SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, SOME ASPECTS)"; . OF SOCIAL MOBILITY AND FAMILY A ,_ fl;_;.'5.3;.2522..,:~:?'5;§:%f PLANNING IN THE CONTEXT . ' ~ 0F MODERNIZATION A T f 3f.g;:‘:.;1ijag-._. Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EUGENIO FONSECA-TORTOS 1970 _ In." -. “1W" "' WA" if V1. LIbA. 1\.l ‘ :1 IVliLilii- 1:1 35!<"* T a 4“ ‘ __"|( ‘~ 1" J I. ) ‘ 4 'y' . W la" - ' flak" ""' III 31 IIIIQII III III III II III III III IIILII III 3 10064 2 33 This is to certify that the thesis entitled SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, SOME ASPECTS OF SOCIAL NDBILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERNIZATION presented by EUGENIO FONSECA-TORTOs has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH. D. degree in SOCIOLOGY 4.03.me Major professor Date January 4, 1971 0-7639 gr BIN‘DING BY HOAE & son8' 800K 3mm me. LIBRARY SINGERS V .f: . " gotta; : I 11 ll certaux i714... .. A . . 'L 7 _ 4E- I. .)" e', 'a' V" E ’f/it ’- --’_. l Q4"! .l l 3 .I l. -J' v-n' .-,. \ - . fl£¥ u 37%? wtid. . v flr-w— ,J-w' oval-2'01““... .‘|~. I socIAL E socIAL > THE Sociology tiOI‘. to the stud? g. . .ests itself. Th. tame. Nonethe l 6- factors involved development of s;. Uni-erstand the i." Oman behavior, t ital and social I Taking t: as general Objec ABSTRACT SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, SOME ASPECTS OF SOCIAL MOBILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERNIZATION BY Eugenio Fonseca-Tortés Sociology, during decades, has given enough atten— tion to the study of how the stratification system mani- fests itself. This has been a task of paramount impor— tance. Nonetheless, of equal importance is to study the factors involved in the emergence, self—maintenance, and development of such a system. Only in this way one can understand the impact of the stratification system upon human behavior, the global social system, and the polit— ical and social processes. Taking that into account, this dissertation has as general objectives: 1) to see whether existential experience within a socio-economic stratum breeds in individuals certain cognitive styles toward social mo- bility as well as certain behavioral styles amenable (or 1 A no I to such a pr: :0 bring forth kr. social strata: 2) actors, whichever motility-oriented To propos frame of referenc lines: 1) The CI: {estulated as one ‘3'! to different; ualization norms . I Eugenio Fonseca—Tortos not) to such a process. In this way, the study intends to bring forth knowledge about the self-perpetuation of social strata; 2) to see whether some factors prompt actors, whichever the social stratum may be, to be mobility-oriented and to invest in mobility. To propose a system of hypotheses, a theoretical frame of reference was presented along the following lines: 1) The concept of social stratum was defined and postulated as one of central concern in Sociology. 2) A way to differentiate social systems in terms of concept- ualization norms and interaction norms was prOposed. Conceptualization norms being those that provide actors with means to structure reality. Interaction norms being those that provide actors with means to deal with that reality. The difference between strata in such terms served to support the point that social strata differ along the normative dimensions of "traditionalism— modernity." A case was made that "social strata" can be con— ceived as "social systems," because they show (a) inte- grative elements, (b) interrelatedness of parts, and (c) boundary circumscription. 2 It was sta tens which differ into account the 1 that self-perceive of reference grow prevail in modern to prevail as one stratum. Taking preposition was tends to emphasi 0V8! flexibilit validation OVer “591‘“ interaci Differ Proposition t‘r proceSS of moc transfer 0 Eugenio Fonseca-Tortés It was stated that social strata are social sys- tems which differ in degree of modernization. Taking into account the conceptualization norms, it was argued that self—perceived autonomy, secularism, multiplicity of reference groups and the calculi of planning and risk prevail in modern systems. In the same way they do tend to prevail as one moves from a lower stratum to a higher stratum. Taking into account interaction norms, the proposition was stated that the traditional social system tends to emphasize collectivity over person, inflexibility over flexibility, adscription over achievement, past validation over future validation. It was sustained that modern interaction norms tend to prevail in higher strata. Different lines of argument served to support the proposition that upward social mobility can be seen as a process of modernization because: a) It constitutes the transfer of actors from a traditional to a more modern social system. b) The attitudinal configuration of the mobility-oriented actor parallels that of modern man. c) The way in which mobility-oriented actor manipulates actions-means, the way he sets his goals, and the actor's mode of relationship between the elements of the unit—act, 3 parallels that of :zderla'ment of m; entails changes it :ial systems to t‘: behavior. e) Char traditionalism. W‘ variables play a Within ti ence was stated 2 analysis of the theoretical frar served to high 1 “11th 1) Awa srnilities Of 1 F Eugenio Fonseca-Tortés parallels that of the modern man. d) The processual underlayment of modernity as well as of social mobility, entails changes in the number and in the meaning of so- cial systems to the actor and concomitant changes in his behavior. e) Change can be seen as movement away from traditionalism, where inter-systemic or dissociative variables play a role. Within this context, a theoretical frame of refer- ence was stated and a parsimonious per5pective for the analysis of the modernization process was selected. That theoretical frame of reference and such a perspective served to highlight the several dimensions of social mo- bility: 1) Awareness of mobility, 2) Perception of pos- sibilities of mobility, 3) Desirability of mobility, 4) Investment in mobility. A system of hypotheses was elaborated. These hypotheses asserted: l) A relationship between social stratum and (a) awareness of mobility, (b) perception of possibilities of mobility, (c) desirability of mobility, and (d) investment in mobility. 2) That the relationship between social stratum and family planning could be in- terpreted in terms of those dimensions of social mobility. 4 i I- 31A relationship arriage and sex a are variable, and :iative variable . The ration stratum and the to irdanentally , on rest of the hypot' actors vs. social The hypoI sums of mobilit T39 hl’pOtheses x 44 . _- W-_ n new?» _ Eugenio Fonseca—Tortés 3) A relationship between social stratum and length of marriage and sex as participatory variables, and age as time variable, and education as inter—systemic or disso- ciative variable. The rationale of the hypotheses relating social stratum and the four dimensions of mobility was based, fundamentally, on the conditions of social action. The rest of the hypotheses on the input—output dynamics of actors vs. social systems. The hypotheses relating stratum with the dimen- sions of mobility were supported or received some support. The hypotheses relating stratum, family planning, and the dimensions of mobility received some support. The hy- potheses relating sex and awareness of mobility were not supported, the hypotheses relating sex and perception of possibilities of mobility received some support, that re— lating sex and desirability of mobility was not supported, and the hypothesized relation between sex and investment in mobility was supported. Age and perception of possi- bilities of mobility received some support. The hypoth- eses relating age, desirability of mobility, and invest- ment in mobility were supported. The hypotheses relating 5 eitcation and the gated. The hypot the dimensions of cause of methodol A survey :arried on with a to collect the da cients, and prodt tics used to tes‘ The rese S'll‘ements' ‘2) 1 ables, (3) to c and crosgpcmm In gem 61.: e DIOVQd t0 Eugenio Fonseca-Tortos education and the four dimensions of mobility were sup- ported. The hypotheses relating length of marriage and the dimensions of mobility proved to be not testable be- cause of methodological problems. A survey of a random sample of respondents. carried on with a respondant schedule, was the mean used to collect the data. Chi squares, contingency coeffi- cients, and product moment correlations were the statis— tics used to test the hypotheses. The research showed the need (1) to improve mea— surements, (2) to take into account some control vari- ables, (3) to carry on intra—societal, cross—societal, and cross—cultural research. In general terms, the theoretical frame of refer- ence proved to be useful. SOC 1M. SOCIAL TH SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, SOME ASPECTS OF " 1; SOCIAL MOBILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING IN THE CONrExr OF MODERNIZATION .th.’ ' By Eugenio Fonseca-Tortés A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology College of Social Science 1970 Ccpyright by I 54.383110 Fonseca-TI o renseca-Tortos 1’ ' thaticf‘l, '7'- _, sons of xx- x. #- boon and-4.1.: ‘. So evarla r :r r ‘ . ,- " I leave ‘ _;toct of thn . -' botica; I i . ‘ ‘00.}. lTlfL‘f'I‘. I ' L‘. mt amount. 1:? >2 7. _ , , _ 1 Mnthtlefi I ‘ 5:19, "ks-w wt .L- -. "a M", ’Iéadcmic year 1970. m. 93:32: .E‘akh” {‘33 Wye Aware.“ .2: I want t0 2:. Frederick E. ‘ aittee, whose tai ing, and patience iissertation. He horizons of Socie has been and wil ‘u‘ill be everlast I leave _'. iii— ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to express my eternal gratitude to Dr. Frederick B. Waisanen, chairman of my doctoral com- mittee, whose talent, knowledge, help, human understand— ing, and patience made possible the completion of this dissertation. He opened for me the broad and intriguing horizons of Social Psychology. His intellectual influence has been and will be for me of paramount importance and will be everlasting, his friendship most precious. I leave here testimony of special gratitude to the rest of the members of the committee. I mention them in alphabetical order. Dr. Bo Anderson, who through occasional informal interaction transmitted to me a sig— nificant amount of knowledge. Dr. William A. Faunce, whose commentaries on the dissertation proposal en- lightened me so much and who, in his capacity of Chairman of the Department of Sociology, helped me personally so much during academic year 1970. Dr. Williamfg; Form, from whom I acquired a clear idea of the true meaning of the sociological perspective, and whose friendship and iii .1 A _.—._. .——-—-—" ‘ u-uv' ‘ -3». . "k._ r. understandi: 2:. Charles P. L: canzly through hi _____:__l, who inv- i::ellectual. more year of l970 were 1 want tc Grier: W Their intellect: 1 want i in I human understanding were so helpful in difficult moments. Dr. Charles P. Loomig, from whom I have learned signifi— cantly through his classes and many books. Dr. Verling C. Troldahl, who invested so much effort to teaching me: his intellectual, moral, and even material help during this year of 1970 were crucial for the completion of this task. I want to thank here two scholars of the highest order: Dr. Jose Medina-Echavarria and Dr. David K. Berlo. Their intellectual influence on me will last forever. I want also to thank Dr. Robert L. Stewart. His intellectual strength and honesty have been paradigmatic in my life, his friendship most precious. Thanks are due to my very dear friends Dr. Joseph Spielberg and Maria Spielberg. They know how much I owe them. I must also express Special appreciation to Mrs. Anita Immele, an outstanding computer specialist who helped me so much in this study. Special acknowledgement must be extended to the members of the research team with whom I work in this study: Dr. Gonzalo Adis, Lic. Francisco Amador, Lic. iv ' | ‘ a.‘ l".‘:2-4"=C' 1"" A I thank t': Inflation, which thesis is a part. _s. and LL: auscrs, gave me 5 :fthe Center of Of the University Thanks ar l. h :SOCiation' s Prc :l 3: and its Dire 3““. I . I received 5 Pi: '* my doctoral st I Want t< 1:qu toward my I v ggfael Hernandez, Lic. Pierre Thomas, Lic. Maria Eugenia fipzzoli de Wille, and Dr. Cesar Hernandez. I thank the University of Costa Rica and the Eppg Foundation, which funded the major study of which this thesis is a part. I thank also Dr. Arthur Rubel, Dr. John Santos, and Dr. Julian Samora, who as Ford Foundation ad- visors, gave me so much help. I thank also the personnel v of the Center of Social and P0pulation Studies (C.E.S.P.O. of the University of Costa Rica. Thanks are also due to the American International Association's Programa Interamericano de Informacion Pep— ular and its Director, Mr. H. Schuyler Bradt, Jr., from whom I received significant support during the early phases of my doctoral study. I want to leave here testimony of my eternal grat- itude toward my parents who, with a constant encouragement and through many personal sacrifices, induced in me since my early childhood my permanent interest in intellectual life. All my love and gratitude to my glfg, whose talent, help, and stoicism made my work possible. My love to my daughter, who has brought so much joy to my life. usr OF TABLES. Chapter I. THE eaoa 11- THE THEC A. s, 8.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. THE THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE. . A. Science and Systems . . . . . . . B. One Way of Differentiating Social Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Social Strata as Social Systems . 1. Definition and delineation of a Social System . . . . . 2. The Integrative elements of a Social Strata . . . . . . a. Associational basis b. Value system. . . . . c. Intergenerational correspondence. . . d. Class consciousness . (l) Divisiveness. . (2) Self-placement. (3) Regional Uniformity (4) Characterization of Perceived Class . . . . vi Page 12 14 14 16 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 use or comers Chapter TABLE or CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter (5) Separation. . . (6) Isolation . . . (7) Connectedness . . . (8) Solidarity. . . . . (9) Identification of Class Interests (10) Hostility . . . . (ll) Predisposition to Action. . . . . . 3. Interrelatedness of parts of Social Strata . . . . . . . a. Intrasystemic Interaction b. Social Participation. . . 4. Boundary Circumscription of Social Strata . . . . . . . D. Social Strata in the "Traditionalism— Modernity" Continuum. . . . . . . . l. Conceptualization Norms . . . . a. Self—Perceived Autonomy b. Secularism. . . . . . . . c. Multiplicity of Reference Groups. . . . . . . . . d. Calculi of Planning and Risk. . . . . . . . . . 2. Interaction Norms . . . . . . . a. Collectivity vs. Persons. b. Flexibility vs. Inflex- ibility . . . . . . . . c. Achievement vs. Adscrip— tion. . . . . . . . . . d. Instrumental Norms vs. Norms Validated by the Past. . . . . . . . . . vii Page 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 37 39 41 i ”'15?“ 4i,“_tl'_£..d.:. 1] AV.“ \ mutiny-y; a" ;.. FH‘ TABLE OF CONTENT Chapter rn V’ w vvvwv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter E. Upward Social Mobility as a Process of Modernization. . . . . . . . . l. The Process of Social Mobility as Transference of Actor to more Modern Social System . 2. Attitude Configuration of Mobility—Oriented Actor and of Modern Man . . . . . . . 3. Mobility-Oriented Actor's Means . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Mobility—Oriented Actor's Goals . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Mobility-Oriented Actor's Mode of Relationship between the elements of the unit—act. 6. Social Mobility and Changes in the Number and the Meaning of Social Systems . . . . 7. Change and Mobility as a Per- sistent Movement away from Traditionalism. . . . . . . 8. A Parsimonious Approach toward Modernity . . . . . . . . 9. Conditions for an Attitudinal "take off" toward Modernity 10. Dimensions of Mobility. . . . F. Social Stratum, Awareness, Percep- tion, Desirability of Mobility and Investment in Mobility and Family Planning . . . . . . . . . G. Some Factors Involved in Mobility Orientations. . . . . . . . . . . 1. Participation as a Variable . 2. Time as a Variable. . . . . . 3. Inter-Systemic or Dissociative Variables . . . . . . . . . viii Page 41 41 44 48 48 49 50 52 53 55 56 76 78 78 78 3 ‘6'", CONTENTS (Cont. ) Page THE STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESES . . . . . . 81 A. A Short Summary of Previous Chapters. 81 B. Hypotheses and their Rationale. . . . 82 1. Stratum—-Awareness of Mobility. 82 2. Stratum-—Perception of Possi- . ' bilities of Mobility. . . . . 83V .1 3. Stratum—~Desirability of ' Mobility. . . . . . . . . . 85 4. Stratum--Investment in Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 86 5. Stratum--Awareness of Mobility . --Family Planning . . . . . . 87 ' 6. Stratum—-Perception of Possi— bilities of Mobility——Fami1y . Planning. . . . . . . . . . . 88 . 7. Stratum--Desirability of ,- Mobility-—Family Planning . . 88 8. Stratum--Investment in Mobility-—Fami1y Planning . . 88 . 9. Lower Strata--Length of Mar- .. riage--Perception of Possi- ' bilities of Mobility. . . . . 90 1'1 ‘ 10. Lower Strata—-Length of Mar— riage—-Desirabi1ity of Mobility. . . . . . . . . . 90 Lower Strata-—Length of Mar- riage--Investment in Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 90 Higher Strata-~Length of Mar- riage--Perception of Possi- bilities of Mobility. . . . . 92 Higher Strata—-Length of Mar- riage--Desirability of Mobility. . . . . . . 92 Higher Strata-—Length of Mar— riage—-Investment in Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 93 J.-. .‘ ¢-’ wen-a9»: ‘ _ U. 5 ‘ .I‘ . ’F‘.’W¢ w.‘ —. V .‘tt‘ F... it .;---.~ mm a» ix [I 2:315 OF CONTESTS at . , LEG-p.91. ff) ?1 I! . ’fitvanussnns (Cont.) " Page 15. Sex-eAwareness of Mobility. . . 95 16. Sex-~Perception of Possi— bilities of Mobility. . . . . 95 17. Sex—-Desirability of Mobility . 95 18. Sex--Investment in Mobility . . 95 19. Age--Perception of Possi— bilities of Mobility. . . . . 97 20. Age——Desirability of Mobility . 97 21. Age—~Investment in Mobility . . 97 22. Education—-Awareness of Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 98 , 23. Education——Perception of Possi- ‘ bilities of Mobility. . . . . 98 J 24. Education—-Desirability of ' Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 98 25. Education—-Investment in QDL‘” 1 ‘w e l . , 7', 7v ." I . ‘ . 1 o ... .1 . .' 4’. . , . I ~‘ Iv - . A ,- _. 1"- .|‘.. I . a 1" Mobility........... 99 'a f” - ’. IV. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS DESIGN . . . . . . 100 53;. pro: ":1. . ‘ :-- .‘ '11“ fl';‘; A. Introductory Note . . . . . . . . . . 100 a; H! “L" “y“ . do - ‘II I. v;$u B. Variables, Specification and Opera— ’ FF“ tionalization . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.“; -.‘ lbw ‘M. 1. Social Stratum. . . . . . . . . 100 2. Awareness of Mobility . . . . . 101 3. PerCeption of Possibilities of Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 104 4. Desirability of Mobility. . . . 106 5. Investment in Mdbility. . . . . 107 6 7 o y... . w. ....... “g _.... .g, A . Family Planning . . . . . . . . 109 . A Word About "variables" and "Indicators". . . . . . . . . 111 8. Length of Marriage. . . . . . . 114 9. Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 10. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 11. Education . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 ‘E‘I‘f-‘FCEEO- Y" '1 TABLE OF CONTENT . Chapter WT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter Page 1. Cartographic Delimitation of the "Barrios" . . . . . . . . 117 2. Ranking of the "Barrios". . . . 122 3. Selection of the "Barrios" typically Representative of Different Socio—Economic Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . 126 a. Principles in Which the Selection of the "Barrios" was Based . . 126 b. Preliminary Selection of the Barrios . . . . . . 128 c. Final Selection of the "Barrios" . . . . . . . 131 (1) Elimination . . . . 132 (2) Substitution. . . . 133 (3) Transference. . . . 133 (4) Inclusion . . . . . 133 (5) Division. . . . . . 134 (6) Sectorization . . . 134 (7) Cartographic "Up Dating" of the Selected "Barrios" . . . . 136 (8) Listing of Persons in Each Household for the Final Selection of the Sample. . . . . . 136 d. Final Selection of the Respondents . . . . . . 137 D. The Collection of the Data. . . . . . 143 1. Pre-Test Questionnaire. . . . . 143 2. The Pre—Test Interviewers . . . 143 3. Locations for the Pre-Test Interviews. . . . . . . . . . 144 xi N' V ' "an. ‘ ~O“w§-M ‘ ~-.Q, ,_ . ‘ 'V- ’ In... ”13E OF CONTENT Cnapter V- TEE RESE VI . FIND INGE AH BE CH 1),} 2.} in] G. H. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter Page 4. Pre—Test Interview. . . . . . . 145 5. Pre—Test Evaluation . . . . . . 145 6. Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . 148 a. General Preparation . . . 148 b. Field Personnel . . . . . 149 c. The Interviews. . . . . . 150 E. Analysis Design 1. Reliability and Validity. . . . 152 2. Test of the Hypotheses. . . . . 152 V. THE RESEARCH SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 A. Costa Rica and the Metropolitan Area of San Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 B. Characteristics of the Population . . 156 VI. FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 A. Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 B. Hypothesis 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 C. Hypothesis 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 D. Hypothesis 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 E. Hypothesis 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 F. Hypothesis 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 G. Hypothesis 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 H. Hypothesis 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 I. Hypotheses 9—14 . . . . . . . . . . . 185 ‘.l,,,_.,..‘_.- Hal ..7‘ '_ v - - ‘ a.. m‘ 'v—u-w ’“.A$ 22.315 OF CONTEST I 27.5926! R . S . T . VII. 5mm- A . B C I PPLNDI I APpMm Ix I 5181.1 h.--. “1*..‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX I. APPENDIX II BIBLIOGRAPHY. Hypothesis 15 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 16 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 17 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 18 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 19 . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 20 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 21 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 22 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 23 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 24 . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 25 . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Findings. . . . Limitations of the Study. . . . Suggestions for Future Research - o o u u o n u o o o o o u c o xiii Page 187 187 190 191 193 196 199 202 209 214 220 220 239 247 251 Table LIST OF TABLES Page TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH BARRIO AND SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY BARRIO, ACCORDING TO STRATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES, BY SEX; ACCORDING TO STRATA AND BARRIOS (Sectors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE: ACCORDING TO STRATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 ORIGINAL SAMPLE, SUBSTITUTIONS AND COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES; ACCORDING TO STRATA . . . . 141 CASES OF NON-CONTACTS AND REFUSALS IN THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE, BY TYPE OF RESPONDANTS; ACCORDING TO STRATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 DENSITY OF POPULATION PER SQUARE KILOMETER AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY SEX IN 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 POPULATION STRUCTURE BY AGE, METROPOLITAN AREA AND REST OF THE COUNTRY. . . . . . . . 160 TOTAL POPULATION BY PROVINCES AND METRO- POLITAN AREA, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 STRATUM BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Item 1) [Do you know whether persons who live in certain economic conditions ever move out of those conditions into different ones?] . 163 xiv. . 7. *7» .¢g__.v -'- umfirvfltfl LIST OF TABLES (COT. . STRATUM BY A:- [Do you be‘ family that continue 1_ .4. ‘) 11. STRATUM BY A: Items 1 & ‘ 12. STRATUM By E MOBILITY ( some Parse as Yours (2 u' STRATUM BY 1: MOBILITY ‘ come to ge han?}. families they wis 1Will y their 5 STRATUM [Given tions‘ bette] la r. -.~_.—....—~—- LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Page STRATUM BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Item 2) [Do you believe that any person born in a family that lives like yours is fated to continue living in the same way?] . . . . . 164 STRATUM BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Index: Items 1 & 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 STRATUM BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 1) [Do you believe that some persons who live in conditions such as yours can come to get a better job?] . . 166 STRATUM BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) [Will your children come to get better jobs than the one you have?]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 STRATUM BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) [Could the children of families living in economic conditions such as yours go to the University if they wish?] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 STRATUM BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Index: Items 1 & 2 & 3). . . . . 169 STRATUM BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 1) [Will you or your family come to improve their socio—economic conditions?] . . . . . 170 STRATUM BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 2) [Given your present socio—economic condi— tions, will your children come to enjoy a better socio—economic conditions?]. . . . . 171 STRATUM BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Index: Items 1 & 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 STRATUM BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1) [Are you doing something to improve your socio-economic conditions?J . . . . . . . . 173 xv 1‘7 I av . w.-J_ _. .gvho—w'v! \ u l-vu'flsa! _.-___.- ,3; 3y TABLES (Cont '1 ’2“ e .I-$ 2:3. STRATUM BY 15‘. [Are you do children ca: condition be 21. STRATUM BY IA" Items 1 & 2 22. STRATUM BY PA! of Birth Co 23. STRATUM BY PA. of Years of M. STRATUM BY FA of Childrer Control We) 25. SEX BY PERCEI MOBILITY ( SEX BY PERCE MOBILITY ( 27' SEX BY PERC! MOBILITY ' SEX BY PERC MOBILITY 31. 32. LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Table 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. STRATUM BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2) [Are you doing something so that your children can come to a socio—economic condition better than yours?] . . . . . . . STRATUM BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index: Items 1 & 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATUM BY FAMILY PLANNING (Item 1) Practice of Birth Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATUM BY FAMILY PLANNING (Item 2) Number of Years of Practice of Birth Control (%) . STRATUM BY FAMILY PLANNING (Item 3) Number of Children at First Practice of Birth Control (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Index). . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEX BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1). . . . SEX BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2). . . . SEX BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) . . . . AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES 0F MOBILITY(Item1)............. Page 174 175 176 177 178 187 188 189 189 191 191 192 193 125T or TABLES (Cc 1.}1 daboe ‘1 4 d1. 37. 38. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. u, 48, . AGB BY PERCE AGE BY PBRCE MOBILITY ‘1 MOBILITY ’ . AGE BY PERCE MOBILITY ( . AGE BY DESI AGE BY DESI AGE BY DESIE - BOB BY 1m: - AGE BY INVE AGE BY 1m; EDUCAT ION 1 EDUCATION EDUCATION MOBILIT‘ EDUCAT ION~ EDUCAT Io: MOBILI' MOBIL] )Item LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Table Page 33. AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 34. AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 35. AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Index). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 36. AGE BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 1). . . 197 37. AGE BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 2). . . 198 38. AGE BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Index) . . . 198 39. AGE BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1). . . . 200 40. AGE BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2). . . . 200 41. AGE BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) . . . . 201 42. EDUCATION BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Item 1) . 202 43. EDUCATION BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Item 2) . 203 44. EDUCATION BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Index). . 205 45. EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 46. EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 47. EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 I ' 48. EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES 0F MOBILITY (Index). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 EDUCATION BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 xvii LIST OF TABLES (C07 54. EDUCATION BY . EDUCATION B‘i . EDUCATION B‘i . SUMMARY OF E L (Item 2). I EDUCATION BY EDUCATION BY ( .. ‘ E‘ffi“ U'Tu‘)’ {‘33. ;g‘ T” uystm. xviii Page ; ABDUCATION BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY 1 J;~. (Item 2). I I O D I I O D C I O I I C O O I 212 EDUCATION BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Index) 213 EDUCATION BY INVES'I‘NENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1) . 215 EDUCATION BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2) . 215 , .LCAL 1. '54. EDUCATION BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) . 217 ‘ as; :1», 'r' .55. SUMMARYOFFINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 ? ’ee‘a‘ \ ‘i 7 mo. .“J , ,.;but A ' ' 4 .h ‘LNBJL H: ' ‘I Pkg: hm». at I . H: s.‘ n‘n al' a Illlr irilll. 4 . . ~51 u‘vl 'd p. ~I :- Y. . . p.01? I.~ .c‘cn‘.lllnra '- CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM By the criteria of judgment based upon sociolog- ical theory or social policy, it is almost a platitude to say that social strata are deserving of sociological re- search. So it is with the concomitant process of social mobility. "The great international interest in mobility research reflects not only its theoretical significance, but also its saliency as a practical political question.“ But it happens that ". . . some sociologists have held that social scientists should (for the most fruitful theoretical and research results) consider stratification systems as 'givens' or as 'assumed' for most sociological . analyses.”2 Although it is important to study how the I stratification system manifests itself, it is no less ' 1S. M. Lipset and R. Bendix; Social Mobility in ) Industrial Society, University of California Press; Berk- ! eley and Los Angeles, 1959, p. IX. 2L. E. Sneden II; Factors Involved in Upward Mg— bility from the Culture of Poverty, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Michigan State University; East Lansing, 1968. important to study the factors involved in its emergence, in its self-maintenance, and in its development. Only in this way one can understand the impact of the stratifica- tion system upon human behavior, the global social system, and the political and social processes. Social strata can be conceived as social systems; as such, they serve as structural anchorages for actors, provide, in certain respects, functional value, and have self-perpetuating dimensions. Even more, only because of this self—perpetuating dimension of strata it is meaningful to conceive society as a "stratified entity." Only if a significant majority of actors maintain themselves in their strata of origin through the whole of his life and their positions are transmitted from generation to generation can the strata exercise such an impact on actors' behaviors and fate and on the social order and its processes. Unequal distribution of economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for inCome among the different strata account, to a larger extent, for the self-perpetuation of the strata; i.e., the transmission of a similar socio—economic position from generation to :eneration. MEX )‘i clear in this rega But beside income there must styles" and some ' self-perpetuation itis there is "a: 1 y. analy.'cal scheme the analysis of 5: By defini its absence or it {R «Jr the degree 0 t .33 .udy Actor . s ”L _ ___,-«.