that problems of higher ahmation may be variously classified. One basis of classifi- cation is according to origin, i.e., problems created within higher education versus those created :2; higher education by (finer forces in society. Another basis is according to 2Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton: D. Van lkmtrand Company, Inc., 1960), pp- 14*15: 3 Ibid., p. 14. respons 1.9. , I ricer s groblen goblen Estreer effort effort. ‘V‘HI _ I . ids ‘¥\¢i( ‘A H \: ‘R\+ “‘QI 105 responsibility for resolution of (or attention to) problems, i.e., problems to be dealt with within higher education, by gghggielements of society, or jointly by higher education and other social systems. A.third basis distinguishes between rubblems impgsed by higher education upon others, problems imposed upon higher education by others, and self—imposed Inoblems of higher education. A fourth basis distinguishes between those prOblems which require essentially individual effort and those which require principally cooperative group effort. The foregoing discussion of diversity of perception provides a basis for presenting yet another means for classi— :hdng prOblems: a perceptual basis. As viewed from the larger social system, the problem ”of” one of its subsystems is perceived to be that of evoking from the subsystem effective and efficient social action. As viewed from the subsystem, the problem perceived is that of maintaining the subsystem‘s internal solidarity. The problem as perceived by the individual is that of reconciling these various views for himself. Eflflflems as Perceived by Individuals The individual is a member of various social systems, PB incumbent of a single status-role, he is a member of over- lapping social systems. For example, the professor of educa- tion occupies the status—role "professor” in at least these 3?eer Stongl . l I .‘QII‘T P . ‘\‘.. E ‘. ‘QIL ‘ v .' ‘ "\ i ‘0 l ' 106 social systems of higher education: (1) his academic department; (2) the college of education; (3) the parent university; (4) various professional associations, societies, and fraternities; (5) higher education in the United States; and (6) world—wide higher education. As a private person, he is a member of many other social systems outside higher education, i.e., systems which are familial, recreational, religious, political, etc. The extent of the professor's membership activity varies between social systems of higher education. He may identify strongly with his department but not with the college. He may identify strongly with the university but not with the depart— ment. He may identify strongly with his department and pro— fessional associations but not with his college or university. It is conceivable, for example, that a professor of subatomic physics may identify strongly with his own department, with corresponding departments in other institutions, with profes— sional societies, and with the Atomic Energy Commission, the land Corporation, and the Navy’s submarine program, but that }m may tend to withdraw from the college and university of \duch his department is a subsystem. As a member of society, the individual perceives his Inuversity from above, i.e., he takes the view of society and Perceives the problems of obtaining effective and efficient “Wice I'- "O b . rsity is via grove. _— g l I 107 service from the university. He shares the View of the uni— versity and perceives the college from above, and he shares the View of the college in perceiving his own department from above. In each membership capacity, he also shares the views from below, i.e., he takes the view of his department in per— ceiving the college, takes the View of his college in per— ceiving the university, and takes the view of his university in perceiving society. Each of the social systems of which the individual is atmember has goals, values, norms, etc. Their goals, for emample, are to some extent congruent, but to some extent are competitive or conflicting. The divergence of goals requires ’ some adaptation on the part of society to higher education and some adaptation by higher education to society. The problem Ci reconciliation affects the individual strongly and immedi- ately. Each member of higher education must resolve the pneblem for himself. His problem consists in part of resolving, Muthin a social system, any discrepancy between instrumental or adaptive goals of the external pattern and expressive or inte~ grative goals of the internal pattern. His problem consists in part of resolving any discrepancy between goals, whether internal or external, of the several social systems and sub- Ewstems of higher education of which he is a member. Because of the importance assumed for an individual by fiat which is pe tiduals resolve mediate syster: system. The inc rate: than wit} reg: ding it, de treat to those :ehavior become: Pifceptual fiEl: aspects of high: 108 that Which is perceptually immediate and proximate, most indi— viduals resolve the problem by choosing the goals of the most immediate system and by identifying most strongly with that system. The individual who identifies strongly with one system rather than with others tends to be defensive in his stance regarding it, defensive toward any questioning of the boun- daries of the chosen system and defensive toward any perceived threat to those boundaries. The more pronounced his defensive behavior becomes, the larger looms the social system in his perceptual field, the more remote and unimportant become other aspects of higher education, and the more nearly does the individual approach the point at which his perception may be termed "tunnel visions" i.e., his perceptual field has narrowed so that only Ehe_one important social system of higher educa— tion remains within the ”effective scope" of his world. From above, the department is seen as a device with Mmich to pursue specified instrumental or adaptive goals. The Cbpartment member who identifies strongly with social systems épgyg the department, rather than with the department itself, vull share that perception. Of all the goals of the department, he will emphasize the instrumental and adaptive goals of the \ external pattern. The member who, on the other hand, identi— fies strongly with the department will emphasize the goals of the department's internal pattern, i.e., its expressive and :tegrative goal :3. society, ea :onflict between Eeing oriented e tereas the inte sizisfying inter lndividu fiescribed by Bil ifferently. Tr: perceptions, we to t}. :. nearh exp Eff : 109 integrative goals. In the Gesellschaft—like environment of [LS. society, each individual must resolve for himself the conflict between the internal and the external, the external teing oriented essentially to achievement of specified tasks omereas the internal is oriented rather to maintenance of satisfying interpersonal relationships among the membership. Individuals of each of the four personality types described by Bills may be expected to resolve the problem very differently. The ++ person is described as being accurate in Ins perceptions, accepting of self and others, and willing and able to change (given an opportunity to undertake change in the direction he perceives to be enhancing). He presumably mnfld be the type of person best equipped satisfactorily to resolve the problem of conflicting loyalties and pressures. The +- person is described as hypo-accurate in his perceptions, convinced of his own present superiority to others, emd unwilling to change. He presumably would give primary afllegiance to that one social system of higher education which nest nearly expresses the views which are his own, and would imnufify with that social system strongly, resisting efforts 'UDChange the status quo. The —+ person is described as hyper-accurate in his EBrCeptions, convinced of his own present inferiority as Com— Emred to Others, and eager but unable to change. He presum- mfly'would'be constantly torn between the various allegiances he feels, pullec resolving th' The -- ; perceptions, co: ::'r.ers, and mi ;:esented with - ifferentiate ti snably would 8' social systems , Perceptual fiel. Lientify with t {item a means ' levertheless cl System forces i- :oolems as Vie‘ - ‘\ "proble] 3:121: within and sslf~imposed, 3' posed upon highr tfsooial syste‘ iffer with regl I; . n of prob lem 110 he feels, pulled in several directions at once, and incapable of resolving the issue. The -- person is described as hypo-accurate in his perceptions, convinced of the worthlessness of himself and others, and neither willing nor able to change even if he were presented with an opportunity. Threatened, but unable to differentiate the source of threat or to resolve it, he pre— sumably would suffer from "tunnel vision.” Some one of the social systems of higher education would loom so large in his perceptual field as to block out all others. He would not identify with that system, would not find allegiance to the system a means to self-maintenance and enhancement, but would revertheless cling to it until another and somehow more powerful System forces itself upon him. _Bgmdems as Viewed by Social Systems (if Each Perceptual Type "Problems of higher education" may arise and be dealt onth within and without higher education. Some problems are self-imposed, some are imposed upon others, and some are im— Fesed upon higher education by others. The perceptual types Of social systems of higher education (++, +~, ~+, and --) will differ with regard to the importance which one or another cate— gory Of problem holds for them. This matter is intimately related with another point alluded to in C1 mtent a collegf in President d‘ :awise middle < :9 four perCePl question, which traditional Purl riversity emphi tomledge, to d: ~+: As does gersons of all ‘ 2:5. diverse int< ;‘::en free rein I? preservation torledge. It , L:':erests are In Him hence the Cild‘oct a progr ailention to th« As an i: :ESpects 1\s and :iimtains its 0‘ mitotally 130 Me Sake of kno 111 alluded to in Chapter I: the question whether and to what extent a college or university is a servant of society, or (in President de Kiewiet's terms) the question of steering "a.wise middle course between participation and isolation." The four perceptual types will differ with regard to this question, which may be restated to ask which of the four traditional purposes of higher education a given college or Inuversity emphasizes: to preserve knowledge, to increase knowledge, to disseminate knowledge, or to apply knowledge. ++: As does each type of college, the ++ college includes persons of all types as members. The differing personalities and diverse interests held by members would in any college, given free rein, insure attention to all four purposes, i.e., to preservation, increase, dissemination, and application of knowledge. It is within the ++ institution that diverse interests are most likely actually to be given relatively free Iain, hence the ++ college is the type which is most apt to conduct a program in which a nice balance is maintained in attention to the four purposes. As an institution, therefore, the ++ college in some respects ig and in others is not a servant of society. It maintains its own identity and steers its own course, but is Ixm.totally isolated from society. It seeks knowledge for the sake of knowledge; it also seeks knowledge for the sake of its applicat; apply knowledge :poses its demz sue equanimity 3'; society. Bo‘. Lie problems fa< t: The pro] L1mm, that i: 1.1:" it l_S +_. ‘- ‘46 W, the ”11999 itse :3 SOCie‘ty is tl 112 of its application in service to society, and is motivated to apply knowledge in such service. In return, the ++ college imposes its demands for support, etc., upon society with the same equanimity with which it accepts problems imposed upon it by society. Both society and college contribute to meeting the prdblems faced by the ++ college. +-: The problems of the +- college are primarily self— imposed, that is, imposed upon the college by the very fact that it.£§ +—. The college is oriented to the maintenance of the status quo, with emphasis upon the presumed excellence of the college itself. The application of knowledge in service to society is therefore a low priority purpose, and the pre- servation of knowledge is therefore a high priority purpose. The +— college may well be interested in seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge, i.e., in "pure” research which, because it is not ”applied" research, cannot be applied to and there— fore cannot affect the present status of the college itself. The college behind the ivory curtain is the +— college. Any problem created by forces abroad in the larger society and set at the doorstep of the +— college is likely tobe perceived as an unwarranted imposition, for attention 'U>such a prOblem may require a change from the status qug. Withe other hand, convinced of its own present excellence and great worth, the +- college is likely to be extremely Killing to impO resolved for th :f the college- -+; With re Lsolation, the is affairs of servant of soci society present iifficulty of t affairs, where - agreed upon, an resent inadequ extremely reluc 1'16 college has 3‘5 resolved for 35509 0f the co “l The .. . :3 accept prObl‘ “may with apl‘ ation that soc. tellege would b! Lie college ‘ reason of its p: 2%.. “ed . ally lSOla- 113 willing to impose demands upon society. Problems will be resolved for the +— college by_society despite the resistance of the college. -+: With respect to the choice between participation and isolation, the —+ college will tend toward participation in the affairs of society, will tend to consider itself a willing servant of society, and will not feel imposed upon when society presents it with new problems. On the contrary, the difficulty of the —+ college is centered about its internal affairs, where goals are diffuse and individually held but not agreed upon, and where the principal item of agreement is the guesent inadequacy of the college. The -+ college will be eadmemely reluctant to impose problems upon society; as a unit, the college has no will to impose upon society. Problems will be resolved for the -+ college by_society, with the acquies— cence of the college. __: The -_ college will be an unwilling servant, disinclined to accept prdblems imposed upon it by society. Whereas the 'F-may with aplumb present problems to society in the expec~ tation that society will and should meet its demands, the —- college would be extremely diffident in this regard. Whereas the +— college will be relatively segregated from society by reason of its presumed excellence, the —- college will be \drtually isolated from society by reason of its presumed . A.‘ 5‘; “‘5. “LU 114 vmrthlessness. Problems will be resolved for the —- college by society, not so much against the will of the college as in the absence of any reason to resist the pressure of authority. To sum up, the ++ college will resolve its own destiny tn a major extent, managing skillfully the matter of steering between participation and isolation. The —+ college will strive for participation, the +— college for segregation, and the —- college for isolation; in all three cases, decisions will in the long run be made f9£_these three types by_society or by the pressures generated by a culture in transition. To sum up in a second regard, the ++ college will deb vote its attention in balanced fashion to the four purposes and will preserve, increase, disseminate, and apply knowledge. The +- college will emphasize the preservation of specified knowledge and perhaps the increase of some areas of "pure” knowledge; it will engage in the dissemination of that variety cf knowledge which it prizes, but will refrain from the appli~ cation of knowledge in service to society. The —+ college, at the other extreme, will emphasize the application of know— ledge (service activities and ”applied" research), while nunimizing the increase of knowledge through ”pure” research; it will preserve and disseminate all_varieties of knowledge, andpresent the ”cafeteria," or ”smorgasbord” curriculum. The -- college will emphasize the preservation and dissemination to flee ‘1!- w" “1 IV. 1 fiat. - vu‘. .5) 5“. 115 of certain knowledge, but will engage neither in research designed to increase knowledge nor in activities designed to apply it. As noted earlier, any problem of higher education requires some combination of individual effort and cooperative effort, but a particular problem emphasizes one rather than the other. Both cooperative and individual effort may be conducted freely within the ++ college, where deviation is tolerated (and creativity is a manifestation of deviation) and Where innovation can be affected. Thus the ++ college is able to pursue all four traditional purposes, able to ammommodate pressures of society, and able to make such changes as are required. In +- and —+ colleges, cooperative effort can be generated only with difficulty, and those activities will be emphasized which can be pursued by individual effort. In the case of the +- college, the orientation of that individual effort is toward the college, which is perceived by the mem- bers to be good and with which the members identify strongly. In the case of the —+ college, the orientation of individual effort is toward society rather than toward the college, for the college is perceived not to be good and members tend rather to Withdraw from it than to identify with it. Thus, as indicated above, one may expect to find in "A p 0‘ u“ ML f" b- (I) t. (__l 116 the +- college (a) in teaching, an emphasis upon accepted values and knowledge; (b) in research, an emphasis upon indi— vidually conducted ”pure” research, and (c) in service to society, inactivity. One may expect to find in the -+ college (a) in teaching, no central emphasis, no agreed-upon hierarchy of knowledge, but rather the "cafeteria” style of curriculum which includes whatever is requested of the college, (b) in research, an emphasis upon individually conducted applied research, and (c) in service to society, a ”shot-gun" effort in which individual members attempt, in the absence of program, to do all things for all elements of society. In the -— college, cooperative effort is feasible; creative, innovative individual effort is not tolerated. Ebwever, the college is deemed to be unworthy. Cooperative effort therefore is unlikely to be directed toward apy_type of research. The college is isolated from society, so cooperative effort is unlikely to be directed toward gay type Of service activity. In teaching, the curriculum is likely to be fixed and traditional, the preservation and dissemin- ation of limited knowledge. Relationships Among Social Systems The divergencies among their goals require some adaptation by society to higher education and some adaptation bY higher education to society. Adaptation involves change. Change éichot< secietj iner amll filan. 5:03}? 30m 117 ) Change may be brought about in several manners. A basic dichotomy may be drawn between change which is prescribed and change Which is induced. A major social system is able either to prescribe or to induce change in its subsystems. Hence, society can prescribe or induce change in higher education; a university can prescribe or induce change in one of its colleges; a college can prescribe or induce change in one of its depart- ments. A subsystem may be capable only of inducing change in its parent system, for (as indicated elsewhere) size is a significant condition of social action when the exercise of power is involved. The prescription of change requires the exercise of power in one of its forms. It may be the use of institution— alized power, termed authority. It may be the use of non— authorized power, in the forms of coercion or the exercise of influence. The superior social system has both the right (authority) and the capacity or ability to prescribe change in its lesser subsystems. It can do so in relatively subtle f Hanners or by open use of naked power. The tools are at hand. The university controls its subsystems' facilities: physical, financial, and personal. It can starve a college or other Subsystem into conforming social actions if necessary, through control of the purse-strings, space allocations, salary Schedules, etc. The major system can prescribe changes in systen throug can. a] actioz gosit: exampi . g“, v~ ‘ '1‘ u. 5.. 20mm: .3 ‘ finer 118 their social action by granting power to conforming subsystems and withholding it from recalcitrant subsystems. The parent system can coerce its subsystems into desired social action through the use of threat, open or implied. The larger system can also induce change in its subsystems through manipulative action; by the appointment of a particular individual to a position of authority within a college or department, for example, the university can in time achieve desired changes in the subsystem. The process ”communication of sentiment" is of signi— ficance in this respect. If a university can communicate to its colleges and other subsystems the sentiment that "research is good," for example, the subsystemscxuibe expected to increase their attention to that aspect of goal-seeking activity. Such a sentiment can be communicated quite readily, the application of sanctions being a useful process in this connection: by awarding promotions and salary increases to successful research- ers, and by otherwise honoring them, the sentiment is rapidly communicated that research is a good activity. If, on the other hand, it is desired to communicate the sentiment that teadhing or student advisement or another alternative scholarly activity is ”good," this too can be achieved and it can be anticipated that social action will be modified accordingly. Doubtless some techniques are more rapid in their 119 effects than others. To achieve a change in social action of specified subsystems, the communication of sentiment may be rather slow. The change may be effected more rapidly by mani— pulation of key personnel. It may be effected still more rapidly by application of power. On the other hand, some techniques are doubtless more lasting than others. If a recalcitrant subsystem is given only two Choices—-conform.or be dissolved--the subsystem may, in the face of such threat, choose to conform. The effects of such compliance may be short-lived, however, for compliance may be defensive behavior that will be continued only so long as the threat to apply power is effectively maintained. A subsystem is rather more limited in the techniques available to it for effecting adaptive changes within its parent social system, because it cannot as readily apply power. The subsystem is far from helpless, however, A department may point out to its college or university, for example, that certain actions are planned or underway within the institution Closest to it in the ”academic procession" (i.e., within the 'Style leader' recognized by the university, or within the erstWhile 'follower' of the university); the threat of being either left behind or overtaken may induce boundary maintaining activity, defensive behavior in response to the perceived threat, and the department may achieve what it aspires to. 120 The outbreak of the Sputnik syndrome following 1957, for example, enabled many departments and colleges to effect changes in the social action of their university boards of i trustees, presidents, etc.; by communicating the sentiment that Sputnik represented a threat, changes were brought about ; in budgets, building plans, space allocations, admission requirements, curricula, etc. The Sputnik episode provides an excellent illustration too of the manner in which higher education can evoke desired social action on the part of society, or in which a university can induce the action it desires on the part of its parent social system and source of support. An interesting problem is the consideration of manners in which one major social system can induce specified social action on the part of other parallel social systems, i.e., on the part of systems which are neither its parent system nor its subsystems. To illustrate, it may be noted that higher education is a social system and secondary education iS a SOCial System, but one is neither parent nor subsystem of the other. Nevertheless, higher education undeniably effects Changes in Secondary education; it does so through its power to adjust admission requirements, for example: SUCh adjustments