—- a —-——‘-A ~— ~ - _. !€' generation. Max Weber as well as Kurt Meyer were quite clear in this regard.3 But besides, or along with, the "crude fact" of income there must be some "cognitive and behavioral styles" and some "actor's behavior" connected with the self-perpetuation of the stratum, for, after all, what it is there is "actors" behaving toward ”objects" if the analytical scheme "actors-means—objects" is accepted in the analysis of social action. By definition, the process of social mobility-— its absence or its existence in a social system-—accounts for the degree of self-perpetuation of the strata. Then, to study actor's cognitive and behavioral styles toward such a process itself, and to study some behavioral in- vestments amenable to such a process, might give some cues on the problem of the self-perpetuation of the strata. The assumption is made that actor's favorable cognitive and behavioral style toward social mobility, as well as behavioral investments amenable with social mobility or 3M. Weber; "Class and Status," in H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds. and trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in Scmiology, Oxford University Press; New York, 1968, pp. 3181-182. K. Meyer; Class and Society, Random House; New York, 1965, p. 23. A “Q .3 ‘a‘uv 01" "\(u I! and. m- “:5 DR) nit. 5“ (I) F f— vice—versa, impinge actually on the actor's social mo- bility or social stability. But it is crucial of course, to bear in mind that there are structural variables which hold actors in their social strata, no matter how “mobility—oriented" they might be. It is also of para— mount importance to recognize that those cognitive and behavioral styles--if they exist—-cannot be regarded as the causes of an individual's presence in a certain stratum. On the contrary, a central question on this study is to inquire whether the "existential experience" which entails for the individual belonging to a certain economic stratum breeds those cognitive and behavioral styles. Of course, if they exist, they contribute to reinforce the impact of the unequal distribution of economic opportunity on the self-perpetuation of the strata. On the other hand one could say that the differ— ential experience of upward mobility are part of the "existential experience" ingrained in the social strata; an existential experience which might be one of the cir- cumstances which breed those cognitive and behavioral Styles toward social mobility. For sure. SCI-E “sub‘ective c Inceptualized as Itch are related ' llii'lid‘ddls posses a'zlenotile, or mc TOT. the social 18 icons upon subjec following: "defe 1591139 0f powe: ‘55‘11‘? L ' . totl.a~10n'l\ nlr For sure, some Studies have been done which deal with some "subjective orientations toward mobility." They are conceptualized as socially determined subjective qualities which are related with the process to the extent that those individuals possessing them in a certain degree are presum- able mobile, or more susceptible to climbing up or slipping down the social ladder. Among the concepts at issue in this focus upon subjective orientation toward mobility are the following: "deferred gratification pattern," "values," "feeling of powerlessness," "life planning," "achievement motivation," "intelligence," "aspirations," etc.4 4 G. Knupfer; "Portrait of the Underdog,“ in R. Ben- dix and S. M. Lipset (eds.); Class, Status and Power: So— cial Stratification in Cpmparative Perspective, The Free Press; New York, 1953, p. 255. H. Hyman; "The Value System of Different Classes," in R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset, op. cit., p. 426. L. Schneider and S. Lysgaard; ”The Deferred Gratification Pattern," A.S.R., Vol. XVIII, April: 1953, No. 2, p. 142. B. Rosen; "The Achievement Syndrome," A.S.R., Vol. XXI, April: 1956, No. 2, p. 283. O. Brim and R. Forer; "A Note on the Relation of Values and Social Structure to Life Planning," Sociometry, Vol. XIX, March: 1956, No. 1, p. 54. B. Barber; Social Stratification: A Comparative Analysis of Structure and Process, Harcourt, Brace and World; New York, 1957, pp. 390 ff. J. A. Kahl; Th; American Class Structure, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.; New York, 1962, pp. 276 ff. S. M. Lipset and R. Bendix; op. cit., pp. 227 ff. A. D. Heller and I. W. Miller; Egg Occupational Aspiration Scale: Theory Structure and Corre- lates, Michigan State University, Ag. Exp. Station; East ) Lansing, 1961. A. De Hoyos; Occupational and Educational 1 Levels of Aspiration of Mexican-American Youth, unpublished . 'Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University; East Lansing, ‘ 1961. L. E. Sneden; op. cit. .« a? ' r - Brit '0 (I) “a 9 9,. ‘G 'ri 6 Of all of them, closest to the theme of present study are those dealing with "aspirations," especially . with educational and occupational aspirations. But the research here prOposed differs in several respects: 1) At least partial evidence shows that not all indi- viduals aspire to a certain kind of occupation and to a certain level and kind of education for reasons of prestige. For example, Burnstein, Moulton, and Liberty found that some individuals prefer occupational roles which demand high excellence (that is, "expertise") ‘ relative to the prestige they confer, while others prefer those which confer high prestige relative to the excellence demanded. Much depends on the psycho— logical prOperties of members of a given role system.5 2) The categories of cognitive styles toward mobility with which this study deals with (a point to be devel— oped later in this proposal) differ from categories previously used. These categories refer directly, in terms of their operationalization, with the pro— . cess of social mobility. 3) This study includes, 5E. Burnstein, R. Moulton, and P. Liberty; "Pres- tige vs. Excellence as Determinants of Role Attractive— ness," A.S.R., Vol. XXIII, April: 1963, No. 2, p. 212. “K: .- ‘ i A“ . {BE-Pains! .t‘lll'llfiljli .l .. . . ...Pr .. a ~ p-thOSS cognitive styles, a category referred to as _Mdoral investments toward mobility." 4) This study w¥cIto establish the relationship between socio—economic ‘(strata, some aSpects of social mobility and family plan- ning. 5) The conceptual frame of reference used has not been previously used to examine the stratum——mobility-- family planning dynamic. So far, the self perpetuating dimension of the strata has been emphasized, but the fact is that the move- ment of actors from one stratum to another can and does occur, no matter how great or small it may be. That is to say that the process of social mobility exists. This means that, structural variables and individual accidents s aside, in each social stratum there are mobility-oriented actors who invest in behavior favorable to social mobility. '2 The General Objectives of this study then are: c . (1) To see whether existential experience within A socio-economic stratum breeds in individuals certain 4 ‘- degnitive styles toward social mobility as well as certain .33 I,>.. m ._ .figghflvioral styles amenable (or not) to such a process. A' ' l -5. *ggdg way, the study intends to bring forth some more Kalil. all!!!) 1M: . 3...: «A l I . .. MEIER} o. (2) To see whether some factors prompt actors, whichever their social stratum may be, to be mobility— oriented and to invest in mobility. CHAPTER II i‘ 1' THE THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE ‘ fir. qri" v' 4 ‘ ' 0 " I ”bray: .‘K Before presenting the theoretical frame of refer- ' 1 a :u“. } ence, it should be noted that under certain conditions 4 ' 5:1".L a such a frame of reference might need to be modified. This - 3y?! .. will be the case, for example, in "aristocratic regimes" N ;%th repressive types of political structures, where \7 7."? . :change oriented" individuals might be distributed between '0“! -' 3: ' .Qtrata in a different way than is assumed in the theoret- §f~ '3' 1aa1 frame of reference at issue in this study. This v ‘.' ' “° 'i“ 3‘ . being not the case in Costa Rica, this study was guided 'a. 9n. .‘ * JHRJKhe assumption that such a theoretical frame of refer- (" QheU~-as stated in the following sections of this chapter ‘ .11} .1 ; iiiits the case under study. g >_ A '1 SYSTEMS c‘l ‘ {'af e ~ . ‘ , i goghat science. in general, deals with "systems" is gimilarly. that social science, in 9 a f; z? a 4% 1 f.) .4 i '4“ 5 .3’ . n...- «12”,» _. -.\::-.,m .u ‘ as": .- a ‘5 g’.- . . . '1 ‘ ._- a'.‘. particular, dea‘ nation. As ear by his own admi were grouped ar Horale" twenty Motion to Ame fruitful to loc Systemic levels :Jltural System interpenetratic lag S'JbS'YStems Simila: are the Core 0 eaces, is cone W 10 particular, deals with "social systems" is in no way a new notion. As early as 1934, Florian Znaniecki, borrowing—- by his own admission——from the French methodologists who were grouped around the "Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale" twenty years before he wrote,1 brought forth such a notion to American Sociology. Parsons has found it fruitful to look at the "social world" in three different systemic levels of abstraction: the social system; the cultural system, and the personality system, in reciprocal interpenetration, with all other social systems constitut— ing subsystems or parts of subsystems.2 Similarly, Loomis points out that "social systems" are the core of sociology. "Sociology, like other sci— ences, is concerned with the orderliness or uniformities 1F. Znaniecki; The Method of Sociology, Farrar and Rinehart, Inc.; New York, 1934, p. 12, footnote #1. 2T. Parsons; The Social System, The Free Press; London, 1951, pp. 36 and 45. It is not proposed here that the distinction between the "social system" and the "cultural system" is crucial. In that regard, there is room for argument. The emphasis is placed in the "sys— temic" aspect of the Parsonian formulation. See also C. P. Loomis and Z. Loomis, Modern Social Theories; The Van-Nostrand Series in Sociology; Princeton, New Jersey, 1965. PP. 328 and 330. r-,,__- Inn-LL. 11 involved in its particular class of phenomena, and it finds this order in the social system.”3 The heuristic function of the concept in both Parsons and Loomis is obvious. "System" implies the idea of "interrelatedness." So, knowing sectors of a "system," one should be able to "predict" how, at least partially, other sectors should be. Or, as Wilbert Moore has put it . . sociological analysis must deal with systems if it is to yield predictive proposi— tions of any consequence, if that is, the study of social phenomena is to go beyond endless and tiresome descriptions of events and entities. This study, then, takes point of departure from the notion of "social system" and attempts to characterize it, to see how "social systems" differ among themselves, to conceive strata as social systems and as social systems which differ among themselves regarding the dimension of modernization and to see the process of social mobility as a process which implies "changes in the number and in the meaning of social systems to the actor and concomitant 3C. P. Loomis; Social Systems, The Van—Nostrand Series in Sociology; Princeton, New Jersey, 1960, p. 3. 4Editorial Introduction to C. P. Loomis and Z. Loomis; op. cit., p. XXII. J 12 changes in his behavior."5 The process at issue implies a process of modernization, and I attempt to use a "theoret- ical frame of reference" about such a process. With such a theoretical frame of reference, a set of propositions that presumably accounts for the phenomenon under study was developed. To do such a thing would constitute an "explana— tion," for ". . . explanation presupposes (1) the formula— tion of a domain to which the system of propositions re- fers and (2) the formulation of strategy rules or guiding premises which constitute simplifying assumptions about the domain and guide the development of propositions. The specification of the domain and strategy rules constitute a theoretical frame of reference."6 B. ONE WAY OF DIFFERENTIATIEQ SOCIAL SYSTEMS Given that the concept of social system is central of the theoretical frame of reference here used, and given 5F. B. Waisanen; Actors, Social Systems and the Modernization Process, The Carnegie Seminar on Political and Administrative Development, Department of Government, Indiana University; Bloomington, 1969, p. 2. 6H. Karp; Class notes in Sociology 494, Sociology Department, Michigan State University; East Lansing, , Winter , 1970 . A ' l J _ :- K 'r_. further thi prison of of which a 113?. deal problem c 1203: vex- termet 1215311, I the iSS‘. PCSes V‘ which X‘ ~rVCeS: at; 13 further that a main theme of this study implies the com- parison of several social systems and the process by means of which actors pass from one system to the other, one must deal with some elements to differentiate them. "The problem of specification and differentiation of social systems is certainly one of the most important and yet most vexing problems of social science. Efforts to in- terpret behavior in terms of reference groups, ethnocen- trism, 'cross pressures,‘ and the like are forced to face the issue squarely."7 For that purpose, Waisanen8 pro— poses what he calls "normative structural variables,“ which he subdivides as follows: Conceptualization norms refer to such symbolic processes as (l) conceptual mapping (i.e., providing a relevant system of social objects), (2) specification of relationships among these social objects, and (3) inter- pretation of events, including the assumption of cause- effect sequences. These norms guide the actor's retro— spections, situational analysis, and plans; they provide meaning. 7F. B. Waisanen; op. cit., page 3. 8Ibidem, pp. 2—5. 'I MAL! '\ A “m .79"! 45.1 'w r‘ :‘UI-RW'H ' ' ence of t tare real i l4 Interaction norms provide the framework for overt action. The class subsumes, by example, patterns of eti- quette, deference, and reciprocity. The normative rele— vance of this class is less a matter of how actors struc- ture reality and more of how they deal with it. Waisanen suggests other variables which bear di- rectly upon the modernization process, some of which will be mentioned later on. The ones mentioned above were explained at this point, because they will serve, in lines below, to support the point that social strata differ along the normative dimensions of "traditionalism- modernity." c. SOCIAL SLQTA AS SOCIAL SYSTEMS The proposition is here made that social strata can be conceived as "social systems." To support and clarify this proposition, one must start with acceptable definitions of system and social system, and by stating how a social system may be delineated. "A system--say Carrol and Farace——is any set of objects which can in— fluence one another, and which have boundary that enables A 15 an observer to tell where the system begins and where it ggQg."9 "A social system," says Sorokin, "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."10 And ". . . 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 situation having both physical and symbolic as sets."11 "Among the dimensions that may determine the P type of interaction are extensity, intensity, duration, direction (i.e., whether solidary or antagonistic), and . . 2 nature and extent of integration."1 9T. W. Carrol and R. V. Farace; Systems Analysis, Computer Simplation, and Survey Research: Applications to Social Research in Developing Countries, Computer In- stitute for Social Science Research, Michigan State Uni— versity; East Lansing, Revised Edition, March, 1970, p. 4. 10P. A. Sorokin; Social and Cultural Dynamics, Porter Sargent Publisher; Boston, 1957, p. 444. 11P. A. Sorokin, ibidem. 12P. A. Sorokin, ibidem. Followz such a criteri< asocial systei stressed by: b} direction 0 and expectatio pressed by: a htensity of i 16 Following that definition of social system and such a criterion for delineating it, one can assert that a social system must have: 1) Integrative elements, as expressed by: a) nature and extent of the integration; b) direction of the interaction; and c) shared symbols and expectations. 2) Interrelatedness of parts, as ex— pressed by: a) mutual orientation and b) extensity and intensity of interaction. And, 3) Boundary Circumscrip— tion: a social system's boundaries——physically or norma— tively—-can be delineated. All this will become clearer in the following lines, when applying those criteria to the social strata, to support the assertion that they can be conceived as social systems. Thus, the first integrative elgmggg of a social stratum, which is expressed by the nature of the integra- tion, is the fact that the social strata have associa— tional basis13 as an elgmgnt for their definition. In fact, when Lasswell summarizes the findings related with this aspect of social strata, he states the following: llr. E. Lasswell; Class and Stratum: An Intro- duction to Concepts and Research, Houghton Mifflin Co.; Boston, 1965, p. 299. 17 One understanding of social classes . . . was that they are interacting communities in which the members have personal access to one an— other. Warner's EP method of classifying com- munity members is based on such assumption. Several studies deny the possibility of an associational base for social classes: by; there may be a factor of community size in— volved. The associational assumption is almost necessarily confined to the local scene for most situations, since few persons can maintain steady association with distant friends on any kind of intimate basis. Frequently observed in social classes are cliques and various types of clubs. The clique is a special case of the small group. Clubs and local associations seem 1 to be closely related to the social class ' structures in communities. The "great clans" . in the United States, although conspicuous, are i actually an extremely small fraction of the population, and probably should be considered i as exceptions to the general principles of so— cial stratification as far as the country as a whole is concerned. Cleavages are effective ‘ barriers to free association. They may arise from almost anything that makes communication difficult-—physical, religious, economic, ra— . cial, intellectual, or sentimental barriers.14 The second integrative element of the social strata is the fact that they show their own value system, as an expression of shared symbols and expectations. With this, one means that ". . . value orientations emerge from, integrate, and symbolize the class way of life."15 14T. E. Lasswell; ibidem, pp. 327—328. 15J. A. Kahl; op. cit., p. 215. ‘Mp 1?...)gwtdhl or"... . I FBI“... 4, . -. ‘ 18 And, on the other hand, ". . . most of [our]16 families are content to adjust. Either they spin a web of values that integrates their current lives, or they strive to change aspects of their lives that do not match their values. Although there are people who are always a little out of phase, and standards are always shifting, the ob— server can better understand both conformity and devia- tion by recognizing the typical patterns."17 The third integrative elgmgpp, which expresses the extent of the integration, is the intergenerational correspondence. "It is (or was)-—asserts Buckley-—rather firmly embedded in usage that stratification involves the existence of strata, generally agreed to refer to speci- fiable collectivities or subgroups that continue—through ggveral generations to occupy the same relative positions and to receive the same relative amounts of material ends, prestige, and power."1 16J. A. Kahl; ibidem, p. 217, brackets provided. l7Ibidem. 18 W. Buckley; "Social Stratification and Func- tional Theory of Social Differentiation," A.S.R., Vol. XXIII, August: 1958, No. 4, p. 369. l9 Lipset and Bendix, in summarizing research on inter-generational mobility, state the following: Occupational and social status are to an im— portant extent self—perpetuating. They are associated with many factors which make it difficult for individuals to modify their status. Position in the social structure is usually associated with a certain level of income, education, family structure, community reputation, and so forth. These become a part of a vicious circle in which each factor acts on the other in such a way as to preserve the social structure in its present form, as well as the individual family's position in that structure.19 The fourth ipppgrative element, as an expression i? of the direction of the interaction (i.e., whether soli— dary or antagonistic) is class consciousness. In this study one is not dealing with the concept of social class as used by Karl Marx. As is well—known, for Marx the concept of "social stratum," which is a concept coined many years after Marx wrote, has a static character.20 198. M. Lipset and R. Bendix, op. cit., p. 198. 20To see the difference between "stratum" as a static concept and "class" as a dynamic concept, see R. Dahrendort; Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Stanford University Press; Stanford California, 1968. This means t 'sc-cial clas 5‘.” : 1 \fl (1') In 1 cf "stratum it the come We may eople ponent this cc Economi and on resents 0f lab. No if? merel communal a A) 20 This means that, in the Marxist tradition, the concept of "social class" was an analytical tool to explain social change. In this study, we are attaching to the concept of "stratum" a meaning similar to that given by Max Weber to the concept of "social class." We may speak of a "class" when (l) a number of people have in common a Specific causal com- ponent of their life chances, in so far as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is rep— resented under the conditions of the commodity of labor markets.2 Now, for Max Weber, "classes" are not communities; they merely represent possible, and frequent, bases for communal action.22 This means that a "stratum" (to Max Weber, "social class,") represents possible, and frequent, . . 23 . . bas1s of class consc1ousness. In rev1ew1ng the 21M. Weber, op. cit., p. 181. 22Ibidem. 23 In the major study of which this dissertation is a part, the author of this doctoral thesis worked in close connection with Mr. Cesar Hernandez—Gala, who recently ob— tained his Ph.D. degree in the University of Notre Dame, with a doctoral dissertation which is also a part of the mentioned major study. The operationalization was done by both authors. A very significant part of the review of the literature in this respect was done mainly by Mr. Hernandez-Cele. " x. l i 4' '95-er .‘ law-- relevant liter class Consciou Those ——-— 2 4B. I :1: "Status C 243-248. R-( Princeton Uni\ :as:"50Cial ifLiw Vol. 1 Samstadt: "1 anon," selec envy Basic 1 inC.S. Helle Areader in CC MilaiCo.: N IinEnpirical Q, Deceml usmski: "N0: :iInterpretii .siler; 0p. c A.W.Kornhau Cmtenporary of Class Divi‘ ecsj; Indv my .5 E 21 relevant literature, one can find different aspects of . 24 class conSciousness. Those aspects of class consciousness are: 24B. Barber; op. cit., Ch. IX. H. M. Blalock, Jr.; "Status Consciousness: A Dimensional Analysis," Soc. Forces, Vol. XXXVIII, March: 1959, No. 3, pp. 243—248. R. Centers; The Psychology of Social Classgg, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1949. R. Cen— ters; "Social Class, Occupation and Imputed Belief," A.J.S., Vol. LVIII, May: 1953, pp. 543—555. S. N. Eisenstadt; "The Emerging Pattern of Israeli Stratifi- cation," selected from S. N. Eisenstadt; Israeli So— ciety, Basic Books Inc., Publishers; New York, 1967; in C. S. Heller (ed.); Structured Social Inequality: A reader in Comparative §pcia1 Stratification, The Mc- Millan Co.; New York, 1969, pp. 438-452. J. L. Haer; "An Empirical Study of Social Class Awareness," §pg. Forces, December: 1957, No. 36, pp. 117—121. S. Ossowski; "Non-Egalitarian C1aSslessness——Similarities in Interpreting Mutually Opposed Systems," in C. S. Heller; op. cit., pp. 206—216. J. A. Kahl; op. cit. A. W. Kornhauser; "Analysis of 'Class' Structure of Contemporary American Society-—Psychological Bases of Class Divisions," in G. W. Hartman and T. Newcomb (eds.); Industrial Conflict, The Gordon Company; New York, 1939, pp. 199-264. W. S. Landecker; "Class Crystallization and Class Consciousness," A.S.R., Vol. XXVIII, 1963, No. 2, pp. 219—229. T. E. Lass- well; “The Perception of Social Status," Sociol. Soc. Res., Vol. XLV, July: 1961b, No. 4, pp. 407-414. T. E. Lasswell; Class and Stratum: An Introduction to Concepts and Research, op. cit., Ch. X. J. C. Leggett; "Uprootedness and Working—Class Conscious— ness," A.J.S., Vol. LXVIII, May: 1963, No. 6, pp. 682—692. J. C. Leggett; "Economic Insecurity and Working—Class Consciousness," A.S.R., Vol. XXIX, April: 1964, No. 2, p. 226. L. S. Lewis; "Class and Perception :fClass," S_ 9"? 336-340 55.ience of C «nary: 196 "Class Conscj éManise inUSHeSc S=‘tenber: ‘ «Hie S‘theci III il‘. D V kln‘jge ar I‘.< wrx; % intera 10ml 3m 5 Ti“ eor :‘M LipSet $1115.. 3.3 Study Oi ‘ (:3 (4. 22 l. Divisiveness. This aspect refers to the degree which people in a society are aware of the existence of various groups as collectives with distinctive life of Class," Soc. Forces, Vol. XLII, March: 1964, No. 3, pp. 336-340. L. S. Lewis; "Class Consciousness and Salience of Class," Sociol. Soc. Res., Vol. XLIX, January: 1965, No. 2, pp. 173—182. L. S. Lewis; "Class Consciousness and Interclass Sentiment," Sociol. Quarterly, V. G., Autumn: 1963, No. 4, pp. 325—338. J. G. Manis and B. N. Meltzer; "Some Correlates of Class Consciousness Among Textile Workers," A.J.S., Vol. LXIX, September: 1963, No. 2, pp. 177—184. F. M. Martin; "Some Subjective Aspects of Social Stratification," Ch. III, in D. V. Glass (ed.); Social Mobility in Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul; London, 1954, pp. 58—64. K. Marx; The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, In- ternational Publishers; New York, n.d. K. Marx; "Karl Marx's Theory of Social Classes,” in R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset (eds.), op. cit., pp. 8—10. C. W. Mills; White Collar, Oxford University Press; New York, 1951, p. 325. R. T. Morris and R. J. Murphy; "A Paradigm of the Study of Class Consciousness," Sociol. Soc. Res., Vol. L, April: 1966, No. 3, pp. 298—313. S. Nowak: "Changes in Social Structure in Social Consciousness," a revised version of an article in the Polish Sociol. Journal, Vol. II, 1964, in C. S. Heller (ed.), op. cit., pp. 235—247. S. Ossowski; Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Routledge and Kegan Paul; London, 1963. M. Rosenberg; "Perceptual Obstacles to Class Consciousness and Political Solidarity," A.S.R., Vol. XXIII, August: 1958, No. 4, pp. 375— 383. condi- disti as ti into an A -:.'_‘ .. ‘_ ‘ _ —-I' “ nut—m»: N m (D p...’ f h (37”? '.‘. quir 4d: then Whic and to 1 Leg Thi be} ice the ice in 23 conditions. It furthermore includes the number of distinct collectives which are perceived as well as the believed distribution of the population into these collectives of "social classes." Self—placement. This dimension refers to the degree of awareness of one's position in a class-hierarchy. It re- quires not only that peOple be able to identify themselves with one of the several classes into which they divide society, but also that they have and state reasons for why they assign themselves to that particular class. Regional Uniformity. This component refers to the degree that peeple believe classes are uniform across the geograph- ical boundaries of their country, i.e., whether they believe that people in class "x" in geograph- ical location "y" would belong to the same class in a different location "2." was This; socie of f0 sonal c) At d) No Ii . Separ 1'M*”” ' A¢__l.—.J_.-_‘. ' U‘ SEpar socia disce terna cultu gree ferer uneag membe are 5 % This 24 Chagagterization of Perceived Claspgp. This aspect refers to the degree that peOple in a society characterize the various classes in terms of four main types of attributes, mainly: a) Per- sonal Attributes, b) Socio-Structural Attributes, c) Attributes making allusion to life chances, and d) Nominal terms. Separation. Separation refers to the degree of visibility of social classes in society, i.e., the ability to discern to which class a person belongs by ex- ternal signs like modes of speech and behavior, culture, manners, etc. It also includes the de- gree to which friends belong to the same or dif- ferent classes, and especially the sensation of uneasiness, inhibition, and the feeling that members of classes above or below one's class are strangers to each other. Isolation. This dimension refers to the degree that social classes are perceived as isolated from each other {1‘77" A“ ""“"‘ ' “l .1. ..‘1 i.e.,! any c0] their . Connec This a classe are m< It in: exist sibil Pecta readi to th refer which one's With I This 25 i.e., members of different classes do not have any concern for each other and live a life of their own. Connectedness. This aSpect refers to the degree to which social classes are perceived as having boundaries which are more or less rigid or more or less penetrable. It includes different degrees of awareness of the existence of barriers, the perception of the pos- sibility of penetrating these barriers, the ex- pectation of penetrating them, as well as the readiness and the means for penetrating them. Solidarity. This concept refers to manifestations of allegiance to those in one's class. More specifically, it refers to allegiance and support of movements which are perceived to be on the side of those in one's class, even when there may be disagreement with reasons that others in the same class give. Identification of Class Interestg. This aspect refers to the degree to which classes are per are mo: 10. Hostil This d cm exist one's \ .Sn'. classe belief "i ‘1- It ’5 as Wel Classe 11- Predic 26 are perceived to have different interests which are more or less incompatible. 10. Hostiligy. This dimension refers to the degree to which there exist feelings of antipathy towards classes above one's own class and feelings of deprecation toward classes below one's class. It also includes the beliefs that upper classes fear the lower classes as well as the belief in the exploitation between classes. 11. Predispogition to Action. This aspect refers to the degree to which there exists a disposition for members of.one's class to organize to fight in behalf of their own in— terests. It also includes the readiness or will- ingness to join such movements. It was stated that inpggrelatedness of parts is a defining element of social system. This aspect of the Social system is shown by social strata in the prevalence OfJLntrasystemic interaction within strata, and it is an exPriession of extensity and mutually oriented interaction. In this sense, strata is impl Ir. content pressed by specific s all those Linked wit tions on ' :ercourse nomic or a tional" p: confine nc status ci; dog-anous c a mere inc imitation agreed-up; character, way.23 m U" ' 7-' . h“‘ "i '- '. «71)J_'&“ 7" _ A p ‘1? “13’ A? More recently Feelings . aCtEd out and Play. teraction preStige studying The e ilar Pres One anoth Where fre ential CC different edUcat- . e 990; With thei M, l 27 In this sense, the systemic characteristic of social strata is implied very clearly in Max Weber's statement: In content, status honor is normally ex— pressed by the fact that above all else a specific style of life can be expected from all those who wish to belong to the circle. Linked with this expectation are restric- tions on "social" intercourse (that is, in- tercourse which is not subservient to eco— nomic or any other of business's "func- tional" purposes). These restrictions may confine normal marriages to within the status circle and may lead to complete en- dogamous closure. As soon as there is not a mere individual and socially irrelevant imitation of another style of life, but an agreed-upon communal action of this closing character, the status deve10pment is under- way.25 More recently, Kahl has expressed a similar idea: Feelings of superiority and inferiority are acted out when men and women meet to work and play. Thus direct observations of in— teraction and interpretations of verbal prestige rankings are different means of studying the same basic phenomena. The evidence is clear: persons of sim- ilar prestige are likely to associate with one another in those recreational situations where free choice is available. The differ— ential costs of the activities engaged in at different status levels, and the different educations, habits, and values that character- ize peOple at the separate prestige levels Hake peOple more comfortable when interacting ‘Nith their own kind. Furthermore, the \ 25M. Weber, op. cit., pp. 187—188. IF ecologi Simial’ The p 3:113 01' SC _ pression of "He.