having repercussions inevitably on secondary school curricula; it does SO also through its ability to provide prospective teachers 121 with certain attitudes and knowledges While declining to provide them with others. Secondary education likewise effects changes within higher education, doing so at times by securing legislative action. For example, if secondary education induces a state legislature to require that prospective teachers must com— plete a specified course of study, colleges of education within the state have little alternative but to offer that course of study. If secondary education within a state declines, by and large, to offer a specified course of study to its students, higher education within that state has little power to deny admission universally to secondary school graduates who have not completed such courses. Sister institutions are capable of bringing about changes in each other's social action. For example, if several universities jointly serve a given geographic area, they may perceive themselves to be in competition for students, the students being free to choose to enroll in one rather than the others. In such a case, if one university decides that full—time residence will no longer be a requirement for a degree, the other universities may perceive that this new norm constitutes a threat to them, i.e., that it may cause a decrease in their enrollments. If they so perceive it, they may attempt to influence the first institution to revoke its 122 action. They may take the same action. They may initiate different practices designed to outweigh in the eyes of students the apparent advantage of the first institution‘s abolition of residence requirements, e.g., may reduce credit requirements, eliminate a language requirement, etc. On the other hand, one of the universities may seize the occasion as an opportunity by which to establish itself in the eyes of students as the "quality" institution whose ”high standards" mull make its degrees more valuable than those of other universities. The process whereby one social system strives to retain its identity as a viable social unit is boundary maintenance. Higher education in the United States engages in boundary maintaining activity in order to retain its integrity within U.S. society and to resist encroachment of other social systems upon it, whether the "other" he society per se or such major social systems as government, industry, or religion. A college or university engages in boundary maintaining activity for like reasons, and so also does a department or other lesser subsystem. On the other hand, each social system of higher education is also engaged in the process of systemic linkage, Whereby it strives to maintain a mutually satisfying relation- Ship with other systems. It may do so only with the utmost artic'l 123 reluctance; it may do willingly and freely; it may do so eagerly; it may do so aggressively. If the maintenance of relationships with other systems is perceived to be threatening, a social system will tend to minimize systemic linkage; if such relationships are perceived to be enhancing, a social system will tend to emphasize systemic linkage. Systemic linkage so relates two social systems, so articulates them, that in some ways they act as and appear to be a single system. Some social systems are so constituted that they are able successfully (a) to articulate with other systems on matters of genuine significance and for extended periods of time, and yet manage (b) to retain their own identity as viable social units. Other systems are less able to operate, or unable so to operate. ”Social systems of higher education" and ”society” find their relationship mutually satisfactory when society’s goals regarding ”socialization” and "cognitive mapping and validation" as well as higher education's internal goals are articulated effectively and efficiently. A symbiotic relationship of this type is neither easy to arrange nor easy to maintain. The perceptual typology of social systems of higher Education can be referred to in this connection, for several 0f the above matters can.be illustrated in the social action Of each type of system. 124 The ++ Social System As postulated, the ++ college deams itself worthy vdthout making invidious comparisons, i.e., without assuming either present superiority or present inferiority vis—a—vis other social systems. It has such integration and solidarity that it can retain its own identity and is confident that it can do so. It is aware of and accurate in its perceptions of social reality. A ++ land grant college can so articulate itself with the social system ”agriculture" than in some ways and at some times the college and ”agriculture” comprise one system. The ++ institution can do so without losing its identity, without sacrificing its independence, sovereignty, or autonomy, with— out surrendering its own goals and values or replacing them with "agriculture's" goals and values, etc. The ++ institution is not excessively concerned with achieving recognition, nor does it feel threatened by its relationship with other systems. Should the situation require, it can therefore act as either leader or follower of agriculture. It need not be apprehen- 1 sive and defensive against possible encroachment by agriculture, YEt it need not be aggressively attempting to encroach upon agriculture. Any number of comparable examples might be drawn to illustrate the characteristics of the ++ social system. If the situation cal poration: or program 0‘5 re TEISltY can w reams of SW” :0 accept OUt: on integrity ‘r agency 1 riversity's E iialect, the l iialect to Eng ten the unive Study. In suc :zher, neither 55:1: maintaini 539m devious 516 desired so Withdraw fr iiiculating t Thus t' 'e'trk together 0f PSYChol. 2"“ or more ++ w; 5. h k l I ...t acthity 125 situation calls for it to rely upon a federal agency, a cor- f poration, or a foundation for funds with which to conduct a program of research in which it chooses to engage, a ++ uni— versity can with equanimity devise a mutually satisfactory means of systemic linkage, one which will permit the university to accept outside resources, pursue its own goals, retain its own integrity, and yet satisfy the motives that impelled the gther agency to enter the cooperative endeaVor; e.g. the university's anthropological linguists want to study an obscure dialect, the Navy wants a dictionary which will relate the dialect to English, and both sets of motives are satisfied when the university linguists use Navy funds to conduct the study. In such a case, neither social system conquers the other, neither need feel threatened or adopt defensive boun— dary maintaining activity, neither need coerce the other nor employ devious means to manipulate the other into undertaking the desired social action, and neither need lose its ability to withdraw from the joint arrangement when the reason for articulating the two systems ceases to exist. Thus two or more ++ departments within a college can Work together to good effect, e.g., departments of sociology and Of psychology to explore together social psychology. Thus two or more ++ colleges within a university can engage in a icint activity, e.g., a college of law and a college of social scienCe to eS anaestratio for its own p school 0'f med Library, a CO :0 serve a CO] etucation, a advanced gr ad' As p0. and draws inv issued super. tion and grea' isvigorous t 311'}? as leade: Trese characte iecause folle Vigorous boun< Ether systems ~=Iensi\re bout If the can 30 articul ‘esand at s< 30m ' - nlty ls l 126 science to establish an institute for the study of public administration. Thus two or more ++ universities might, each for its own purposes, jointly establish ahd operate a single school of medicine, a single research hospital, a single library, a cooperative university extension system designed to serve a community that is otherwise isolated from higher education, a costly or esoteric program of research or of advanced graduate teaching, etc. The +- Social System As postulated, the +— college deems itself very worthy and draws invidious comparisons to demonstrate its present assumed superiority to other systems. It has strong integra— tion and great solidarity. Its boundary maintaining activity is vigorous to an extreme, and the college is willing to act only as leader, never as follower, of other social systems. These characteristics greatly hamper systemic linkage, partly because followers are not always available, partly because Vigorous boundary maintaining activity may be perceived by Other systems to be aggressive and therefore may evoke strong defensive boundary maintenance within those other systems. If the other system is submissive, a +— university can so articulate itself with the other that the two, in some Ways and at some times, comprise one system. If the surrounding COmmunity is relatively small and powerless, and especially if the surroundi university Ca assimilation, ordinances ar the town is " gresumed inno ma dormitor schedules con ions; the ch sity's store ' and the town ' Alter powerful, social system innate it. 359 ‘Jniversitj the cOlllmunity 7.07: artiCulat cleavage Cleve g'ii’i‘ersity an' {titral 0r th‘ .aerefor e Wi t' Sen 127 the surrounding community is a -+ or —— social system, a +— i university can dominate it. Systemic linkage is achieved by assimilation, so to speak. In this circumstance, zoning ordinances are designed for the convenience of the university; the town is ”dry” because the university aims to preserve the presumed innocence of its students; curfew ordinances coincide with dormitory regulations; theater programs and theater time schedules conform to university preferences and university hours; the chamber of commerce is silent although the univer- sity's store keeps a local bookseller on the edge of bankruptcy; and the town has, in general, no life of its own. Alternatively, if the surrounding community is large and powerful, and especially if the community is itself a +— social system or a ++ social system, the +— university cannot dominate it. Convinced of its own superiority, neither can the university play the part of follower or even relate with the community on even terms. As a result, the university can- not articulate with the community and a sharp town-and-gown cleavage develops. The two social systems, i.e., the +— i university and the city around it, may be mutually affectively neutral or they may be mutually antagonistic. The university therefore withdraws from the city, in all but a geographic sense, and hides behind its ivory curtain. With the passage of time, neighborhoods age; when the university finds itself 39mg SUIIOUT ioration of t effective lir community p0h Any r. if the relati faculty happen to val :Zteir values of the two sy effice and a achieve mutua m .:e ~+ Social As po 13033 to demo S‘,‘s:~ - ems. It Saliddrity . ..s ooundary 1 5:: 4. .‘ECLUal. T ‘S inCapable 4 Sense 0 " 128 being surrounded by a slum, it is helpless to prevent deter— ioration of the neighborhood because it has failed to establish effective linkage with the city council and other centers of community power. Any number of comparable illustrations might be drawn of the relations between a +— social system and other systems. A +- faculty and a +— board of trustees, for example, if they happen to value the same things, might tolerate each other; if their values and goals do not coincide, however, articulation of the two systems would be unlikely. A +— university business office and a +— university library system are unlikely to achieve mutually satisfactory systemic linkage. The -+ Social System As postulated, the -+ college draws invidious compar— isons to demonstrate its own present inferiority to other systems. It is not well integrated and does not have systemic SOlidarity. Although it aspires to integration and solidarity, its boundary maintaining activity is so diffuse as to be in— effectual. The -+ college is willing to act as follower, but is incapable of leading other social systems. Lacking a Sense of direction, lacking a sense of "inside" and "outside," lacking a sense of identity built on solidarity, the —+ COllege is open to systemic linkage but is not itself a suffi- Ciently integrated unit to articulate effectually with other Viable units. A —+ itself to am prised by C0r aid at some 1 social system college cannc :Ite leadershi £25. surrender needs young I accountants a fi 129 A -+ college of commerce can very readily so subordinate itself to and articulate itself with the social system com— prised by commerce and industry in its area that in some ways and at some times the college and "commerce" constitute one social system. Having very diffuse goals of its own, the —+ college cannot articulate with "commerce" without accepting the leadership of commerce, accepting the goals of commerce, . and surrendering its own autonomy, so to speak. If ”commerce" needs young recruits ready to assume positions as junior accountants and credit analysts rather than potential execu- tives, the —+ college will produce job-ready junior accountants and credit analysts, not broadly educated future executives. If commerce includes a number of banks which need a ready Supply of clerks, the —+ college will provide graduates eminently qualified to be clerks. Other examples may be cited. A +- board of trustees Mull dominate a —+ faculty. A -+ student services office will allow a +— business office to operate all aspects of dormitory, cafeteria, and related college enterprises. A +- student services office, on the other hand, will expect to dictate the design, superintend the construction, and control the management of such enterprises. If both systems were +—, they Mmuld enjoy endless conflict. If both systems involved are ‘*U however, neither the business office nor student services :ay quite km to build, how architectural system, may b program as we ye: unable tc solidarity as :aintenance i tion, to avoic' A -— ihother socie 1‘. can contii idis‘ever. In PECted to dor \ flority to \‘i A a. \‘L This E01teas ' . 39m.“ lent to ‘l’ , .Usevlo I ule 1 WI: . ‘ lcn aAlthor 126‘tion 1‘. . 130 may quite know what to build, whether to build, where and when to build, hOW'tO operate, etc.; under this circumstance, the architectural firm, especially if it is a ++ or +- social system, may be forced to enter the vacuum and decide on the program as well as the building design. The —- Social System As postulated, the -- college deems itself and other social systems to be unworthy. It is unwilling to follow and yet unable to lead. It has such a degree of integration and solidarity as to be virtually impermeable, i.e., boundary maintenance is designed to maintain system identity in isola- tion,to avoid systemic linkage. A —- college cannot willingly articulate itself with another social system purposefully. Being tradition—bound, it can continue inherited relationships with other systems, however. In such relationships, the other system can be ex— pected to dominate the —— system, constituting a voice of authority to which the -- college responds obediently. This is to say that the -— social system of higher education is susceptible to domination and obedient to authority. Should it exchange one master for another, it can become sub— servient to the new order and adhere to it as tenaciously as previously it had clung to tradition. That is "rightful" Which authority prescribes as rightful, hence institutional- ization is achieved by decree. It may be anticipated that a .. instituth quickly insti There States. This further that higher educat such diversit utilizes a pe It is 'social syste Systems, whei individual be li‘ ' Elgher educ; "hiectively .:r . V~ .eierence It i: 131 -- institution, finding itself within a fascist state, would quickly institutionalize the fascist doctrine imposed upon it. An "Objective" Frame of Reference There is variety in higher education in the United States. This dissertation was designed partly to demonstrate further that there is diversity in views reported concerning higher education in the United States, and to explain that such diversity is to be expected so long as each observer utilizes a personal frame of reference. It is proposed in this dissertation that the concept "social system” and the Loomis model for analysis of social systems, when utilized together with the perceptual theory of individual behavior, comprise a logical screen through which "higher education in the United States” may be viewed "objectively,“ i.e., that they provide an "objective” frame of reference. It is held that the Loomis model provides a convenient framework within which to study social systems and to determine the manner in which their elements and processes are articulated at a moment in time. It is held that the concept of the individual provided by perceptual theory furnishes a means by Which to anticipate whether and in which direction a social System is likely to change through time. Social systems of higher education may be examined individually i examination w< sit; as a SOC: :35“ be relate< :ategories. ] ism-dary main‘ sitcation and as government :2::, etc. S< 23 or comparec Study of math 25 relationsh; :ze state, a : lions] a Stl 5535‘58tems of Cfing SUbSYsU When : m to diff: theory is tha‘ IOflanentS or iii resPec’c - respect to the .. a giVen p0 132 individually as discrete social units. An example of such examination would be a study of a specific college or univer- sity as a social system. Social systems of higher education nmy'be related to or compared to social systems of other categories. For example, one might study the interaction, boundary maintenance, and systemic linkage between higher education and such other social systems in the United States as government, religion, labor, commerce, industry, entertain— ment, etc. Social systems of higher education may be related to or compared to each other. Examples would be a comparative study of national social systems of higher education, a study of relationships between institutions of higher education in one state, a study of relationships between land grant insti— tutions, a study of relationships between colleges and other subsystems of a single university, and a study of relationships among subsystems of a single college. When social systems are studied and compared, they are found to differ. The burden of the argument of social system theory is that they do ngt differ with respect to their general components or activating processes, but that they do differ Mdth respect to the specific content of a component and with respect to the manner in which the component elements and Processes are articulated or integrated. The social system at a given point in time is the resultant of a number of vectors in mc systems repre ievector of immsystem t toprevail at izanother. In cc :oted that in roles whereas szatus-roles igdint of ir 518.: that ir 133 vectors in momentary equilibrium; the vectors involved in all systems represent the same elements, but the force exerted by the vector of the element ”sentiment,’ for example, varies from system to system. As a result, the equilibrium perceived to prevail at a given moment in one system differs from that in another. In comparing or describing social systems, it may be noted that in one system there are many differentiated status— roles Whereas in another there are few; that in one system status-roles are ascribed whereas in another they are achieved by dint of individual effort, influence, application of force, etc.; that in one system knowledge derives from reVelation whereas in another it derives from logical analysis, experi- mentation, etc.; that in one system relationships among mem— bers are largely affective whereas in another affective neu- trality is usual; that in one system financial reward is a frequently used sanction whereas in another system alternative sanctions (e.g., honorary degrees) have been institutionalized; that in one system norms have been institutionalized to cover an extremely wide range of activity and in great detail, where— as another system has great tolerance for deviation from rather general norms. Possibilities as to differences among social systems can be enumerated almost indefinitely. In the following pages, predictions are offered regard— ing the manner in which each structural-functional category and each compreher be expected tc :31 types of ;:eclictions a: which may be 6 ice Loomis Moc The Lc siiers nine "5 represents one i:s related "6 six "compreher iztivate any c ::socia1 act: .1. StIUCtUr a L“! . [‘1' ACCure ‘ldatiOn. W. HYPO~£ it .on, but 01 i. HYPEr. N“ . .icatlon On 134 each comprehensive or master process of the Loomis model may be expected to be articulated within each of the four percep— tual types of social systems of higher education. In addition, predictions are offered regarding the propensity to change which may be expected within each of the four perceptual types. The Loomis Model and Perceptual Typology The Loomis model for analysis of social systems con— siders nine "structural-functional categories,” each of which represents one of the nine "elements" of a social system plus its related ”elemental process(es).” The model further includes six "comprehensive or master processes,” each of which may activate any combination of elements, and three "conditions of social action." it Structural-Functional Categories Colleges will differ with regard to the source 1. Knowing. (fiftheir belief, accuracy of their knowledge, and extent of their activity in cognitive mapping and validation. ++: Accurate. Active in all areas of cognitive mapping and i validation. +-: Hypo—accurate. Active in cognitive mapping and vali— dation, but only in limited areas. Very active in cognitive mapping and "+: HYper—accurate. Validation on rational basis. --; Hypo-i ad validatio: faith or auth< 2. rent the extent of sentiment hel< hymenbers tor 233st other < :‘ricate sent; ++z Media: rational 199e, and othe Raids. Sen‘ :5 the sentime 3311€agues ") Least ""1019 like the iffEC‘CiVe Can: they COliege: wnunicated to make I \?. Max iIm . \I ‘M e Whole dOn 135 -—- Hypo—accurate. Will not engage in cognitive mapping and validation because its knowledge is fixed, derived from faith or authority, almost, one might say, from revelation. Colleges will differ in several respects: 2. Feeling. the extent of tension among members; the basis of tension; sentiment held by members toward each other; sentiment held by members toward the college; sentiment held by members toward other colleges; management of tension; ability to com— municate sentiment; and effect of the sentiment communicated. Tension arises i , ++: Median degree of tension among members. from rational differences. Members like each other, the col— lege, and other colleges. Tension is managed easily on rational grounds. Sentiment is communicated effectively. The effect of the sentiment communicated ("I like the college and my cmlleagues") is to help keep the college ++. +-: Least degree of tension among the members, who on the “mole like the college. Tension may arise from rational or affective causes. Members do not very much like each other or Median ease of tension management. Sentiment Other colleges. is not communicated effectively. The effect of the sentiment Cwmmunicated ("I like the college") is to confirm the popular \dew; to make the +— college more definitely and extremely +-. Maximum degree of tension among the members, who on the whole don't like the college and, because they do not, find their ent treat. Tensi from. rational each other, be :: resolve it, aspect that t D— '1 kn cli icult :res, but rath :municated v although they omnicated s Lice the coils Iiliege more e ‘-: Some t liECOHege, e 5:33. affective Wurse to pr “at“ fairly 136 find their entire situation threatening but cannot resolve the threat. Tension thus arises from affective causes rather than from rational ones. The members may not on the Whole like each other, because they are aware of threat, do not know how to resolve it, may not be able to differentiate it, and may suspect that their fellows are its source. Tension is managed Mdth difficulty, neither on rational grounds nor affective . cxms, but rather on legalistic grounds. Sentiment is not cwmmunicated very well. Members do like other colleges, although they do not like their own. The sentiment which is cwmmunicated serves to confirm the pOpular sentiment ("I don't like the college") and the effect is deteriorative, making the mfllege more extremely —+. —-: Some tension exists among members, who do not like the college, each other, or other colleges; tension will arise from affective causes and be managed, if that is the word, by recourse to pronouncements of authority; sentiment is commun— icated fairly well, and the sentiment communicated (”I don't like the college really, but this is the way it must be”) has the effect of confirming the —— status and of perpetuating the isolation of the college. 