“ } mai ‘ 59:5 ”u V- . \‘a+~ I_‘“ k a {Kr . c P. 3.ng 28 ecological patterning of cities puts peOple of similar buying power together as neighbors.26 The other aspect which shows interrelatedness of parts of social strata is social participation, as an ex— pression of intensity of interaction. Support of this assertion come from Kahl: In those more structured situations that pro— duce formal organizations, the same forces are at work, but in even greater strength. The different economic and social interests of the various strata lead them to organize separate organizations that seek to advance their spe— cial goals.2-7 The last element which serves to define and circumscribe a social system is boundary circumscription. So far as so— . . 28 . . c1a1 strata are concerned, LeW1s and Briones and Wai- 29 . sanen have suggested that this concern for boundary maintenance may be found even among social (socioeconomic) strata. The boundaries by means of which the social ‘ 26J. A. Kahl; op. cit., p. 153. 27Ibidem; p. 154. 28D. Lewis; The Children of Sanchez: Autobiogr EEEhy'of a Mexican Family, Random House, New York, 1961. 29G. Briones and F. B. Waisanen; "Educational Aspirations, Modernization and Urban Integration," a paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American SoCiological Association: Miami, Florida, 1966. ‘ _‘ a ~ . 1L""‘IJ._‘I- ‘7' 3“sz ‘ ‘} IF strata C57 The tors ions varj as e inte sub 0f . Sta. 'Wyi f 29 strata can be delineated might be normative or physical. In fact, if one accepts the assertion that social strata have shared values and interactional expectations, as well as patterned interaction, then it follows that they can be delineated normatively. Similarly, the ecological Circumscription of strata is pointed out by Kahl and Davis (who calculated a factor analysis of scores on 19 strati- fication indexes) and concluded: The battery of indexes showed two common fac- tors: (a) the first was composed of the var- ious measures of occupation, plus certain variables closely related to OCCUpation, such as education, self identification, and the interviewer's impressionistic rating of the subject; (b) the second factor was composed of ecological measures plus those of the status of the parents of the subject and his wife.30 D. SOCIAL STRATA IN THE "TRADITIONALISM—MODERNITY" CONTINUUM From a socio-psychological point of View, it be- comes meaningful—-or at least interesting——to talk of the Strata of a society if one can differentiate them by some \ 30J. A. Kahl and J. A. Davis; "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio—Economic Status," A.S.R., Vol. XX, June: 1955, No. 3, p. 317. \ M's-ununnw'. E s sysaemic to the e> o: more . approach Strata i 51:11 a 1 3O systemic characteristics: for strata become significant to the extent that they represent "variations" along one or more dimensions. For the problem at hand, one can approach this differentiation task by thinking of social strata in terms of a "traditionalism—modernity" continuum. Such a View is not tied to political ideologies. For ex— ample, an aristocratic upper stratum may be Opposed to the change of the prevailing form of social order and its ideological bases: yet be committed to the process of economic change, which necessarily implies behavioral investment in mobility as a result of being actively en- gaged in the entrepreneurial activities necessary to pro- duce or Speed up to process of economic change. In a previous section of this prOposal the point was made that social systems vary from the point of view of normative structural variables, subdivided in "concept- ualization norms" and "interaction norms." The point at issue here is that the higher the social strata, the more modern they are from the point of view of some of these variables. If one keeps in mind how the conceptualization norms were defined, and under the assumption that there might be a correspondence between the system's normative -v rTv - LE ~§ structure one could relevant \ be rooted systems 1 31 structure and the actor's attitudes, values and beliefs, one could prepose, as Waisanen does, that such actor- relevant variables as selftperceived autonomy, secularygn, multiplicity of reference groups, and the calculi ofgplan- and risk, as examples from among others, are assumed to be rooted in the conceptualization norms of the social systems relevant to the actor. With regard to self perceived autonomy, Knupfer found that closely linked with economic underprivilege is psychological underprivilege, one aspect of which is "habits of submission." This, in conjunction with other forms of underprivilege, appears to produce a lack of self-confidence which increases the unwillingness of the low status person to participate in many phases of our predominantly middle-class culture.31 The modal person- ality of the lower class is more limited and restricted than that of the middle or upper class.32 With regard to secularism, Lipset and Bendix state that 316. Knupfer; op. cit., p. 255. 32B. Berelson and I. Steiner; Human Behavior: an inventory of scientific findings, Harcourt, Brace and Wbrld, Inc.; New York, 1964, p. 490. ~ . - s . L-m u r-IHII at ': Ono-PW" ' ’1 IF , , . i depress hope of either religic lower c and i3; They are m things of tithe hig tional, " ; iS'of th 32 . . . in general, it seems to be true that the depressed and the.fai1ures who have little hope of individual success have a strong faith either in radical politics or in an emotional religiosity, so that almost nowhere are the lower classes both moderate in their politics and indifferent to religion.33 They are more fundamentalistic and tend to devalue the things of this world. On the other hand, the religiosity of the higher stratum is more "innerwordly" and "ra- tional," in that sense more "secular." "Their kingdom is 'of this world.‘ They live for the present and by . . . 3 ; exp101ting their great past." 4 For those in the lower strata "in the beyond 'the last will be the first.'"35 With regard to multiplicipy of reference groups, studies show the peOple of the higher strata perceive society as subdivided in a greater number of groups than the people of the lower strata.36 Similarly, "organiza- tional memberships" are more frequent among the higher 33S. M. Lipset and R. Bendix; 0p. cit., p. 263. 34 . M. Weber; 0p. c1t., p. 190. 35Ibidem. 36 A. Davis and B. B. Gardner; Deep South, Univer- sity of Chicago Press; Illinois, 1948, p. 65. J. Kahl: op. cit. H. POpits, H. PL Bahrdt,.J;erStling, " and H. Kestling; Das Gessellshaftbild deg Arppiterg; Tubingen, 1957. IE classes, ards, valu level to w propose t} stomps" te ~rq.1ns " “out, . C n. 51~~ \‘°S : V, ‘ ‘A ‘ ry- V‘k‘ 33 classes,37 and "mobile persons" identify in norms, stand- ards, values, appearance, and behavior with the upper level to which they aspire.38 It would be plausible to prOpose that in the lower strata individuals' "membership groups" tend to coincide more with individual's "reference groups." With regard to calculi of planningpand risk, it is clear that life planning is not precisely a character— istic of the lower strata.39 In those strata, behavioral patterns tend to be closely associated with impulse— release and immediate gratification rather than planning and self-discipline or self-regulation.4O Tough luck is commonly given by individuals of lower strata as reasons 41 of their misfortunes. In referring to interaction norms, Waisanen states that 37 . . B. Berelson and I. Steiner; 0p. c1t., p. 484. 38 . . . B. Berelson and I. Steiner; ibidem, p. 487. 39 . . O. Brim and R. Forer; op. c1t., p. 54. 40 J. L. Roach; Economic Deprivation and Lower-Class Behavior, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univer- sity at Buffalo: New York, 1964, quoted by L. E. Sneden II, 0p. cit., pp. 11-12. 41A. B. Hollingshead and F. C. Redlich; Social Class and Mental Illness, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New Ybrk, 1958, p. 175. IE port tl Ccntin 34 . . . differences in normative qualities of social systems have important and immediate implications for the interpretation of social change and the modernization process. The traditional social system tends to emphasize collectivity over person. The traditional normative system tends toward inflexibility. It tends to allocate power and privilege by ascription rather than by achievement, which is to say that the emphasis is on inherited qualities rather than competition and per- formance. Moreover, the traditional system is essentially validated by the past and rests on an assumption that it has reached its ultimate form. Finally, the more tradi- tional system tends to admit to membership on a more restricted basis of birth and familiar histories (waisanen, 1969). With the exception of the last type of norms, such a norm- ative distinction may be applied to social strata to sup- port the assertion that strata can be placed along a continuum of "traditionalism—modernity." The assertion that the traditional social system tends to emphasize collectivity over person points to the fact that in the traditional social system the first point of reference is the system. Each individual is relatively less important than the whole. In an "ideal type“42 of traditional system, every act of every person at all times is predictable by the normative structure. Piaget has mentioned this aSpect of the traditional systems. He uses 4zln the Weberian sense of "Ideal Type." t I... .2. m . .n..“fl..! I E I I. NK I ,. . 1“ m n 35 the expression "segmented," which can be understood as "traditional" in that he talks of "segmented or mechanical solidarity." Following Durkheim, we accept that mechan- ical solidarity is characteristic of traditional societies. Says Piaget: There is certainly a resemblance between seg- mented or mechanical solidarity and the so- cieties formed by children of 5 to 8. As in the organized clan so in these groups, tem— porarily formed and isolated in relation with each other, the individual does not count. Social life and individual life are one.43 Now, it is a well-known fact that the world is undergoing a process of urbanization. In this process most of those who migrate to the cities are peasants, who, once in the cities, become members of the lower strata. ”The process of urbanization is typically said to involve the movement of people out of agricultural communities into other and 44 generally larger non—agricultural communities." A lower stratum, specially in a developing country, is to a large 43J. Piaget; "Social Factors in Moral Deve10pment," in T. Newcomb et al. (eds.); Readings in Social Ppycholpgy, Henry Holt and Company; New York, 1947, p. 158. 44E. E. Lampard: "Historical Aspects of Urbaniza- tion," in P. M. Hauser and L. F. Schnore; The Study 9; Urbanization, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York, 1967, pp. 519-520. ., '-. ’ €’§r_fi- " I‘ ”’5‘" extent I a for exam?- subcultur cf indiVJ another : “Each of thinks 0 falls wi n‘rm u v". ‘ “be- Jec 'Q Is: ‘ 36 extent, a collectivity of peasants in an urban setting. And the submission of self to the system-—a trait of traditionalism--is expressed in several ways. ”Familism," for example, is known to be an important aspect of the subculture of peasantry. Says Rogers: "The subordination of individual goals to those of the family, familism, is another related element in the subculture of peasantry."45 "Each of us is not thinking of his own self. No villager thinks of himself apart from his family. He rises or falls with it . . . . Our families are our insurance,"46 observed an Indian peasant, expressing the notions of familism as submission of self to a system. This "insur- ance dimension" of familism may perform a function in the lower strata, as it does for the peasants of Tepoztlan. "Cooperation within the immediate family is essential, for without a family, the individual stands unprotected and isolated, a prey to every form of aggression, exploi- tation, and humiliation."47 The extended family, also an 45E. M. Rogers; Modernization among Peasants: The Impact of Communication, Holt Rinehart and Winston; Inc.; New York, 1969, p. 30. 46 . . . E. M. Rogers, ibidem., pp. 30-31, quoting W. H. Wiser and C. V. Wiser,- Behind Mud Walls, University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963, p. 122. 47D. Lewis: Tepoztlani Village in Mexico, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.; New York, 1960, p. 54. .3 93 3. 9X0! ‘ ei 9*, “Hill on: t won a ‘ v . 12‘ V- n‘?‘ » p no A v- A Y‘ He Link: - E b ‘ 37 expression of submission of self to the system, seems to . . p . . 48 be more predominant in lower than in higher strata. Similarly, ". . . sociologists and anthrOpologists have come to recognize that newcomers to the city do not func- tion as isolated individuals, rather they identify with earlier immigrants from their own village or region, and/ or persons of the same class, ethnic, or occupational ' '49 II ' ' group1ngs.‘ So too, . . . sometimes, the lifelong ur- banite may be firmly attached to traditional groupings whose structural links are with the preindustrial way of . 50 . . . . . life,” which is to say to a traditional soc1al system. The traditional social system tends toward inflex- ibility. Norms are seen by actors as absolute, as God given, beyond question, not amenable to modifications. One reads in Piaget, ". . . A rule is a sacred reality because it is traditional.”51 480. Lewis; Five Families, Science Editions, Inc.; New York, 1962, pp. 14-15. 49G. Sjoberg: "Cities in Developing and in Indus- trial Societies: A Cross-Cultural Analysis," in P. M. Hauser and C. F. Schnore (eds.), op. cit., p. 226. 50 . . . G. Sjoberg, ibidem, p. 227. 51 . . J. Piaget, op. Cit., p. 159. 38 The case was made that the lower strata are more traditional on the basis that collectivity prevails over person. If that is so it follows that they are inflexible too. But this inflexibility in the lower strata can be sustained on the basis of empirical findings. Being almost completely isolated from the rest of the activities of the rest of the society52 actors of those-strata are not confronted with alternative behav- ioral modes. Inflexibility follows from that. "As so- cieties increase in size (which means that multiple reference-systems emerge), the barriers between systems are lowered, and the possibility of escape from the per- vasive supervision of the clan is open."53 It was already mentioned that multiplicity of reference groups does not prevail in lower strata. The greater social isolation and lower participation--relative to other social classes--of the lower strataS4 contribute to that normative 52E. H. Koos; Families in Trouble, Kings Crown Press; New York, 1946. 53J. Piaget; 0p. cit., p. 159 (brackets provided). 54E. H. Koos; op. cit. R. S. Lynd and H. M. Lynd; ldiddletown, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.; New York, 1929, pp. 29-30, 272-273, and 309. R. S. Lynd and H. M. :pynd; Middletown in Transition; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.; New York, 1937, pp. 234-235 and 442-443. A. Davis iand.B. B. Gardner; op. cit., pp. 10 and 146. ;_ 39 inflexibility of the system, to the extent that such an existential circumstance does not confront them with alternative modes of behavior, which makes for the belief that those norms are the only ones in existence, ends in themselves, not simply instrumental. The inflexibility is also expressed in the "fatalism" that pervades the lower strata, to the extent that this concept means ". . . the degree to which an individual perceives a lack of ability to control his future. Fatalistic individuals believe that the events of their lives are preordained and determined by fate or supernatural forces."55 It was already said that lower strata tends to see "chance factors" as playing the most important role in the deter- mination of their life style. ". . . They are down and out, and there is no point in trying to improve, for the odds are all against them."56 The traditional normative system tends to allocate power and privileges by ascription rather than by achieve- ment. The point was made before that individuals of lower strata tend to fall into occupational roles of the same 55E. M. Rogers; op. cit., p. 273. 56J. Kahl; 0p“ cit., p. 211. flrI-IIIEE n.1,.-.n! gig D. n. r . . . - _.. rail. 1.. 40 level of prestige of their fathers57 without consideration to achievement norms. "Those in the lower socio-economic groups tend to take 'the only job they know about' at the time they enter the labor market"58 and it is well-known that "early jobs . . . (are) prophetic of the subsequent careers of respondents."59 Now it is true that occupa- tional roles of similar prestige level are also inherited in the upper strata, but first, ". . . the choice of the first job is made with more deliberation by individuals with more education and a family higher up the occupa- tional ladder."6O Second, they demand more achievement requirements; and third, the individuals of upper strata are more achievement-oriented: ". . . in the bringing-up period, he consciously or unconsciously takes over what goes most apprOpriately with the status he is being pre- pared to live in: aSpirations and ambitions, attitudes 57S. M. Lipset and R. Bendix; op. cit., p. 198. SBIbidem. 59P. E. Davidson and H. D. Anderson; Occupatiopal Mobility in an American Commpnity, Stanford University Press; Stanford, California, 1937, p. 94. D. C. Miller and‘W. H. Form; Industrial Sociology, Harper and Brothers; New York, 1951, pp. 675-676. L. G. Reynolds; Thep§trugy ture of Labor Market, Harper and Row; New York, 1967, pp. 136-137. 608. M. Lipset and R. Bendix, op. cit., p. 468. lull. ._ p. {Jr/oldie Kyrb...Ei 41 and beliefs, appearance, etiquette and manners, tastes, skills."61 It follows from what has been said that the lower strata are traditional systems to the extent that they are essentially validated by the past and rest on the assump- tion that they have reached their ultimate form. On the contrary, in higher strata norms are instrumental for their members; they invest behavior in anticipating stages of mobility, they defer gratifications, they plan life, etc. The norm is validated to the extent that they orient the actors to future state of affairs. E. "UPWARD SOCIAL MOBILITY AS A PROCESS OF MODERNIZATION" The process of social mobility can be seen as a process of modernization. ". . . Educational and social aspdrations, including aspirations for social mobility,"62 luive been mentioned as behavioral orientations of modern man. 61B. Berelson and I. Steiner; op. cit., p. 468. 62A. Inkeles; "The Modernization of Man," The Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Re- printed from M. Weiner (ed.); Modernization, Basic Books, Inc., Pub.; New York, 1966, p. 145. 42 The assertion is implied in McNelly's statement that the degree of modernization of individuals is re— flected in their socio-economic status.63 This puts in other words the point made in the previous section; i.e., that social strata are systems which differ among them- selves in degree of modernization. Then, by definition the process of social mobility is a process of moderniza- tion. But if one divides these "action systems" called "social strata," which so far have been conceived as "totalities," into units or parts, some other lines of arguments can be stated to support the assertion that the process of social mobility implies a modernization process. ”In the process of scientific conceptualization concrete phenomena come to be divided into units or parts. The first salient feature of the conceptual scheme to be dealt with lies in the character of the units which it employs in making these divisions. The basic unit may . 6 . . be called the "unit act." 4 ". . . The units of action 63J. McNelly and A. Torres; E1 Uso de los Medios de Comunicacion en una Capital Latinoamericana, Programa Interamericano de Informacion Popular; San JOSe, Costa Rica, 1963, p. 67. J. McNelly and A. Torres borrowed this idea from D. Lerner; The Passingpof Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East, The Free Press; New York, 1958. 64T. Parsons; The Structure of Social Action, The Free Press of Glencoe; Illinois, 1949, p. 43. 43 systems have certain basic properties without which it is . . . . . .65 not pOSSlble to conceive of the unit as 'eXisting." And ". . . there must be a minimum number of descriptive terms apply to it, a minimum number of facts ascertainable about it, before it can be Spoken of at all as a unit in a system."66 "In this sense then, an 'act' involves logi- cally the following: (1) It implies an agent, an 'actor.‘ (2) For purposes of definition the act must have an 'end,‘ a future state of affairs toward which the pro- cess of action is oriented. (3) It must be initiated in a situation of which the trends of develOpment differ in one or more important respects from the state of affairs to which the action is oriented, the end. This situation is in turn analyzable into two elements: those over which the actor has no control, that is what he cannot alter, or prevent from being altered, ¥ 65T. Parsons, ibidem, p. 43. 66T. Parsons, ibidem, pp. 42—43. 44 in conformity with his end, and those over which he has such control. The former may be termed the 'conditions' of action, the latter the 'means.’ Finally, there is inherent in the conception of this unit, in its analytical uses, a certain mode of relationship between these elements. That is, in the choice of alternative means to a given end, in so far as the situation allows alternatives, there is a . . . . "67 . ’normative orientation” of action, whatever the partic- . . . 68 ular type of normative orientation may be. Using this theoretical frame of reference, one can look first at the ”actor.“ In effect, a "mobility- oriented" actor must show some of the elements conforming to Inkeles' definition of modern man. "The first element . . of modern man is his readiness for new experience . . . "69 . and his openness to innovation and change. This ele- ment is a basic part of the attitude configuration of modern man, and ". . . we are speaking, therefore, of 67T. Parsons, ibidem, p. 44. 8Normative here means a teleological element only from the point of view of the actor. It has no ethical connotation for the observer. See T. Parsons; ibidem, p. 44, footnote #1 and p. 75, Note A. 69A. Inkeles; op. cit., p. 141. 45 something that is itself a state of mind, a psychological disposition, an inner readiness, rather than of the spe- cific techniques or skills a man or a group may possess because of the level of technology they have attained.7 If social mobility means an actor's transference from one social system to a different one, a "mobility—oriented" actor must show readiness for new experience, for the system toward which he orients himself conforms a new existential eXperience. Actor must be also open to inno- vation and change, for he must be ready to organize his behavior in new ways, if he wants to move from one system to the other or to cope with the demands of the new sys- temic existential experience. Modern man must have also ". . . a disposition to form or hold opinions over a large number of the problems and issues that arise not only in his immediate environment, but also, outside of it."71 A "mobility-oriented" actor must have opinions about the "mediate environment" of the social system toward which he orients himself. Modern man is ”. . . oriented to the 72 present or the future, rather than the past." A 7OA. Inkeles, ibidem, p. 141. 71 . . A. Inkeles, ibidem, p. 142. 72 A. Inkeles, ibidem, p. 142. I‘1 'n ALVA/A {- 9 "vs «.1 .. at. «r . 1. . . e 3 E at s- . l . . m“ x a .i .m l m. .9 . u i .1 kn r . . r. a. E s c a." A: .n.: a... new; 2. n a H. n. a Am r a 3 a a . 2w. 3: ...: Z . ‘ ...\ cw V. M“ .n.. u: .8 ,l u .. a I 3 e I T. C .1. .l a 5 U. A A 4 v. “Jarr‘ufivvfi .ply .HJ.I'. b... x . (a. 1. a r r. . 46 "mobility-oriented" actor does not organize his behavior in terms of past prescriptions just because they have been consecrated by sanctity of tradition. He follows present prescriptions to the extent that they are efficient to advance himself. He is future oriented, for his goal is not his present social system, but the system to which he aspires to belong. “The more modern man is oriented to- ward and involved in planning and organizing and believes in it as a way of handling life."73 Or, as Waisanen notes, ". . . In a significant sense, modern man is an autonomous being. He perceives a relative freedom in the manipulation of his life trajectory."74 A "mobility- oriented" actor must believe that it is possible and effective to plan one‘s life for social advancement. Inkeles mentions efficacy as a theme related with modern man. "The modern man is the one who believes that man can learn, in substantial degree, to dominate his environ- ment in order to advance his own purposes."75 A 73A. Inkeles, ibidem, p. 143. 74F. B. Waisanen; "Family Planning and the Modern- ization Process," a paper prepared for the Family and So- ciety Conference of the Merrill-Palmer Institute; Detroit, Michigan, November, 1967, pp. 16-17.‘ 75A. Inkeles; op. cit., p. 143. IE 47 "mobility-oriented" actor believes that he can manipulate things so to "advance his own purposes," in this case to climb up in the social ladder. Calculability is another theme of modernity. ". . . A modern man is one who has more confidence that his world is calculable, that other pe0p1e and institu- tions around him can be relied on to fulfill or meet their obligations and reSponsibilities. He does not agree that everything is determined either by fate or by the whims of particular qualities and characters of men. In other words, he believes in a reasonably lawful world under human control."76 A "mobility-oriented" actor must be- lieve in the "lawfulness of life" so as to consider that a certain behavioral investment adequate to move up should produce the desired outcome. "The modern man has more faith in science and technology."77 Such a man must believe in the calculability of one's behavioral outComes and in the efficiency of one's action. Such a man is also a "mobility-oriented" individual. This listing of actor's characteristics is pre— sented here to support the assertion that, given the 76A. Inkeles, ibidem, p. 144. 77A. Inkeles, ibidem, p. 144. will!!! if; till-Ill! u..:| m . ../ ., .. .:.!.».r.urlvbi$‘ 48 common definition of "modern man" and taken into account only the actor's attitude configuration, the process of social mobility is a modernization process to the extent that a "mobility—oriented" actor fits the definition of the modern individual. If one turns attention to "means" (vis—a-vis goals), the essential argument can be repeated. A nublaility-oriented actor does not organize his behavior iri terms of past prescriptions just because they have bmeeen consecrated by sanctity of tradition. He follows ‘pareesent prescriptions to the extent that they are effi- cxieent to enable desired changes of state. One can also look at the "goal" element of the S<=11eme. The goal of a ”mobility-oriented" individual is 't<3 climb up to a higher social stratum, and if a higher Social stratum is a more modern social system in compar- ison with lower social strata, it follows that the pro— <2ess of social mobility implies a process of moderniza- tliJDn. On the other hand, if one looks at the "mode of relationship" between the elements of the "unit act," one Tuna; to assert that the actor's normative orientation is a "Ifiational" mode of orientation, having in mind one of the v If a ‘1 49 meanings given by Max Weber to such a notion. It is that mode of orientation of social action which implies ". a rational orientation to a system of discrete individual enuis (Zweck-Rational), that is, thorough expectations as to tihe behavior of objects in the external situation and of other human individuals, making use of these expecta— tions as 'conditions' or 'means' for the successful at— 8 tainment of the actor's own rationally chosen ends." As <>r1e refers to the traits of modern man mentioned above, the image of a "rational man" emerges. It is reasonable to suppose that such a man will make an adaptation between "conditions" and "means" toward the successful attainment 0f Social mobility. Following another vein of reasoning, to sustain the assertion that the process of social mobility implies a PrOcess of modernization, one can assert that the pro- . changes c:eSSuaJ underlyament of modernity entails ". m the number and in the meaning of social systems to the actOr and concomitant changes in his behavior."79 BY 78M. Weber; The TheorLof Social and Economic Or— W, edited with an introduction by T. Parsons, e Free Press; New York, 1964, p. 115. 79F. B. Waisanen; Actorsy Social Systems and the M . . wiization Process, Op. c1t., p. 2. 50 definition, then, a "socially-mobile" actor must perceive a broader spectrum of social systems and must go through a broader set of social systems than the "non—mobile" actor. In this sense, the process of social mobility entails changes in the number of social systems for the actors. The process of social mobility also entails changes in the meaning of social systems for the actor—- as it does in the modernization process——for an evalua- tive dimension must exist in terms of direction of the attitude toward the systems from which actor leaves and the systems into which the actor moves. The centrality or relevance of the system to which the actor wants to for such get in or actually does get into plays a role, a SYStem must be "taken into account" by the actor if he wants to achieve mobility. Finally, the actor must per- ceive the possibility that the "potency" of the new sys— tem will reward him, with greater pay-off than that per— Cei‘fed in the present state. There is still another way to trace the parallel- lsm between the process of modernization and the process of Social mobility. It can be done when "change" is not Seen as a clash between traditionalism and modernity; but Ir'-J tic var i s r W.) . v ‘4 u 1. a. up}... arlwfllrflrltlflhmfi . a. .. h.‘ 51 rather as a ". . . persistent movement away from tradi— . . 8 . . . tionalism." 0 And this is so, for "concern With the dynamics of change forces recognition of yet another variable class, namely, inter—systemic or dissociative 81 variables." And, ". . . at the heart of this matter is mobility, be it physical or psychic. Obviously, inter-systemic contact has a bearing upon the issue of change only if there is a theoretically relevant dif— ference in the . . . (social systems) at issue in the mobility experience." Waisanen contends that . . . given this difference, mobility functions to (1) bring .awareness of alternative behavioral modes, (2) facilitate the attributions of meaning to these modes; i.e., their attractiveness, centrality, and potency, and (3) provide behflioral trials within the new normative frameworks." On Our part, we contend that mobility occurs if, (1) ac- tor ' 3 conditions bring awareness of alternative behavioral modes, (2) facilitates the attributions of meaning to these modes; i.e., their attractiveness, centrality, and \ 80 I I O F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 1. 81F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 8. 82F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 8. st‘A’V'v _ 1'7 -gl \ “UH-"J” ".7" ‘VJW‘ 7‘ r. hf; .1311 ‘ I" ' ~th 52 potency, (3) provides behavioral trials within the new normative framework. To see the problem here proposed under the theo- retical orientations which have been laid down to inter- pret the modernization process can guide the researchers' mind toward specific variables or indicators which may help to understand the states and processes under study and to prOpose some hypothesis about these states and processes. One of the theoretical orientations, alluded to above, while calling attention to the many perspectives which exist to analyze the modernization process and the lack of consensus about them, points out the existence 0f commonalities, explicit or implicit in the literature.83 It is assumed, in fact, "that societies very by traflitionalism-modernity, and that this position is mea- Surable by such indicators as urbanity, industry, and E"ducation. It is assumed further that attitudes, belief E’ystems and values can be similarly measured and that in- dlviduals can be ordered along a dimension of modernity."84 \ i— 83F. B. Waisanen; "Family Planning and the Modern- ization Process," 0p. cit., p. l. 84Ibidem. m. r. .934— d£-._ ' .' A I I 53 The crucial problem, at either societal or individual level, is then "one of establishing valid and theoreti— txrlly relevant indicators."85 And, in the multifaceted realm of human behavior, "how can categories of behavior be formulated so that they can, in some qualitative sense, gyixrea credence to the concept of modernity?"86 "And since true literature propose a long list of indicators, and as they grow, their value of the understanding of modernity lessens, the search for more general indicators must, . 