3. Achieving. This category involves the element "end I goal, or objective" and the processes "goal attaining activity" and "concomitant latent activity as process." Colleges will iiffer with r iegree 0f agr relative Sigr1 "external" .93 eh Goals :32currence a: aztempt to ad :a‘: and attaii satisfy air strengthen box +-: Goals its the goal sense there is ......oer S may dj to: of abilit 3‘51 is not tc $5.3 Of this 137-? run to SE ""41 have diff 3‘Ptation to i" with resp \. ‘ 3‘ h' .1 ““1 ll incre life i' interna u l pat 137 : differ with regard to several aspects: remoteness of goals; ‘ degree of agreement upon goals; ability to achieve goals; relative significance of goals pertinent to "internal” and "external" patterns. ++: Goals are proximal and attainable. There is substantial concurrence as to goals to be sought. The college is able to attempt to achieve goals, hence (because the goals are proxi— mal and attainable) can achieve them. The goals set are likely to satisfy aims both of members and of Society, and to strengthen bonds which affectively relate the members. i +—: Goals and present status are virtually synonymous. Thus thegoal is maintenance of the status quo, and in this sense there is considerable agreement upon goals, however much members may differ on why the status quo is ”good." The ques— tion of ability to achieve goals does not apply, since the goal is not to move. It would be quite remarkable if the goals of this college can long satisfy society; failing in the long run to serve instrumental ends of society, this +— college Vflll have difficulty as a social system in maintaining its adaptation to its environment, i.e., its goal—attaining acti— \fity with respect to the ”external" pattern is not adequate and will increasingly create problems as the college becomes a.cultural laggard. 'Goal—attaining activity does not strengthen Effective'bonds among members, hence is not effective in the "internal" pattern. -n Goals is little con Tne college i 2::ivity, for :erely acquie goals will be :5 them will provide f Relationships 13315 are deem Iirnerg Will Sial-attainin ‘: negligible other S Ni 11 “I 138 —+: Goals are remote and idealistic. Furthermore, there is little concurrence as to the goals which are to be sought. The college is relatively unable to engage in goal-attaining activity, for there is neither concurrence nor consensus, but merely acquiescence by members. Under these circumstances, goals will be diffuse; by virtue of their very diversity some of them will satisfy to some extent the requirements of society and provide for adaptation of the college to its environment. Relationships among members will tend to be affectively neutral. ——: If there are any goals beyond that of self—perpetuation, they are deemed out of reach. The degree of agreement among members will be quite large. Except as self—perpetuation is a goal—attaining activity, the ability of the college to achieve is negligible. As to the internal pattern, relationships among members will be very poor. 4. Norming, Standardizing, Patterning. This category in— volves the element "norm” and the process ”evaluation.” Colleges will differ significantly with regard to the degree to which norms eh_§h. exist. ++: The ++ college will have a patterned core of expec- tations for principled behavior. Beyond that core, there will be expectations for and approval of non—conforming behavior. +-; The +— college will hold expectations for uniform k—h‘ ‘ behavior 00‘" behavior . bu‘ for deVianCe -+: The I not like dive and has no bi --; There aczivities; 5. Divic element "stat ;erformance. ' which status- specializatic 1:; status-rt ++: There 2;".'ision of l , . . . . This Hi «LES than dc ‘Ti There “ This E;ZIT______________________________________________________________________———_—'hrflf 139 behavior covering a broad range of activities, not "principled" behavior, but "uniform" behavior, with little or no tolerance for deviance. a+: The —+ college will expect diversity. Although it will not like diversity, it has no expectations for uniform behavior and has no basis for expecting principled behavior. ——: There will be expectations for uniform behavior in all activities. 5. Dividinggthe Functions. This category involves the element "status—role (position)" and the process "status—role performance." The colleges will differ as to the degree to which status—roles are differentiated, i.e., the degree of specialization. They will also differ in the manner of assign— ing status—roles to members. ++: There will be a median degree of specialization and division of labor among status—roles. +—; This college will have fewer differentiated status— roles than do others. -+: There will be much specialization. —e: This college will probably have as little specialization as does the +—. 6. Ranking. This category involves the element "rank" and the processes ”evaluation of actors" and "allocation of status— ] roles.“ Colleges will differ with regard to the bases upon which actors ++: Acto: status-r0195 rational grOl grounds of ”1 t-: Both sonality, a I miss. -t: This egnificant i Specialized s 35 Performanc :02. bottom t 3? +~ college 140 which actors are evaluated and status-roles are allocated. ++: Actors will be assigned their relatively non—specialized status-roles and their performance will be evaluated partly on rational grounds of demonstrated competence and partly on grounds of "personality." +—: Both assignment and evaluation will be based upon per— sonality, a non—logical treatment of non—specialized status— roles. —+: This is a highly impersonal college. Expertise is the significant factor involved in impersonal assignment of highly— specialized status-roles and in rational, logical evaluation of performance. There will be more levels in the hierarchy, from bottom to top, in this college than there will be in ++ or +— colleges. —-: The college should in this respect resemble the -+ college. 7. Controlling, Controlling involves the element "power" and the processes ”decision-making" and the initiation of decision into action. The master process ”institutionalization" is also involved here, as is ”social control." Understanding that institutionalization refers to the process whereby mem— ters of a social system concur in the belief that a given Pattern of culture is ”right," colleges will differ signifi— cantly. Because of this basic difference, other differences on follOw 5 other proceSE ++: BIOdC basis of gene tirely like -n basic distinc :aking, a dis execution. " titer decisic and there wil executive dec :eczsion-maki ‘u ~ A. =-.:0rced by s “gt!” but “C935, With Cdiion of *“mlple and 141 will follow in the process of social control and in the use of other processes related to the element power. ++: Broad areas of behavior are institutionalized, on the basis of general agreement as to principle. Members are rela— tively like-minded and relatively accepting of each other. A basic distinction is likely to be made regarding decision— making, a distinction between ”policy-making“ and "policy execution." The membership will participate in policy—making. (kher decisions will be entrusted to the appropriate executives, and there will be general agreement as to the point at which 3 executive decision—making would be inappropriate. In both areas, decision—making will be essentially rational, free of discord, and therefore effective in initiating action. +-: Broad areas of behavior are institutionalized, but without basic agreement as to underlying principle. Norms are enforced by social pressure, not because they are deemed "right," but simply "because." Decision—making is an executive Emocess, with no distinction being made between policy and execution of policy. Members are not in agreement as to principle and, in any case, are not in communication with each other. Because maintaining the status guo is the objective, the initiation of decisions into action will be difficult. —+: This college is likely to exhibit a marked cleavage tetween faculty and administration, with a tendency for decision-maid the faculty ‘5 that the facc its decision rather than c here is litt the processes as not effec --: The - being the onl executive fur. kill tend to 35 correspond 8. Sanct the proce iiz‘fer with r Ients are iss sanctioning 1' ++: The s deviation; it upon Principl :embership is behaViOr is r. it . Q punlsi‘lmer 142 decision—making to be centered in authority figures, and with the faculty demonstrating little cohesiveness. To the extent that the faculty is involved in decision—making of any kind, its decision will represent a consensus of differing opinion rather than concurrence on an issue; this will be so because there is little agreement on principles or on goals and because the processes of communication and communication of sentiment are not effective. —-: The —- college has no policy—making problems, existence keing the only goal. Decision—making is likely to be an executive function centered in authority figures. Decisions mdll tend to be imposed on the members; hence, the initiation of corresponding action will be difficult. 8. Sanctioning. Sanctioning involves the element ”sanction" and the process ”application of sanctions." Colleges will differ with regard to the basis upon which rewards and punish— ments are issued and with regard to the manner in which sanctioning is achieved. ++: The ++ college will have the greatest toleration for deviation; it has the large core of patterned behavior based upon principles to Which members voluntarily adhere, and the membership is disposed to assume that deviation from patterned behavior is nonetheless in accord with principle. Rewards and punishment will be applied on the basis of merit. +-: The ‘i from patterne hence no reas grinciple. E group accepts -+: With Poor communic raz‘ner than c \‘ill be heavi :eiures gover 33: be expect Lts faculty, :arefully and requirements , 351': of class Elirements fc SiStatutes. In tl least attract i339 “0 tOler some“ on flare would l 143 +-: The +— college will have an intolerance for deviation from patterned norms, for there is no agreement on principle, hence no reason to assume that deviant behavior is based upon principle. Sanctions will be applied by the group, withholding group acceptance from the deviate. -+: With no urge to perpetuate the status qgo, but with poor communications and no fundamental agreement as to goals or principles, nearly all behavior would be deviant behavior in the —+ college. Behavior thus is prescribed by college law rather than custom, and it may be expected that the —+ college vdil be heavily legislated, regulated, and supplied with pro— cedures governing a host of areas of action. The —+ college can be expected, for example, to have a salary schedule for its faculty, formalized rules governing tenure and retirement, carefully and minutely prescribed rules governing credit requirements, prerequisites, selection of textbooks, assign~ ment of classes, hours of work, office hours, etc., with re— tua1 t SCb‘units to deter“ etc, ’ 0r perSOIial‘ 170 education. To study the social action of a department within its college, the most fruitful basis for categorizing it as to perceptual type is the self-other relation between departments of the college. In order to study the social action of a college within its university, the self-other relation between colleges of the university is crucial. The social action of a department results from individ- ual behavior of its members. Each member may perceive various significant others, e.g., fellow members, counterparts in other institutions, etc. In order to study the social action of a department, however, the self—other relation among its members is crucial. Thus, there are several strata of social units subject to study: (a) individual; (b) department; (c) college within a university; (d) institution, i.e., multi-college university or self—contained college; and (e) higher education in the United States. A major question involved in analysis concerns the per- ceptual type of social unit that emerges from combinations of sub~units. Beginning at the lowest strata, the question is to determine to which perceptual type of social subsystem a department will correspond if its members are all ++ persons, etc., or if its membership includes varying proportions of each Personality type. At the next level, given departments of known type that will the type 0 ation of c types, the system tha States. " Gi‘ accepting Created th, ZEXimiZing llhin a + Gi‘ 3.681sz t: Tally Wi. ‘ "Qfix «skullSe +‘ 171 known types, the question is the perceptual type of college that will emerge. At the next level, the question concerns the type of university that will emerge from a given combin— ation of colleges. Finally, given institutions of various types, the question involved is the perceptual type of social system that may be expected in ”higher education in the United States." Individuals and Departments Given a membership composed of self-actualizing, accepting ++ persons, it is hypothesized that social units created through their interaction will prove to be self— maximizing ++ systems, i.e., ++ departments within ++ colleges within a ++ university. Given a membership composed of +— members, it is hypo— thesized that social units created through their interaction usually will prove to be self—minimizing —+ departments. Because +e persons are not accepting of each other, they are unlikely to reach agreements on matters of importance, and unlikely to comprise an effective social unit. An exception to this general prediction would occur if the +— members chance to be like—minded, in which case their department would Given a membership composed of —+ members, it is hypo_ hesized that social units created through their interaction usually wi Because -+ they are v likely to perceive t somewhat t 80 - nallty t (C) the de 172 usually will prove to be self—perpetuating +— departments. Because -+ persons are more accepting of others than of self, they are very likely to develop satisfying affective relations, likely to reach agreement on matters of importance, likely to perceive their department as "good" but other departments as someWhat threatening' and therefore less good or less worthy, and, as a department, likely to become segregated if not iso- lated. The personality type represented by the department head may strongly influence a department composed of -+ mem— bers, producing an alternative outcome. Given a membership composed of self—less apathetic —- members, it is hypothesized that social units created through their interaction will prove to be self—less apathetic —— departments. Because —— persons are accepting neither of self nor of others, they are unlikely to develop satisfying affec— tive relations, unlikely to reach agreements, unlikely to perceive either their own or other departments as ”good,” and, as a department, likely to become isolated from others. Given a membership composed of a combination of per— sonality types, a department may prove to be of one perceptual type or another depending upon: (a) the proportion of the membership represented by each personality type, (b) the per— sonality type represented by the departmental chairman, and (C) the degree of congruence among individual perceptions. Ac department nodal patt is that of appear to '. tionists w. appears co: sister dep 173 Acknowledging the broad range of differences among departments, the current literature seems to suggest that the modal pattern among academic departments in higher education is that of the self—perpetuating +- social unit. Departments appear to be imperialists when given the Opportunity, isola— tionists when deprived of that opportunity. Each department appears constrained to demonstrate its own superiority to sister departments within a college and to support the view that its discipline is somehow superior to those of its neighbors. Colleges Many colleges are sufficiently small that they are not compartmentalized into departments. For practical purposes, the one social unit created through the interaction among college members is the college itself. The hypotheses offered in the discussion of departments, above, are applicable to these colleges. Examples of all four perceptual types are to be found among these colleges. Individual institutions would appear to be +— or —— institutions if judged by the statement (quoted in k See for example David Riesman, Constraint and Variety in American Education (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1956), especially Part II. ~Calvin Stillman, "Academic Imperi- alism and Its Resolution: The Case of Economics and Anthropol— DQY." American Scientist, V01. 43 (1955), pp. 77~88. Chapter I) traditions moderate c colleges w sent regar because of or politic. colleges a; b | I Git Te‘ts I it : PerIJeLtuatir ‘ege Will k CQEpOSed of s L the cc .. . A .N ”lien a clu “Rt the re "his. cat, The We in th .SESe hYpot \s: ‘93 that \ 2 L 174 Chapter I) that "a college or university is so bound by its traditions and by the influences impinging upon it that even moderate changes in policy are difficult to make." Some colleges would appear to be —- systems if judged by the state— ' ment regarding "marginal colleges” which do not disappear only because of ”local vested interests, misguided philanthropy, or political maneuvering.” The modal pattern among such colleges appears to be that of the +— social unit.2 gepartments and Colleges Given a college composed of self-maximizing ++ depart— ments, it is hypothesized that the college will also prove to be a ++ social unit. Given a college composed of self— perpetuating +- departments, it is hypothesized that the col— lege will be a self—minimizing —+ social unit. Given a college composed of self—minimizing -+ departments, it is hypothesized ” that the college will be a self—perpetuating +— social unit. Given a cluster of apathetic —— departments, it is hypothesized that the resulting college will also be an apathetic -— social unit. The logic of these hypotheses follows that expressed above in the discussion of ”Individuals and Departments." These hypotheses apply particularly to multi—department col- leges that are not part of a larger university. Mutually +- departments will not find a satisfactory basis for agreement _____~__________ 2Ibid. on basic I a .+ colle each other +- collegE dent or 0’! Wi somewhat c systems, i within the hypotheses department produce a college. 175 on basic principle, general objectives, etc., and will comprise a -+ college. Mutually -+ departments, highly accepting of each other, will find a way to common ground and comprise a +— college, although the personality type of the college presi— dent or other control agent may produce an alternative outcome. Within a multi—college university, the situation is someWhat complicated by the presence of two strata of sub— systems, i.e., colleges within the university and departments within the colleges. In this circumstance, all but one of the hypotheses stated above will usually hold. That is, (a) ++ i departments will produce a ++ college, (b) -+ departments will produce a +- college, and (c) —— departments will produce a —— college. The case of the +— departments is less predictable: (1) if +— departments are less accepting of the remainder of the university than of each other, they may find common cause and their college may be a +— or even ++ social unit, but (2) if this is not the case, their college will be a —+ social unit. QQlleges and Universities Given a university composed of self-maximizing ++ —— ——u._._._._ —. 4_ Colleges, it is hypothesized that the university will prove to be a ++ social unit. Given +- colleges, a -+ university is hYpothesized. Given —+ colleges, a +— university is hypothe_ Sized. Given —— colleges, a —— university is hypothesized. A combinat combinatic aide modal the self-p sity would Higher Edu [—1 H1 maximizing toothesiz SE’stem wit‘ it would b. COmposed o socia. States is ‘ Wected t: jLSCUSSion a‘l‘dthat i1 The Staternents ECtUal Stat In EQIEement E ig‘ oe a Sel ta Sk’ Sal/s 17b The modal pattern of departments is judged to be +-. A combination of +- departments should produce a —+ college. A combination of —+ colleges should produce a +— university, i.e., the modal pattern for universities should logically be that of the self-perpetuating +— social system, and the typical univer— sity would be the university ”behind the ivory curtain." Higher Education in the United States If U. S. higher education were composed of self— maximizing ++ institutions, according to the relationships hypothesized, it would constitute a self—maximizing ++ social system within U. S. society. If composed of —+ institutions, it would be expected to constitute a +— social system. If composed of —— institutions, it would be expected to constitute a -- social system. However, if higher education in the United States is composed of +— colleges and universities, it would be ” expected to constitute a —+ social system. The preceding discussion indicates that U.S. higher education is so composed and that it ggeg constitute such a social system. The observers cited in Chapter I reveal in their ‘ statements their judgments regarding both the ideal and the actual status of U. S. higher education in this regard. In terms of what "ought to be,’ there is substantial agreement among the observers; U. 8. higher education ought .n.__i to be a self—maximizing ++ social system within society. Its task, says one observer, "is to define democratic culture in some fash excellenc: emphasize etor. " A: of states: participa‘ E and unive: Dee obser‘ rder to ; C) the power the instii Perceives Service, 1 ll‘ ‘99P Ame] 177 some fashion which will both reserve a place for uncommon excellence and, even in connection with the largest masses, emphasize the highest rather than the lowest common denomin— ator." As another says, ”education in a democracy is a form of statesmanship which seeks a wise middle course between participation and isolation." Furthermore, the observers seem to agree that colleges and universities should be self-maximizing ++ social units. One observer is displeased.that those who go to school "in order to increase their money—making capacity“ should possess the power to ”irresistably mold the educational standards of the institution they attend." An observer objects to what he perceives as the fact that higher education is "not a public 1 4 service, but an instrument of social privilege” employed to "keep America capitalist.” Another objects to what he per— ceives as the fact that some professors ask "What do most students want?" instead of ”What would a good education con— Sist of?‘l The opinion is suggested that higher education Should not be "too responsive to the needs of society." Judgments regarding actual practice are implicit in Such commentaries. The comments imply that institutions of higher education follow the lead provided by their clientele, that U. S. higher education serves as an instrument for per- petuating specified beliefs prized by others, etc. These com— ments would describe a self—minimizing —+ social system highly dependent Presses t: higher ed' ProcesSiO] if 90metir inmuCh i: T< system mee mcial SYS 1m, re] mt a Self system it the dictat etisfying edeffect afier sySt Se higher edu ier since ndespeci imested p! irr . esearci \ 3 R. 178 dependent upon others. It seems to me that David Riesman's description ex— presses the majority view in his observation that, "American higher education seems to me directionless at the head of the procession as far as major innovations are concerned, in rapid if sometimes contradictory motion in the middle, and lacking in much if any aliveness at the end.”3 To say that U. S. higher education is a —+ social system means that it is —+ with reference to significant other social systems within society, e.g., government, commerce, labor, religion, the military, etc. This is to say that it is not a self-maximizing social system, but rather that as a system it follows the lead signalled by other systems or obeys the dictates of other systems. This is to say that it lacks satisfying goals of its own (or that it subverts its own ends) and effects systemic linkage in order to serve objectives of other_systems. Several clues tend to strengthen this View of U. S. higher education. One such clue lies in the area of research. Ever since the impact upon U. S. higher education of Scottish and especially of German universities, U. S. institutions have invested portions of their professional and material resources in research on the grounds that research is ”good.” In recent M 3Riesman, Op. cit., pp. 51—52. Years' 0t military' financial Particul a: Provided 1 cial Supp< resealrch t :ee'tS the the, a Se research 1 2:” outside :an Capita to suppOrt favored by research f1 szortant 1 .o sponsor. 179 years, other major social systems in U. S. society (e.g., the military, industry, etc.) have chosen to lend substantial financial support to research in subject matter areas of their particular interest or concern. Much of that support has been provided to universities. A self—maximizing ++ university can accept such finan— cial support and use it in the specified areas, to conduct research that satisfies the university's gwn objectives yet meets the aims of the contributing social systems. At the same time, a self—maximizing university can continue to support research in those areas of study that are net beneficiaries of outside financing. In fact, a self—maximizing ++ university can capitalize its opportunity, utilizing the special financing to support virtually all the research being done in areas favored by outside social systems, while concentrating its gwn research funds in areas that the university itself deems important but which other social systems are not constrained to sponsor. I A self-minimizing —+ institution can be expected not to grasp opportunity in this fashion. Because significant Other social systems prize specified areas of study, a —+ university also deems them of special importance. A —+ uni- versity then compounds the imbalance of research emphasis by Zoncentrating its own resources on the very areas of study that are being de] because .' tion and indecisic "other. " pursue or concentre If the 11' the insti and apply not so CC iCCept Sy reCeive O T EdHeation pittErns tions. C educatiOn H V ‘attern. T: “19h Valm 900d PUbl; 180 that are favored by outside social systems, other areas thereby being deprived of fiscal nourishment. A —+ university so acts because it is somewhat at sea, lacks a sense of its own direc— tion and purpose, and grasps the opportunity to resolve its indecision by following the lead provided by an esteemed ”other.” A self—perpetuating +- institution can be expected to pursue only those lines of research that are of interest to it, concentrating its own research resources in the chosen areas. If the interests of others happen to coincide with those of the institution, the +— institution will accept outside funds and apply them to the research. If the interests of others do not so coincide, the +— institution can be expected not to accept systemic linkage with those others, not to seek or to . receive outside funds, and not to alter its own pursuits. t There are institutions of all types within U. S. higher education, and with respect to research, each of the above patterns of social action is followed by particular institu— tions. Current criticism, however, suggests that U. S. higher education as a whole is following the self—minimizing —+ Pattern. The same is suggested by observations regarding the high value placed by institutions of higher education upon 900d public relations, ”good" being understood to emphasize mere amia seems hyl: members 1: concern a than to 1 United St predomina may be nc Provided sities wi the theor {01‘ high- the Other 5Ctivity htion of affect ge although I‘Elax bOu it ledst ‘-’icti0n t \ 4 m . inlelens I dre * e D Pres 181 mere amiability rather than mutual respect. Higher education seems hypersensitive to criticism and reluctant to have its members participate in public life on matters of professional concern and public controversy, preferring to follow rather than to lead.4 It is suggested above that higher education in the United States is (a) a —+ social system and (b) comprised of predominantly +— colleges and universities. One further clue may be noted in substantiation of both conclusions. It is .provided by the social action of public colleges and univer— Sities within a single state. Such colleges and universities, the theory suggests, are mutually +—, i.e., each is accepting (Or high—valuing) of self but rejecting (or low-valuing) of the others, hence they display strong boundary maintaining activity and an antipathy toward systemic linkage. Social action of these institutions supports the prediction to this effect generated out of the theory presented here. However, although they are mutually +—, such institutions now tend to relax boundary maintaining activity sufficiently to achieve at least token systemic linkage with each other, in the con— viction that the state legislature or the state budget bureau ________________ 4See for example Paul F. Lazarsfield and Wagner Thielens, Jr., with David Riesman, The Academic Mind (Glencie: FIGS Press, 1958). Also, David Riesman, Op. Cit., espeCial y Part III. think it institut: higher ec 182 . . _ 5 think it appropriate. In short, although they are +— institutions, together they constitute a —+ social system of i I higher education that follows the lead of a significant other. Prediction The worth of a theoretical conceptualization depends largely upon its usefulness in permitting prediction and con- trol. Two questions are involved. First, there is the question whether it can be predicted, for each perceptual type of system, what effect a change in one element or process Will have upon other elements and processes, and whether such effects can be predicted differently depending upon whether Change is prescribed or induced. Second, there is the question whether it can be predicted how to achieve a desired outcome efficiently and effectively by prescribing or inducing change in one or more elements and processes. It is my judgment that the theory herein presented lends itself to prediction. Predictions of this nature appear earlier in this thesis, e.g., in the discussion of prescribed and induced change. It should be noted first that the Loomis model attempts to isolate nine elements, thirteen elemental processes, SlX ' 'tions of comPrehenSive or master processes, and three condi \- 5See for example Lyman Glenny, The Autonomy of Public ggiléfléfi (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1959). social ac mticulat these ing even to n through a duced in in all as sense, l—h n In this I new point that the 9d COnse conSequer of improv izfec‘t cc social action, all of which are in one fashion or another articulated within a given social system. Interplay among these ingredients is constant, for the system is dynamic, and even to maintain the status guo requires perpetual change through adjustment. The basic prediction may be made that a change intro- duced in any element or process of the system will cause change in all aspects of the system. (This is tautological in a sense, for the idea of a dynamic system me§n§_constant change. In this respect, a social system is a different system at each new point in time.) A second general prediction may be made to the effect that the deliberate introduction of change will have unintend— eai consequences in addition to or in lieu of the intended consequences, e.g., creating a new status—role with the purpose of improving communications will (whether or not it does indeed affect communications) have an effect upon ranking. Certain elements and processes appear to be especially critical to the integration of a system, hence particularly critical to prediction and control. In the following discus— Sion, particular attention is focused upon those elements and Processes that appear to comprise the prime forces by which a social system may be controlled. Among these are: sentiment and its related processes, tension management and communication of sentiment: decision makil systemic link; of this discu: desideratum i! the departmen1 in the United Conce: prise, adminis takers above 6 social action is one manner systems. The 0n the theoret P‘drposeful int 1. Change eise o’ I the p] 184 of sentiment; communication; power and its related processes, decision making and initiation of action; boundary maintenance; systemic linkage; and utilization of facilities. For purposes of this discussion, the value judgment is also made that the desideratum is a self-maximizing ++ social system, whether at the departmental, college, university, or "higher education in the United States” level. Control from Above Conceiving of administration as control of an enter— prise, administration is in part a process by which decision- nakers above exercise controls that will evoke specified social action from social units below in the hierarchy. This is one manner in which changes are introduced into social systems. The following paragraphs offer predictions based 3n the theoretical framework herein presented, regarding the Durposeful introduction of change by action from above. 1. Change can be brought about effectively through exer- :ise of the process "communication of sentiment.” Sentiment ran be communicated explicitly or more subtly by indirection. Good" behavior can be brought about by communicating the entiment that Specified behavior i§_good and by rewarding hose Who display it. A self—minimizing department can be uilt into a self-maximizing department through time by (a) Ommunicating to it sentiment regarding that which is deemed good, (b) appl' the desired 89] arrive at the < ment the facil; corresponds to departments the has done such-é 2. Change linkage. Mutue will, if left i maintaining act can be prescril 31' the departme Estate for comp fibers Of the Word "require" :01: to be Stupi .lhkage, they a 185 od, (b) applauding the department's decisions which reflect e desired sentiment, (c) allowing the department itself to rive at the desired decision, (d) providing to the depart— nt the facilities it must utilize for initiating action that rresponds to the decision, and (e) communicating to other artments the factual news that the department of s done such-andesuch noteworthy deed. 2. Change can be brought about by achieving systemic kage. Mutually antagonistic self—perpetuating departments 11, if left to their own devices, engage in strong boundary intaining activities designed to impede linkage. Linkage i be prescribed in various manners, e.g., require members the departments involved to serve on a committee and specify late for completion of tasks assigned them, or e.gv require ibers of the departments to design a common course. The 7d "require" is used advisedly. Faculty members are presumed to be stupid or blind. If required to establish systemic kage, they are presumed capable of doing so without undue uma. If steps are taken to ensure continuation and ampli— ation of such linkage, if the interdepartmental relations e not to be fatal to either party, and especially if such ations are arranged to prove enhancing of the parties in— ed, the departments may be presumed to consist of members iciently perceptive that they will relax their boundary taining activity and accept the linkage established. 3, Change "allocation oi appointing a 4 mental chairma 4. Change bution of powe mutually antag other, and if its component time bring abo each such +- d tion of the de POWer to the o 5tions to the resources, by zation t0 the m Artful u Change the dep iepartments ar. the department, stat US by tran; 3. Change can be brought about through the process llocation of actors." A —+ department can be changed by pointing a ++ person to the high ranked position of depart— ntal chairman. 4. Change can be effected by an alteration in the distri— tion of power. If the departments of a college are +—, tually antagonistic, and relatively segregated one from the ther, and if the power within the college is diffused among :s component departments, a realignment of power can through .me bring about change in the departments. For example, if ch such +- department controls its own finances, the isola— on of the departments can be minimized by granting a veto wer to the office of the dean, by making lump sum appropri— ions to the college and requiring the dean to allocate the sources, by assigning power over facilities and their utili— tion to the dean rather than to the departmental chairmen, ". Artful use by the dean of such increased power can nge the departments' actions. If, on the other hand, artments are —+ and dependent upon the dean for all things, a departments may be strengthened and guided toward ++ itus by transferring increased power to them and (as noted >ve) communicating to them sentiment regarding expectations to the use of power, etc. 5. Change can be effected by adjustment of status—roles. All indeCiSive tion by 30 red available rega of a +— depart rather its rig by so redefini vhich represen 6. Change utilization of department use teaching metho department can create a situa Priate, uncomf Sentrates heav scholarly duti Changed by red available to i 7. Assumi arlumber of CC the Process of achieved by ch ch 187 An indecisive -+ department can be moved toward the ++ condi— tion by so redefining status—roles as to minimize the choices available regarding possible courses of action. In the case of a +— department, the difficulty is not its indecision but rather its rigidity; it can be moved toward the ++ condition by so redefining status-roles as to require courses of action whiCh represent departures from usual practice. 6. Change can be brought about through adjustments in the utilization of facilities. For example, assume that a +— department uses large—group instruction in preference to other teaching methods; if it is desired to alter that practice, the department can be assigned several seminar~type rooms that create a situation in which large—group procedures are inappro— priate, uncomfortable, and unlikely. If a +— department con- centrates heavily on its pure research to the neglect of other scholarly duties, the department's social action can be changed by reducing the space and related facilities made available to it. 7. Assuming a department to be an apathetic subsystem, a number of courses of action are possible by Which to begin the process of changing it. An influx of new blood may be EChieved by changing the allocation of actors to status-roles. A non-threatening —+ person may be assigned as departmental chairman. Rejecting of self but accepting of others, his effect upon t department's because he wo department an role departme thus tending Linkage could accepting of . ‘- unit, and . that the -- d. Effect Of SUCl toward ++ Sta‘ to ‘+ and late 9' Acqui: insiitution. acquiring fac: 188 effect upon the department should be that of building the department's self—esteem and its regard for other departments, because he would tend to communicate the sentiment that his department and other departments are worthy. In thestatus— role departmental chairman, he would seek systemic linkage, thus tending to shatter the isolation of the department. linkage could be arranged with a ++ department; it would be accepting of and therefore relatively non—threatening to the -- unit, and it would provide a relatively firm set of goals that the —— department might be led to adopt as its own. The effect of such actions would be to move the -- department toward ++ status, probably in stages that would carry it first to —+ and later to ++. 9. Acquisition of adequate facilities is crucial to an institution. Maintenance of systemic linkage is crucial to acquiring facilities. An institution that is undernourished financially but has a well—defined propensity toward enhance— ment can increase its facilities without sacrificing its inte— grity through achievement of systemic linkage with sources of Support. Its own goals clearly in mind, it must learn the goals of the systems that are potential sources of support, devise plans that can satisfy both parties” interests, and play a ++ role in seeking to achieve systemic linkage (i.e., behave not as a supplicant seeking charity, but as one does in seeking a m that is segreg disadvantageou is a prerequis them. tinge Initiat Change of members wel figures. The ity) resides i in authority f the social act in the precedi a‘elartment als Social action the authority also take Step Similarly, a d or a college i The ex Uanersit i \ area to effec {i.e. ’ the dea 189 in seeking a mutually beneficial arrangement). An institution that is segregated or isolated from other systems is in a disadvantageous position, for awareness of the seats of power is a prerequisite to attaining desired systemic linkage with them. Change Initiated Below Change is initiated within a social system by action of members well down the hierarchy as well as by authority figures. The question whether institutionalized power (author— ity) resides in a given status—role is not a determining factor. An authority figure above may perceive the need for change in the social action of units below and take steps, as indicated in the preceding section, to initiate change. A member of a department also may perceive the need for change, e.g., in social action of the department, status—role performance by the authority figure, etc. A member of a department then may also take steps to initiate the change he deems desirable. Similarly, a department may initiate changes in its college, Or a college in its university. The examples in the preceding section involve action by a university (i.e., central administration thereof) calcu— lated to effect change in a college, or action by a college (i.e., the dean thereof) to effect change in a department. The examples inVO: superior unit In re: unit has a nu“ tocounter th‘ bypass the ChE communication. versity level fighting fire uenew pressl inits efforts Exampl imply that the exclusively at mutand that However, the i situation is c finds itself 8 iePartruent see Change Selitiment. It \ . ~31 ()4 its instit me rely by brin :lgures, 190 examples involve the exercise of power by a hierarchically superior unit over a subordinate unit. In response to the superior's actions, a subordinate unit has a number of ploys at its command with which to attempt to counter the intended change. A department may, for example, bypass the chain of command and utilize informal channels of communication. It may induce authority figures at the uni— versity level to bring pressures to bear upon the college, fighting fire with fire, in the hope that the need to deal with the new pressure from above will induce the college to desist in its efforts to impose change upon the department. Examples utilized to this point in the thesis tend to imply that the ability to perceive the need for change is exclusively an attribute of the superordinate member of a secial unit and that the subordinate is always the target of change. However, the implication is unintended. An equally plausible situation is one in which a self—maximizing ++ department finds itself stymied by inaction or improper action (as the department sees it) at higher levels. Change may be initiated from below by communicating a Sentiment. It may be initiated by the adOption of a new norm and its institutionalization by members. It may be initiated Diversit of I The vi ences lead to discussed in t college, for e role to View t His view of ti research, sert enter consiste may be unaware other hand, t} sees that tag} Whereas the de member. Even Self‘and-O’Chel differing perc hey may becor For e: is greatly ent l’ESearCh. He deferrecl. He mindedly upon :0 the resear‘ Other things .‘ 191 Diversity of Perception The views from above and below differ, and the differ— ences lead to attempts to initiate change by various maneuvers discussed in the two preceding sections. The dean of a college, for example, is required by the nature of his status— role to view the college, its departments, and the university. His view of the college provides a perspective in which teaching, research, service, space, money, equipment, and other matters enter consistently into figure. The member of a department may be unaware of many factors perceived by the dean. On the other hand, the member currently engaged in a particular task sees that task and related possibilities in great detail, whereas the dean may be unaware of factors perceived by the member. Even if both individuals involved are self—actualizing, self—and—other—accepting ++ persons, the result of their differing perceptions may be extreme tension between them. They may become mutually +— with respect to each other. For example, assume that the member of the department is greatly enthused by possibilities he perceives in his current research. He requests added support, which is declined or deferred. He is enthused and concentrates rather single— mindedly upon the research. In a sense he is +- With respect t0 the research, i.e., he values the research very highly and Other things lowly. The dean, on the other hand, under pressure of repeated re which are as 3 him, may becor he does not va problems he pe The d: stem from the not sufficient aversion of : lem then is t< Ception. The Coordinator, < overlap more ; does that Of ‘ the perceptua. team, The ll bl" action of establishmeht does not mere It also requi individual pe Ell the eXtre 192 of repeated requests that he support a project the virtues of which are as yet outside his perceptual field and unknown to him, may become rather —+ with regard to the research, i.e., he does not value the project highly in comparison to other problems he perceives. The difficulties implicit in a situation of this sort stem from the fact that the individuals' perceptual fields are not sufficiently congruent, i.e., their limited overlap forms a version of social reality that is not satisfying. The prob- lem then is to find a means of mediating differences in per— ception. The perceptual field of a department head, a research coordinator, or an assistant to the dean can be expected (a) to overlap more fully with the perceptual field of the dean than does that of the professor and (b) to overlap more fully with the perceptual field of the professor than does that of the dean. The linkage between dean and professor can be achieved by action of such an intermediary. This suggests that the establishment of ”good" communications within a social system does not merely require the establishment of formal ”channels. It also requires the establishment of an unbroken chain of individual perceptual fields such that linkage exists between all the extremes of perception held by members Of the SYStem- Th frame of r by which t higher edu variety th the necess garding hi "objective tualize hi Which to c hence achi 193 Conclusion The preceding sections demonstrate that the theoretical frame of reference set forth in this thesis provides a means by which to explain,-analyze, and predict phenomena within higher education in the United States. It accommodates the variety that exists in U. S. higher education. It accommodates the necessarily personal reports by diverse individuals re- garding higher education. It does constitute a consistent ”objective" frame of references by means of which to concep— tualize higher education in the United States and in terms of which to collate diverse views regarding that phenomenon, hence achieves the task established at the outset of this thesis. Pei the phe approac an ob je in orde measure phenome side, i behavin Observe behave '10 deve based u 194 APPENDIX A ASPECTS OF PERCEPTUAL THEORY Perceptual theory regarding human behavior derives from ‘ g the phenomenological approach to the study of behavior. This approach may be contrasted with an objective approach. Using an objective approach, one observes behavior from the outside in order to record those aspects of behavior that can be measured in quantitative objective terms or units. Using the phenomenological approach, one observes behavior from the in— side, i.e., from the point of view of the individual who is behaving.1 Reliance upon the objective approach permits an observer to predict that a specified percentage of people will behave in a specified manner in a specified situation, i.e., to develop a probability statement for individual behavior based upon observation of groups. The observer who relies upon the phenomenological approach attempts to view the situation from the point of view of a particular individual in order to the Predict what that individual will do in a given situation; ' ' ” a “external" Observer thus relies upon an “internal rather than n approach to the study of individual behavior. ._________________ Individual Behavior lDonald Snygg and Arthur W. Combs, 335 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949), pa 21bid., pp. 3—9. cept phenc in wt and s schol 68581” Egygl 5153 life sc0pe Cones Char; with, expey Cali R165] p- 2i 195 The Perceptual Field Use of the term ”phenomenological" arises out of the con— cept of the ”phenomenal field" of the individual human organ— ism. The phenomenal field has been defined as ”the entire uni- verse, including himself, as it is experienced by the individual at the instant of action."3 Snygg and Combs describe the phenomenal field further as the universe of naive experience in which each individual lives, the everyday situation of self and surroundings which each person takes to be reality.4 Other scholars have used various terms to describe a similar or essentially the same concept. Koffka, in Principles of Gestalt Psychology, uses the term “behavioral field.” Kurt Lewin, in A Dynamic Theory of Personality, writes of the ”individual's life space." Lazarsfeld and Thielens refer to ”the effective scope of a man's world” a phrase which nicely expresses the concept; ”What we call the effective scope of a man's world characterizes, thus, what he perceives, what he has contact with, and what he reaches for through his interest or his ' 5 ' ' ' not identi— eXpectations.” In this sense, one man 5 world 15 cal to another's. As Sapir notes, "The dairy—man, the mOVie 3Ibid., p. 15. 