87 therefore , continue . " PrOposing this parsimonious approach, Waisanen considers appropriate to ask about the hard-core condi- tixoris which, at an individual level can Spark the indi- vidual change process and produce something like an at- tlitudinal "take off" toward modernity. And he proposes time following prerequisites: (l) knowledqe. (2) interest, and . . 88 . . (3) actiVity. These categories are explained by Waisanen in the following manner:89 .__‘__¥ 85Ibidem. 86Ibidem. 87F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, pp. l—2. 88F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 2. 89Ibidem. 54 (1) Knowledge. Assuming that there are many so— cial systems to which one can be anchored, awareness Of other systems must precede aspiration to involve oneself in them. (2) Interest. Given knowledge of alternative life modes (i.e., in modern social systems), evaluation Of them is possible. TO the degree that he finds these alterna— tive life modes attractive, he has acquired a generalized change orientation, a willingness to innovate, and a read— iness to move toward modernity. (3) Activity. If one is aware of alternative life rmoties, and sees them as attractive, behavior which is in— strumental to change in social environments should follow. These instrumental behaviors occur if the means for change in personal life conditions are perceived. In short, when c“1€! judges personal change tO be desirable and the possi- EEngiEy (which is to say, the means) of change to be real ar“3 manageable, the attitudinal climate for a change to modernity are at an Optimum. If, (1) the previous behavioral categories are Valid components Of the conditions which, at an individual 55 level, can spark the individual change process and produce something like an attitudinal "take Off" toward modernity, and (2) one Of the problems one has in hand refers to cer— tain attitudinal and behavioral aspects of the process of upward social mobility as self-perpetuating elements of strata, and if (3) the process Of social mobility can be seen as a process of change toward modernity, then it is theoretically sound to see a process in terms of: Awareness Of Mobility: responding to the "knowl— edge" dimension of Mobility. Perception Of Possibilities Of Mobility: respond- ing to the "understandingf dimension. Desirability of Mobility: reSponding to the "gyglf uational" dimension. Investment in Mobilipy: responding to the "behav- ioral input" dimension. 56 F. SOCIAL STRATUM, AWARENESSL PERCEPTION, DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY AND INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING The relationship between social stratum, the above-mentioned aspects Of mobility and family planning can be seen under the theoretical frame Of reference develOped above. In fact, both "mobility orientation" and "family planning" have been mentioned as indicators of modernity.90 Similarly, the dimensions Of mobility discussed above are applicable to family planning. waisanen has formulated the theoretical basis Of such a relationship in the following terms: In a significant sense, modern man is an autonomous being. He perceives a relative freedom in the manipulation of his life trajectory. When the anticipated trajectory is predicated upon social ascent and the maximization of self—esteem (as it commonly is in modern society), chance of ascent is maximized as social systemic investments are minimized. Intra—familial investments are particu- larly relevant here. Consider both family Of orientation and family Of pro-creation in traditional and modern settings in the con- text of dependency dynamics. _ In the traditional setting, intra-family dependency is extensive and provides for the individual a framework Of security, produc- tivity, belonging and trust. Parents and 90A. Inkeles, Op. cit., p. 145. 57 Siblings, as referents in the traditional family of orientation, meet these functions more fully as their number increases. This security calculus is equally relevant in the traditional family of pro-creation. Children are valued as productive units, both economically and psychically, and the continuity of the social system is perceived to be better assured with larger number Of children. In a more general sense, the traditional family system reveals, at both orientational and precreative levels, a sub— ordination Of self to social systems. In this context, aged and unproductive parents are personal (or perhaps better said "within family") responsibilities, and the task of discharging Obligations is lessened per family member by increasing the total number of family members. It behooves the parent in the family Of procreation to also have as many children as possible, for he thus max— imizes the base for his own care in the in- evitable period of dependency. The predom- inant value emphasis in these traditional cases may be on duties and obligations rather than rights and privileges. Parents in this social cultural context will have little in- terest in family planning, for the value judg- ments involved are inimical to their Own. Along these lines, the contrasts with the dynamics Of modern family life are many, in— teresting and (quite possiblY). theoretically relevant. First, we can Observe that there is in modern society a typical disjunction between families of orientation and procreation, and that the transition from one to the other tends to be abrupt. Up to the time Of trans- ition, parents and siblings are perceived to be resources, and there is perhaps greater emphasis upon an individual's rights and privileges than upon duties and Obligations. When the procreative family is established, it is more often based upon egalitarian values. The spouse is a partner; children are expensive as an centra eratur ificat 3'6 pr fertil 58 joys and compete sharply with the instrumental and consummatory dimensions of parental pro— gress. In this zero-sum game, each child puts an added question to the attainability of as- pirations. Interest in family planning in modern society testifies, then, tO the sali- ency Of aSpirations which put maintenance and maximization Of self-esteem into impersonal, larger societal judgement rather than into the affective context Of family and friends.91 Even though this study deals with family planning (as an indicator Of "modernity,“ and not as a variable of «central concern, there is reason to refer to the vast lit— earature on the relationship Of several dimensions of strat- ification and family planning and/Or fertility, as well as the process Of social mobility and family planning and/Or fertility. It is not the intention Of this study to re— view all the literature on the subject; such a task seems unnecessary, given the nature of the present study. Some studies here reported deal with stratification or social mobility and fertility, even when family planning and fertility mean different things. They are reported here because fertility has sometimes been used as a meas- urement Of family planning and because, although not con— ceptually equivalent, they are related. It may also be appropriate to refer to some studies 91F. B. Waisanen; "Family Planning and the Modern- ization Process," Op. cit., pp. 4-6. 59 which involve "modernization” as a process related with family planning. Of the studies relating economic strata with family planning, some Show a positive relation,92 and 928. N. Agarwala; Attitude Toward Family Planning in India; Asia Publishing House, Occasional Papers No. 5, Institute of Economic Growth; Delhi, 1962; the extent of practice was higher in the urban areas, particularly for couples Of higher education and comparatively high socio- «economic status. F. Hall; "Birth Control in Lima, Peru: .Attitudes and Practices," Milbank Memorial Fundeuarterly, 'VOl. XLIII, October: 1965, pp. 409-438; contraception \Nas found to be widely used, especially by the upper and Iniddle sociO-economic groups. J. Diez-Nicolas; "Status EBOcio-Economico, Religion y Tamano de la Familia Urbana," Bevista Espanola de la Opinion Publica, n.p., December: 1965; from this study J. M. Stycos cites ”a positive relation between ideal size of the urban family, socio— economic status and religiosity." J. W. Riley and M. White; "The Use of Various Methods Of Contraception," A.S.R., Vol. V, 1940, pp. 890-903; the practice of con- ception control tended to increase with the size of the city and with improving economic status. J. M. Stycos; "Social Class and Preferred Family Size in Peru," A.J.S., VOl. LII, May: 1966, NO. 6, pp. 651-658; this paper reports a positive correlation between social class and number of children desired in Peru. R. Freed- man and H. Sharp; "Correlates Of Values about Ideal Family Size in the Detroit Metropolitan Area," POpul. Studies, Vol. VIII, July: 1954, pp. 35-45; the differ- ences between social strata in ”mean ideal size" are very small but consistent in direction with historic fer— tility differentials. E. Higgins; "Some Fertility Atti- tudes Among White Women in Johannesburg,“ Popul. Stud., Vol. XVI, July: 1962, pp. 70—78; in general, the higher the respondent's annual family income was, the lower her ideal family size tended to be. M. Requena; "Social and Economic Correlates of Induced Abortion in Santiago, Chile," Qampgraphy, Vol. II, 1965, pp. 33-49; abortion was higher in the higher socio-economic levels represented in the 60 some Show no relation at all.93 Studies relating education with family plan- ning Show a persistent positive relation between sample. L. Tabah and R. Samuel; "Preliminary Findings of a Survey on Fertility and Attitudes Toward Family Plan- ning in Santiago, Chile," in C. V. Kiser (ed.); Research in Family Planning, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1962, pp. 263-304. The average ideal number of children per ever—married women, 35 to 50 years of age, diminishes as the economic circumstances of the family improve. J. M. Yang, et a1.; "Fertility and Family Plan- ning in Rural Korea," Popul. Stud., Vol. XLVII, March: 1965, NO. 3, p. 237. 11.7% in Kimpo were practicing or 'had ever practiced family planning. These couples were concentrated in the younger, educated,.and relatively Vnell-to-do groups. B. M. Gomez; Informe de la Encuesta .gngecundidad en el Area Metropolitana, Instituto Cen— troamericano de Estadistica, Universidad de Costa Rica; San Pedro, Costa Rica, 1968, pp. 26-27. J. Acosta- Monzon; Encuesta de Fecundidad en el Area Metropolitana gs Caracas, Ministerio de Fomento, Direccion General de Estadistica y Censos Nacionales; Venezuela, n.d., pp. 43-48. 93R. Bachi and J. Matras; "Family Size Prefer- ences of Jewish Maternity Cases in Israel," Milbank Memorial Fund Qparterly, Vol. XLII, April: 1964, pp. 38—56; the modal number of children desired was "3;" regardless of ethnic and socio—economic groups. -W. A. Morrison; "Attitudes of Females Toward Family Planning in a Maharashtrim Village," Milbank Memorial Fundggpar- terly, Vol. XXXV, 1957, pp. 67-81; the number of living offspring, age, number of living males, occupation and caste were not significantly related to willingness to accept contraceptives. W. A. Morrison; "Attitudes of Males Toward Family Planning in a Western Indian Village," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XXXIV, 1956, p. 263; age at marriage, occupation and caste were not found to be significantly related to desire for more children. 61 these two variables.94 In this case Of studies relating occupation with family planning, some show a positive 94S. N. Argawala; Op. cit.; the extent Of prac- txice was higher in the urban areas, particularly for <2c>uples Of higher education and comparatively higher socio—economic status. B. Berelson and R. Freedman; "A Study in Fertility Control"; Scient. American, Vol. CCX, Dhaqy: 1965, NO. 5; experience with family limitation was highest among the best educated, most literate. J. Ialjake; Family Structure in Jamaica: The Social Context c>ff Reproduction, in collaboration with J. M. Stycos and I<.. Davis, The Free Press; New York, 1961; the desire :Ec>zrsmaller families is even more widespread among the Younger and more highly educated. R. Freedman et al.; "Fertility and Family Planning in Taiwan: A Case Study ()1? the Demographic Transition,” A.J.S., Vol. LXX, July: 19 64, pp. 16-27; the better educated and those who read ‘tlieanass media were most likely to want fewer children and to do something about family limitation. E. Higgins; (DE)- cit.; education was positively correlated with atti- tudes toward the use Of contraceptives. S. Hong and '3. Yoon; "Male Attitudes Toward Family Planning on the IESIand of Kangwah-Gun, Korea," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLIX, October: 1962, pp. 343-352; EHiucation was the most important factor in the deter- nnination Of attitudes toward family planning. The I Qreat majority of the men who were negative in their at:titude toward birth control had a limited education c>lr'none at all. W. A. Morrison; "Attitudes Of Females Toward Family Planning in a Maharashtrim Village," Op. c31.12.; education was highly significant and positively related to favorability toward contraception. W. A. lbhorrison; "Attitudes Of Males Toward Family Planning in a Western Indian Village," Op. cit.; the factor twost significantly associated statistically with a Enositive attitude toward the use of contraceptives ‘was education. J. M. Yang, et al.; Op. cit.; the 62 relation95 and some Show no relation at all.96 couples who were practicing or had ever practiced family planning were concentrated in the younger, educated, and relatively well—to-do groups. 95 . . M. Requena; Op. c1t., pp. 33-49. Abortion was higher in the higher socio—economic levels represented in the sample. G. Rowntree and R. Pierce; "Birth Con- trol in Great Britain," Popul. Stud., Vol. XV, July: 1961, pp. 3-31. Although the extent Of approval in- creased from cohort for each sex, the non-manual class consistently approved more rather than the manual. J- M. Stycos; "Female Employment and Fertility in Lima, Peru," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLIII, January: 1965, NO. 1, pp. 42—54; analysis of 1959 with registration data showed that women employed outside the home are more sensitive to the economic effects of addi- tional children and that working women with four or ‘“once children are less likely to desire additional Children. 96E. Higgins; Op. cit., pp. 70-78. Occupation Was not significantly related with attitudes toward the use of contraceptives. W. A. Morrison; "Attitudes of Females Toward Family Planning in a Maharashtrim Village," op. cit., pp. 67—81; education, age at mar- riage, and occupation were not Significantly related to "desire for more children" nor to willingness to a<=cept contraceptives. W. A. Morrison; "Attitudes of les Toward Family Planning in a Western Indian Vil- lage," Op. cit., p. 263; age at marriage, occupation, aJud caste were not found to be significantly related to "desire for more children" nor to attitudes toward Q(Dntraception. L. Tabah and R. Samuel; op. cit., pp. 63-304; differences between different occupational groups on Opinions regarding ideal family size were t\ot substantial. 63 Some of the studies which relate economic strata With fertility Show a pOSitive relation and some have 97D. M. Heer; "Fertility Differences Between Indian and Spanish-speaking Parts of Andean Countries," Popul. Stud., Vol. XXXVIII, July: 1964, pp. 71-84. J. M. Stycos lias shown that fertility is lower in the economically un- cierdevelOped Indian-speaking parts of Peru than in the nuore prosperous Spanish-speaking parts. The relationship is; Of theoretical significance because it has usually kneen assumed that there is an inverse relation between ftartility and economic develOpment. In the present paper it: is shown that this relation holds not only for Peru, latrt for Ecuador and Bolivia as well. D. M. Beer and E. S. {Piirner; "Areal Differences in Latin American Fertility," jzcxpul. Stud., Vol. XVIII, March: 1965. 99- 279—292; this analysis revealed that higher than expected fertility was 19c>sitively associated with a rapid increase in economic lesvel. The data lend themselves tO the conclusion that ii :rapid rate of economic development leads to an increase irl fertility in the Short run which is counteracted in 'tTme long run by fertility—depressing forces associated ‘Niqth a high level of economic develOpment. G° S. Becker; ligLyEconomic Analysis of Fertility, a conference Of the Ithiversities National Bureau Committee for Economic Re- Sefiarch, Demographic and Economic Change in Developed COuntries, Princeton University Press; Princeton, New J'Gi‘rsey, 1960, pp. xi and 536; argues that "quality" as Well as quantity of children is relevant in analysis Of FKDssible positive relation Of fertility and income in meiture industrial society. R. B. Hughes; "Human Fer- tility Differentials: the influence of industrial urban development on birth rates," Popul. Review, Vol. III, ‘Jillyw 1959, No. 2, pp. 58-69; finds a positive corre- '1Ertion Of income and fertility in a sample of Tennessee félrntfamilies when parental education and economic status are controlled in multiple regression analysis. W. Stys; 'TD11e Influence of Economic Conditions on the Fertility of Peasant Women," Pomil. Stud., Vol. II, November: 1957, th>- 2, pp. 136—148; shows a positive relation between e“Coriomic status and fertility in a peasant population as 3- Joesult of marriage postponement for poorer economic gifcyups. 64 . . . 98 found a negative or inverse relation. Of the studies relating education and fertil- . . . . 99 _ Jty, some show a pOSitive relation and some Show a . . . 100 negative or inverse relation, 98R. Freedman and H. Sharp; Op. cit., pp. 35- 415; the difference between social strata in "mean icieal size” are very small but consistent in direction vxith historic fertility differentials. D. M. Heer and E:. S. Turner; Op. cit., pp. 279~292; taken together, 'tlue six variables measuring the level Of economic de— \nelOpment were found to be inversely related to fer— taility. C. A. Miro; "Some Misconceptions Disproved: .A. Program Of Comparative Fertility Surveys in Latin .Arnerica," in B. Berelson et al. (eds.), Familnylanning _§Jad Population Programs: A Review Of World Develgpment, 'Ttue University of Chicago Press; Chicago, 1965, p. 633. EB- M. GomeZ; Op. cit., pp. 26-27. J; Acosta-Monzon; <3E3. cit., pp. 43-48. .A. Sauvy; La Poblacion, Editorial IJriiversitaria de Buenos Aires; Buenos Aires, 1961, p. 353. J. N. Sinha; "Differential Fertility and Family Iiindtation in an Urban Community of Uttar Pradesh," Ezppul. Stud., Vol. II, November: 1957, NO. 2, pp. 1157-169; in this study there is a distinctively nega— tuive correlation between income or caste level and ffertility resulting in part from differential use of Cxontraception. 99J. Hubback; "The Fertility of Graduate WOmen," Eugenics Rev., Vol. XLVII, July: 1955, NO. 2, FHP. 107-113: finds university educated women have higher than average fertility in Britain. 100B. M. Gomez, op. cit., PP- 26‘27° A‘ Sauvy; (DE). cit., p. 38. C. A. Miro and F. Rath; "Preliminary 65 Some studies found occupation to be positively . . 101 related to fertility: and some found these two var- iables to be negatively related.102 Findings of Comparative Fertility Surveys in Three Latin American Cities, " Milbank Memojrgal Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLII, October: 1965, pp. 36-38; a clear inverse relationship was found between educational level and the average number of births. J. M. Stycos; Contracep- tion and Catholicism in Latin America, International Population Program, Cornell University: New York, De- cember: 1965: the expected positive association be- tween religiosity and fertility was not found to be the case. "Indeed, in several instances there is a slight negative association, and in the case of Lima and the better educated women of San Salvador, the negative relation is substantial." 101M. Febvay; "Niveau et evolution de lafecondite par categorie socio-profesionelle en France," Population, Vol. XIV, October-December: 1959, No. 4, pp. 729—739: evidence that relatively high status groups with lowest Dre—war fertility had largest rises after war. Advances the theory that family allowance program produced this effect by providing resources for those most interested in the future of their children. 102R. M. Dinkel; "Occupation and Fertility in the United States," A.S.R., Vol. XVII, April: 1952, NO. 2, pp. 178-183; based on U.S. census data for 1910 and 1940. Finds an inverse, relation of occupational Status and fertility, but only when OCCUpations are . grouped into four very broad categories. B. M. Gomez; OP. cit., pp. 26-27. A. Sauvy; op. cit., p. 38. 66 With regard to the process of social mobility and family planning or fertility, two studies have found a positive relation between family planning and social mo- . . l 3 . . bility; 0 some report a negative relation between fer- tility and social mobility;104 and some show no relation La Poblacion, Editorial Universi- pp. 26-27. A. Sauvy, 1961, p. 38. tuaria de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, 103J. G. C. Blacker, "Social Ambitions of the Ehsurgeoisie in the Eighteenth Century; France and their Relation to Family Limitation, POpulation Studies, II (1.), July 1957, pp. 46—63. Relates the family limitation prractices of the French bourgeosie to their desire for s<>cia1 mobility for the family. H. Y. Tien, "The Social Pkability/Fertility Hypothesis Reconsidered: An Empirical Sdzudy," ASR 26 (2), April 1961, pp. 247-257. Evidence 'tliat the spacing but not the number of children varies “kith status-origin among Australian professors. 104E. D. Baltzell, "Social Mobility and Fertility MHithin an Elite Group," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 331 (4), October 1953, pp. 411-420. In the social elite CXE Philadelphia the newcomers to eminence have smaller families. J. Berent, "Fertility and Social Mobility," Ehapulation Studies, 5 (3), March 1952, pp. 244-260. Finds a. negative relation between upward social mobility and ‘fEErtility in Postwar British data. M. Bresard, "Mobilite Scxciale et dimension de la famille," POpulation, 5 (3), JHle—September, 1950, pp. 533—566. The probability of SKDcial mobility is enhanced among those from small fam- ifllies, with education as a crucial intervening variable. B-.1Hutchinson, "Fertility, Social Mobility, and Urban hairgration in Brazil," Population Studies, 14 (3), March 1961, pp. 182-189. Fertility is negatively related both ‘tCD status and upward mobility, and these relations are nQt affected by rural urban background. P. Minon, ”Choix ci'une profession et mobilite sociale," in Transactions $23; the Second World Congress of Sociology, Vol. II, pp. 209-213. Upward mobility from working class linked to 67 With regard to the process of social mobility and family planning or fertility, two studies have found a positive relation between family planning and social . . 103 . . lnobility; some report a negative relation between fertility and social mobility;104 and some show no 103J. G. C. Blacker; "Social Ambitions of the Bourgeoisie in the Eighteenth Century France and Their Relation to Family Limitation," Popul. Stud., Vol. II, July: 1957, No. 1, pp. 46-63; relates the family lim- itation practices of the French bourgeoisie to their desire for social mobility for the family. H. Y. Tien; "The Social Mobility/Fertility Hypothesis Reconsidered: An Empirical Study," A.S.R., Vol. XXVI, April: 1961, No - 2, pp. 247-257; evidence that the Spacing but not the number of children varies with status—origin among Australian professors. 104E. D. Baltzell; "Social Mobility and Fer- tlility within an Elite Group, " Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XXXI, October: 1953, No. 4, pp. 411- 420; in the social elite of Philadelphia the newcomers tO eminence have smaller families. J. Bevent; "Fer- tility and Social Mobility," Popul. Stud., Vol. V, March: 1952, No. 3, pp. 244-260; finds a negative re- lation between upward social mobility and fertility in Postwar British data. M. Bresard; "Mobilite sociale et dimension de la famille," Population, Vol. V, July- September: 1950, No. 3, pp. 533—566; the probability of social mobility is enhanced among those from small .families, with education as a crucial intervening var- 1ahie. B. Hutchinson; "Fertility, Social Mobility, and urban Migration in Brazil," Popul. Stud., Vol. XIV, Marob: 1961, No. 3, pp. 182-189,- fertility is nega— tively related both to status and upward mobility, and these relations are not affected by rural urban back— ground. P. Minon; "Choix d'une profession et mobilite SOoiale," in Transactions of the Second World Congress 68 relation at all between social mobility and fertility.105 Since the findings cast some doubts about the re- lationship between mobility and family planning and/or fertility, and this study has introduced some aspects of Inobility as indicators of "modernity" and as interpretive \nariables of the relationship between social strata and fkamily planning, Special consideration seems here relevant ‘alaout such a phenomena. This study deals neither with the rtelationship between objective social mobility and family planning, nor with fertility. The study deals with three mnitive styles toward social mobility (i.e., awareness, g CNE Sociology, Vol. II, n.d., pp. 209-213; upward mobility from working class linked to smaller family size in Belgium. I<.. Svalastoha; "An Empirical Analysis of Intrasocietary Nkibility Determinants," Working Paper Nine submitted to the F'ourth Working Conference on Social Stratification and Social Mobility, International Sociological Association, December: 1957; links upward mobility from working class irl Denmark to small family size. 1058. T. Boggs; "Family Size and Social Mobility if) a California Suburb," Eugenicspguarterly, Vol. IV, December: 1957, No. 4, pp. 208-213: finds no evidence 'tlmat small family size goes with upward social mobility. 1:i- P. Brooks and F. J. Henry; "An Empirical Study of the Relationship of Catholic Practice and Occupational Mo- bi-lity to Fertility," Milbank Memorial Fund_Qnarterly, ‘ICXI. XXXVI, July: 1958, No. 3, pp. 22—281; finds no re- lation between mobility and fertility but a definite re- laition to measures of adherence to Catholic practices. E3- ‘Yellin; "Social Mobility and Familism," Ph.D. disser— Fiitzion in Sociology, Northwestern University, abstracted lrl Efissertation Abstracts, Vol. XVI, No. l, 1955, p. 151. (i ”.A.“ .3: w 69 actualize to a maximum all the potential fertility of both man and woman. A couple, not willing to plan at all may have no children, no matter how hard they try. However, even when the results of the studies re- lating social mobility with family planning are not con— sistent among themselves, it is interesting to pay atten- tion to the results of two of those studies. One is J- G. C. Blacker's, "Social Ambitions of the Bourgeoisie in the Eighteenth Century France and their Relation to Family Limitation" (Population Studies, II (1), July 1957, pp. 46-63) . In this study Blacker relates the family limitation practices of the french bourgeoisie to their desire for social mobility for the family. The first ‘tliing which is important to notice is that Blacker claims ‘tca have found a relationship between family planning ( Eandly limitation practices) and desire for_§ocialymg- krility (i.e., that aspect of social mobility which in 'tliis study is called desirability of mobility). It is encouraging to see that Blacker found such a relationship. The other study which calls the attention is H. Y. Tien's, "The Social Mobility/Fertility Hypothesis Reconsidered: An Empirical Study?‘ (ASR 26 (2), April 1961, pp. 247-257). 7O Tien shows evidence that the Spacing but not the number ‘9: children varies with status-origin among Australian professors. This study calls the attention because it may be assumed that spacing of children is a better mea- surement of family planning than number of children ever born. It could be that the contradictory findings of the studies relating social strata and social mobility with family planning are due to the fact that these studies have been conducted, most of the time, without guidance from any interpretative frame of reference; after all, family planning is not a constitutional ele- mggt_of social stratum. It may occur or not, depending on particular circumstances of the stratum of a certain society in a particular moment of the historical process of that society. To take all this into account, some sort of the- oretical frame of reference must be used to state the hypotheses under the submission of an interpretative framework. With regard to the studies of social mobility and family planning, a careful distinction must be made, when comparing results and doing research, between objec- tive mobility and some of those aspects of social mobility with which this study deals. Objective social mobility 71 might occur by chance or as a consequence of changes in global social systems. If so, why should one necessarily expect a relationship between objective social mobility and family planning? This is not to deny that sometimes fertility could be related with mobility. A family may be small, without having planned the number of births, and the smallness of its size may be one of the factors which might account for the social mobility of that family, even if this process occurred without consciously intending to climb up in the social ladder. But, when somebody perceives that a small family may facilitate the process of upward social mobility and wants and does some- thing to ascend socially, then, there is a rationale to expect a relationship between social stratum, the aspects of mobility taken into account by this study and family planning. In this context, Blacker's and Tien's findings have a particular relevance to the present study. Lastly, reference is made to those studies which have focused upon modernity and family planning. For example, S. N. Agarwala's Attitude Toward Family Planning in India reports that the extent of family planning prac- tice was higher in the urban areas, particularly for 72 couples of higher education and comparatively high socio- economic status.106 The study by Roberto Bachi and Judah Matras, "Con- traception and Induced Abortion among Jewish Maternity cases in Israel," points out interesting variations in fertility behavior in Israel according to continent of birth, place of residence, and type of settlement, socio- . . . . . 107 economic characteristics and religious observance. Bernard Berelson in his study "On Family Planning and Communication" suggests three clusters of factors that are involved in the effective spread.of family planning: (1) the nature of society from traditional to modern: (2) the nature of the contraceptive method; and (3) the . . 108 . . nature of the communication approach. Findings re- ported in "A Study in Fertility Control," by Bernard Berelson, and Roland Freedman, show that Experience with 106S. N. Agarwala; Op. cit. 107R. Bachi and J. Matras; "Contraception and Induced Abortion among Jewish Maternity Cases in Israel," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLIX, April: 1962, pp. 207-229. 108 . . B. Berelson; "On Family Planning and Commun- ication," Demography, Vol. I, 1964, p. 94. a u. .a. .. $2.2”? .Vorj Lyn ., . lit! .... 0“ 73 family limitation was highest among the best educated, . . 109 most literate, and those With urban background. Robert Q. Carleton's, ”Fertility Trends and Differentials in Latin America," presents data on differential fertility in Latin America with respect to education, rural—urban settings, child-woman ratio, birth registration, census data on children ever born and the effect of urban rural differentials on total fertility trends.110 Lincoln H. lDay, "Fertility Differentials Among Catholics in Aus- tralia," found that rural wives have higher fertility than urban wives while the fertility of both has undergone a substantial decline over the past several decades.111 The study by R. Freedman and others, "Fertility zand Family Planning in Taiwan: A Cast Study of the Demo- sgraphic Transition," reports that people with the follow— ing characteristics were most likely to want fewer g 1093. Berelson and R. Freedman; 0p. cit. 110R. D. Carleton; "Fertility Trends and Differ- entials in Latin America," Milbank Memorial Fund Quip: terly, Vol. XLIII, October: 1965, pp. 15—35. 111L. H. Day; "Fertility Differentials Among Catholics in Australia," Milbank Memorial Fund Quar— terly, Vol. XLII, April: 1964, pp. 57-83. ‘3'! llfi‘.‘ v th \I. . 1 MN .,.D1..l..UL mu“ .- “fifl‘ 74 children and to do something about family limitation: (1) the better-educated and those who read the mass media, (2) those with no farm experience, especially nugrants from large cities to Taichung, (3) those who <3wn more modern objects of consumption, (4) those who favor less traditional Chinese family values, (5) those living in nuclear rather than joint families, (6) those who work in an impersonal setting as em— ployees of non-relatives, and (7) those who have re- ceived information about family planning from multiple sources.112 One of the subjects of a study covered in And the Poor Get Children, by Lee Rainwater, was the psycho-social context of motives, morals, and attitudes in other aSpects of family living that conditioned working class contraceptive behavior.1 Charles Westoff and others, in "Family Growth in MetrOpolitan America," studied fertility variables which contained fecundity, contraception, birth intervals, pre- ferred birth intervals, and desired family size. The 112R. Freedman, et al.; 0p. cit., pp. 16—27. 113L. Rainwater; And the Poor Get Children, Quadrangle Books; Chicago, 1960. I 1 . . t. w“ : .. .rt. Mm :1 . a” S C 1,.» CL ‘6 .L f \ ,o t\ as LL nu. . C e u s x i\ {V ‘ FL; 75 variables examined included religion, class and fertility, religiosity, socio-economic status, social mobility, resi- dence and migration, age-sex composition, social relation- ships within the family, and personality characteristics.114 The first part of Julian L. Simon's paper, "The Effect of Income on Fertility," shows how Specification errors could account for the apparent contradiction between time-series and cross—section evidence about the direction of the effect of income on fertility. A model which spe- cifies the lagged effects of income, as well as systematic changes in taste for children caused by income changes {summed up for convenience as a modernization effect), is compatible with all the observed data. However, this model provides no a priori predictions about the total effect of income on fertility. That must depend on the taste (modernization variable) caused indirectly by in- come, as well as the direct effects, and those taste effects may be in either direction.115 114C. Westoff, et al.; Family Growth in Metropol- itan America, Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey, 1956. 115J. L. Simon; "The Effect of Income on Fertil- ity,” Popul. Stud., Vol. XXIII, November: 1969, No. 3, pp. 327-342. 19—«1 at .1. rs 1rL and fl» :- II ..I1 eighth?! A _. . raw shunt. . . . .rwu. ,. Cl. rv a. Cw 76 9. SOME FACTORS INVOLVED IN MOBILITY ORIENTATION The second theme of our problem is to see how actors of lower strata come to have the mobility orien- tations of higher strata, so that they will invest in behavior consistent With that mobility orientation. In a way, this is to ask. "- . . at an individual level (what conditions) can spark the individual change process and produce something like attitudinal 'take—off' toward modernity"?116 The basic concern here is ". . . the relationship of actor to a particular (i.e., normatively—definable) . 7 . . . soc1al system.“11 With regard to this relational ques— tion, Waisanen states: The relational question asks (at a cogni- tive level), "What meaning does the actor per— ceive in the social system?" and (at a behav— ioral or consequentional level), "Will the actor stay within the system or move out of it?" As regards social systemic meaning, the literature (Newcomb, 1965; Osgood, 1961) pro- vides reason to attend the following dimensions: (1) Direction of the attitude toward the system. This evaluative dimension puts the l 6 . . 1 F. B. Waisanen; ActorsL Soc1al Systems, and the Mpdernization Process, Op. c1t., p. 2. 117F. B. Waisanen; ibidem, p. 7. 77 system on a point along a scale on which the poles could diversely read, "good—bad," "like— dislike," "for-against," etc. (2) Centrality or relevance of the system in the actor's behavioral network. This di- mension deals with the degree to which a par— ticular social system intrudes upon the actor's 1ife—ways-—the degree to which a par— ticular system has to be "taken into account" in day-to-day events. (3) Perceived pay-off value. What will membership in the system gain the actor? Does affiliation provide important survival value or advantage in competition for rare goods? The critical referent here is the perceive potency of the social system.1 To answer this one must look for certain variables which point to the question: What do actors put into a social system; and what existential experiences function to . . . bring awareness of alternative behav- ioral modes, (2) facilitate the attributions of meaning to these modes, i.e., their at- tractiveness, centrality and potency, (3) provide behavioral trials within the new normative frameworks."lIg To answer these questions one can use some of the . . 120 , variables proposed by Waisanen. They are: l) Parti— cipation, 2) Time, and 3) Intersystemic or dissociative variables. 118F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 7. 119F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 8. 120F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, pp. 5-9. 78 Participation. System maintenance requires actor participation in a normative context--the norms providing bounds to the system, enabling its identifiability and thus providing a systemic reference to the actor. The core of the concept refers to behavior oriented to the social system, that is, role behavior. ". . . The actor becomes increasingly bounded by the system, increasingly circumscribed in his role behavior, and, as a consequent state, normatively entrapped.”121 Time, If the participation--identification rela- tionships hold for any Specific quantum of time, then (holding participation constant) identification Should increase as time-in-system increases. "Assuming distrib- utive justice, the rewards to actor in the actor system relationship should be prOportional to time and energy inputs."122 Inter-systemic or Dissociative Variables. "At the heart of this matter is mobility, be it physical or . 2 . . . psychic."l 3 It is a matter of intersystemic contact 121F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 5. 122F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 6. 123F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 8.’ 79 between theoretically different social systems. And other things being equal, "the greater the possibility of physical and psychic mobility, the greater the like- lihood of awareness and positive evaluation of alterna- tives behavioral modes; therefore, the greater the like— lihood of change in the actor." A change which may be preferable view as ". . . one of re—ordering social sys- tems by such meaning-criteria as evaluation, centrality, and potency."124 Special attention must be given here to "formal. education as a dissociative experience." Modernity, in social structural or individual expression, is essentially the consequence of idea-diffusion. Ideas and their material representations flow from one system to an- other via physical mobility (i.e., inter- systemic contact by actors in $81 and $32) or by the media of communication (i.e., psychic mobility). The school is, of course, itself a social system, rooted to the core of mo- dernity. By its structure and functions it facilitates both physical and psychic mobil- ity. Its impact is intensified as it: (1) reaches SS1 actors in a minimum degree of role Circumscription, (2) provides contact with urban agents (the teachers) who serve as visible models of change possibility, and 124F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 8. 80 (3) enables acquisition of conceptual and motor skills vital to coping with modern- ity. 125F. B. Waisanen, ibidem, p. 10. CHAPTER III THE STATEMENT OF THE MPgHESES So far the following points have been made: 1) The research problem prOposes to study some aSpects which contribute to the self-perpetuation of social strata and to some factors which prompt actors to be "mobility-oriented." 2) The conceptual framework was formulated along the following lines: A) The concept of social system was defined and postulated as of one of central concern of sociology. B) A way to differen- tiate social systems in terms of "conceptualization nggmg andginteraction norms" was proposed. C) The argument was developed that "social strata" can be conceived as "so- cial systems." D) The case was made that social strata are social systems in different stages of modernization. E) Following different lines of argument, it was argued that the process of social mobility can be seen as a process of modernization and several dimensions of the process of social mobility were high—lighted. F) A 81 82 theoretical frame of reference was prOposed which gives some orientation as to what prompts actors to become "mobility-oriented." These theoretical bases generate the following hypotheses: HYPOTEESIS NUMBER 1 "The higher the social stratumyythe greater the awareness of mobility." AS a supportive rationale, it would be legitimate to state that Since social strata are social systems in different stages of modernization, and Since "awareness of mobility" is an indicator of modernity, the hypothesis should hold. But one must go deeper than that and prOpose that "awareness of mobility is a function of previous dissocia- tive experiences" and ask what are the "conditions" which make for actors of the different social strata to be ex- posed to different degrees of dissociative experiences. On the basis of previous empirical findings, it appears that the lower strata provide actors with an existential 83 circumstance which is poorer in dissociative experience. Those conditions are: l) a disadvantageous placement in the process of mass media--exposure,l 2) lack of mastery of their social environment,2 3) a greater degree of so- cial isolation,3 4) unemployment, 5) a more circumscribed geographical marginality,4 and 6) a lower level of educa- tion. HYPOTHESIS NUMBER 2 "The higher the social stratumypthe greater the_perception of possibil- ities of mobility." The rationale stated to sustain the previous hy- pothesis supports this second hypothesis. But there is 1J. McNelly and A. Torres; 0p. cit., pp. 67-68. 2 of'Technologigal Change, Harper and Row Publishers; New York, 1962, p. 274. 3J. L. Roach; Op. cit., p. 133, as quoted by L. E. Sneden II; op. cit., p. 5. 4G. Briones and F. B. Waisanen; op. cit. G. M. Foster; Traditional Cultures and the Impact .-.56 Albani— _ 84 something more. The assertion can be made that the per- ception of the possibilities of mobility is a function of Self-evaluation. It is well established that ". . . the person's self—concept is based on his perception of the way others are responding to him."5 This explains the disadvantageous position in which the lower strata are placed for ". . . a person's self—evaluation is strongly influenced by the ranking of his class (that is, by the society's evaluation of the groups to which he belongs). In Simplest terms, this means that upper-class people feel individually superior, and lower—class peOple in- ferior."6 Hollingshead, talking of the lower class of Elmtown says: "It is looked upon as the scum of the city by the higher classes."7 On the other hand, the percep- tion of the possibilities of mobility implies a "judg- ment." And, as Sherif has stated all judgmental activ— ities take place within a frame of reference.8 McGregor, 5J. Kinch; "A Formalized Theory of the Self- Concept," A.J.S., Vol. LXVII, January: 1963, No. 4, p. 481. 6B. Berelson and I. Steiner; op. cit., p. 489. 7A. B. Hollingshead; Elmtown's Youth: The Impagt of Social Classes on Adolescents, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York, 1959, pp. 110-111. 8M. Sherif; The Psychology of Social Norms, Harper and Brothers; New York, 1936, Ch. 3. u EDI, If! I i If ,'.u . I ”fag. . :h FE. \Lt 85 as well as Waisanen, has Shown that predictive judgments Similarly are influenced by the definiteness of structure of the system of knowledge relative to which they are made.9 By some of what has been Said before, one can state that the frame of reference of the lower strata has to be less adequate (because of less definiteness of structure) than that of the higher strata. HYPOTHESIS NUMBER 3 "The higher the social stratum, the greater the desirability of mobility." Desirability of mobility is a function of general evaluation by actor of the systems--in this case of the strata--of origins and the system of destination, which is a function of perceived relevance and potency of the systems. It was argued above, when stating the theoret- ical frame of reference, that mobility (physical or psychic) functions, among other ways to facilitate the 9D. M. McGregor; "The Major Determinants of the Prediction of Social Events," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., Vol. XXXIII, 1938, pp. 179-204. F. B. Waisanen; "Self- Attitudes and Performance Expectations," The Sociol. Quarterly, Vol. III, July: 1962, No. 3, pp. 208-219. 86 attributions of meaning to alternative behavioral modes, i.e., their attractiveness, centrality, and potency. That is to say that the attribution of meaning is a function, among other things, of "dissociative experi- ences" and the case was already made that the conditions of actors in lower strata adverse to exposure of disso- ciative experience. HYPOTHESIS NUMBER 4 "The higher the social stratumy the greater the investment in mobility." The rationale of this hypothesis can be stated Simply: If an actor is aware of the process of social mobility; if he perceives the possibility of social ascent; and if he evaluates social ascent positively; it follows that he will be more prone to invest in be- haviors directed toward upward social mobility. The rationale for the previous hypothesis applies here as well. 87 HYPOTHESIS NUMBER 5 "The higher the social stratum, the greater the awareness of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." The rationale can be stated as follows: 1) the same reasons which were given for lower awareness of mo- bility in the lower strata can be given here for lower family planning in those strata, 2) Modernity implies, on the part of the actor, a prOper adaptation between means toward a successful attainment of a goal and the manipulability of life trajectory in a rational sense. Therefore, the greater the awareness of mobility the higher the family planning. HYPOTHESIS NUMBERS 6, 7y AND 8 These three hypotheses are stated together, for the rationale for the three of them implies a set of interconnected prOpositionS. else: (1) (2) (3) 88 (6) "The higher the social stratum, the greater the perception of_possibi1- ities of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." (7) "The higher the social stratum, the greater the desirability of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning.” (8) "The higher the social stratum, the greater the investment in mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." Rationale: If modernity involves, among whatever perception of manipulability of events; perception that events can be manipulated to the end of self enhancement; future time orientations, including the deferral of gratifications. 89 And Assuming: (1) that self—enhancement is related to possession or control of economic goods; (2) that economic goods are scarce: (3) and that family as a system impinges on actors' participation in all other systems. And Considering: (1) that family costs are in zero—sum relationship to costs referred to participation in other systems; (2) that children represent determinable economic costs: (3) that reduction in number of children will enable more input into the mobility process. Therefore: (1) the higher the social stratum, the more favorable with reference to family planning; 9O (2) holding stratum constant, the higher the percep- tion of possibilities of social mobility, the higher the desirability of social mobility and the higher investment, which will lead to in- creased family planning. HYPOTHESIS NUMBERS 9, 10. AND 11 (9) "For lower strata, the longer the length of marriage, the lower the perception of possibilities of mobility. (10) "For lower strata, the longer the length of marriage, the lower the desirability of social mobility." (11) "For lower strata, the longer the length of marriage, the lower the investment in mobility." "Length of marriage" iS considered here an indi- cattm of the variable "participation," which was mentioned 91 in the theoretical frame of reference.10 It was said in that point that the core of the concept refers to behavior oriented to the social system, i.e., role behavior. The actor becomes increasingly bounded by the system, increas— ingly circumscribed in his role behavior, and, as a con- sequent state, normatively entrapped. In other words, actor becomes entrapped in the intrasystemic interaction network in which his behavior is immersed. AS this inter- action network becomes more complex, the entrappment in- creases. Now, when a person marries his interaction net— work becomes more complex, in quantity and quality. His “in—laws and friends" become new members of the network and new "friend-relationships" and "affection—relationships“ emerge. AS the length of marriage increases the probabil- ity increases that the number of children will increase. With this the interaction network becomes also more com- plex; in quantity and quality: more children, children's friends, and--if you want-~children's spouses and in-laws. More persons have been added to the network, new types of relationships and obligations have been created. .Acttm'becomes more entrapped in the system; his 10To see the difference between "variables" and "indicators," see F. B. Waisanen; Actors, Social Systems, _§nd the Modernization Process, Op. cit., pp. 12-14. 92 mobility—orientation fails to emerge, or if it had at some earlier point in time begun to emerge, it now lessens or disappears. HYPOTHESIS NUMBERS lg, 13,,AND l4 (12) "For higher stratay the negative (13) association between length of mar— riage and_perception of the possi— bility of mobility (as hypothesized for the lower strata) will be les- sened, eliminated, or will change to a positive association." "For higher strataL the negative association between length of mar- riage and the desirability of mobility (as hypothesized for the lower strata) will be lessened, e1iminated,_or will change to a positive association. 93 (14) ”For higher strata, the negative association between length of mar- riage and investment in mobility (as hypothesized for lower strata) will be lessened, eliminatedyror will change to appositive associa- tion." It might seem paradoxical-—if not inconsistent-- to assert as in the previous hypotheses, that in the lower strata, the longer the length of marriage the lower the mobility, and to assert now that in the higher strata that negative relationship should weaken or disappear. But no paradox, much less an inconsistency exists, for length of marriage, as here argued, is an indicator Of "participation," and any "participating eXperience" in any kind of social system is an "integrative experience." Participation is here understood as "intersystemic par— ticipation"——as such not directed to the system—-it is a dissociative experience and becomes equivalent to an "intersystemic contact process." Participation in the present theoretical context has been labeled an "actor—in-system" variable. The 94 apparent paradox then disappears, for an integrative ex- perience is an entrappment experience; as such, in lower strata, increases in participation should contribute to decrease in "mobility orientation," and diminish the actor's possibility of leaving the system. Actor is en- trapped: But in the higher strata, for an actor to be "trapped," he must maintain, if not increase, the "mobility-orientation" that is normative to the stratum as a social system. Therefore, as marriage time and family—related networks increase, mobility-oriented be- havior should increase, or at least, depart from the negative association hypothesized for the lower strata. The paradox then disappears, for length of mar- riage, while prpdgcing different effects in the highest stratum as to compare with the other strata, it performs the game social function: to entrap actor in the system. One assertion must be stated at this point. In the highest stratum, the aSpectS of mobility we are con- sidering must be present, be it because they are necessary to maintain position or because some of those at the crest would like to see society's ceiling raised; and in fact, sometimes they do raise it. 95 HYPOTHESIS NUMBERS 15, 16y 12, AND 18 (15) "Regardlespypf strata, malegrwill be more likely than females, other things being equal,,to have more awareness of mobility." (l6) "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than femalesr other things being equal, to perceive more possibilitieg of mobility." (l7) "Regardless of_§trata, males will be more likely than femaleg, other_ things being egual, toghgve more de- sirability of mobility." (18) "Regardless of ptrata, males will be more likely than females, other things being egual, to invest more in mobility." Sex can be seen as an indicator of "participation" —-in the sense given above--or it may prOpitiate disso- ciative experiences--the rationale of the hypotheses is 96 based on the assertion that "females" have more intra— systemic participation as compared with dissociative experiences, whereas the contrary is true for males. In fact men are more concerned with action in the market place and with the search for gainful employ- ment.11 They tend to look for more contact with edu- cational systems. These provide more opportunities for intersystemic contact. "Women, on the other hand, gen- erally see themselves as 'family—anchored' and tend to evaluate themselves in terms Of their competence as wives and mothers." "They find themselves tied to their family or orientation initially (waiting for marriage) and family of procreation finally (after marriage)."12 And Since most marriages are stratum- endogamous, they tend to be exposed to a greater intra— systemic participation than to intersystemic contacts; i.e., dissociative experiences. 11L. E. Sneden II; op. cit., p. 26. 12Ibidem. 97 HYPOTHESIS NUMBERS 19, 20, AND 21 (19) (20) (21) "For all strata, the younger the individual is,_other things eqpal, the higher the probability to per- ceive more possibilities of mobility." "For all strata,rthe younger the individual is,,other things egual, the higher the probability to have more desirability of mobility." "For all strata, the younger the individual is, other things equal, the higher the probability to invest more in mobility." Age is an indicator of the "time" variable. More time invested in the system implies: l) more efforts put into maintaining behavioral patterns within the system, 2) more participation with concomitant increased self— involvement in the system, 3) increased probability of contributing to the system and less probability of being 98 rejected by the system, and 4) greater acquisition of 13 skills required by the system. All this makes for the younger to be more mobility oriented. HYPOTHESIS NUMBERS 22L 23, 24, AND (22) (23) 25 "Regardless of strata, the higher the level of education, therhigher the probability to have more awareness of mobility." "Regardless of strata, the higher_the level of education, the higher the .probability to_perceive more possi— bilities of mobility." (24) "Regardless of strata,_the higher the. level of education, the higher the probability to have more desirabiliry of mobility." 13 L. E. Sneden II; ibidem, pp. 24-25. 99 (25) "Rqurdless of strata, the higher the level of education, the higher the probability to invest more in mo- bility." The importance of "formal education" as disso- ciative experience was stated in the theoretical frame of reference. The importance of dissociative experiences to provide mobility-orientation has been emphasized in the rationale of some of the hypotheses. To Say more here about the same point would be repetitious. But it Should be noted that importance of dissociative experi- ences—~as they affect mobility—~increases as stratum lowers. Thus, education tends to be dissociative from the lower strata and integrative regarding the higher strata for, ". . . in the more modern system, educa- tional achievement might be considered a participation input, and increase in education Should produce increased . l4 commitment to modern norms and values." 14F. B. Waisanen; Actors, Social Systems,_and the Modernization Process, op. cit., p. 6, footnote #2. .rA .1- ”.A.- CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS DESIGN A. INTRODUCTORY NOTE Since the study to which this proposal refers is part of a larger study carried on in the MetrOpOlitan Area of San Jose, Costa Rica, which was directed by the author of this thesis, parts of this section will de— scribe the research Operations as they were performed in that larger study. B. VARIABLES, SPECIFICATIONL AND OPERATIONALIZATION 1. Social Stratum A social stratum may be conceptualized as a II . . . category of persons who occupy a Similar posi- tion on a hierarchical scale of certain situational 100 lOl characteristics such as income, prestige, style of life."1 In this study, in selecting the different strata, emphasis was placed on the economic dimension of strat- ification. The operationalization of stratum will be described in the sample design section. Four strata were selected and labeled in the following form: 1) High Stratum; 2) Middle Stratum; 3) Poor Stratum; and 4) Slum. They were coded in the following manner: High Stratum: 1; Middle Stratum: 3; Poor Stratum: 5; and Slum: 7. For the statistical analysis they were recoded as follows: High Stratum: 3; Middle Stratum: 2; Poor Stratum: l; and Slum: 0. 2. Awareness of Mobility The conceptual focus here is upon whether or not people kppy_that the process of social mobility exists. Two closed-form questions served to Operationalize the concept: The English translation of those questions reads as follows: 1R. Dahrendorf; Op. cit., p. ix. u. I r a rill. . .1 Na. :15}... . 102 (a) Do yopyknow whether persons whoglive inficertain economic conditions, ever move out g; those condirions into different conditions? With regard to this question the interviewers were instructed as follows: “do not suggest any answer to the reSpondent, or give any eXplanation about the question, unless the respondent doesn't understand the expression: 'ever move out of those conditions into different condi— tions.'" In that event, the interviewer was allowed to explain that it meant toympve out of or into superior or inferior conditions or out of or into better_or wgrgg conditions. The possible responses were: Yes: 1; No: 5; Undecided: 3; Doesn't Answer: 9. For the statistical analysis they were recoded as follows: Yes: 1; NO: 0; Undecided: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0.2 2The "undecided" are given a "0" because in mat- ters of "mobility orientations" an undecided response is equivalent to a "No." At any rate only 14 persons (N = 874), i.e., 1.60% responded undecidedly. The "doesn't answer" was given a "0" because they present a frequency of only 9 (.69%). By giving "0" to these two categories the recording procedure is facilitated and the possibil- ities of obtaining a spurious correlation are diminished. These few frequencies are expected to be equally 103 (b) Do you pelieve that any person born in a family that lives like yours, is fated to continue living in the same way? Interviewers were instructed as follows: "If the reSpondent eXpresses or conveys the impression that he has not understood, you can explain to him that the ques- tion refers to the fact of "living in the same socio— economic conditions, with the Same facilities, in better or worse conditions." The possible reSponses were "yes," "no," "unde- cided," and "doesn't answer," which were field-coded as follows: Yes: 1; NO: 5; Undecided: 3; Doesn't Answer: 9. ReSponseS were later recoded as follows: No: 1 (Because of the phrasing of the question, a "no" response indicated "awareness"); Yes: 0; Undecided: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0.3 distributed across strata. This reasoning will be applied to other categories of similar nature of those to which this footnote refers and which will appear in some of the next questions. Such categories will be recoded with "0." 3See footnote #2. In this case the percentage of undecided is 5.26%, and doesn't answer .34%. 104 3 Perception of Possibilities f Mobility —— Here we intended to measure the degree to which people "perceive" or "believe” that they or their children have possibilities of climbing up to higher social strata. Three questions were used: (a) Do you believe that some persons who live in con- ditions such as yours can come topget a better job? Interviewer instructions were as follows: "If tliee respondent doesn't answer spontaneously and has doubts about the meaning of "better job," eXplain that it means a Ij improve" and "to enjoy" were used. The assumption was that.if the eXpectationS (affirmative or negative) of changing the socio-economic conditions were seen in the context of "improvement" or "enjoyment," the assertion implied.an evaluative dimension to the process of social mobility. (a) Will you orryour family come to improve their socio-economic conditions? . 6See footnote #2. The percentages here: unde- Clded 2.06%, doesn't answer .23%. Illegal coding (in this queStion .23%.) was eliminated. 107 Possible answers: "yes," "no," ”undecided," and "doesn't answer," which were field-coded as follows: Yes: 1; NO: 5; Undecided: 3; Doesn't Answer: 9. Later, responses were recoded to: Yes: 1; NO: 0; Undecided: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0.7 (b) Given your present socio—economic condition, will ypur children come to enjoy a better socio- economic condition? The reSponse possibilities were "yes," "no," "un- decided," and "without children," field-coded as follows: Yes: 1; No: 5; Undecided: 3; Doesn't Answer: 9; With- out Children: 0. These were recoded as follows: Yes: 1; No: 0; Undecided: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0; Without Children: 0.8 ii_ Investment in Mobility The instrumentation in this instance attempted to measure consciously invested effort on the part of the \ . 7See footnote #2. The percentages here: unde— mded 5.95%, doesn't answer .46%. 8See footnote #2. Undecided 3.55%, doesn't answer .34%, without children 3.55%. 108 individual to improve his own socio-economic condition and/Or the economic condition of his children. Two questions were asked: (a) Are you doing something to improve your socio- economic condition? The response alternatives were: "yeS," "no," “undecided," and "doesn't answer," which were field-coded as fbllows: Yes: 1; NO: 5; Undecided: 3; Doesn't Answer : 9 . The responses were later recoded to: Yes: 1; 9 No: 0 Undecided: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0. ‘0 (b) Areryou doing something SO that your children can come to a socio-economic condition better than yours? The response alternatives were: "yes," "no," ll . . - unfleeided," "doesn't answer," "Without children," and %Nhalt children," which were field-coded as follows: Yes: 1, No: 5; Undecided: 3; Doesn't Answer: 9; Without Children: 0; Adult Children: 8. \ . 9See footnote #2. The percentages here: unde- mded .57%, doesn't answer .00%, and illegal coding .34%. 109 The responses were later recoded to: Yes: 1; NO: 0; Undecided: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0; Without Child— ren: 0; Adult Children: 0.lo 6. Family Planning Questions regarding the measurement of this var- iable, here defined as any consciously invested effort to (XNTtrol birth, were posed only to women, and for purposes ofaanalysis, the four questions were to be treated ipgi- vidually. The questions are: (a) Have you done anything to limit births? The response alternatives were: "yes," "no," and "doesnft answer," field-coded as follows: Yes: 1; No: 5; Doesn't Answer: 9. They were later recoded as follows: Yes: 1; No: 0; Doesn't Answer: 0.11 x 10See footnote #2. Percentages here: undecided 39%: doesn't answer .23%, without children 4.12%, adult Chlldren .69%. 