41bid., 5Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens, Jr. with D::;:) Riesman, The Academic Mind (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, , p. 264. actress, th obviously b each other culture are totally unre cultural pr< consign the sectors, 'lj tract of 'tr Perceptu individual a ”All bEhaVio and Pertinen ism‘HB Thus ness is a ca1 therefol‘e be} values, belie perCeption is individual I S 196 actress, the laboratory physicist, the party whip, have obviously built up worlds which are anonymous or opaque to each other . . . ."6 Sapir observes that some elements of culture are central and very real to an individual, some are totally unreal, and some constitute what he terms "marginal cultural property“; thus ”a 'hard—headed businessman' may consign the movie actress and the physicist to two adjoining sectors, 'lively' and 'sleepy' respectively, of a marginal 7 tract of 'triviality. Perceptual theory holds that reality for an individual is what that individual perceives reality to be, and that an individual acts in a manner consistent with that perception. "All behavior, without exception, is completely determined by and pertinent to the phenomenal field of the behaving organ— ism.”8 Thus, perceptual theory accepts the concept that aware- ness is a cause of behavior. It holds that perception, and therefore behavior, is affected by the individual's physiology, values, beliefs, and needs. It holds that an individual‘s Perception is dependent upon opportunity. It holds that each individual's phenomenal field, perceptual field, or "the effective scope of his world,” is unique to him, and that from _______________ 6 . . Edward Sapir, Culture, Language and Personality, edited by David G. Mandelbaum (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958), p. 155. 7 Ibid., p. 157. 8Snygg and Combs, op. cit., p. 15. g 9 his po releva Pe Koffka umifie indivi from t Percep scious howeve. of whi aSpect Percep- COmposi aSpect. m0ment aSpect; highly SPOmdi; are thy be tho is in : \ 9. 10. i 197 his point of view at any instant "his behavior is purposeful, relevant, and pertinent to the situation as he understands itJ' Perceptual theory, following such Gestalt psychologists as Koffka and Goldstein, holds that the phenomenal field is a unified field which includes all the universe of which an individual is aware, and that the level of awareness shifts from time to time regarding a given element of that universe. Perceptual theory does not make a distinction between con— sciousness and unconsciousness as two separate fields. It does, however, distinguish between those aspects of one's universe of which one is highly aware at a given moment and those aspects of his universe of which one is scarcely conscious. Perceptual theorists refer to the perceptual field as being composed of ”figure" and ”ground,” figure referring to those aspects of the field of which one is highly aware at a given moment and ground referring to those peripheral or background aspects of which one is only vaguely aware at that moment. The highly conscious aspects of behavior are thought of as corre— Sponding to figure and the vague or fuzzy aspects of behavior . O are thought of as corresponding toyground.l The figure may be thought of as the focus of the behaver's field. That which is in figure at a given moment is highly differentiated, i.e., u¥l 9 Ibid., p. 13. 10 Ibid., p. 17. he beha ground a field, t future a Perc within t aware of amanner his univ vidual i imdividu percepti. his cone: self Or'; COIISistei IIIIIIII:—________________________________________________________________?'E7 198 the behaver is highly aware of its details. That which is in ground at the same moment is blurred. The entire perceptual field, the behaver's universe, includes past, present, and future as he has experienced or as he infers them. ! Perceptual theory holds that the individual is himself within the effective scope of his world, i.e., that he is aware of himself, and that he therefore perceives himself in a manner uniquely his just as he perceives the remainder of his universe in a manner uniquely his. Reality for an indi— vidual is what that individual perceives reality to be. The individual has a concept of self or of self—organization, a perception of himself as a part of reality; this is termed his concept of actual self (also concept of the phenomenal self or actual self concept). The individual acts in a manner consistent with that actual self concept, it is held, because it is postulated that all behavior is consistent with, per— tinent to, and determined by the perceptual field, of which the self concept is a part. Perceptual theory holds that individual behavior is pre— dictable. Its predictability derives from the postulated rela— tionship between the perceptual field and the behavior of an individual. If behavior is invariably consistent with the behaver's field, then the field may be understood or recon— Structed from behavior; also, the behaver's future field and future be} point of \ chosen. ] tionship 1 regard the In order : know what behavior 1 The p: is held t. or kmowin field ris becomes In figure is Entiated Sigllificai Dy differ 199 future behavior may be projected.ll From the behaver's own point of view, his behavior may be perceived to be freely chosen. From the observer's point of View, however, the rela— tionship postulated between field and behavior permits him to regard the behaver's future behavior as lawful and predictable. In order successfully to predict behavior, the observer must know What fields are alike, how fields change, and what the behavior has been of the individual being observed. The process of change in an individual's perceptual field is held to be a process of differentiation, i.e., of recognizing or knowing differences, a process in which new segments of the field rise into figure and the individual's awareness of them becomes more detailed. The emergence of new segments into figure is accompanied by the lapse of others into the undiffer— entiated ground. Since that which is in figure is of greatest Significance in determining behavior, change in brought about by differentiation. Differentiation is held to be an aspect of a process carried on by an individual for the satisfaction of his need.13 Ebe basic human need is held to be "the preservation and éfihancement of the phenomenal self (emphasis supplied).’I ; 11 Ibid., p. 21. 12 Ibid., pp. 29, 51. 13 Ibid. The phe The percept or enha be Perc tbreate 3w, th liVEn p r1) tiern as thre is adOp 14 [H 200 The phenomenal self is defined as including "all those parts of the phenomenal field which the individual experiences as . . . 4 part or characteristic of himself.“1 Self Concepts The phenomenal self is part of the individual's reality or perceptual field. His prime need is held to be the maintenance or enhancement of self. Behavior is held to be meaningful in that an individual behaves in manners calculated to satisfy his needs, primary among which is the need to protect, fortify, preserve, or enhance his actual self concept. He is held to differentiate those aspects of his perceptual field which from his point of view will help satisfy that basic need; hence, change is held to be derived from differentiation. That which is differentiated or ”in figure" may be perceived to be more or less enhancing of the self; it may, alternatively, be perceived as an object which, to a greater or lesser extent, threatens to damage the self. That which is differentiated may, therefore, either (a) bring about the reinforcement of a given pattern of behavior, (b) constrain or inhibit a given Pattern of behavior, or (c) conduce to the adoption of new patterns of behavior. If the object differentiated is perceived as threatening, behavior is directed away from it or behavior is adopted which is calculated to avoid it. If the object \— 14 Ibid., p. 58. _..___.._ _. “__-_...“ _ _fl. __._... _ diffs behav more, three in ii monoy 201 differentiated is perceived as neutral or as enhancing of self, behavior is directed toward it. According to Snygg and Combs, the more clearly an object is perceived to be either threatening or enhancing, the greater becomes the portion of ”figure” occupied by it; that is, the figure of the perceptual field narrows to include that object, and other objects drop into undifferentiated ground. Further— more, according to Snygg and Combs, the more immediate the threat or the opportunity for self—enhancement which an object in figure is perceived to constitute, the more completely it monopolizes figure and the greater will be the ensuing expen- diture of energy in purposive behavior. The phenomenal self has been defined as those parts of the perceptual field which the individual experiences as part or characteristic of himself. The actual self concept is defined by Snygg and Combs as follows: “The self—concept includes those parts of the phenomenal field which the individual has dif— ferentiated as definite and fairlypstable characteristics of himself (emphasis supplied).”16 The individual is conceived of as being both subject and object, perceiver and perceived. The individual is part of his own perceptual field, and the actual self concept is his perception of himself, or “the g 15 Ibid., p. 111. 16 Ibid., p. 112. indit perce to it of st his 5 at hi perce r‘!‘ 4 nine 202 individual as known to the individual.”17 The origins of self— perception are social, in that when the individual stands back to look at himself, so to speak, he perceives himself in terms of standard frames of references derived from his culture, from his society. To use the figure—ground concept, when he looks at himself, the self becomes figure and the remainder of his perceptual field is ground. As figure, the self is a valued thing and other things are seen as means to its maintenance and enhancement, the goal toward which behavior is directed. When another value or goal enters into figure, the self as part of . . 18 the ground is a means to attainment of the goal. The individual has several concepts of self in addition to that of actual self. This follows from the postulate that the individual behaves in manners calculated to maintain or to enhance the self. The actual self concept is the individual‘s perception of the self as it is. A need to enhance the self implies that the individual holds certain values, beliefs, and goals which furnish a perception of what enhancement involves or of the manner and direction in which the self must be Changed in order to be enhanced. The individual has a percep— tion, then, of an ideal self concept, a perception of himself l7Gardner Murphy, in Personality, quoted by T. M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1950), p. 312. 18 ' Newcomb, op. cit., p. 320. as he Kare: hmage meaSL tual the r the s desir chang given eXieh C9in 203 as he would aspire to be if his idealizations could be fulfilled; Karen Horney terms this wishful self-picture the ”idealized image."19 The gaps between the actual and ideal self concepts are the measure of an individual's aspirations. According to percep— tual theory, the individual behavior is held to be motivated by the need to maintain and to enhance the self in accordance with the self concepts; the discrepancy between his perception of actual self and his perception of ideal self represents his desire for self—enhancement and indicates the direction of change which he would perceive as enhancing. Propensity to Change Perceptual theory holds that this apparent need for change, this perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal self con— cepts, is the source of what may be termed psychological energy that may be expanded in behavior designed to narrow the gap. It eflects a propensity of the individual, a persistent and di— ectional tendency, to respond in characteristic ways to a iven situation. It represents an attitude toward change; the Xtent of the discrepancy affects the intensity of the per— eived need to change; the nature of the ideal self concept etermines the direction of change that is perceived to be esirable or acceptable. The existence of this propensity does ot guarantee that change will take place. It does, however, nguoted in Newcomb, Social Psychology, p. 386. indicat place b! The ind termed . motivat: capacit. may not undertai ’_l - l—h :34 (D P he may ] underta] 204 indicate that under favorable circumstances change can take place because the energy is available with which to effect it. The individual is motivated toward self-enhancement (also termed self—realization, —attainment, or —actualization), motivated, that is, to make the fullest and best use of his capacities in accordance with his idealizations. He may or may not be able to pursue his propensity, i.e., actively to undertake behavior designed to enhance the self. For example, if he is aware of threat——of menace to his phenomenal self—— he may be limited to maintenance behavior and be unable to undertake self—actualizing behavior.2O Should he be unable to differentiate the source of the awareness of threat, he will be unable satisfactorily to deal with it and thus will be obliged to limit himself to maintenance behavior for con- siderable periods of time. Satisfaction of his need in this situation requires the resolution of the threat. If his per— ception is not adequate to the task, he cannot resolve the threat. The inadequacy of perception may stem from physio— logical difficulties of the human organism, from lack of time, from environmental difficulties, from psychological diffi- Culties, etc. 20 Snygg and Combs, Op. cit., p. 118. for to 1 gooc rig} indj tent perc mary self Perc adeq enti 205 "AdequacY'of Perceptions and of Self Concepts As postulated above, perceptual theory holds that reality for the individual is what that individual perceives reality to be. This does not mean that his perception of reality is good or bad, accurate or inaccurate, adequate or inadequate, right or wrong. Whatever the quality of his perception, the individual will behave in a manner he perceives to be consis- tent with his self concept. The adequacy and accuracy of his perception are separate considerations. An individual strives to satisfy his needs, and the pri— mary need is held to be the maintenance or enhancement of self. Behavior which satisfies need is said to be adequate. Perceptions which lead to adequate behavior are said to be adequate perceptions.21 If an individual is unable to differ- entiate a threat of which he is aware, for example, his per— ception is said to be inadequate. If his behavior does not resolve the threat, that behavior too is said to be inadequate. Adequacy or inadequacy, therefore, are adjectival terms applied to the individual's differentiation or perception in a given situation, not to the absolute quality of his version of reality. As Newcomb says, “The problem of what is and what is not QQIEEEEZELY real is a metaphysical one, which no amount of __________________ 21 Ibid., pp. 119, 127. scienti: individ1 except 1 the "so< fields c to hold tested a manner c perceive inclinec to be ar That is, iStiC WE behaviox SOCially with cat S3’10ulci 1 SUbSeqUE of diffs EXperier ls incag \ 22 Ne 23 . . RC {in & anerSj 206 scientific evidence will ever solve."22 The correctness of an individual's perception of reality is not subject to proof, except perhaps for the "proof" provided by comparing it against the "social reality" defined by the overlapping of perceptual fields of different people, the perceptions most people seem to hold in common.23 The accuracy of perception is regularly tested against social reality as an individual behaves in a manner consistent with his own perception of reality. If he perceives himself to be especially lucky, he may be very inclined to gamble, for example, and if he perceives himself to be an exceptionally good boxer, he may be inclined to fight. That is, his behavior will be consistent with the character— istic way he has of perceiving himself. If he persists in his behavior, and if his perception is not congruent with reality socially defined, he may shortly find himself penniless and with cauliflowered ears, an eventuality the effect of which should be a revision in his perception of reality and in his subsequent behavior. If he manages to achieve a higher level Of differentiation in accordance with the evidence of his Xperiences, he will forestall additional disaster, but if he is incapable of heightening his awareness of pertinent detail 2 2Newcomb, op. cit., p. 628. 3Robert E. Bills, ”About People and Teaching,“ The Bulle— in of the Bureau of School Service, College of Education, niversity of Kentucky, Vol. 28 (December, 1955), p. l3n. regar tinue which to thl goals self . inclul fmul about more . 0f hi a set His c. hOlds haIlds. 207 regarding his strengths, weaknesses, and limits, he will con— tinue imprudently to back his luck and fighting abilities. Scholars such as Linton24 have described the manner in which culture contributes to the molding of personality and to the acquisition by an individual of beliefs, values, and goals. When the individual looks at himself and develops a self concept, he inevitably sees himself through the social frame of reference derived from his culture and subcultures, including, and perhaps especially, the subculture of his family. ”Out of the interaction of the child with the world about him, the individual comes to differentiate more and more clearly his phenomenal self.”25 Seeing himself in terms of his experience and of his culture, the individual develops a set of meanings about himself and his relation to the world. His concept of the phenomenal self reflects the values he holds. He sees himself as honest or dishonest, strong or weak, handsome or ugly, for example, in terms of culturally derived values and in terms of the ways in which others treat him, i.e., in terms of a reality that is socially determined. The henomenal self developed by the individual consists in some 'ndeterminate measure of others' definition of him. 4 Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality (New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1945). 5 n 1 3 I Snygg and Combs, o . Cit., p. 83, Cite Jean Piaget in Upport. Acco. more or tendency disrupti« lished e: selectio: This doe; merely t2 reluctan. a differe menal se, makes ad_ lflleidu, Corporate Therc Self Con. may be a; Self con. SOcial r1 c0ricept I reality 1 \ 208 According to Snygg and Combs, the phenomenal self becomes more or less permanently fixed due to (l) inertia, or the tendency of a self—organization once established to resist disruption, and (2) the fact that the self concept once estab- lished exercises great influence upon the interpretation and selection of subsequent perceptions or subsequent experiences? This does not imply that subsequent change is impossible, but merely that it may be achieved only slowly and with some reluctance. Changes may occur when the individual perceives a difference between the demands of a situation and his pheno- menal self—~when he can see himself as others see him—~and makes adjustments accordingly; it may also occur when the individual achieves a further differentiation of self and in— corporates a new ingredient into the phenomenal self.27 There are three variations of the relationship between self concept and socially defined reality: (1) the self concept may be approximately congruent with external reality; (2) the self concept may be defined in terms of higher value than social reality would assign the individual; and (3) the self Concept may be defined in terms of lower value than social . . . . 28 . reality would indicate as appropriate. Just as perceptions ¥ 26 . Snygg and Combs, op. Cit., pp. 83—85. 27 Ibido I pp. 92—95. 28 . . - Bills, op. Cit., pp. l6—18; Snygg and Combs, o . Cit P. 102. ° I and be inadeq basis. indivi such a differ ”A is cap aspect differ accept and wi able t accord text, discus I'Efers wither 3C 31 209 and behaviors may be described as being relatively adequate or inadequate, self concepts may be so described and on the same basis. "An adequate phenomenal self is one which leads the individual to maximum need satisfaction."29 Adhievement of such a self depends upon the individual's ability to make differentiations of self and to perceive social reality as well. ”A phenomenal self is adequate in the degree to which it is capable of accepting into its organization any and all 30 . aspects of reality.” An indiVidual free to make any and all differentiations and who has a phenomenal self adequate to accept them, say Snygg and Combs, is able to operate smoothly and with a minimum of threat to himself from society, and is able to accept such flunyfls as do arise and to modify himself accordingly.31 Acceptance The term "accepting" or "acceptance,' as used in this con— text, requires emphasis. The term is used by Maslow in his discussions of the ”self-actualizing" person. Acceptance refers to the ability of an individual to accept fact as fact, Without chagrin, complaint, or anxiety. It is the ability to 9 I Snygg and Combs, op. Cit., p. 135. 30 - Ibid., p. 136. 31 Ibid., pp. 138—39. ”take 1 nature accepts about v are har looks c simply arguing the sel and in to see Without Mor Maslow of the to "ace low, ph the lev All of SimPly thESe p \ 32 D A ‘SYChol (New Yo 210 ”take the frailties and sins, weaknesses and evils of human nature in the same unquestioning spirit that one takes or accepts the characteristics of nature. One does not complain about water because it is wet, or about rocks because they are hard, or about trees because they are green. As the child looks out upon the world with wide, uncritical, innocent eyes, simply noting and observing what is the case, without either arguing the matter or demanding that it be otherwise, so does the self—actualizing person look upon human nature in himself and in others.”32 Acceptance is the ability and willingness to see things as they are, forthrightly, frankly, baldly, without defensiveness or artificiality. Moreover, with regard to perceptions of self and others, Maslow attributes an element of value or attitude to his use of the term acceptance. His ”self—actualizing” people are able i to ”accept" themselves and others on all levels: the relatively low, physiological level, as good and lusty animals; and on g the levels of "love, safety, belongingness, honor, self-respect. All of these are accepted without question as worth while Simply because they are part of human nature, and because 3 these people are inclined to accept the work of nature rather than to argue with her for not having constructed things to a 32A. H. Maslow, "Self—Actualizing People: A Study of Psychological Health," in Clark E. Moustakas (ed.), The Self (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), pp. 160—94 at 168. diffei undisl worth: it quate' becaus aspect tiatic persor integx evider refusi thity 211 different pattern."33 Thus "acceptance" does not merely denote undistorted perceptions; it also connotes the attribution of worthiness to that which is seen in self and in others. The accepting person is therefore likely to have an "ade— quate” self concept, using Snygg and Combs' terminology, because he can accept into his self—organization any and all aspects of reality and because he is free to make differen— tiations of self and to perceive social reality. The accepting person believes himself to be worth while and to have dignity, integrity, and worth, but can examine and accept all the evidence of his experiences, neither ignoring failure nor refusing to recognize success, without destroying his sensi- tivity to either his own needs or the needs of other people.34 By the same token, a rejecting person is one who cannot i u s . thus accept any and all aspects of reality into his self— organization and who cannot thus make differentiations of self or perceive social reality. An individual may define his self 2 concept in terms of lower value than social reality would indicate as appropriate. Such a person consistently over— values his own worth and accepts only such evidence as con— ’ firms his own excessively high self—assessment. He is likely to insist on doing things he cannot do well, to insist on 33Ibid., p. 169. 4Bills, op. cit., pp. 18—19. attempting that he has Percept of maintain vated towarl use of his . He has a pr. logical ene: achieve cha: behavior th. Which he is extent to wj Person is t] by definitii being baSic; who can per: t0 make dif: PeIson is t] E‘Ctualizing pensity to , excessively is unlikely unlikely to realization % Lila. 212 attempting that for which he is not prepared, and to insist that he has succeeded even hithe face of failure.35 Perceptual theory holds that the prime human need is that of maintaining or enhancing the self. The individual is moti— vated towardself—enhancement, to make the fullest and best use of his capacities in accordance with his idealizations. He has a propensity to change, and he possesses the psycho- logical energy with which to undertake behavior calculated to achieve change. He is potentially capable of initiating behavior that will achieve self-actualization. The extent to which he is an accepting individual greatly influences the extent to which that potential can be released. An accepting person is the most likely to develop an adequate self concept; by definition, he is a person who deems that self concept as being basically worthy, who sees others also as being worthy, who can perceive and accept social reality, and who is free to make differentiations regarding the self. An accepting person is therefore the most likely to become a self— actualizing person, to pursue and to make effective his pro— pensity to change. Whether he assigns excessively high or excessively low values to his self concept, a rejecting person is unlikely to define an adequate self concept and therefore unlikely to be able to initiate behavior that will permit self- realization or self—enhancement. —.g 35 Ibid. The meas degree to wt degree of wc standard. '1 of their sel others. If approximatel accepting) < the worth 0 they may be Those w‘ likely to d dignity, an more, they aSSume that di(Enity, ar 213 The measure of high or low acceptance of self reflects the degree to which persons perceive themselves to be worthy. The degree of worth can only be expressed with reference to some standard. The standard against which persons measure the worth of their self concepts is their own perception of the worth of others. If they accept the worth of others, they may be approximately equally accepting of self, overvaluing (or over- accepting) of self, or undervaluing of self. If they reject the worth of others, they may be rejecting of self also or they may be accepting of self. Those who are accepting of both self and others are most likely to define adequate self concepts. They attribute worth, dignity, and integrity to themselves and to others. Further— more, they attribute similar beliefs to others, i.e., they assume that others (e.g., peers) likewise attribute worth, dignity, and integrity both to themselves and to others. In this sense, they believe themselves to be similar to others.36 A Perceptual Typology of Personalities Robert E. Bills has developed a perceptual typology of individual personalities. It is based upon individuals' acceptance of self and of others, and classifies individuals into four categories on the basis of the estimates of ; 3 6Ibid., p. 20. acceptance. ' Also descril as typical < Four Percep' Bills a‘ gories on t] worth or aci reports res< istics of p: The £011: each case, - and the sec: A ++ pe; Person is S‘- is said to 3 to relect b. may Su9gest described h! u H Person equally or 1 214 37 . acceptance. Bills' four categories are described below. Also described are the personality characteristics he reports as typical of persons in each category. Four Perceptual Types of Personality Bills attempts to classify individuals within four cate— gories on the basis of his system for estimating the degree of worth or acceptance assigned to self and to others. He also reports research findings regarding the personality character— istics of persons in each category. The four categories are labeled ++, +-, —+, and ——. In each case, the first symbol refers to one's acceptance of self and the second symbol to one's acceptance of others. A ++ person is said to accept himself and others. A +- person is said to accept self but reject others. A —+ person ~is said to reject self but accept others. A —- person is said to reject both self and others. More specifically (and this may suggest something of Bills' instrumentation, which is not described here), the four categories are described as follows: a ++ person accepts himself and believes that his peers are equally or more accepting of themselves; a +— person accepts ‘ 7Robert E. Bills, Edgar L. Vance, and Orison S. McLean, "An Index of Adjustment and Values,“ Journal of Consulting Missy, Vol. 15 (1951), pp. 257—61. 3 . . 8Ibid. See also Bills, op. Cit., pp. 20-24. himself bu‘ themselves; peers are I himself anc ting of the Characteris The pei person desc the "self—e the other t reSpects nc to be self- A +- p6 assumes pre the aCtual great beth Person, He than does t than does t to Please c individual reality’ UK more intros 215 himself but believes that his peers are not as accepting of themselves; a —+ person rejects himself but believes that his peers are more accepting of themselves; and a —~ person rejects himself and believes that his peers are equally or more rejec— ting of themselves. Characteristics of Behavior The personality and behavior characteristics of the ++ person described by Bills indicate that a ++ person can become the ”self—actualizing" person described by Maslow. Persons in the other three categories (+-, —+, and —-) are in some respects not "accepting” individuals, hence are less likely to be self—actualizing individuals. A +— person assumes present superiority. A -+ person assumes present inferiority. The discrepancy is slight between ‘the actual and ideal self concepts of the +— person; it is great between the actual and ideal self concepts of the -+ person. Hence, the +— person perceives less need to change than does the —+. The —+ person perceives more problems than does the +— individual; he also makes a greater effort to please others. As compared to the +— person, the —+ individual is hyper—accurate in his perceptions of social reality, more disposed to be a follower, less self—assured, more introspective, and more hesitant to arrive at decisions. Being hyper—accurate in perception, the —+ person also sees more alterne perceptive c others. The ++ i present inf: an excess ivl person, nor iority, as in himself his externa who is over himself, an pleased wit fore free t Situation, excessive“ with achie\ inordinate] 1% Person ; The ++ dCCUrate i] integl‘ity - develop an self‘aCtua 216 more alternatives, is more open to suggestion, and is more perceptive of and receptive to the attitudes and beliefs of others. The ++ person assumes neither present superiority nor present inferiority. He does not act primarily in terms of an excessively high perception of himself, as does the +— person, nor in terms of a need to overcome feelings of infer— iority, as does the —+ person. His awareness of and interest in himself is balanced by his awareness of and interest in his external situation; this is in contrast to the -+ person, who is overly concerned with the perceived necessity to rebuild himself, and in contrast to the +— person, who is overly pleased with himself as he stands. The ++ person is there— fore free to express himself, to respond to the reality of a situation, and to be neither excessively introspective nor excessively unmindful of himself. Not excessively concerned with achieving recognition in the eyes of others and not inordinately interested in demonstrating his superiority, the ++ person is able to act either as a leader or as a follower. I The ++ person may be described as ”accepting,’ for he is accurate in his perceptions and ascribes dignity, worth, and integrity to himself and to others. He is the most likely to develop an adequate self concept, the most likely to become a self—actualizing person, and the most likely to make effective his propensity to change. He can perceive and accept social reality and Not hyper-a the ++ is n of a situat however, ab perceived, express him leader, and ful school The -+ Worth, and Of these va ascribe the an "accepti of Percepti self‘actual The +- Others as b himself. H denotes att \\ 39 ROber Leadersi II 217 reality and is free to make differentiations regarding the self. Not hyper—accurate in his perceptions (as is the —+ person), the ++ is not quite as likely as the -+ to perceive the reality of a situation or to perceive an opportunity to change. He is, however, able to act once the reality or the opportunity is perceived, because he is free to respond to the reality and to express himself. The ++ person has been described as the ideal leader, and ++ people have been described as the most success— ful school administrators, in research reported by Bills. The -+ person ascribes little of the values of dignity, worth, and integrity to himself; even though he ascribes more of these values to others than he does to himself, he does not ascribe them to others as fully as does the ++ person. He is an "accepting” person insofar as acceptance denotes accuracy Of perception. He is not, however, well—equipped to become a self—actualizing person or to act as a leader. The +- person, who values himself extremely highly, sees others as being different from and therefore less worthy than himself. He is an ”accepting" person only insofar as accept‘ denotes attribution of worth to self, but is hypo—accurate in 9Robert E. Bills, ”Attributes of Successful Educational Leaders," in Robert L. Hopper (ed.), Interdisciplinagy Research ippEducational Administration. The Bulletin of the Bureau of §ghool Service, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, Vol. 26 (December, 1953), pp. 16~38. his percept requires tlr equipped tc equipped. The die concepts is his motivat needs to me those self represents also indict: to be enhar The gre Persons; +. Persons are to Change, Others. T1 ceives his little WOrl for he See: and he is . DeSpite hi: to do So a. ~+ Person. 218 his perceptions. Insofar as becoming a self-actualizing person requires that one attribute worth to self, the +- person is well equipped to be self—actualizing, but in other respects he is ill equipped. The discrepancy between a person's actual and ideal self concepts is a measure of his aspirations and a reflection of his motivation, perceptual theory holds, for the individual needs to maintain and to enhance the self in accordance with those self concepts. The discrepancy between actual and ideal represents the extent of his need for self—enhancement. It also indicates the direction of change which he would perceive to be enhancing. (The greatest need for change is perceived by -+ and —- persons; +— persons perceive the least need for change, and ++ persons are intermediate in this regard. The -+ is most willing to change, for he deems himself to be presently less worthy than Others. The —- person is least willing to change, for he per- ceives his unworthiness as inescapable, others being of as little worth as he. The +— person is also unwilling to change, for he sees himself as being already more worthy than others, and he is too pleased with the status quo to wish to alter it. Despite his relative eagerness to change, the ~+ is not as able to do so as he would like to be (or as the ++ person is); the -+ person's intense interest in himself prevents him from responding rate though to act on i trust his j unable to i Bills t of individu more or les reported wi near the 11: from person category; t'. onll’ slight Persons Cla different 0: markedly mo: others than As a be highly usef by Bills an emanation accurately ' used to only 0 . f a glVen . 219 responding to the reality of a situation and, quick and accu— rate though he is in perceiving opportunity, he is not able to act on it, i.e., he is too lacking in self-confidence to trust his judgment regarding appropriate behavior, hence is unable to initiate that behavior. Bills typology is vulnerable to criticism. The allocation of individuals to categories requires that lines be drawn in more or less arbitrary style across a continuum of perceptions reported within a population. A person whose score places him near the limits of one category may not be extremely different from persons whose scores lie near the limits of an adjacent category; thus the scores of a given ++ individual may differ only slightly from those of a given +— person. Similarly, persons classified within a single category may be quite different one from another; for example, one +~ person may be markedly more accepting of self and markedly more rejecting of Others than is another. As a heuristic device, the Bills typology is nevertheless highly useful. The ideal types or constructed types presented by Bills are useful to the extent that they facilitate the explanation of empirical reality, rather than because they accurately correspond to that reality. Ideal types can be used to order concrete data by relating the data to the poles Of a given variable, even though the polar extremes may be upon Criteri basis for CC used for com All pers menal Sewes not all indi' enhancing be] individuals ‘ and ideal Se; termed pSYCh‘ designed to I Anicicem as an adequat adequate perc behavior whic enhance the s realizing, re jec .or he is to \ 40 Charles No -. SLrand Comp 220 exaggerated. This is their principal value. They are based l upon criteria that have empirical referents; they serve as a ' i l basis for comparison of empirical cases. Ideal types can be used for comparative and ordering purposes.4O Summary All persons need to maintain and to enhance their pheno- menal selves in accordance with their self concepts. However, not all individuals are equally able to undertake self— enhancing behavior. This is despite the fact that in all individuals the gap or discrepancy perceived between actual and ideal self concepts represents a potential of what has been termed psychological energy that may be expended in behavior designed to narrow the gap. An accepting person can develop what has been described as an adequate self concept. Such a person is said to have adequate perceptions; adequate perceptions permit adequate behavior which satisfies the need to maintain and the need to enhance the self. Such a person can be a self—actualizing, ~rea1izing, —attaining, or —enhanCing person. The rejecting person is limited to maintenance behaVior, f0r he is to some extent unable to pursue his propensity to __~__________ 40Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960), p. 60. change, i. enhancing perception. to differei to deal sal ceive a dii phenomenal differentia Bills' that is big explaining 221 change, i.e., actively to undertake behavior adequate for enhancing the self. He is limited by the inadequacy of his perceptions; these may be rendered inadequate by an inability to differentiate the sources of his awareness of threst and to deal satisfactorily with threat, by an inability to per- ceive a difference between the demands of a situation and his phenomenal self or self concept, and by an inability to make differentiations of self and to see social reality as well. Bills' classification system provides a conceptual device that is highly useful in describing types of persons and in explaining or anticipating individual behavior. People Sociologis people‘s r describes observing 1T a cliqu saying tha. irrespecti interact." by which 0 Us State Ont of Oped the C We Schola 3 Concept, \ l GeOrc rates and“ Pitir YOrk: Harp 3 Notat Illinois: 222 APPENDIX B ASPECTS OF SOCIAL SYSTEM THEORY People participate in reciprocal action with others. Sociologists term such action ”interaction," and study people's reciprocal and interdependent activity. Homans describes interaction as "participating together.” In observing that certain persons associate together and make up a clique, a gang, a crowd, or a group, he says, "we are saying that they interact frequently with one another, irrespective of the particular activities in which they interact."1 Interaction is defined by Sorokin as ”any event by which one party tangibly influences the overt actions or 2 the state of mind of the other.“ Out of the study of interaction, sociologists have devel- oped the concept of the “social system." Talcott Parsons is the scholar whose name is most often associated with this concept.3 However, the present discussion is based more par— ticularly upon a model (see Figure 2.1) developed by Charles 1George C, Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1950), pp. 84—85. 2Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture and Personality (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947), p. 40. 3Notably in Talcott Parsons. The_Social SysteprlGlencoe: Illinois: The Free Press, 1951). P. Loomis: t analysis of of social ac De Repeated astudent, c develops cer social syste interaction Of a plurali Other are mu of a Pattern Uniformitiee some of whic loomisl Who CO“hosed of is said to E dlSplay SOC1' 223 P. Loomis: the "processually articulated structural model" for analysis of the elements, processes, structure, and conditions of social action of social systems.4 Defining and Delineating Social Systems Repeated interaction, such as that between a professor and a student, comprises a social relationship. Such interaction develops certain uniformities over the course of time. ”The social system," says Loomis, ”is composed of the patterned interaction of members. It is constituted of the interaction Of a plurality of individual actors whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through the definition and mediation Of a pattern of structured and shared symbols and expectations.“5 Uniformities of interaction which develop through time and Some of which tend to persist are termed social systems by Loomis, who describes them as being orderly and systematic.6 Composed of interdependent and identifiable parts, the system iS said to possess social structure. Soc1al relationships display social elements in their uniformities, Loomis says, and they are activated by social processes, ”the dynamics of ______________ Essays on Their Per- 4Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems: Inc sistence and Change (Princeton: D. Van Nestrand Company, 1960). 5 . Ibid., p. 4. 6Ibid., p. 3. 7Ibid. which accou social syst "A mear. the more ir. interactior situation t Loomis.9 } system, the that "a grc Loomis' rej taut becaue Various so< is a parti< aetion. p,- comprise t] b“ on1y ti that ll‘The all . \ HOma elc (GlenCOe, l2 Pars F0 W 224 Which account for the emergence, maintenance and change of social systems.” ”A means of delineating a social system is furnished by the more intense and frequent occurrence of specific types of interaction among members than among non-members, within a 1 situation having both physical and symbolic aspects," says Loomis.9 Homans, writing of a particular variety of social system, the group, on the matter of its delineation says simply that "a group is defined by the interactions of its members.” Loomis' reference to "specific types of interaction" is impor- tant because a person is held to be a member or actor in various social systems at various times, and in each system he is a participant in appropriately different types of inter— action. Parsons states that ". . . a social system does not comprise the total action of concrete persons and collectives, u but only their actions in specific roles."11 He further states that "'The organism’ is not technically part of the system at 12 . . . all . . . .“ Hence the soc1al system is not conceived of 8 Ibid., p. l. 9 Ibid., p. 4. O Homans, op. cit., p. 84. Talcott Parsons and Neil J. Smelser, Economy and Society (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953), P. 21. 12 Parsons, "Psychology and Sociology," in John Gillin (ed.L £9? a Science of Man (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1954), p.70. _—t—_ as indivic‘ etc. Loomis and differ interlinke according system one system" or etc.) 3E m A soci or a subsy depending Homans 3aI action, i' betWeen (31 System. than two of three ‘ "Company" by a flip \ 13 L00 l4 Hon- 225 as individuals, but rather as structure, processes, elements, etc. Loomis and Parsons conceive of society as being structured and differentiated into a number of social systems. "All are interlinked in such a manner that one sees different systems according to the perspective taken,” writes Loomis. Whatever system one is viewing, however, whether it be the ”master system“ or any of its component subsystems (community, family, etc.) the elements that constitute it as a social system and the processes that articulate it remain the same."1 A social system may be viewed as a complex of subsystems, or a subsystem may be viewed as being itself a social system, depending upon the level at which one wishes to examine it. Homans says, ”at whatever level we look at the web of inter— action, it always shows certain thin places, and the lines between groups fall there,” each group constituting a social system. Homans then adds, ”Any group with a population larger than two can be divided into subgroups, but even in a group of three persons, the question as to which pair makes the ”company” and which individual the "crowd” cannot be settled . IIl4 by a flip of a COln. l3Loomis, op. cit., p. 5. 4Homans, op. cit., pp. 85—86. Accord are a plur motivated, and physic and minimi total sitt and struct subsequent view would need to ma vation, SE and trust: model is C Figure a social 5 Thev inclt LOomis f1, maintains of a s'OCia the model proceSSESI \\ 15 Par; 16 L001 226 According to Parsons, the essentials of a social system are a plurality of status—roles enacted by actors who are motivated, who interact in a situation possessing symbolic and physical aspects, who aim to optimize their gratifications and minimize their deprivations, and whose relations to their total situations are defined and mediated in terms of a shared and structured set of symbols.”15 (Without unduly anticipating subsequent discussions, it may be noted here that Parsons' view would seem to be compatible with perceptual theory: the need to maintain and to enhance the self is a source of moti- vation, satisfaction of that need is a source of gratification, and frustration of that need is a deprivation.) The Loomis model is congruent with Parsons' view. Figure 2.1 presents an over-all view of the components of a social system according to the model presented by Loomis. They include nine elements; these are units of analysis which Loomis finds useful in explaining interaction, and which he maintains may be used to describe and analyze the structure Of a social system at a point in time. The components of the model further include nine elemental processes (or sets of processes) and six comprehensive or master processes. The processes "mesh, stabilize, and alter the relations between 5Parsons, The Social System, op. cit., pp. 5—6. 