11See footnote #2. The percentage here: doesn't ans"’er .40%. 110 (b) Since when have_you done anything7to limitpyour births? Response possibilities included: "Number of years indicated," "Not applicable because of having responded 'nO' to the previous question," and "didn't answer to previous question." The responses were field-coded as follows: Number of years indicated: No. Of years if less titan 7 or not less than 1; 7 or more: 7; Less than 1: 8; . . . 12 Negatnye ReSponse to preVIOuS question: 0; Doesn't answer to previous question: 0. These responses were later recoded to: Doesn't 13 answer: 0; Less than 1: 0; One year: 1; Two years: 271Fhree years: 3; Four years: 4; Five years: 5; Six Years: 6; Seven years or more: 7. (c) After what child have you done anything to limit your pirths? Response alternatives included: "child number," "doeSn't apply," and "answered no to question 2 of this —_~____y , 12This group of reSpondents will be partialed out in the analysis . 13See footnote #2. The percentage here: 3.09%“ 77—.- - awn- ; I lll subsection. The field-coding was as follows: Child No.: the respondent's indicated No.: Doesn't apply: 00; Answered "NO" to question 2 of this subsection: 99.14 These were recoded as follows: Child No. 1: 1; Child NO. 2: 2; Child NO. 3: 3; Child NO. 4: 4: 5 Children or more: 5. 7. A Word About "Variables" and "Indicators" (a) In the section devoted to the conceptual frame of reference, where attention was directed to the factors that prompt an individual to be mobility- oriented, it was proposed that the variables (1) parti- cipgtion, (2) pipe, and (3) intersystemic or disseeig: tive variables could be used. The hypotheses concerning this question used length of marriage and sex as indicators Of the parti- cipgtion variable, age as an indicator of pipe vari- able, and education as an indicator of a dissociative variable. 14This group of respondents will be partialed out in the analysis. 112 Since those indicators are frequently used as “control variables," the following quotation is relevant. In recent years I have felt an increasing discontent whenever research findings in be- havioral science are reported as a consequence of "controlled analysis." The variables which are usually controlled include one or more of the following: age, sex, marital status, place of residence (i.e., a rural-urban con- tinuum), family Size, race, income, and one more commonly applied than others, education. These controls sometimes have a significant effect. The effect may be positive; that is, the value of the relationship is increased and strengthened by the application of controls. More frequently, the correlation value, or the value which represents the association, is de- creased by application of controls. Whatever happens, we are content. If controls decrease the value, then we contend that the correlation value is now more pure, because we have washed away the effects of contaminating variables. If controls increase the correlation value, an effect is apparent, one wonders about the theoretical relevance of the variables that produced the “control effect." It seems ap- prOpriate to ask if variables are indeed vari- ables or, as an alternative, indicators of more elemental and therefore more theoretically rel- evant dimensions of the relationship of actor to social system. To put the issue another way, I am con- cerned that the impact of the so-called con- trolled variables is more often than not a fortuitous rather than theoretically-grounded event. Analysis by variables that may by for- tune but not by design subsume dimensions of social behavior can give us predictive power, but such predictive power is essentially sta- tistical. This does not give us understanding or explanatory power, which is necessarily theoretical. We need, therefore, not only 113 variables that are honored by usage; we must also identify the phenomenal referents of our observations. The problem is something more than one of providing definitions of variables; the more general need is to provide a Specification of meaning based upon conceptual inter- relationship (Kaplan, 1955; Stinchcombe, 1968). Each concept is hypothetical in that one must be able to place it in some point of a cause-effect sequence. In brief, we must consider the degree to which variables have conceptual value, or the degree to which they are grounded in substantive theory. Consider age as an indicator of something relevant to social theory. By the criterion of usage (if not by the criterion of theoret- ical relevance) age may be considered a na- tural variable, apprOpriately includable as an analytical control. There is no problem of definition ("calendar years lived"); its continuous (as against discrete) character- istic is clear; the literature gives the con- cept relational value ("age is directly related to political—ideological conservatism”). But what is gained by recognizing that conservatism increases with calendar years lived? In order to Specify meaning that is theoretically grounded, there is warrant in seeking the more general variable that age indicates. Perhaps it is not unfair to assert that we have a plethora of indicators and a paucity of con- cepts. We might consider age as an example of time-in-system indicators. Recency of migra- tion, years in present employment, and years married might be others. Similarly, marital status and neighbor contacts, as examples, could serve as within—system participation indicators. Rank-in-system may be indicated by age, sex, race, prOperty holding, office holding, and the like. Finally, number of friends, godfatherships, and self-perceived sociability may be examples of indicators of esteem. "07w '.'.:s- IA i!”- . 1.. .. b... atyfiwrd .I 114 Indicators of dissociative experiences, or inter-systemic linkage behavior, are also sev- eral and apparent. Mass media use, with fur- ther specification by particular medium, can indicate psychic mobility. Similarly, trips to urban centers might constitute one indica- tor of physical mobility. The vital indicator value of formal education in inter—systemic linkage has already been discussed. There is neither purpose nor possibility in prOposing an exhaustive inventory of be- haviors that might have indicator—value re the variables of the model. Indicators can change over time and differ by social systems: concepts, on the other band, should have an invariant relevance.15 In this context, then, length of marriage and sex are used as indicators of participation, age as an indi- cator of time, and education as a "dissociative variable." Length of Marriage A filter—question was used to know whether the respondent was married or single, and if married, how long a time he has been married. In the case of multiple mar— riages, subjects were asked: how long a time did each marriage last? The question was coded in accordance with the number of years indicated by the respondent for each 15F. B. Waisanen; Op. cit., pp. 12-14. 115 marriage. The married respondent receives a eppre_equa1 to the number of years married in the first union, if married only once, or equal to the sum of years married for every union, if married more than once. Total years married was then recoded into the following categories: Actual years married: less than 19; 20—39; and 40 or more. _e§_was field-coded as follows: Male: 1; Fe- male: 5. For analysis, sex was recoded to: Male: 1; Female: 0. Ager-Subjects were asked: how Old are you? The answer was to be given in "years completed." Every re- Spondent will have a score equal to the number of years indicated. Recoded as follows: less than 39, 40—59, and 60 or more. Education—-Until what grade or year did you study? The answer stated the leyel_of education and the number of yegre at each level. Of course, a possible reSponse alternative was "without school." For those with university education, the maximum number of years allowed in code was "7." Responses were coded both by level and by years completed: The code for level is as follows: Without - V‘- Li" I! 116 school: 0; Primary: 1 (6 years if completed); Secondary: 3 (11 years if completed); University: 5 (18 years max— imum). The code for years completed was by actual years, with a seven—year maximum at the university level. Since primary School in Costa Rica has 6 years, high school 5, and university varies in accordance with career or profession, each respondent has a score equal to the number of years completed. For example, the re— Spondent says: high school 2 years. This equals 6 (pri- mary school) + 2 (the two years in high school) = 8. C. SAMPLE DESIGN16 The procedure employed to select a random sample Of 1,083 reSpondents, within barrios (quarters, as in "Latin Quarter,") representative of different social Strata of the MetrOpOlitan Area of San Jose, Costa Rica, is described here. ‘ 16AS it was said before, the procedure followed tc> select the "Barrios" (quarters) implies the operation- alization of the strata. “finial- 0. an: N l 3:72 ‘ . 117 The Metropolitan Area was defined on the basis of the criterion used by the Bureau of Statistics and Census. The definition is the following: It includes the central canton17 of the pro- vince of San Jose and the nearby eight can- toneS of the immediate zone of influence, with the exception or excessive distance from the central nucleus, do not offer possibil- ities for eXpansion in the previsible period of 25 years. 8 The universe was constituted by 380,000 inhabi- tants (at the end of 1968) distributed in 285 barrios. The sample design included the following stages. l4..§2££29£32hic Delimitation 2_ the "Barrios" (gpartersll9 It was necessary to delimit the barrios of the .Metropolitan Area in order to mosaic that area in "geo- graphic unities," every one of them inhabited by a 17There is not an equivalent expression in English. {The meaning is close to "county," but not equal. 18R. Sanchez-Bolanos; E1 Area Metropolitana de San José segun los censos de 1963-1964, Direccion General «de Estadistica y Censos; San Jose, Costa Rica, 1967. 19E. Fonseca, et al.; AlgunosrAepectos Sociegraf- :icog del Area Metrepolitana de San Jose, Costa Rica, CESPO, IJniversidad de Costa Rica; San Pedro, Costa Rica, 1969. {Phis was the first publication of the major study of which 'this dissertation is a part. rt, 118 population of homogeneous socio—economic characteristics. The delimitation was done mainly with unpublished and un— elaborated material and information from the 1963 National Population Housing Census. Material and information were provided by the Bureau of Statistics and Census of Costa Rica. The delimitation of the universe into units with highest possible degree of socio—economic homogeneity was imposed by the need to select, for the purpose of the study, units what were typically representative of dif- ferent socio-economic levels--a task not easy in an area like the MetrOpOlitan Area of San Jose, where many "bar- rios" are not very homogeneous. The basic material for the delimitation of the barrios is the following: a. A complete set of maps of the MetrOpOlitan Area with the delimited census tracts. A census tract is a geographical area which Shows to the census interviewer the territorial Circumscription where the interviews are to be conducted. b. Unpublished tabulations with data about the house- hold occupants and household characteristics and d. 119 conditions for every one of the "census-barrios" of the Metropolitan Area. The census-barrios was the name of the place where the interviewee said his house was located. Through this procedure the area of study appeared to have 546 census- barrios. A delimitation of barrios done in such a way was practically useless for the purpose Of this study, and perhaps for any study. For ex- ample, it was found that sometimes peOple gave the same name for two or more places or the same place with several names, or they gave the name of a barrio to a place with only one household. This is the reason why such an incredible number of barrios appeared. Original census schedules with data about the interviewed families. A tabulation Specially prepared for the study by the "Machine-selection" division of the Bureau of Statistics and Census. It provided informa— tion about the number of persons Of every house— hold perceiving some income as renumeration for . " I'm—m-m 120 work and the amount of the wages and salaries for each one Of the 546 census—barrios. e. A Special map of the Metropolitan Area (presented as requirement to Obtain the degree of Licenciate in History and Geography in the University of Costa Rica by Lic. Elena Teran de Beck and Cecilia Rodriguez Monge). This map was prepared after visiting all the barrios of the Area and coloring every house in accordance of the life conditions of the household inhabitants judging by the ap- pearance and other external characteristics of the house. With precise instructions, the work Operations to delimit barrios useful for the study was done by two spe- cialists in this kind Of activity, who had done Similar tasks in taking national censuses. Such a delimitation was done using a clean set of Imaps. We took into consideration (1) the maps with the census tracts, (2) the location in them of the census- lxarrios, i.e., the reference of places with repeated rmnnes and other anomalies mentioned above, (3) the tabu- intions about household characteristics and income, and i P‘Dmfi‘nww 121 (4) the maps of Lics. De Beck and Rodriguez. The personal knowledge of the Specialists played a very important role in this task. The delimitation consisted in re—grouping the census-barrios into utilizable and bigger geographical units. The procedure was initiated by examining one by one the maps with the delimited census tracts. The iden- j tification of each tract allowed a direct consultation Of the corresponding original census schedules to enable detection of anomalies. At the same time we proceeded to study adjacent tracts which appeared to form a whole barrio, taking into account the above-mentioned tabulations, the name of the places, the De Beck—Rodriguez Map and the personal knowl- edge the specialists had of the different areas. Once the delimitation was established for all the ibarrios of the Area, the delimitation ended up with 285 ibartios in the MetrOpOlitan Area of San Jose. Heliographic (mopies of maps with the delimited barrios were prepared. 122 2. Ranking of the "Barrios" In order to select some barrios as representative as possible of some different socio-economic levels, it was necessary to place the 285 barrios in a rank order in accordance with the corresponding socio-economic level of each of them. To do this, information about wage per person and household characterisripe was available. With such information it was possible to calculate average wage for every barrio and to construct an index of house- hold characteristics for every barrio. With these ele- ments the barrios were ranked and classified in ten groups: 9 on them with 28 barrios and l with 33. These groups of barrios were called "deciles" for purposes of this study, even though the group of barrios of the lowest socio- economic level is a little bit bigger than the tenth part of the 285 "barrios." The index of household characteristics is a weighted index of the following elements: electric ap- 'pliances, sanitary facilities, and house condition. After several consultations with a group of behavioral scien- 1:ists who had a long and personal knowledge of the life conditions of the country, it was decided to weight the elements in the following manner: 123 Item Points Electric Appliances in the House Washing Machine 11 Water Heater 10 Refrigerator 9 Sanitary Facilities20 a. Type Sewer21 Septic Tank or Container \1 (D r196. a” b. Use Private 6 i Commonly shared by more P than one family 5 DO not have23 4 Housing Conditions Good 3 Regular 2 Bad or Poor 1 20Lacking an expression in the English language to translate what has been described in the study as "servicio sanitario," I have chosen to use "sanitary facilities," a classification which includes whether the families have or do not have a system utilized for the purposes for which a ‘water-closet or a flushing-toilet are used in the United States, and whether this system was based in a sewer or a septic container. This classification also includes whet- 'her this "sanitary facility," if they have one, is commonly Shared by more than one family. These items have been con- sidered as good indicators of the socio-economic level of 'the Costa Rican families. 21 . . . - An artific1al, usually subterranean, conduit to carry off dirty water and certain waste matter. 22A tank containing a certain substance which pro- west 81.8 132 87.2 320 88.9 279 Highest 87 4 143 874 2 X = 4.03 d.f. = 3 n.s. The Chi—squared of 4.03, with three degrees of freedom, is not significant at the customary level of rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 21 is based on an index of data from Items L and 2. The Chi-squared of 11.19, six degrees of freedom, 18 not significant at the customary levels of rejection of the nuss hypothesis. ‘H‘... .8‘. S-» 1. I’L. $20-1d _ ~I§I ‘K.D'l!\' .I . .rmulufi‘ .w E 175 TABLE 21 STRATUM BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) Awareness Stratum Lower Higher 0 l 2 Igowest f 17 21 94 a“ % 12.9 15.9 71.2 f 19 41 260 F" % 5.9 12.8 81.3 ‘ f 18 28 233 % 6.5 10.0 83.5 Piighest f 12 16 115 % 8.4 11.2 80.4 f 66 106 702 = 874 X2 = 11.19 d.f. = 6 p < .05 In summary, only data from Item 1 support the hli’pothesis. Hypothesis 5: "The higher the social stratum, 4§¥kl§;_qreater the awareness of mobilityyywhigh will lead 3552L__increased family planning." 1. bfi- u . fir]... ../.....,!..:..E.Ilnn.r.lh‘ V —. n~ . LLFVL. 176 Tables 22 to 24 present data relative to the relationship between social stratum and family planning. Table 22 is based on the first indicator of family planning: "Have you ever practiced birth con- trol?" TABLE 2 2 STRATUM BY FAMILY PLANNING (Item 1) Practice of Birth Control Stratum Per Cent Yes N Lowest 31.8 132 41.9 320 60.2 279 Highest 79.0 143 874 2 X = 84.07 d.f. = 3 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .30 r = .31 \ The Chi-squared which obtains here is 84.07. with three degrees of freedom it is significant at E; '<: .001. The contingency coefficient is .30 and the diI‘ection of the relationship is as expected. flit-I. Am n‘fi' a 177 Table 23 is based on the second indicator of family planning: "How many years have you practiced birth control?" TABLE 23 STRATUM BY FAMILY PLANNING (Item 2) Number of Years of Practice of Birth Control (%) Stratum l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N Ibowest 12.8 25.6 7.7 15.4 7.7 5.1 5.1 20.5 39 13.3 12.5 15.0 '18.3 9.2 3.3 5.0 23.3 120 3.3 12.5 13.2 13.2 10.5 7.9 7.9 31.6 152 Iiighest 0.9 8.3 5.6 6.5 8.3 5.6 6.5 58.3 108 419 X2 = 65.56 d.f. = 12 < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .37 r = .37 With Item 2, the Chi—squared is 65.56, which, VVitlllZ degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. rI‘he contingency coefficient is .37 and the direction of the relationship is as eXpected. Table 24 is based on the third indicator of familyplanning: "How many children did you have when ENDu first practiced birth control?" wimxwrrm 178 TABLE 24 STRATUM BY FAMILY PLANNING (Item 3) Number of Children at First Practice of Birth Control (%) J:— 5 or Stratum more 4 3 2 l N ILowest 47.4 13.2 7.9 13.2 18.4 38 32.5 18.3 12.5 18.3 18.3 120 19.0 8.5 23.5 26.8 22.2 153 Iiighest 6.3 8.0 26.8 15.2 43.8 112 423 X2 = 70.92 d.f. = 12 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .38 . r = .38 The Chi—squared in this case is 70.92, which, vvith 12 degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. 37he contingency coefficient is .38 and the direction C>f the relation is as expected. In this section of the statistical analysis, Cuily the first indicator of awareness of mobility was uSed, because it showed to be the indicator having Stronger correlation with social stratum. 179 The point-biserial correlation between social stratum and the first indicator of family planning is .31 (n = 874). The partial correlation between these two variables, controlling for awareness of mobility, as mea- sured by the first item ("Do you know whether persons who live in certain economic conditions ever move out of these conditions into different conditions?") is .30. Even when 'the partial correlation shows the hypothesized tendency, 'the difference between the zero-order correlation and the partial correlation is so minute that it doesn't deserve zany Special test of significance between both correlations. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the second indicator 0f family planning is -37 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two ‘variables, controlling for awareness of mobility, as mea— ssured by the first item, is .30. Even when the difference laetween the zero-order correlation and the partial corre— Ilation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency . The product moment correlation between social Stratum and the third indicator of family planning is .38 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two 180 variables, controlling for awareness of mobility, as mea- sured by the first item, is .30. Even when the difference between the zero-order correlation and the partial corre- lation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. i"- ‘ l '5" "‘b-fi Hypothesis 6: "The higher the social stratum, the “I greater the perception ofypossibilities of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." f d Tables 22 to 24, presenting data relative to the relationship between social stratum and family planning, ‘were inserted after Hypothesis 5. In this section of the statistical analysis, only the third indicator of perception of possibilities of mo- Tbility was used, because it showed to be the indicator ‘having strongest correlation With social stratum. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the first indicator of family planning is .31 (n = 874). The partial correlation between these two ‘Variables, controlling for perception of possibilities (bf mobility, as measured by the third item ("Could the ‘Children of families living in economic conditions such aS yours go to the University if they wish?") is .29. Even when the difference between the zero-order 181 correlation and the partial correlation is not very substan- tial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the second indicator of family planning is .37 (n = 457). 'The partial correlation between these two variables, control— ling for perception of possibilities of mobility, as measured lay the third item, is .28. Even when the difference between tihe zero-order correlation and the partial correlation is riot very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. The product moment correlation between social stratum 21nd the third indicator of family planning is .38 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two variables, as mea- saured by the third item, is .31. Even when the difference be- tnneen the zero—order correlation and the partial correlation iJB not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. Hypothesis 7: "The hiqhg; the soci§1_§tratum, the greater the mirability of mobility, which wil_]._1ead to in— creased family planninq." Tables 22 to 24, presenting data relative to the re- 1iitionship between social stratum and family planning, were iJiserted after Hypothesis 5. In this section of the statistical analysis, the tfiflo indicators of desirability of mobility are used, ‘fiifiy t' *n‘fiflu‘»fl .3 ‘ \ H 182 because they both show a very low correlation with social stratum. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the first indicator of family planning is .31 (n = 874). The partial correlation between these two variables, control- ling for desirability of mobility, as measured by the first indicator ("Will you or your family come to improve their socio—economic conditions?") is .31. There is no difference between the zero-order correlation and the partial correla- tion. The partial correlation between these two variables, controlling for desirability of mobility, as measured by the second indicator ("Given your present socio—economic condi- tion, will your children come to enjoy a better socio— economic condition?") is .31. There is no difference be- tween the zero—order correlation and the partial correlation. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the second indicator of family planning is .37 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two variables, control- ling for desirability of mobility, as measured by the first indicator, is .29. Even when the difference between the zero-order correlation and the partial correlation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. The partial correlation between these two variables, controlling $339 _ ”a. «79.4.3 .91 I 183 for desirability of mobility, as measured by the second in- dicator, is .29. Even when the difference between the zero- order correlation and the partial correlation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the third indicator of family planning is .38 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two variables, control— ling for desirability of mobility, as measured by the first indicator, is .33. Even when the difference between the 0 order correlation and the partial correlation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. The partial correlation between these two variables, controlling for de- sirability of mobility, as measured by the second indicator, is .33. Even when the difference between the 0 order corre— lation and the partial Correlation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. Hypothesis 8: "The higher the4§ocial stratum, the greater the investment in mobility, which will lead to in— creased family planning." Tables 22 to 24, presenting data relative to the re- lationship between social stratum and family planning, were inserted after Hypothesis 5. 184 In this section of the statistical analysis the two items of the index of investment in mobility were used. These items are: 1) "Are you doing something to improve your socio-economic condition?" and 2) "Are you doing some- thing so that your children can come to a socio-economic condition better than yours?" The index was also used be— cause it showed the highest correlation with social stratum, as against both items individually considered. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the first indicator of family planning is .31 (n = 874). The partial correlation between these two variables, control- ling for investment in mobility, as measured by the index of data from Items 1 and 2, is .30. Even when the difference between the 0 order correlation and the partial correlation is minute, it shows the hypothesized tendency. The product moment correlation between social stratum and the second indicator of family planning is .37 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two variables, control— ling for investment in mobility, as measured by the index of data from Items 1 and 2, is .30. Even when the difference between the 0 order correlation and the partial correlation is not very substantial, it shows the hypothesized tendency. WI an. Zulu 9Q . .8? klovrn'. i> ... Eli A. . . . Lfiin 185 The product moment correlation between social stratum and the third indicator of family planning is .38 (n = 457). The partial correlation between these two variables. control- ling for investment in mobility. as measured by the index combining data from Items 1 and 2. is .33. Even when the difference between the 0 order correlation and the partial correlation is not very substantial. it shows the hypothe- sized tendency. Hypothesis 9—14 asserted: Ninth: "For lower strata. the longer the length of marriage. the lower the perception of possibilities of mo- bility." Tenth: "For lower strata. the longer the length of marriage. the lower the desirability of social mobility." Eleventh: "For lower strata. the longer the length of marriage. the lower the investment in mobility." Twelfth: "For higher strata. the negative associa- tion between length of marriage andperceptign of the possi- bility of mobilitygjgs hypothesized for the lower strata) will be lessened. eliminated. or will change to aypositive association." Thirteenth: "For higher strata. the negative asso- ciation between length of marriage and desirability of ~ kph; . . . r \ "Mil! I- 186 mobility (as hypothesized for the lower strata) will be les- sened. eliminated. or will change to a positive association." Fourteenth: "For higher strata. the negative associ- ation between length of marriage and investment in mobility (as hypothesized for lower strata) will be lessened. elimi- nated. or will change to appositive association." For methodological reasons. these hypotheses did not receive a defensible test. Two complications are crucial in this regard. (l) The pattern of response re perceptions of mobility were overwhelmingly positive. with the consequence that small cell frequencies (in the low perception category) did not permit defensible application of tests of association. (2) There are several problems related to the "Length of Marriage" variable. In data collection. subjects were asked. "How long have you been married?" The response was field-coded in number of years. Follow-up questions were then asked on length of second (third. etc.) marriage for those who had been married more than once. There is reason to believe that years reported for marriages after the first were added to the years reported to the basic question. thus biasing the distribution toward longer marriages than was the case. This problem could not be clarified without access to 187 the original schedules. Secondly. the recollections of length of marriage of some older subjects were imprecise; perhaps. at best. estimates. Hypothesis 15: "Regardless of strata. males will be more likely than females. other things being equal. to have more awareness of mobility." The data do not support this hypothesis. Hypothesis l6: more likely than females. "Regardless of strata. ceive more possibilities of mobility." males will be other things being equal. to per- Tables 25-28 present data relative to this hypothesis. Table 25 is based upon the first indicator of percep- tion of possibilities of mobility: "Do you believe that some persons who live in conditions such as yours can come to get a better job?" TABLE 25 SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 1) Sex Per Cent Yes N Males 95.6 385 Females 91.2 489 874 X2 = 6.46 d.f. = l p < .02 Contingency Coefficient = .09 188 The Chi—squared which obtains is 6.46, which, with one degree of freedom, is significant at p < .02. The contingency coefficient is .09, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 26 is based upon the second indicator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Will your children come to get better jobs than the one you have?" TABLE 26 SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) ‘_— Sex Per Cent Yes N Males 94.0 385 Females 93.0 489 874 2 X = 0.34 d.f. = l n.s. With Item 2, the Chi-squared is .34, which, with one degree of freedom, is not significant at customary levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 27 presents data based upon the third indi— cator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Could the children of families living in economic conditions such as yours go to the University if they wish?" as” in. . ..|.I.~.Illl.l,r.I4Jl.M.wi .”| Hi], 34 189 TABLE 27 SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) Sex Per Cent Yes N Males 88.8 385 Females 89.0 489 it. i 4 2 1" x = 0.00 d.f. = 1 n.s. v} With Item 3, the Chi-squared doesn't show any association. Table 28 presents data based upon an Index combin- ing Items 1 through 3. TABLE 28 SEX BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Sex N 0 l 2 Males f 5 50 330 385 % 1.3 13.0 85.7 Females f 18 61 410 489 % 3.7 12.5 83.8 f 23 111 740 874 2 X = 4.78 d.f. = 2 p < .01 Contingency Coefficient = .07 190 The Chi-squared in this case is 4.78, which, with two degrees of freedom, is not significant at customary levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. In summary: 0n the basis of data from the first indicator, the hypothesis is supported. Hypothesis l7: "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than females, other things being equal, to have more desirability of mobility." The data do not support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 18: "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than females, other things being equal, to invest more in mobility." Tables 29—31 present data relative to this hypothesis. Table 29 is based on the first indicator of investment in mobility: "Are you doing something to improve your socio-economic condition?" The Chi—squared which obtains is 16.22, which, with one degree of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .14, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. (hi. 191 TABLE 29 SEX BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1) Sex Per Cent Yes N Males 91.2 385 Females 81.6 489 874 2 X = 16.22 d.f. = l p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .14 Table 30 is based upon the second indicator of investment in mobility: "Are you doing something so that your children can come to a socio—economic condi- tion better than yours?" TABLE 30 SEX BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2) Sex Per Cent Yes N Males 89.9 385 Females 84.7 489 874 x2 = 5.15 d.f. = 1 p < .05 Contingency Coefficient = .08 TV—Vi 311:3 .__;.- flm‘ wil. .ri. u. 192 With Item 2, the Chi-squared is 5.15, which, with one degree of freedom, is significant at p < .05. The contingency coefficient is .08, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 31 presents data based upon the Index of data from Items 1 and 2. TABLE 31 SEX BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Sex N 0 1 2 Males f 16 41 328 385 % 4.2 10.6 85.2 Females f 50 65 374 489 % 10.2 13.3 76.5 f 66 106 702 874 X2 = 13.78 d.f. = 2 p < .01 Contingency Coefficient = .13 The Chi—squared is here 13.78, which, with two degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .01. The con- tingency coefficient is .13, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. In summary: The data from individual items and the index support the hypothesis. —"'I‘ 193 Hypothesis 19: "For all strata, the younger the ipgividualgisyiother things equalL the higher the proba- bility to perceive more possibilities of mobility." Tables 32-35 present data relative to this hy- pothesis. Table 32 is based upon the first indicator of per- ception of possibilities of mobility: "Do you believe that some persons who live in conditions such as yours can come to get a better job?" TABLE 32 AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 1) Lowest Highest Age ——————' ———————' N 0 1 Less than 39 25 406 431 40-59 26 322 348 60 or more 7 86 93 872 2 X = 1.01 d.f. = 2 n.s. The Chi—squared which obtains is 1.01, which, with two degrees of freedom, is not significant at the customary ‘T 1': "7* 1 a ' .. .‘l' J pl.- 194 levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 33 is based upon the second indicator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Will your children come to get better jobs than the one you have?" TABLE 33 AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) -. f r Lowest Highest Age ——-— -——-- N 0 1 Less than 39 15 416 431 40-59 26 322 348 60 or more 14 79 93 874 2 X = 8.53 d.f. = 2 p < .02 Contingency Coefficient = .09 With Item 2, the Chi-squared is 8.53, which, with two degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .02. The contingency coefficient is .09. The data provide basis for rejection of the null hypothesis, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. 195 Table 34 presents data based upon the third in- dicator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Could the children of families living in economic con— ditions such as yours go to the University if they wish?" TABLE 34 AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) Age Per Cent Yes N Less than 39 87.9 431 40-59 90.8 348 60 or more 88.2 93 872 2 X = 1.72 d.f. = 2 n.s. With Item 3, the Chi-squared is 1.72, which, with two degrees of freedom, is not significant at customary levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 35 presents data based upon an index com- bining Items 1 through 3. The Chi—squared in this case is 1.29, which, with four degrees of freedom, is not significant at customary levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. 196 TABLE 35 AGE BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Index) — ~— Lowest Highest Age N 0 1 2 Less than 39 12 53 366 431 40-59 6 46 296 348 60 or more 3 12 78 93 872 2 X = 1.29 d.f. = 4 n.s. In summary: Only the data from Item 2 support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 20: "For all strata, the_youngg; the individual ip, other things equal; the highppgthe probability to have more desirability of mobility." Tables 36-38 present data relative to this hypothesis. Table 36 is based upon the first indicator of desirability of mobility: "Will you or your family come to improve their socio-economic condition?" 197 TABLE 36 AGE BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 1) Age Per Cent Yes N Less than 39 .90 431 40—59 .84 348 60 or more .76 93 872 X2 = 13.83 d.f. = 2 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .11 The Chi—squared which obtains is 13.83, which, with two degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .11. The hypothesis is supported and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 37 is based upon the second indicator of desirability of mobility: "Given your present socio— economic condition, will your children come to enjoy a better socio—economic condition?" With Item 2, the Chi—squared is 14.30, which, with two degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .12. The 198 TABLE 37 AGE BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 2) Age Per Cent Yes N Less than 39 90.9 431 40-59 88.7 348 60 or more 78.5 93 872 X2 = 14.30 d.f. = 2 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .12 hypothesis is supported by the data and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 38 presents data based upon an index combin- ing Items 1 and 2. TABLE 38 AGE BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Age N 0 l 2 Less than 39 18 46 367 431 40-59 21 51 276 348 60 or more 8 26 59 93 872 X2 = 23.74 d.f. = 4 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .15 5am? finfl) 1.- Mn. .. 199 The Chi-squared is here 23.74, which, with four degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .15. The data support the hypothesis, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. In summary: The data from the items and the index support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 21: "For all stratay_the younge; the individual is, other things eqpal, the higher the pgobability to invest more in mobility." Tables 39-41 present data relative to this hy— pothesis. Table 39 is based on the first indicator of in- vestment in mobility: "Are you doing something to im- prove your socio-economic condition?" The Chi-squared which obtains is 17.95, which, with two degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .14. The hypothesis is supported, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. T— ,5- “‘37 I." . I L. all . 2 .411 «fix! End“ 2... .4 z I. 200 TABLE 39 AGE BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1) Lowest Highest Age ———— —— N 0 1 Less than 39 58 373 431 40-59 38 310 348 60 or more 26 67 93 872 X2 = 17.95 d.f. = 2 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .14 Table 40 is based upon the second indicator of investment in mobility: "Are you doing something so that your children can come to a socio-economic condition better than yours?" TABLE 40 AGE BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2) Lowest Highest Age -—-——— -——————' N 0 1 Less than 39 45 386 431 40—59 36 312 348 60 or more 31 62 93 2 872 X = 39.34 d.f. = 2 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .21 201 With Item 2, the Chi-squared is 39.34, which, with two degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .21. The direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 41 presents data based upon the index of data from Items 1 and 2. TABLE 41 AGE BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Age N 0 l 2 Less than 39 29 45 357 431 40-59 17 40 291 348 60 or more 18 21 54 93 872 2 X = 36.08 d.f. = 4 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .20 The Chi-squared is here 36.08, which, with four degrees of freedom,fiis significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .20. The hypothesis is sup— ported and the direction of the relationship is as hy- pothesized. y my? 202 In summary: The data from the Items and the Index support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 22: "Regardless of strata, the higher theylgyplyof educationyythe higher thegprobability to have more awareness of mobility." Tables 42-44 present data relative to this hypoth- esis. Table 42 is based upon the first indicator of awareness of mobility: "Do you know whether persons who live in certain economic conditions ever move out of these conditions into different conditions?" TABLE 42 EDUCATION BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Item 1) Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 77.1 35 1-2 93.6 78 3-4 89.2 186 5-6 94.0 234 7-8 93.6 78 9—10 94.2 86 ll—12 95.8 72 13-14 100.0 35 15-16 97.1 35 17-18 94.3 35 874 X2 = 22.05 d.f. = 9 p < .01 Contingency Coefficient = .16 5. ‘ . “'13 ifi‘. -l'_ n z . Ii 203 The Chi-squared which obtains is 22.05, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .01. The contingency coefficient is .16, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 43 is based upon the second indicator of awareness of mobility: "Do you believe that any person born in a family that lives like yours is fated to con- tinue living in the same way?" TABLE 43 EDUCATION BY AWARENESS 0F MOBILITY (Item 2) Years of Education Per Cent Yes i N 0 54.3 35 1-2 80.8 78 3-4 73.1 186 5-6 82.1 234 7-8 84.6 78 9-10 82.6 86 11-12 75.0 72 13-14 82.9 35 15-16 94.3 35 17-18 88.6 35 874 X2 = 28.56 9 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .18 r v ——'— I' ' pvt! I 204 With Item 2, the Chi-squared is 28.56, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .18 and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 44 presents data based upon an index com- bining Items 1 and 2. The Chi—squared in this case is 46.09, which, with eighteen degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. The contingency coefficient is .22, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. In summary: The data from the items and the index support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 23: "Regapdlgp§,of_pt£atay the highpp thp level of_pgpcatippy the higher the probability to ppppeive more ppppibilitips of mopility." Tables 45-48 present data relative to this hy- pothesis. Table 45 is based upon the first indicator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Do you be- lieve that some persons who live in conditions such as yours, can come to get a better job?" 205 TABLE 44 EDUCATION BY AWARENESS OF MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Years of Education N 0 l 2 0 f 5 14 16 35 % 14.3 90.0 45.7 1-2 f 3 14 61 78 % 3.8 17.9 78.2 3-4 f 8 54 124 186 % 9.3 29.0 66.7 5-6 f 5 46 183 234 % 2.1 19.7 78.2 7-8 f 2 13 63 78 % 2.6 16.7 80.8 9-10 f 2 16 68 86 % 2.3 18.6 79.1 11-12 f 3 15 54 72 % 4.2 20.8 75.0 13-14 f 0 6 29 35 % 0 0 17.1 82.9 15-16 f 0 3 32 35 % 0.0 8.6 91.4 17-18 f 2 2 31 35 96 5.7 5.7 88.6 f 30 183 661 874 )<2 = 46.09 d.f. = 18 p < .001 (Zontingency Coefficient = .22 \ [‘3 "q." 7" .' 206 TABLE 45 EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 1) ‘ .— —— L Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 74.3 35 l-2 91.0 78 3-4 93.0 186 5-6 93.6 234 7—8 94.9 78 9-10 95.3 86 11-12 93.1 72 13—14 100.0 35 15-16 97.1 35 17-18 94.3 35 874 X2 = 24.63 d.f. = 9 p < .01 (Zontingency Coefficient = .17 The Chi-squared which obtains is 24.63, which, With nine degrees of freedom is significant at p < .01. The contingency coefficient is .17, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. 207 Table 46 is based upon the second indicator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Will your children come to get better jobs than the one you have?" TABLE 46 EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 2) ‘Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 85 7 35 1-2 92.3 78 3-4 90.9 186 5-6 95.3 234 7-8 97.4 78 9-10 95.3 86 11—12 93.1 72 13-14 91.4 35 15-16 94.3 35 17-18 94.3 35 874 )(2 = 9.84 d f = 9 n.s 208 With Item 2, the Chi-squared is 9.84, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is not significant at cus- tomary levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 47 presents data based upon the third in- dicator of perception of possibilities of mobility: "Could the children of families living in economic con- ditions such as yours go to the University if they wish?" TABLE 47 EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Item 3) Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 54.3 35 1-2 76.9 78 3-4 80.6 186 5-6 91.9 234 7-8 97.4 78 9-10 98.8 86 11-12 97.2 72 13-14 97.1 35 15-16 94.3 35 17-18 100.0 35 874 X2 = 96.03 d.f. = 9 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .31 209 With Item 3, the Chi-squared is 96.03, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001. With a contingency coefficient of .31 and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 48 presents data based upon an index com- bining Items 1 through 3. The Chi—squared in this case is 118.73, which, with eighteen degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .001, with a contingency coefficient of .35 and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. In summary: The data from Items one and three and the Index support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 24: "Regardless of strata, the higher level of education, the higher the probability to have more desirability of mobility." Tables 49—51 present data relative to this hy- pothesis. Table 49 is based upon the first indicator of desirability of mobility: "Will you or your family come to improve their socio-economic conditions?" -. '4‘- ~‘I 210 TABLE 48 EDUCATION BY PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES OF MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Years of Education N 0 1 2 0 f 9 7 19 35 % 25.7 20.0 54.3 1-2 f 4 17 57 78 % 5.1 21.8 73.1 3-4 f 6 37 143 186 % 3.2 19.9 76.9 5-6 f 2 30 202 234 % 0.9 12.8 86.3 7-8 f 1 4 73 78 % 1.3 5.1 93.6 9-10 f 0 5 81 86 % 0.0 5.8 94.2 11-12 f 1 5 66 72 % 1.4 6.9 91.7 13-14 f 0 l 34 35 % 0.0 2.9 97.1 15—16 f 0 3 32 35 % 0.0 8.6 91.4 17-18 f 0 2 33 35 % 0.0 5.7 94.3 23 111 740 874 X2 = 118.73 d.f. = 18 p < .001 Contingency Coefficient = .35 211 TABLE 49 EDUCATION BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 1) I -_ r j Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 71.4 35 1-2 84.6 78 3-4 82.3 186 5—6 89.7 234 7-8 89.7 78 9-10 88.4 86 11-12 87.5 72 13—14 94.3 35 15-16 88.6 35 17-18 74.3 35 874 X2 = 18.96 d.f. = 9 p < .05 Contingency Coefficient = .15 The Chi—squared which obtains is 18.96, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .05. The contingency coefficient is .15, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 50 is based upon the second indicator of desirability of mobility: "Given your present socio- economic condition, will your children come to enjoy a better socio—economic condition?" 212 TABLE 50 EDUCATION BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Item 2) a Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 71.4 35 1-2 88.5 78 3-4 86.6 186 5-6 90.6 234 g 7-8 91.0 78 1 1' 9-10 91.9 86 11-12 88.9 72 13-14 91.4 35 15-16 88.6 35 17-18 85.7 35 874 x2 = 13.80 d.f. = 9 n.s. With Item 2, the Chi-squared is 13.80, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is not significant at cus- tomary levels of rejection of the null hypothesis. 213 Table 51 presents data based upon an index combin- ing Items 1 and 2. TABLE 51 EDUCATION BY DESIRABILITY OF MOBILITY (Index) Lowest Highest Years of Education N 0 l 2 0 f 7 6 22 35 % 20.0 17.1 62.9 1-2 f 2 17 59 78 76 2.6 21.8 75.6 3—4 f 15 28 143 186 % 8.1 15.1 76.9 5—6 f 7 32 195 234 76 3.0 13.7 83.3 7—8 f 4 7 67 78 % 5.1 8.1 85.9 9—10 f 5 7 74 86 % 5.8 8.1 86.0 11-12 f 2 13 57 72 % 2.8 18.1 79.2 13-14 f l 3 31 35 % 2.9 8.6 88.6 15-16 f 2 4 29 35 % 5.7 11.4 82.9 17-18 f 4 6 25 35 % 11.4 17.1 71.4 f 49 123 702 874 X2 = 35.41 d.f. = 18 p < .01 Contingency Coefficient = .20 1!u‘_ Ii". .‘u ! 5. w v . 214 The Chi-squared in this case is 35.41, which, with eighteen degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .01. The contingency coefficient is .20, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. In summary: The data from Item 1 and the Index support the hypothesis. Hyppthesis 25: "Regardless of_pt£atay the higher the level of educgtipp. the higher the probabil- ity to invpptgmorg_ih mobility." Tables 52-54 present data relative to this hy- pothesis. Table 52 is based on the first indicator of in- vestment in mobility: "Are you doing something to im- prove your socio—economic condition?" The Chi-squared is here 16.46, which, with nine degrees of freedom is not significant at the customary level of rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 53 is based on the second indicator of investment in mobility: "Are you doing something so that your children can come to a socio-economic condi- tion better than yours?" Aviilif' 3’ |.I 5U . to run! . 215 TABLE 52 EDUCATION BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 1) Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 77.1 35 1 2 87.1 78 3 4 84.9 186 5 6 85.9 234 7-8 94.9 78 9-10 81.4 86 11—12 81.9 72 13-14 97.1 35 15-16 94.3 35 17-18 85.7 35 874 2 X = 16.46 d f. = 9 n 5. TABLE 53 EDUCATION BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Item 2) Years of Education Per Cent Yes N 0 74.3 35 1 2 80.8 78 3 4 84.4 186 5 6 88.9 234 7-8 92.3 78 9-10 84.9 86 11-12 86.1 72 13-14 94.3 35 15-16 97.1 35 17-18 91.4 35 874 2 X = 17.24 d.f. = 9 p < .05 Contingency Coefficient = .17 +7 — 216 With Item 2, the Chi—squared is 17.24, which, with nine degrees of freedom, is significant at p < .05. The contingency coefficient is .17, and the direction of the relationship is as hypothesized. Table 54 presents data based upon an index com- bining Items 1 and 2. The Chi-squared in this case is 25.78, which, with eighteen degrees of freedom is not significant at the customary levels of rejection of the null hypoth— esis. In summary: Only the data from the second item support the hypothesis. Although the data do not provide dramatic support for the hypotheses——by a criterion of "percentage of var— iance eXplained"-—the pattern of findings is by no means discouraging. Satisfaction with findings is clearly a function of the basic objectives of a research undertak- ing. Primary emphasis upon maximization of "variance explanation" can lead, on the one hand, to an uncritical "adding on" of variables to the analytic scheme (as in multiple correlation) and, on the other hand, to a searching for "strong" relationships upon which post 217 TABLE 54 EDUCATION BY INVESTMENT IN MOBILITY (Index) fir—r Lowest Highest Years of Education N 0 l 2 0 f 6 5 24 35 % 17.1 14.3 68.6 1-2 f 8 13 57 78 % 10.3 16.7 73.1 3-4 f 17 23 146 186 % 9.1 12.4 78.5 5-6 f 13 33 188 234 % 5.6 14.1 80.3 7—8 f 2 6 70 78 76 2.6 7.7 89.7 9-10 f 9 11 66 86 % 10.5 12.8 76.7 11-12 f 8 7 57 72 % 11.1 9.7 79.2 13-14 f 0 3 32 35 % 0.0 8.6 91.4 15-16 f l 1 33 35 %. 2.9 2.9 94.3 l7-18 f 2 4 29 35 % 5.7 11.4 82.9 f 66 106 702 874 2 X = 25.78 d.f. = 18 n.s. 218 factum interpretations can be formulated. Such an emphasis can produce subtle influences toward a de-emphasis of theory. An alternative standard of judgment is to begin with an assessment of the tenability of the theoretical framework upon which the hypotheses are based and to judge the larger pattern of data in terms of its fit with the theoretical-hypothetical system. In this context. one would of course prefer that the correlations be 1.00 and the contingency tables present no deviant cases; but that is neither essential as an objective nor the most appro— priate criterion for evaluation. In the present case. for example. it was attempted to test a set of related propositions (it may be presump- tuous to call the whole "theory") on social stratum. per- ceptions of mobility and family planning. The interpre- tative framework is preliminary. and the operationaliza— tions are in some cases primitive. There was little reason to anticipate that a specific hypothesized rela— tionship would be linear or curvilinear. If the latter is the nature of the case. the imposition of analytic models versed upon assumptions of linearity. and to then rest one's case upon the strength of the statistic that 219 obtains, is more than naive; it can be injurious to the long—term develOpment of more substantial theory. Nevertheless the findings are encouraging. From the 25 hypotheses, 8 were substantially supported, 8 re— ceived some support, 6 were not testable, and 3 not sup- ported by the data. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. SUMMARY The general objectives of this study were: (1) To see whether existential experience within a socio-economic stratum breeds in individuals certain cog- nitive styles toward social mobility as well as certain behavioral styles amenable (or not) to such a process. In this way. the study intended to bring forth some more knowledge about the self-perpetuation of social strata. (2) To see whether some factors prompt actors. whichever their social stratum may be. to be mobility- oriented and to invest in mobility. The conceptual framework was formulated along the following lines: (1) The concept of social system was defined and ‘postulated as of one of central concern of sociology. 220 221 (2) A way to differentiate social systems in terms of conceptualization norms and interaction norms was pro- proposed. Conceptualization norms refer to such symbolic processes as (a) conceptual mapping (i.e.. providing a relevant system of social objects). (b) specification of relationships among these social objects. and (c) inter— pretation of events. including the assumption of cause- effect sequences. These norms guide the actor's retro- spections. situational analysis. and plans; they provide meaning. Interaction norms provide the framework for overt action. The class subsumes. by example. patterns of etiquette. deference. and reciprocity. The normative relevance in this class is less a matter of how actors structure reality and more of how they deal with it. The difference between strata in such terms served to support the point that social strata differ along the normative dimensions of "traditionalism-modernity.” (3) A case was made that "social strata" can be conceived as "social systems." because they show (a) ig- teggative elements. (b) interrelatedness of parts. and (c) boundary circumscription. 222 (4) An argument was made that social strata are social systems which differ in degree of modernization. To do this. some examples of concpptualization norms were given: self—perceived autonomy. secularism. multiplicity of reference groups. and the calculi ofgplanning and risk. It was argued that such conceptualization norms charac— terize modernization and that they tend to prevail in higher strata. This assertion was supported on the basis of findings of previous empirical research. Examples of interaction norms were also given: the traditional social system tends to emphasize: collectivity over person. ig- flexibility over flexibility. ascription over achievement. past validation over future validation. On the basis of previous empirical findings. it was sustained that modern interaction norms tend to prevail in higher strata. (5) Following different lines of argument. a case was made that the process of upward social mobility can be seen as a process of modernization. These lines of argument were: (a) The process constitutes the trans- ference of actor from a traditional to a more modern so— cial system. (b) The attitude configuration of the 223 mobility oriented actor parallels that of the modern man. as defined in contemporary sociology (Inkeles). (c) Mo— bility oriented actor's mggpg are present prescriptions to the extent that they are efficient to advance himself. (d) The mobility oriented actor's gpgl is to climb up to a more modern social system. (8) The mobility-oriented actor's mode of relationship between the elements of the unit act (i.e.. actor. means. and goals) is a rational one. as it is for the modern man. (f) The processual underlayment of modernity entails ". . . changes in the number and in the meaning of social systems to the actor and concomitant changes in his behavior." So it happens with the process of social mobility. for a socially-mobile actor. in contrast with the not socially-mobile actor. must: (I) perceive a broader spectrum of social systems. (2) participate in a broader set of social systems. (3) attribute relevance to (i.e.. take into account) and perceive potency of (i.e.. perceive rewarding potential- ity) the system to which the actor moves or wants to move. (9) Change can be seen not as a clash between traditional- ism and modernity. but as a movement away from tradi- tionalism where inter-systemic or dissociative variables \ 224 (i.e.. variables which imply people's contacts between systems which differ among themselves along one or more dimensions and therefore provide experiences which may dissociate people from their system of origin). play a role. And at the heart of this matter is mobility. be it physical or psychic. because if mobility implies an inter-systemic contact it functions to (1) bring awareness of alternative behavioral modes. (2) facilitate the at- tributions of meaning to these modes; i.e.. their attrac- tiveness. centrality and potency. (3) provide behavioral trials within the new normative frameworks. On the other hand. mobility occurs if (1) actor's conditions bring awareness of alternative behavioral modes. (2) facilitates the attributions of meaning to these modes. i.e.. their attractiveness. centrality. and potency. (3) provides behavioral trials within the new normative framework. Within this context. and firstly. a theoretical frame of reference was stated. This theoretical frame of reference pointed out types of variables or indicators which may help to understand the states and processes under study and to propose some hypotheses about these states and processes. . .e-L ' his" 225 Secondly, a parsimonious perspective for the analysis of the modernization process was selected. In the search for this parsimonious approach, the focus was upon some basic conditions which can spark the individ- ual change process and produce something like an atti— tudinal "take off" toward modernity. Among the crucial F3 facets of this process are: (1) knowledge; (2) interest; w" and (3) activity. To elaborate: (l) Knowledgp. Assuming 4 - that there are many social systems to which one can be i anchored, awareness of other systems must precede aspira- tion to involve oneself in them. (2) Interest. Given knowledge of alternative life modes (i.e., in modern social systems), evaluation of them is possible. To the degree that he finds these alternative life modes attract tive, he has acquired a generalized change orientation, a willingness to innovate, and a readiness to move toward modernity. (3) Activity. If one is aware of alternative life modes, and sees them as attractive, behavior which is instrumental to change in social environments should follow. These instrumental behaviors occur if the means for change in personal life conditions are perceived. In short, when one judges personal change to be desirable and the possibility (which is to say, the means) of change 226 to be real and manageable, the attitudinal climate for a change to modernity are at an optimum. If (1) the previous behavioral categories are valid components of the conditions which, at an individual level, can spark the individual change process and produce something like an attitudinal "take off" toward modernity, and (2) one of the problems one had in hand refers to certain attitudinal and behavioral aspects of the process of upward social mobility as self—perpetuating elements of strata, and if (3) the process of social mobility can be seen as a process of change toward modernity, then it appeared theoretically sound to see the process in terms of: Awareness of Mobility: responding to the "knowledge" dimension of Mobility. Perception of Possibilities of Mobility: responding to the "understanding" dimension. Desirability of Mobility: responding to the "evalu- ational" dimension. Investment in Mobility: responding to the "behav— ioral input" dimension. 227 The relationship between social stratum, the above-mentioned aspects of mobility and family planning can be seen under the theoretical frame of reference developed above. In fact, both "mobility orientation" and "family planning" have been mentioned by the relevant literature as indicators of modernity. Similarly, the dimensions of mobility discussed above are applicable to family planning. The theoretical basis of such a re- lationship can be stated by saying that in a significant sense, modern man is an autonomous being. He perceives a relative freedom in the manipulation of his life tra— jectory. When the anticipated trajectory is predicated upon social ascent and the maximization of self—esteem (as it commonly is in modern society), chance of ascent is maximized as social systemic investments are minimized. Since family planning implies a minimization of social systemic investments, chance of ascent is increased with family planning. The second general objective of the study was to see whether some factors prompt actors, whichever their social stratum may be, to be mobility oriented and to invest in mobility. In a way, this is to ask, ". . . at an individual level (what conditions) can spark the 228 individual change process and produce something like attitudinal 'take off' toward modernity?" The basic conern here is ". . . the relationship of actor to a particular (i.e., normatively-definable) social system." Here, one must look for certain variables which point to the question: What do actors put into a social system? and what experiences function to ". . . (1) bring awareness of alternative behavioral modes, (2) facilitate the attributions of meaning to these modes, i.e., their attractiveness centrality and potency, (3) provide behavioral trials within the new normative frame— works." To answer these questions, in this study, the following variables were considered: (1) Participation; (2) Time and (3) Intersystemic or dissociative variables. The theoretical bases generated the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the awareness of mobility." The data sup- ported the hypothesis. 229 Hypothesis 2: “The higher the social stratum, the greater the perception of possibilities of mobility." The data supported the hypothesis. Hypothesis 3: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the desirability for mobility." The data FT did not support the hypothesis. ji'f Hypothesis 4: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the investment in mobility.“ The data pro— I vided some support for the hypothesis. Hypothesis 5: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the awareness of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." The data provide some support for the hypothesis. Hypothesis 6: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the perception of possibilities of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." The data provide some support for the hypothesis. Hypothesis 7: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the desirability of mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." The data provide some support for the hypothesis. 230 Hypothesis 8: "The higher the social stratum, the greater the investment in mobility, which will lead to increased family planning." The data provide some support for the hypothesis. Because of measurement problems with the variable "Length of Marriage," the following six hypotheses could not be tested: Hypothesis 9: "For lower strata, the longer the length of marriage, the lower the perception of possi— bilities of mobility." Untested. Hypothesis 10: "For lower strata, the longer the lxzngth of marriage, the lower the desirability of social tMJbility." Untested. Hypothesis 11: "For lower strata, the longer the length of marriage, the lower the investment in mobility.“ Untested. Hypothesis 12:. "For higher strata, the negative association between length of marriage and perception of the possibility of mobility (as hypothesized for the lower strata) will be lessened, eliminated, or will change to a positive association." Untested. 