6Loomis, op. cit., p. 5. the element the social continuity- activates t sive or mas elements. by which tc related ele The fix 0f social a Considered Controlled elements. social Sys riding cir. Each c Pages Whic that What Sl’Stem, T standing 0 Only indiv individual formities \\ l7 Ibic‘ 227 l the elements through time; they are the tools through which I , the social system may be understood as a dynamic functioning l continuity-~a 'going concern'."17 Each elemental process ' activates the element to which it is related; each comprehen— sive or master process may activate one, several, or all the elements. The ”structural—functional categories” are names by which to designate the nine combinations of element plus related elemental process(es). The final ingredients in Loomis' model are three conditions of social action: territoriality, size, and time. These are considered apart from the elements because they cannot be controlled by the members of a social system as can the nine elements. These conditions are, in a sense, facilities of a social system. However, they are relatively inflexible, over- riding circumstances. Each component in the Loomis model is discussed in the pages which follow. First, however, it should be pointed out that what is being discussed is an abstraction called a social System. The motive for its study is to gain increased under- Standing of human behavior. A social system does not behave. Only individuals behave and, alone or in concert, they behave It is the congruence or similarities or uni— individually. formities of their behavior that permits an observer, for his l7Ibid., p. 6. own purpos systenu sc explore, c individual Each : terns of 1 thereby b. astereot taught to adhered t are not e free to d are not i ities, nc effect 01 identicai "The SpeCific Side, in Viduals PerticiP of CUltt \ 18 Ed by Davie Press, : 228 l own purposes, to conceive such analytic fictions as the social i system, society, or higher education, devices used to help explore, describe, analyze, and interpret the behavior of 1 individuals. Each individual within a society learns established pat— terns of culture, incorporates them into his personality and thereby becomes to some degree typical of his culture but not a stereotype of the culture. Socially prescribed behavior is taught to all individuals, but the prescriptions are not adhered to by all in equal measure. Some areas of activity are not even mapped by society, so that each individual is free to develop differently in these. In any case, individuals are not identically endowed with physical or other potential— ities, nor do they undergo identical experiences. Hence, the effect of culture upon individuals can be similar but not identical. "The true locus of culture is in the interactions of Specific individuals,” says Sapir, “and, on the subjective Side, in the world of meanings which each one of these indi— viduals may unconsciously abstract for himself from his participation in these interactions.” There is no pattern Of culture which impinges upon all members of a society with 18Edward Sapir, Culture, Language and Personalipy, edited by David G. Mandelbaum (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958), p. 151. equal effe degree by matter how not be den ”The conce statistics culture me all indivi of each pe may be pre The pa characteri ting , or (5 do CO-exie reason the described Patterns C of lesser is a membe d SUbCulU 229 i E equal effect or which is internalized in the same manner and I i degree by each individual. A particular culture pattern, no i matter how characteristic it may be of a society, may or may not be demonstrated in the behavior of a specific individual. “The concept of culture . . . is necessarily something of a statistical fiction," as Sapir says.19 Some patterns of culture may be real and effective to some degree for virtually all individuals within society; because the ”effective scope” of each person's world is unique, however, other patterns may be practically non—existent for many individuals. The patterns of behavior called culture are to some extent characteristic of the members of society. Competing, conflic- ting, or diverging patterns of behavior may co—exist. They do co—exist within a complex society; indeed, this is the reason that the ”master social system” termed society can be described as complex. The competing, conflicting, or diverging patterns of culture become parts of subcultures characteristic Of lesser social systems within the society. The individual is a member of various social systems each of which develops a subculture within the culture of the complex, highly differ- entiated society. In Sapir's words, every individual ”is, then, in a very real sense, a representative of at least one subculture of the group of which he is a member. Frequently, if not typically, he is a representative of more than one sub— lgIbid., p. 153. culture, 6 any given the typic: enormouslj The 8‘ several k There are people sh guides fo what most 0r others Given cir bEhaVior, What peg}: The a t0 distir another ( the Signj and to p1 |, Social 53 I. Wrote th; s ! grasp aiI \ 20 I ‘ 7 lb 2 1 Ho: 230 culture, and the degree to which the socialized behavior of any given individual can be identified with or abstracted from the typical or generalized culture of a single group varies enormously from person to person.”20 The study of social systems involves considerations of several kinds of patterns of culture or ”designs for living.“ There are ideal patterns, concepts of the manners in which people should ideally behave in a perfect world. There are guides for expected behavior, which, as Homans says, indicate what most members of a social system believe or feel that they or others ”should do, ought to do, are expected to do, under given circumstances.“2l There are patterns of observed behavior, more or less statistical probability statements of what people actually do under given circumstances. The analysis of social systems requires a means by which to distinguish between the characteristics of one society and another (i.e., of one social system and another), to gauge the significance of each characteristic of a social system, and to predict the probable behavior of individuals within a social system. Sapir, discussing the concept of ”culture,” wrote that “. . . the cultural conception we are now trying to graSp aims to embrace in a single term those general attitudes, 2orbid., pp. 151—52. lHomans, op. cit., p. 123. views of .' that give world. Er lieved by tions in 1 it has f0] we segrega to measure social act by Which t The e] can most 6 cate‘JOries Plus the 6 We; Some c according "belief" C sentimen t, mOdel and thew. 2 2 \ Sapj L ———r- — '3— _I—‘L (r)- 231 views of life, and specific manifestations of civilization that give a particular people its distinctive place in the world. Emphasis is put not so much on what is done and be—' lieved by a people as on how what is done and believed func— tions in the whole life of that people, on what significance it has for them.”22 To analyze social systems requires that we segregate multiple factors and render each one susceptible to measurement. The elements, processes, and conditions of social action identified in the Loomis model provide one means by which to assay such analysis. Structural—Functional Categories The elements and elemental processes of the Loomis model can most easily be described jointly as structural~functional *categories, each such category being comprised of an element plus the elemental process(es) which activate it. Knowing, Feeling, and Norming Some of the ideas held by members of a social system, according to the Loomis model, are termed "norms,” others "belief" or "knowledge," and others "sentiment." Belief, sentiment, and norms are three of the elements in Loomis' model and it is difficult to draw a fine distinction between them. _ 2 . 2Sapir, op. Cit., p. 83. Norms . statements Norms, say character any social what is ri and unjust ment norm "evaluatic ”norming,‘ Homans notes, ":1 the matte: Ought to Once more behave. one sense nonmembe Speaking Speaks Q: \ 233 Norms are the "rules of the game,‘ says Loomis.27 They are statements not of ideal behavior, but of expected behavior. Norms, says Loomis, refer to ”all criteria for judging the character or conduct of both individual and group actions in any social system” and constitute ”the standards determining What is right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, just and unjust, good and bad in social relationships."28 The ele- ment norm together with the related elemental process "evaluation” constitute the structural-functional category "norming," also referred to as standardizing or patterning. Homans makes a significant observation regarding norms. He notes, "the members of the group are often more nearly alike in the norms they_hold than in their overt behavior. To put the matter crudely, they are more alike in what they say they ought to do than in what they do in fact."29 This emphasizes once more that individuals, not groups or social systems, behave. Members of a social system are very much alike in one sense: they are more like each other than they are like non—members. Nevertheless, they are not wholly alike. In speaking of the norms ”of a social system,‘ therefore, one Speaks of a statistical fiction, an approximation of the mean E 27 Ibid., p. 17. 28Ibid. Homans, o . cit., p. 126. >; Loomis sent ‘what sentiments feel' abou belief is mapping ar termed the element se tension m and those functiona The E the actix "Which c, develope ment" is Symbols desired which s. activit aCtivi’c \ 23 l 24, 25 232 Loomis says, "Beliefs are primarily cognitive and repre- sent 'what we know' about the world no matter how we know it; sentiments are primarily expressive and represent 'what we feel' about the world no matter why we feel it.”23 The element belief is held to be activated by the process of cognitive mapping and validation; jointly, element and process are termed the structural—functional category “knowing." The element sentiment is held to be activated by the processes of tension management and communication of sentiment; sentiment and those related processes are referred to as the structural— functional category ”feeling.” The process "cognitive mapping and validation” refers to the activity (i.e., experimentation, revelation, etc.) by ,"which conceptual tools and the fund of knowledge are utilized, ‘developed and changed.”24 The process "communication of senti— ment” is that by which a social system, through the use of symbols that evoke feeling, motivates a member to behave in desired fashion.25 "Tension management” is the process by which sentiment is (a) prevented from obstructing goal-directed activities and (b) so channeled as to facilitate such activities.26 3 . . Loomis, o . Cit., p. 13. 2 41bid., p. 12. 251bid., p. 15. 26 Ibid., pp. 13—14. Norms statement: Norms, saj character any sociaj what is r; and unjus ment norm "evaluatii "norming, Homan; notes, "3 W the matte might to Once more behaVe , non‘membe l . Speaks of i \ Speaking | . i 27 i t, ‘ ibj 28 maj- i 29 i Hon L i. 233 Norms are the ”rules of the game,I says Loomis.27 They are statements not of ideal behavior, but of expected behavior. Nerms, says Loomis, refer to "all criteria for judging the character or conduct of both individual and group actions in any social system" and constitute "the standards determining What is right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, just and unjust, good and bad in social relationships.”28 The ele— ment norm together with the related elemental process "evaluation" constitute the structural—functional category ”norming,” also referred to as standardizing or patterning. Homans makes a significant observation regarding norms. He notes, "the members of the group are often more nearly alike in the norms they_hold than in their overt behavior. To put the matter crudely, they are more alike in what they say they . . ,.29 . . ought to do than in what they do in fact. This emphaSizes u once more that individuals, not groups or social systems, behave. mebers of a social system are very much alike in one sense: they are more like each other than they are like non—members. Nevertheless, they are not wholly alike. In speaking of the norms "of a social system,“ therefore, one speaks of a statistical fiction, an approximation of the mean 2 7Ibid., p. 17. 29Homans, op. cit., p. 126. of those nc The same is attributed Men bri social syst sentiments, vities" of their norm: experience or weakens QIOUPS the general tr freight mo Thus, for ideas With to which h SOCial Sys ber of the other memk W A f0u1 goals Or ‘ 234 of those norms held individually by each member of the system. The same is true of the beliefs, sentiments, and other ideas attributed to a ”social system.” Men bring ideas with them when they become members of social systems within a society, and new or modified beliefs, sentiments, norms, and other ideas "emerge from ongoing acti— 30 - vities" of the social systems, as Homans says. "Men bring their norms to a group; they work out new norms through their experience in the group; they take the old norms, confirmed or weakened, and the new ones, as developed, to the other groups they are members of. If the norms take hold there, a general tradition, the same in many groups, may grow up. The freight most easily exported is the kind carried in the headf3l Thus, for example, upon joining a college, a new member brings ideas with him, ideas prevalent in the culture of the society to which he belongs as well as ideas representative of other social systems of which he is or has been a member; as a mem- ber of the college, he comes to share in some measure with other members ideas representative of that college. Aghieving A fourth element identified by Loomis is that of ends, goals or objectives. A goal of a social system ”is the change y 30Ibid., p. 127. 31Ibid. (or in 501 of a soci; interactiv ends of tl goal—atta, the eleme: latent fu: serve som. the systel ostensiblv tinued lo found una may be co relations which may by the me Activ stated gc in to he] term“ at engaged j ls tel‘mec‘ 235 (or in some cases the retention of the status quo) that members of a social system expect to accomplish through appropriate interaction." 2 Activity engaged in for furthering the stated ends of the social system is termed goal-attaining activity; goal-attaining activity is an elemental process Which activates the element of end, goal, or objective. Such activity may have latent functions in addition to the manifest, i.e., it may serve some end other than that recognized by the members of the system. For example, an activity undertaken for the ostensible purpose of achieving a specified goal may be con— tinued long after its instrumental end has been served or found unattainable by means of such activity; such an activity may be continued because it develops and sustains effective relationships among members or serves some other function which may be recognized by an observer but is not recognized by the members of the social system. Activity engaged in for the purpose of accomplishing stated goals is termed instrumental activity. Activity engaged in to help accommodate the social system to its environment is termed adaptive activity. Recreational or creative activity engaged in for its own sake, i.e., which itself becomes an end, is termed expressive activity. Activity which strengthens 2Loomis, op. cit., p. 15. 33Ibid., p. 16. norms or < moral act: be "Geselj "Gemeinscl The 5' element 0: attaining Dividing ‘ Speci; element 0 mental pr. cOmbinati mately eq‘ "Status—r Situation aCtOI act Process S functiona We ThESe related t \ 34 ibj 35 In \ 236 norms or other elements of the system is termed integrative or moral activity. Instrumental or adaptive activity is said to be "Gesellschaft-like," and integrative or expressive activity 34 "Gemeinschaft-like.” The structural-functional category “achieving” includes the element of end, goal, or objective and the process of goal- attaining and concomitant "latent” activity. Dividing the Functions Specialization and division of labor lend importance to the element of position or of status-role and to the related ele— mental process of status-role performance. Status—role is a combination of element and process, where status is approxi— mately equivalent to position and role relates to the process. "Status-role is that which is expected from an actor in a given . . 35 . Situation.” Status-role performance 13 the process, what the actor actually does. The element status-role and the elemental process status-role performance comprise the structural— functional category ”dividing the functions." Banking, Controlling, and Sanctioning These three structural-functional categories are closely related to that of dividing the functions. Each status—role __._ 34Ibid., pp. 15—16. 3 5Ibid., p. 19. 1 i i has a ran] Obligatim imputed tc uated in 1 may be ap; Loomis Decision-n activities authorized aspect of ceived of Others is Cised by t alized p0,, SYStem; t} Power, thl th<>ugh the grant then The st ele“Kant "I of actors functions] and the e] 237 has a rank in a hierarchy of super- and sub—ordination. Obligations, rights, duties, privileges, and authority are imputed to a status—role. Status—role performance is eval— uated in terms of pertinent norms, and applicable sanctions may be applied. Loomis conceives of power as the capacipy to control others. Decision-making and the initiation of corresponding action are activities involving the exercise of power. Power may be authorized or institutionalized; when it is, it becomes an aspect of status-role and is termed authority, which is con— ceived of as the right to control others. The right to control others is attributed to specified status-roles and is exer— cised by their incumbents. NOn-authorized or non—institution- alized power may also be exercised by some members of a social system; these members may possess the capacity to exercise power, through coercion or by the exercise of influence, al— though their incumbency in specified status—roles does not . . . 36 grant them the right to control others in certain respects. The structural-functional category "ranking” includes the element "rank" and the elemental processes of the evaluation of actors and their allocation to status—roles. The structural- functional category ”controlling" involves the element "power" and the elemental processes ”decision-making” and the ¥ 36Ibid., pp. 20—23. initiati category elementa refers t out rewa their co Facilita This of ”faci ities,” ends wit to use, "possess faCiliti instrume hand, ti faciliti in obtai ! utilizat Peint is qualitie 238 initiation of decisions into action. The structural—functional category "sanctioning” involves the element ”sanction" and the elemental process "application of sanctions"; this category refers to the manner and extent to which a social system metes out rewards and penalties to its members in order to induce . . . 7 their conformity to objectives and norms.3 Facilitation This structural—functional category involves the element of “facility" and the elemental process ”utilization of facil— ities." Loomis defines a facility as "a means used to attain ' ' n38 ' ' n ' ends Within the system. He defines posseSSions as rights to use, control, or disposal of objects,” and says that those "possessions which are means to be used for further goals are . . . "39 . . faCilities. A posseSSion which cannot be used to further instrumental ends is not considered a facility. On the other hand, time and space, though not possessions, are deemed facilities when and to the extent that ”they are controlled in obtaining objectives of a collectivity and when their . . . . . ”4O utilization is determined by group norms. In short, the point is that it is the use of a facility, not its intrinsic qualities, which determines its significance in a social system.41 3 . 37Ibid., p. 26. 8Ibid., p. 27. 40 39Ibid., pp. 27—28. Ibid., p. 28. 41Ibid. , pp. 28-29. 1 i Befor or master not mutua the case of norms, the proce which the of evalua of norm, These not prima C . W Loomi informati tildes are In Lc a“ equilj patibilit ativel le \ 42 lb: 239 Before proceeding to an introduction of the comprehensive or master processes, it should be noted that the elements are not mutually exclusive. To some extent they overlap, as in the case of belief and sentiment, for example, or in the case of norms, Which are found to pervade all elements. Similarly, the processes are not exclusively related to the elements to which they most clearly correspond. For example, the process of evaluation, although related particularly to the element of norm, pervades all the elements and processes. Comprehensive or Master Processes These six processes affect any and all elements, and are not primarily related to any one element. Communication Loomis defines communication as ”the process by which information, decisions, and directives are transmitted among actors and the ways in which knowledge, opinions, and atti- tudes are formed or modified by interactions." Boundary Maintenance In Loomis' conceptualization, a social system maintains an equilibrium among its elements and among its members. Com— patibility of the elements, as their processes make them oper- ative, lends them mutual reinfOrcement. The extent to which R 4 2Ibid., p. 30. any reini system is the membei with the : etc., in : membershi] system su. hence the interacti Loomi will be m1 solidarit 0f encroa interline Syste is SO ar1 SOme mea: SEParate some Sig: 240 they reinforce each other determines the degree to which the system is integrated. Integration affects the degree to which the members share a sense of solidarity and of identification with the system and their mutual belief, sentiment, norms, etc., in short, the degree to which they share a sense of membership. Boundary maintenance is the process by which the system sustains this sense of membership or of identification, hence the process by which the system retains its identity and interaction pattern.43 Loomis hypothesizes that boundary maintenance mechanisms will be more strongly sustained in proportion as (a) the solidarity of the system increases or (b) the threat increases of encroachment upon the system by forces outside it. Systemic Linkage Systemic linkage is the process whereby one social system is so articulated with one or more additional systems that in some measure they behave as one. In order so to operate, the i.e., in separate systems must share some elements in common, some significant particular, there must be a convergence as to ends, norms, status—roles, or some other element. 4 3Ibid., pp. 31—32. 44Ibid., p. 31. 45Ibid., pp. 32-34. Institutior When tl of culture he proces functional ments, the or master comprehens According Systems a: action ar . ma formity t indignatj This hEritage by which his Part social : pattern \ 46 l 47 C- 241 Institutionalization When the members of a social system legitimize a pattern I 1 1 i of culture as "rightful," it is said to be institutionalized. The process of institutionalization patterns the structural— functional categories; in this process are involved the ele- ments, the elemental processes, and the other comprehensive or master processes, so that institutionalization is the most comprehensive of the ”comprehensive or master processes." According to Loomis, it is the process by which (a) social Systems are given structure and (b) social action and inter— action are made predictable. "A given mechanism," says Loomis, ". . . may be said to be institutionalized when there is con- formity to the procedures and when deviancy results in moral . . . 46 indignation." Socialization This is the process whereby "the social and cultural . 47 . heritage is transmitted,” says Loomis. It is the process by Which a member ”learns” and internalizes the system and his part therein, learns the beliefs, ends, and norms of the and expectancy social system and internalizes "the interaction patterns which make status-roles and the elements of power ; 46Ibid., pp. 36-37. 47Ibid., p. 34. , and rank seals This ated or groups," conformi norms, t elements Conditic The are terr are to 5 are not are clas T . m Thi: Space."! territo: lated t, prOCeSS. geograp \ 48 l 50 l 242 and rank operative.”48 Social Control This is the process by which "deviancy is either elimin— ated or made compatible with the functioning of the social ll ' 49 ' groups, says Loomis. Soc1al control is the process whereby conformity to established norms is achieved; in addition to norms, this master process also very clearly involves the elements of power, sanction, and sentiment. Conditions of Social Action The three conditions of social action enumerated by Loomis are territoriality, size, and time. As previously noted, they are to some extent facilities of the social system, but they are not completely controlled by the system's members, hence are classified as conditions rather than as facilities. Territoriality This term refers to "the setting of the social system in space.”51 Population density is a measure of an aspect of territoriality. Boundary maintenance is a process closely re— lated to this condition, as is systemic linkage; these two processes may be activated in quite different fashion in a geographically isolated social system than they are in a 49 . 48Ibid. Ibid., p. 35. 51 . SOIbid., p. 37. rain. social 3 gig; To t may be a when tha another. conditic be. Mer discusse Pr0perti 5 groups. Small sc Ships; z This ma} action, Gemeins as Loom rather ; taHCe o of the Size wo \ 52 l 53 F (Glencc 54 E R: 243 social system which is in constant contact with other systems. Size To the extent that greater size denotes greater power, size may be an important characteristic of a social system if and when that social system engages in a power struggle with 52 . . . . another. Whether in other respects Size is a controlling condition of social action is less clear, although it may well be. Merton, in his discussions of reference group theory, discusses both absolute size and relative size as group properties significant in the strategic classification of , 54 groups. Homans also observes the importance of Size. A small social system may utilize primary, face—to-face relation— ships; a large social system cannot do so to the same extent. This may affect the frequency and affective quality of inter- action, so that a small social system may become rather more Gemeinschaft—like and make relationships ends in themselves, as Loomis notes, whereas a large social system may become . 5 . . rather more Gesellschaft-like. However, the seeming impor— tance of size in this regard may be misleading and the operation of the processes of communication may be more significant. Size would seem to influence the structural—functional category 521mm, p. 40. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957), pp. 312—13. Homans, op. cit., pp. 103—4. 55 TAr‘m-‘in An r‘ii', h. 40. "dividin are diff 5 system. size, an cation i m. Time First, t and men sequence to achie One the anal "interna Social s eXteh’c n a distir grativel aetivity integrai 244 "dividing the functions,” for the number of status-roles that are differentiated increases with increased size of the social 56 . . . . system. Ranking may also be influenced by the condition of size, and there is some evidence that the extent of stratifi— . . . 57 cation increases as does the Size of the system. Time Time is a significant condition in two different respects. First, time inexorably does roll on, the seasons do change, and men do age. Second, timing, the temporal aspect of the sequence of events affects the outcomes of activities calculated . . . 5 to achieve speCified ends. The Internal and External Patterns One major consideration remains to be introduced regarding the analysis of social systems. That is the question of the "internal” and “external" patterns of relationships of the social system. This discussion was anticipated to a certain extent when, with reference to the element of ends or goals, a distinction was drawn between instrumental, adaptive, inte- grative, and expressive activities. Instrumental and adaptive activity were referred to as being Gesellschaft-like, and integrative and expressive activity as being Gemeinschaft-like. 5 61bid., p. 39. “this. 5 811031., p. 38. Loomi patte. P _.'_‘ 3's: -:I.'13H_|U)_DJ_I—3_BI-'l-‘ _ Imp; m arise the s by th becau headi for t behav and t 245 Loonds distinguishes between the internal and external patterns approximately as does Homans, who is quoted here. ". . . we note that the group is, at the moment we study it, persisting or surviving in its environment; and we infer, not unnaturally, that the behavior of the group must be such as to allow it to survive in the environment Then we turn to the elements of group behavior: sentiment, activity, and interaction, and we say that the external system is the state of these elements and of their inter— relations, so far as it constitutes a solution——not necessarily the only possible solutiOn——of the problem: How shall the group survive in its environment? we call it external because it is conditioned by the environment; we call it a system because in it the elements of be— havior are mutually dependent. The external system, plus another set of relations which we shall call the internal system, make up the total social system.59 Homans then addresses himself to ”. the internal system——the elaboration of group behavior that simultaneously arises out of the external system and reacts upon it. We call the system ‘internal' because it is not directly conditioned by the environment, and we speak of it as an 'elaboration' because it includes forms of behavior not included under the heading of the external system. we shall not go far wrong if, for the moment, we think of the external system as group behavior that enables the group to survive in its environment and think of the internal system as group behavior that is an eXpression of the sentiments toward one another developed by the members of the group in the course of their life together.”60 9Homans, op. cit., p. 90. Ibid., pp. 109-10. actic group of ii is a that towa: cant most ment cent patt actc ext< DEC: SYs SOC to dC 246 Quoting Loomis on the same matter: "A pattern of inter— action which displays the relationships necessary for the group's adjustment to its environment and for the attainment ' ' ll 61 I! ' of its goals is an external pattern. The internal pattern is a pattern of interaction which consists of those relations that focus upon the expression of sentiments of system members ”62 toward one another. It is clear that the elements and processes most signifi— cant to the internal pattern are not the same ones that are most significant to the external pattern. The element "senti- ment" and its related process "communication of sentiment” are central to the internal pattern. Also important to the internal pattern are influence, informal ranking, the evaluation of actors, and the non—authority component of status—role. The master process "systemic linkage” is central to the external pattern, because (1) adaptation to the environment necessarily includes adaptive relationships to other social systems and (2) systemic linkage is the process by which one social system is articulated with other systems. Also central to the external pattern are the structural—functional categories “achieving" and "controlling." These categories involve the 61Loomis, op. cit., p. 40. 62Ibid., p. 42. 63 Ibid. ele ele mal inc to me] ini GX' me: 90. pa pr el br SC di SC OI PC elements ”end, goal, or objective" and "power" plus the elemental processes "goal attaining activity" and "decision- making and its initiation into action.” Curiously, the structural—functional category "feeling” includes one component (tension management) which is central to the external pattern but also includes components (senti- ment and communication of sentiment) which are central to the internal pattern. Tension management is important to the eXternal pattern because its purpose is that of causing senti- ment to facilitate rather than to impede the achieving of i . goals. Some components of the Loomis model are important to both patterns, internal and external. This is true of the master process of boundary maintenance. It is true also of the element ”norm" and the elemental process "evaluation."65 ' 3 Reviewing the foregoing discussion of social systems very briefly, we have seen that social system theory conceives of society as a master social system which is structured and differentiated into a number of lesser social systems. Any social unit may be viewed as a subsystem of the master system, or it may be viewed as a social system. Master system or com- ponent subsystem, however, social system theory holds that 6 41bid., pp. 40 ff. 65Ibid., p. 41. 7+ 248 each system is constituted of the same elements and activated by the same processes, however much they may differ in the manner in which the elements and processes are articulated. Furthermore, two major patterns of relationships may be distinguished in each social system: the external pattern 1 and the internal pattern. The external pattern emphasizes the system's adaptation to its environment and the achieving of its express goals. The internal pattern emphasizes parti- cularly the sentiments of members toward each other. 249 BIBLIOGRAPHY - Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: ) Harper & Brothers, 1957. . Executive Leadership. New York: Harper ( & Brothers, 1953. ' Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.. ‘ Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Becker, Howard. "Sacred and Secular Societies Considered with Reference to Folk-State and Similar Classifications," Social Forces, May, 1950. Through Values to Social Interpretation. Durham: Duke University Press, 1950. Becker, Howard and Boskoff, Alvin. Modern Sociological Theory in Continuity and Changs. New York: Dryden Press, 1957. Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour M. (Eds.), Class, Status and Power. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1953. Bierstedt, Robert (ed.). The Makingyof Society: An Outline of Sociology. New York: Random House, The Modern Library, Revised 1959. W . Social Order. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1957. . “An Analysis of Social Power," American Sociological Review, Vol. 15 (December, 1950), pp. 730-736. Bills, Robert E. "About People and Teaching," Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service. College of Education, University of Kentucky, Vol. 28 (December, 1955). . "Attributes of Successful Educational Leaders," in Robert L. Hopper (ed.), Interdisciplinary Research in Educational Administration, Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service. College of Education, University of Kentucky, Vol. 26 (December, 1953), pp. 16—38. Brook Br owy Brub Brue Cap Cd] Ct 250 Brookover, Wilbur B., et al. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Company, 1955. ' Brownell, Baker. The College and the Community. New York; Harper & Brothers, 1952. Brubacher, John S. and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Brues, Austin M. ”The New Emotionalism in Research," Cancer Research, XV (1955), pp. 345—53. Capen, Samuel Paul. The Management of Universities. Oscar A. Silverman (ed.), for the Council of the University of Buffalo. Buffalo, N. Y.: Foster & Stewart Publishing Corp., 1953. Caplow, Theodore and McGee, Reece J. The Academic Marketplace. New Yerk: Basic Books, 1958. Chase, John W (ed.). Years of the Modern: An American Appraisal. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1949. Coladarci, Arthur P. and Getzels, Jacob W. The Use of Theory in Educational Administration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955. Coleman, James S. Communipy Conflict. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 19 Commager, Henry Steele. Freedom, Loyalty and Dissent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. Curti, Merle Eugene. The Growth of American Thought. New York: Harper & Brothers, 2nd edition, 1951. . American Paradox: the conflict of thought and action. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1956. Curti, Merle Eugene and Carstensen, Vernon. The University of Wisconsin: A History, 1848—1925. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949. Flexner, Abraham. Universities: American, English, German. New York: Oxford University Press, 1930. 251 Follett, Mary Parker. Dynamic Administration, the Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (eds.). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940. Form, William H. and Miller, Delbert C. Industry, Labor, and Communipy. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960. Frankel, Charles (ed.). Issues in University_Education. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. y_ Gardner, Eric F. Tomorrow's Graduate School of Education. Syracuse; Syracuse University Press, 1958. Glenny, Lyman. The Autonomy of Public Colleges. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1959. Golden, Clinton S. and Ruttenberg, H. The Dynamics of Industrial Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1942. Golden, Clinton S. and Parker,Virginia D (eds.). Causes of Industrial Peace Under Collective Bargaining. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955. Gouldner, Alvin W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles," Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 (December, 1957, and March, 1958), pp. 281—306, 444—80. ’ Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York: a Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1959. Gross, Neal. "The Sociology of Education," in Merton, Broom, and Cottrell, Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books, 1959, pp. 128-152. Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1957. Halpdn, Andrew W. (ed.). Administrative Theory_in Education. Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center, 1958. Havemann, Ernest and West. Patricia Salter. They Went to ‘ ‘ College. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1952. 252 Havighurst,, Robert J. and Rodgers, Robert R. "The Role of Motivation in Attendance at Post—High-School Educational Institutions," in Byron S. Hollinshead, Who Should Go to College. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952, pp. 135-165. Hilgard, Ernest R. Theories of Learning. 2nd edition. New YOrk: Appleton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1956. Hofstadter, Richard and Hardy, C. DeWitt. The Development and Scope of Higher Education in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Hofstadter, Richard and Metzger, Walter P. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Hollinshead, Byron S. Who Should Go to College, with a chapter by Robert J. HavighurstC and Robert R. Rodgers. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1950. Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953. Hunter, Floyd, Schaffer, Ruth C, and Sheps, Cecil G. Community_0rganization: Action and Inaction. Chapel 3 Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1956. Hutchins, Robert Maynard. The Higher Learning in America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936. Jacob, Philip E. Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of General Education in Social Sciences on the Values of American Students. New York: , Harper & Brothers, 1957. Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul F. Personal Influence. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955. Kelley, Earl C. Education for What Is Real. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947. 253 Kelley, Earl C. and Rasey, Marie. Education and the Nature of Man. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. Kelly, Fred J. ”How Do Faculty.Members Like Their Jobs?" Higher Education, Vol.5 (May, 1949), pp. 193—6. Key, V. 0. Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1952. (Third edition.) Knight, Douglas M. (ed.) The Federal Government and Higher Education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. (Spectrum), 1960. Kroeber, A. L. (ed.) Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Krutch, Joseph Wood, et al. Is the Common Man Too Common? Norman Okla: University of‘Uklahoma Press, 1954. LaBarre, Weston. The Human Animal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954. Lasswell, Harold D., Merriam, Charles E., and Smith, T. V. A Study of Power. 'Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1950. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Thielens, Wagner, Jr., with Riesman, David. The Academic Mind. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1958. Leighton, Alexander H. The Governing of Men. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1945. Lepawsky, Albert. Administration. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949. Lindzey, Gardner. Handbook of Social Psyghology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison—Wesley Publishing Co., 1954. Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1945. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political Man. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1960 Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. 254 Litchfield, Edward H. ."Notes on a General Theory of Administra- tion," Administrative Scienceyguarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 1956), pp. 3-29. Loomis, Charles P. Social Systems. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960. MacIver, Robert. Academic Freedom in Our Time. New York; Columbia University Press, 1955. ' Mayo, Elton. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1945. McConnell, T. R. and Heist, Paul. "Do Students Make the College?" College and University (Summer, 1959), pp. 442—52. McGrath, Earl J. The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, ‘fleachers College, Columbia University, 1959. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Mead, Margaret (ed.). Cultural Patterns and Technical Change. New York: New American Library, 1955. Merton, Robert K. (ed.). Reader in Bureaucraoy. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1952. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, Revised, 1957. Merton, Robert K., Brook, Leonard, and Cottrell, Leonard 8., Jr. (eds.). Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959. University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. A Preliminary Rpport: The Public's Picture of Higher Education in the State of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1959. . A 2nd Report:"1'he Public“ 5 Picture of Higher Education in the State of Michigan-—Attitudes Toward Three Current Problems and Two Suggpsted Solutions. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1960. —+ T———— 5 255 Miller, Delbert Charles and Form, William H. Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951. Miller, Paul A. Community Health Action. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1953. Moustakas, Clark E. (ed.) The Self. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956. Newcomb, T. M. Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Ortega y Gasset, José. MisSion of the University. Howard Lee Nostrand (trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944. Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J., and Tannenbaum, Percy H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1949. . The Social System. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1951. Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A. (eds.) Toward a General ' Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University ; Press, 1951. :" Parsons, Talcott, et. a1. Working Papers in the Theory of Action. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1953. Parsons, Talcott. "From the Social System," in Robert Bierstedt (ed.), The Making of Society. Revised edition; 4 New York: The Modern Library, 1959, pp. 537—557. . "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 1956), pp. 63—85, and Vol. 1, No. 2 (September, 1956), pp. 225—239. Pigors, Paul. Leadership or Domination. Boston: Houghton- Miflin, 1935. Redefer, Frederick L. "The Care and Feeding of Provincials," Saturday Review (October 22, 1960), pp. 13-14 ff. 256 Redlich, Fredrick C. and Brody, Eugene B. "Emotional Problems of Interdisciplinary Research in Psychiatry," Psychiatry, xvrrr(1955), pp. 233—239. Riesman, David. Constraint and Variety in American Education. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1956. Individualism Reconsidered and other Essays. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1954. Riesman, David with Blazer, Nathan and Denny, Reuel. Tpp Lonely Crowd. (Yale University Press, 1950). New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., Anchor Edition, revised and abridged, 1953. Riesman, David. "Orbits of Tolerance, Interviewers, and Elites," Public Opinion Quarterly, XX (1956), pp. 49H73. "Teachers Amid Changing Expectations," Harvard Educational Review, XXIV (1954), pp. 106—117. "Thoughts on Teachers and Schools," Anchor Review, I (1955), pp. 27—60. Roethlisberger, Fritz J. Management and Morale. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944. Roethlisberger, Fritz J. and Dickson, William J. Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Roper, Elmo. On Getting into College; a Study of Discrimination in College Admissions. Washington: American Council on Education, 1949. Factors Affecting the Admission of High School Seniors to College. Washington: American Council on Education, 1950. Ruml, Beardsley and Morrison, Donald H. Memo to a College Trustee. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language and Personality. David G. Mandelbaum (ed.) Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. 257 Sayles, Leonard R. Behavior of Industrial Work Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. Second edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959. Sinclair, Upton. The Goose—Step: A Study of American Education. Pasadena, Calif.: Upton Sinclair, 1923. . The Goslings: A Study of American Schools. Pasadena, Calif.: Upton Sinclair, 1924. Snygg, Donald and Combs, Arthur W. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949. Sorokin, Pitirim A. Society, Culture, and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Boston: Porter Sargent Publisher, 1957. Stearns, Harold E. (ed.) America Now: An Inquiry into Civilization in the United States. New York: Literary Guild of America, Inc., 1938. Civilization in the United States. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1922. Stillman, Calvin. "Academic Imperialism and Its Resolution: The Case of Economics and Anthropology," American Scientist, 43 (1955), pp. 77—88. Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America. New York: Sagamore Press, Inc., 1957. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: New American Library, Mentor Edition, 1953. Walton, John. "The Theoretical Study of Educational Administration," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Summer, 1955), pp. 169—78. and Loeb, Martin B. W. Lloyd, Havighurst, Robert J., Harper & Brothers, Who Shall Be Educated? New York: 1944. Warner, 258 Warner, W. Lloyd, et al. The Social System of the Modern Factory. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1947. Whitehead, T. N. Leadership in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. . The Industrial Worker (2 vols.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Whyte, William F. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Whyte, William H” Jr. The Organization Man. New York: (Simon and Schuster, 1956) Doubleday and Co., Anchor Edition, 1957. Williams, Robin M., Jr. American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Alfred A. Knofp, 1951. Wilson, Logan. The Academic Man. New York: Oxford University Press, 1942. Wohl, R. Richard. "Some Observations on the Social Organization of Interdisciplinary Social Science Research," Social Forces, XXXIII (1955), pp. 374—83. Woodburne, Lloyd S. Facultnyersonnel Policies in Higher Education. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950. 3 Principles of College and University Administration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1948. Wriston, Henry M. Academic Procession. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. " 4| ROOM UJ {1'0 a" TY LIB RARIES ”ilillililjllll111111111! 6 7006