231 Hypothesis 13: "For higher strata, the negative association between length of marriage and desirability of mobility (as hypothesized for lower strata) will be lessened, eliminated, or will change to a positive asso— ciation." Untested. Hypothesis 14: "For higher strata, the negative association between length of marriage and investment in mobility (as hypothesized for lower strata) will be les- i sened, eliminated, or will change to a positive associa- tion." Untested. The tests of hypotheses concerning sex (15-18) provide mixed findings. Hypothesis 15: "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than females, other things being equal, to have more awareness of mobility." The data do not support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 16: "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than females, other things being equal, to perceive more possibilities of mobility." While incon- clusive, the data provide some support for the hypothesis. 232 Hypothesis l7: "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than females, other things being equal, to have more desirability of mobility." The data do not sup- port the hypothesis. Hypothesis 18: "Regardless of strata, males will be more likely than females, other things being equal, to invest more in mobility." The data support the hypoth- esis. Hypothesis 19: "For all strata, the younger the individual is, other things equal, the higher the proba- bility to perceive more possibilities of mobility." Only one of the three individual item tests provides supportive data. Hypothesis 20: "For all strata, the younger the individual is, other things equal, the higher the proba- bility to have more desirability of mobility." The data support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 21: "For all strata, the younger the individual is, other things equal, the higher the proba- bility to invest more in mobility." The data support the hypothesis. 233 Hypothesis 22: "Regardless of strata, the higher the level of education, the higher the probability to have more awareness of mobility." The data support the hypoth- esis. Hypothesis 23: "Regardless of strata, the higher the level of education, the higher the probability to perceive more possibilities of mobility." The data sup- port the hypothesis. Hypothesis 24: "Regardless of strata, the higher the level of education, the higher the probability to have more desirability of mobility." The data support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 25: "Regardless of strata, the higher the level of education, the higher the probability to invest more in mobility." The data provide some support to the hypothesis. Table 55 presents a summary of the findings, in- <:luding specification of variables, the relevant statis- tics, and page reference to the chapter on Findings. Of 19 hypotheses tested, all but two are given some measure (If support. Nine of the 19 are strongly supported, and 234 eight are given some support, i.e., the hypothesized re- lationship obtains in one or another of the multiple tests of the hypothesis. TABLE 55 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS W Hypothesis Page Statistic D.F. P Action on Ho l. Stratum Awareness of Mobility 2 Item 1 163 x = 12.88 3 <.01 c = .12 Item 2 164 x2 = 4.71 3 n.s. Index 165 x2 = 13.56 6 <.05 C = .14 Supported 2. Stratum Perception of Possibili- ties of Mobility Item 1 166 x2 = 1.93 3 n.s. Item 2 167 x2 = 2.10 3 n.s. Item 3 168 x2 = 49.06 3 <.001 c = .23 Index 169 x2 = 35.60 6 <.001 C = .20 Supported 3. Stratum Desirability of Mobility 2 Item 1 170 x = 5.25 3 n.s. Item 2 171 x2 = 1.61 3 n.s. Index 172 x2 = 9.74 6 n.s. Not supported Table 55.--Continued 2355 Page Hypothesis Statistic D.F. P Action on Ho 4. Stratum Investment in Mobility Item 1 173 x2 = 12.22 3 <.01 C = .12 Item 2 174 x2 — 4.03 3 n.s. Index 175 x2 11.19 6 n.s. Some support I} Stratum '“WJ Family planning F Item 1 176 x2 = 84.07 3 <.001 . . c = .30 “ I r = .31 i[ Item 2 177 x2 = 65.56 21 <.001 C = .37 r = .37 Not among Item 3 178 x2 = 70.92 12 <.001 hypotheses C = .38 to be tested: r = .38 r value pro- vides basis for testing Ho's 5-8 5. Stratum-- Family Plan- ning con- trolling for Awareness of Mobility Item 1 179 rxy - z = .30 Some support 6. Stratum-- Family Plan- ning con- trolling for Percep- tion of Pos- sibilities of Mobility Item 3 180 r - z = 29 Some support 1236 Table 55.—-Continued Hypothesis Page Statistic D.F. P Action on HO 7. Stratu -- Fami 1y Plan- ning con- trolling for Desira- bility of Mobility ‘. Item 1 182 r ° 2 = .31 . Item 2 183 r:§ ° 2 .31 Some support 8. Stratum-- Family Plan- , ning con- .7 trolling ’ for Invest- ment in Mobility Item 1 184 r - Item 2 184 r Index 185 r = .31 — .30 = .30 Some support 0 NNN I 9-14 Length of Marriage-- Dimensions of Mobility 185 Not testable 15. Sex Awareness of Mobility 187 Not supported 16. S25, Perception of Possibilities of Mobility Item 1 187 2 = 6.46 1 <.02 n.s. n.s. n.s. Some support Item 3 189 x c Item 2 188 x2 = .34 x Index 189 x k) ll <3 k)h‘h‘ 17. Sex Desirability of Mobility 190 Not supported Table 55.--Continued .237 Hypothesis Page Statistic D.F. P Action on Ho 18. §p§_ Investment on Mobility Item 1 191 X2 = 16.22 1 <.001 C = .14 Item 2 191 x2 = 5.15 1 <.05 C = .08 Index 192 x2 = 13.78 2 <.01 C = .13 Supported 19. figs Perception of Possibilities of Mobility Item 1 193 x2 1.01 2 n.s. Item 2 194 x2 — 8.53 2 <.02 C = .09 Item 3 195 x2 — 1.72 2 n.s. Index 196 x2 1.29 4 n.s. Some support 20. Egg Desirability of Mobility Item 1 197 x2 = 13.83 2 <.001 C = .11 Item 2 198 x2 = 14.30 2 <.001 C = .12 Index 198 x2 = 23.74 4 <.001 C = .15 Supported 21. figs Investment in Mobility Item 1 199 x2 = 17.95 2 <.001 C = .14 Item 2 200 x2 = 39.34 2 <.001 C = .21 Index 201 x2 = 36.08 4 <.001 C = .20 Supported 1238 Table 55.--Continued Hypothesis Page Statistic D.F. P Action on Ho 22. Education Awareness of Mobility Item 1 202 x2 = 22.05 9 <.01 c = .16 Item 2 203 x2 = 28.56 9 <.001 c = .18 Index 204 x2 = 46.09 18 <.001 C = .22 Supported 23. Education Perception of Possibilities of Mobility Item 1 206 x2 = 24.63 9 <.01 c = .17 Item 2 207 x2 9.84 9 n.s. Item 3 208 x2 96.03 9 <.001 c = .31 Index 209 x2 = 118 73 18 <.001 C = .35 Supported 24. Education Desirability of Mobility Item 1 211 x2 = 18.96 9 <.05 c = .15 Item 2 212 x2 = 13.80 9 n.s. Index 213 x2 = 35.41 18 <.01 C = .20 Supported 25. Education Investment in Mobility Item 1 214 x2 = 16.46 9 n.s. Item 2 215 x2 = 17.24 9 <.05 c = .14 Index 216 x2 = 25.78 18 n.s. Some support 239 Although we recognize that a pattern of supportive data,such as the present one, is not the only criterion for evaluating a social research undertaking, it is com- forting when positive findings occur. The data tell us, if incompletely, that that part of the social world with which this research is concerned is in a form somewhat like that proposed by our conceptual framework, and that further input of intellectual energy into this general direction of investigation is warranted. B. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS As indicated above, the data support Hypothesis 1, viz., "The higher the social stratum, the greater the awareness of mobility.” However, it is important to ob- serve that the strength of the correlation is not very high. This clearly indicates that other factors should be taken into account. For example, there are reasons to believe that peculiar characteristics of the Costa Rican society might account for the fact that a significant number of individuals in the lowest strata are aware of the process of mobility. In this context, it is perhaps meaningful to note that Costa Rica, since the end of the .43 240 last century, has established primary education as obli- gatory. It is reasonable to suggest that this factor could affect the correlation at this particular historical moment in this particular society. Similarly, the fact of dealing with an urban sample could explain why the ‘7 .m‘ay association is not as strong as one would have expected. Mm It is well—known that the urban environment is in and of itself a factor which contributes to the degree of mo- H w dernity of the people, and if awareness of mobility is B an indicator of modernization, the correlation is low be— cause awareness is so endemic. Of course, more informa- tion is required to interpret the dynamic at issue. For example, we recognize the importance of taking into ac- count occupation of individuals and length of residence in the urban environment. Working in a factory is, to a certain degree, equivalent to being exposed to formal education. It is also important to take into account that mass media exposure could have substantially influ— enced the levels of awareness of mobility in the urban setting at issue. Similar considerations are involved in the hy- pothesis relating social strata to perception of possi— bilities of mobility. There are, however, other 241 considerations here. For example, the first and second items of the variable "perception of possibilities of mobility" were not associated with social stratum. It might be the case that in this particular society a sig- nificant number of individuals from the lowest strata perceive the 393$ of mobility as viable, even when by objective socio-economic conditions, the means toward such goal attainment do not exist. It is important to note that the third indicator of perception of possibilities of mobility proved to be associated with social stratum. If one keeps in mind the symbolic content of that indicator, in comparison with the two other indicators, one might be able to find a reason for such a finding. The fact is that the third indicator presents to the respondent a more specific and structured issue than the other two. In effect, it is not the same to ask a person, "Will your children come to get better jobs than the one you have?," than to ask, "Could the children of families living in economic con— ditions such as yours go to the University if they wish?" It is easier to find a "Yes" answer to the former than to the latter. This is so because a respondent who works as a manual worker, for example, might answer "Yes" to 242 the first question, having in mind, for example, that a better job for his children is to have them become school teachers. He might answer "No" to the third indicator of perception of possibilities of mobility, however, because it is one thing to get a comparatively better job and quite another thing to perceive that one's child can travel through the main channel of social mobility, i.e., the university, as it is the case in Costa Rica in the present-historical moment. Not much can be said about the relationship be— tween social stratum and desirability of mobility; The first and second indicators do not show association. The index shows association only if a one-tailed test is defensible. If this indicates that peOple evaluate social mobility positively, even when they do not perceive pos— sibilities of mobility, one should think on the possi- bility of reversing the order of the different dimensions of mobility mentioned in this study. It might be more plausible perhaps to assert that people can, and do, evaluate mobility positively, even without perceiving possibilities of being mobile themselves, than to say that people come to evaluate only those goals which they consider as attainable. ‘fir 5".“ Ton . 1L I . . 243 The association between the first indicator of investment in mobility and social stratum and the lack of association of the second indicator and social stratum, might suggest the need to use more specific items. It is, perhaps, too "easy" to give a "Yes" answer to this question: "Are you doing something to improve your socio— economic condition?" The fact that the index of investment in mobility shows the hypothesized relationship with social stratum only if the assumption that a one—tailed test is defen- sible, also points to the need for more specific measures of investment in mobility. Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 were preceded by reports on the relationship between social stratum and family planning. Family planning was measured by three items: 1) Practice of birth control, 2) Number of years of prac- tice of birth control, and 3) Number of children at first practice of birth control. The expected relationship between social strata and family planning was, of course, supported. The partial correlation which interprets the zero-order correlation between social strata and the first indicator of family planning is minute. However, 244 the partial correlation which interprets the correlation between social strata and the two last indicators of family planning is more substantial, although by no means conclusive. In any case, the hypothesized interpretative variable seems to account for part of the variability, as predicted. The minute difference between the zero- order correlation and the partial correlation for social stratum and the first indicator of family planning, par- tialing out "awareness of mobility," might be due to the fact that the first indicator of family planning is a primitive, dichotomous measurement of the behavior at issue. The same conclusion might be drawn about Hypoth- esis 6. The difference between the partial correlation and the zero—order correlation, taking into account the first indicator of family planning, is minute. With the second and third indicators of family planning, the dif— ference is greater, although not conclusive. However, each of the three partial correlations show the hypoth- esized tendency. \ .‘P F Ill e.. " I .l. ‘ . “Win 2.: a" The same observations hold for Hypotheses 7 and 8. The tests of the Hypotheses 9 to 14 were not pos- sible because two complications discussed earlier: 1) the 245 pattern of response regarding perception of possibilities of mobility was overwhelmingly positive, and 2) there are obvious problems of measurement of length of marriage. The hypotheses regarding the relationship between sex, age, and education with the different dimensions of mobility highlighted in this study were supported to a large extent, taking into account individual items or indexes. C. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Even with a pattern of substantially supportive data, there are limitations to the research that require recognition and discussion. Some of these limitations stem from the fact that the data of this study are sourced in a larger research project conducted by the writer. This imposed a need to limit the number of questions for every variable. Clearly, a larger number of indicators for each variable would have decreased the likelihood of bad items, which, in turn, may decrease correlation values. Such a long questionnaire might have also introduced errors due to misperceptions and wrong answers based on fatigue. 21.! *l 246 Connected with the limitations related to inter— viewing time available is the fact that a dichotomous response was used on most of the questions. Had not this been the case, one may have found fewer skewed distribu— tions, and lessened the analytic problems that such skew— ness introduces. Another limitation centers around the substance of some of the questions. The items referring to "per- ception of possibilities of mobility" provide a case in point. In this case, the item referring to whether the respondents saw some possibilities for their children to go to the University seemed to be, almost consistently, a better item than, for example, an item such as "Would your children come to have better jobs than yours?" The former question certainly provides a more specific and structured issue to the respondent. In some cases there are basic limitations related to the use of Product Moment Correlations. In those cases where Product Moment Correlations were used, important assumptions regarding "linearity" and "equal interval measurement" were not met. On the other hand, "curvi- linearity" and the absence of "equal interval scales" 247 can lead to more "conservative" tests of hypotheses, in that they function to decrease correlation values. Finally, the sample design is imperfect. For variables like length of marriage, age, and education, a researcher should use strata assignment criteria that would produce cell frequencies adequate for multi-variate analysis. By example, a simple random sample (in any stratum) may, in an analysis of relationship between education and awareness of mobility, produce a skewed distribution, with consequentially small and unstable frequencies in crucial cells of a contingency table. Stratified random sampling could have remedied this im- portant problem. D. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Social research commonly points to new and neces- sary directions; the present study is no exception. Here we mention only a few of the most salient of them. For example, the findings suggest the strong influence of the urban setting. Some of the inter-strata differences on the relevant variables may have been decreased because of this factor. It would be profitable, therefore, to 248 conduct parallel studies, with rural and urban samples, on the social stratification configuration. With such a design, one might see how and to what extent the dif- ferences between strata differentially affect the depen- dent variables as one moves from a rural to an urban setting. Of course, in future research one should collect information about certain factors which are part of the conditions of actors in social action. Such is the case, a for example, of factors as "mass media exposure," "unem— ployment," "length of residence in the urban setting," and "type of occupation." Another set of relevant data, not commonly obtained in this kind of research, would focus upon the contacts which individuals may have had with peOple of higher strata than their own. It seems plausible to assert that the type and number of reference groups the individual has, have crucial influence upon the dimensions of mobility which have been of central concern in this study. It might be the case, for example, that if only one member of his family has been socially mobile, the respondent himself will have become mobility oriented. 249 Some of the findings of the study seem to suggest that the order of the perceptual dimensions of mobility should be changed. There seems to be more people, re— gardless of strata, who evaluate social mobility posi- tively than there are those who perceive possibilities of mobility. Another strategy of research, not at issue in this study, might deal with the scalability of the four dimensions of mobility and the order in which they have to be placed. In this study, it was not worthwhile to do this because the skewness of the distribution was so pronounced toward the positive level of the curve. The data only suggest the possibility of change in the order of those dimensions; there is no way presently available to examine the question adequately. The methodological difficulties with the measure- ment of length of marriage can and should be easily over— come in future research. Of course, with a better dis— tribution of the data on the several dimensions of mo— bility, as could be obtained with better instrumentation, a set of controls could be applied in order to avoid spurious relationships. For example, the hypotheses re- lating age with the several dimensions of mobility could have been affected by level of education, considering the 250 fact that for samples similar to the one used in this study, education tends to vary inversely with age. Sim- ilarly, the relationships between length of marriage and the dimensions of mobility could have been affected by income. It would also be worthwhile to obtain information on the relationship between objective social mobility and the perceptual dimensions of mobility at issue in this study. This relationship could prove to be very crucial. It seems plausible to assert that in order to become mobility—oriented the individual should experience, be it psychically or objectively, the process of mobility itself. Finally, in order to be able to generalize in this kind of study, cross—societal and cross—cultural research is indispensible. It seems obvious that the conditions of the strata from one society to the other may differ, a situation which may affect the degree of modernity of those.social strata. Similarly, cross-cultural comparison could bring to awareness cultural elements which legiti— mate, facilitate, or impede the process of social mobility. If such be the case, the perceptual dimensions of mobility might be fundamentally effected. . .t air-u. '3'.‘.d\'£. '1 I I 1" I ' . PM APPENDIX I APPENDIX I This appendix provides a brief discussion of the validity and reliability of the measurements. Since it was our intention to select "Barrios" as typically representative as possible of the economic_di— mension, it seemed proper to look at the correlation be- tween the strata, as they were selected in the study, and income as reported by the sample individuals. Such a correlation is of .55, which indicates a strong correla- tion between the two factors, not only because the number is in and of itself high enough, but because the accuracy of the data on income decreases as one moves up in the social ladder. That is to say, individuals from the highest stratum tend to report lower incomes than those they receive, in comparison with individuals in the lower strata who tend to report their income more accurately. Would the accuracy of this information be higher, the correlation between the social strata, as selected for this study, and income would have been substantially 251 252 higher. Thus, all seems to indicate that the selection of the ”Barrios” or sectors of “Barrios" was accurate enough for the purpose of the study. To test the validity of the indicators of the different dimensions of mobility, correlations were cal- culated with three indicators of people's orientation toward problem solving. In the questionnaire, three different problems were posed to the respondents. The central issues in these problems involved: 1) Insuffi— cient income, 2) Illegitimate pregnancy of a daughter, and 3) Illness of one close relative. The respondents were asked what would they do if they had to confront these three problems and a set of alternative responses were given to them. These alternative responses intended to tap whether the respondent had a secular or a religious orientation, an activistic or pasivistic orientation, or a collectivistic or individualistic orientation toward those problems. It was assumed that an activistic, secu- laristic and collectivistic orientation would be an indi- cator of modernity. Only the three indicators of secularism—religiosity showed a considerable degree of internal consistency. The first indicator shows a corre- lation of .40 with the second indicator and a correlation 253 of .21 with the third indicator. The second indicator showed a correlation of .24 with the third indicator. Each of these items on the secularism scale was posi- tively correlated with education, the first indicator showed a correlation of .28 with education; the second, .42, and the third indicator, .19. The fact that the indicators of activism and collectivism show little internal consistency and low validity when related with education prompted us to test for the validity of the dimensions of mobility only with the items of secularism-religiosity. This showed that for the indicators of those dimensions of mobility, the correlations with the secularistic orientation tends to be uniformly low and in other cases non—existent. Con— sequently, we lack validating data other than that repre- sented by the tests of the hypotheses, i.e., empirical validity. The reliability by internal consistency of the different indicators of the several dimensions of mobility is as follows: The first item of awareness of mobility showed a correlation of .19 with its second item. 254 The first item of perception of possibilities of mobility showed a correlation of .15 with the second item and of .24 with the third item. The second item of per- ception of possibilities of mobility showed a correlation of .08 with its third item. The first item of desirability of mobility showed a correlation of .37 with the second item. The first item of investment in mobility showed a correlation of .50 with its second item. Finally, the first indicator of family planning showed a correlation of .76 with the second indicator and a correlation of .54 with the third indicator. The second indicator showed a correlation of .41 with the third indicator. This seems to indicate that the three indicators have internal consistency. APPENDIX II VARIABLES, Variable 1) Social Stratum 2) Awareness of Mobility APPENDIX II Indicators "Barrios" typically representative of different economic levels. (The pro- cedure of selection was indicated in the chapter on Methodology and Analysis Design.) 1°: Do you know whether persons who live in certain eco- nomic condi— tions ever move out of those conditions into different con- ditions? 2°: Do you believe that any person born in a family that lives like yours, is fated to continue living in the same way? 255 INDICATORS, AND CODES Codes Highest: Middle: Poor: Slum: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn 't Answer: OOOH Ol-‘Nw OOOH 3) Perception of Possibil- ities of Mobility 4) Desirability of Mobility 10. 20: 1°: 20. 256 Do you believe that some per- sons who live in conditions such as yours can come to get a better job? Will your children come to get better jobs than the one you have? Could the children of families living in economic conditions such as yours go to the University if they wish? Will you or your family come to improve their socio- economic condi— tions? Given your present socio- economic con- dition, will your children come to enjoy a better socio- economic condi- tion? Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Without children: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: OOOl-I' r“:- 5) Investment in Mobility 6) Family Planning 10. 2°: 2°: 257 Are you doing something to improve your socio-economic condition? Are you doing something so that your children can come to a socio-economic condition better than yours? ° Have you done anything to limit births? Since when have you done any- thing to limit your births? - After what child have you done anything to limit your births? Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Yes: No: Undecided: Doesn't Answer: Without Children Adult Children: Yes: No: Doesn't Answer: Doesn't Answer: less than 1 year: year: years: years: years: years: years: \Jmtnl>uah>H Child 5 or more: Child 4: Child 3: Child 2: Child 1: years or more: NO‘WIfiWNl-‘OO OOH OOOOOH OOOH bunt-do 7) Participation 8) Time 9) Dissociative 5 Variable 258 1°: Length of Mar— riage a) Are you married? b) If "yes," how long a time have you been married? c) If multiple marriages: how long a time did each mar- riage last? (In this case the re— spondent re- Less than 19 20—39 40 or more ceived a score equal to the sum of years of marriage for every union.) 20: Sex Ilse: How old are you? Answer: in years completed Education: Until what grade or year did you study? No. years (Maximum 18) Male: 1 Female: 0 less than 39: low 40-59: ‘middle 60 or more: high Years Eek. .‘J $.er ._ pm. . : F. or» .“V . I h. a . F“! BIBLIOGRAPHY “ifibl‘u Blair-I VII-«J. DIV, {.4 . L‘ BIBL IOGRAPHY Acosta—Monzon, J. Encuesta de Fecunidad en el Area Metro- pplitana de Caracas, Ministerio de Fomento, Direc- cion General de Estadistica y Censos Nacionales: Venezuela, n.d. Agarwala, S. N. Attitude Toward Family_Planning in India, Asia Publishing House: Delhi (Occasional Papers No. 5), Institute of Economic Growth, 1962. Bachi, R. and Matras, J. "Contraception and Induced Abor- tion among Jewish Maternity Cases in Israel,“ Milbank Memorial Fund_gparterly, Vol. XLIX. April: 1962. Bachi, R. and Matras, J. "Family Size Preferences of Jewish Maternity Cases in Israel," Milbank Memor- ial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLII. April: 1964. Baltzell, E. D. "Social Mobility and Fertility Within an Elite Group," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XXXI. October: 1953, No. 4. Barber, B. Social Stratification: A Comparative Analysis of Structure Process, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.: New York, 1956. Becker, G. S. An Economic Analysis of Fertility, a Conference of the Universities National Bureau for Economic Research, Demographic and Economic Change in DevelOped Countries, Princeton Univer— sity Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1960. Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M. (eds.) Class Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective, The Free Press: New York, 1966. 259 260 Berelson, B. "On Family Planning and Communication," Demggraphy, Vol. I. 1964. Berelson, B. et al. (eds.) Family Planning and POpulation Programs: A Review of World Development, The Uni- versity of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1965. Berelson, B. and Freedman, R. "A Study in Fertility Con- trol," Scientific American, Vol. CCX. May: 1965, No. 5. ii Berelson, B. and Steiner, I. Human Behavior: an inven- . ;[ toryyof scientific findings, Harcourt, Brace and N" World, Inc.: New York, 1964. Berent, J. "Fertility and Social Mobility," Population i,“ Studies, Vol. v. March: 1952, No. 3. g Blacker, J. G. C. "Social Ambitions of the Bourgeoisie in the Eighteenth Century France and Their Rela- tion to Family Limitation," Population Studies, Vol. II. July: 1957, No. l. Blalock Jr., H. M. "Status Consciousness: A Dimensional Analysis," Social Forces, Vol. XXXVII. March: 1959, No. 3. Blake, J. Family Structure in Jamaica: The Social Con— text of Reproduction, The Free Press: New York, 1961. Boggs, S. T. "Family Size and Social Mobility in a Cali- fornia Suburb," Euqenicsyguarterly, Vol. IV. December: 1957, No. 4. Bresard, M. "Mobilite sociale et dimension de la famille," Population, Vol. V. July-September: 1950, No. 3. Brim, O. and Forer, R. "A Note on the Relation of Values and Social Structure to Life Planning," Socio- metry, Vol. XIX. March: 1956, No. l. 261 Briones, G. and Waisanen, F. B. “Educational Aspirations, Modernization and Urban Integration," a paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the American So— ciological Association, Miami, Florida, 1966. Brooks, H. F. and Henry, F. J. ”An Empirical Study of the Relationship of Catholic Practice and Occupa— tional Mobility to Fertility," Milbank Memorial Fundggparterly, Vol. XXXVI. July: 1958, No. 3. Buckley, W. "Social Stratification and Functional Theory of Social Differentiation," ASR, Vol. XXIII. August: 1958, No. 4. Burnstein, E., Moulton, R., and Liberty, P. "Prestige vs. Excellence as Determinants of Role Attractive- ness," ASR, Vol. XXIII. April: 1963, No. 2. Carleton, R. O. "Fertility Trends and Differentials in Latin America," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLIII. October: 1965. Carrol, T. W. and Farace, R. V. Systems Analysis, Com- puter Simulation, and Survey Research: Applica- tions to Social Research in Developing Countries, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University: East Lansing, Revised Edition, March: 1970. Centers, R. The Psychology of Social Classes, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1949. Centers, R. "Social Class, Occupation and Imputed Be- lief," AJS, Vol. LVIII. May: 1953. Dahrendorf, R. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, 1968. Davis, A. and Gardner, B. B. Deep South, University of Chicago Press: Illinois, 1948. Davidson, P. E. and Anderson, H. D. Occupational Mobility in an American Communit , Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, 1937. Day, L. 262 H. "Fertility Differentials Among Catholics in Australia," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLII. April: 1964. De Hoyos, A. Occupational and Educational Levels of As- _piration of Mexican—American Youth, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University: East Lansing, 1961. Diez—Nicolas, J. "Status Socio—Economico, Religion y Dinkel, Tamano de la Familia Urbana," Revista Espanola de la Opinion Publica, n. p., December: 1965. R. M. ”Occupation and Fertility in the United States," ASR, Vol. XVII. April: 1952, No. 2. Eisenstadt, S. M. Israeli Society, Basic Books Inc., Febvay, Fonseca, Foster, Publishers: New York, 1967. M. "Niveau et evolution de la fecondite par categorie socio-professionnelle en France," Population, XIV. October—December: 1959, No. 4. E. et al. Algunos Aspectos Sociograficos del Area Metrppolitana de San Jose, Costa Rica, CESPO, Universidad de Costa Rica: San Pedro, Costa Rica, 1969. G. M. Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Change, Harper and Row Publishers: New York, 1962. Freedman, R. et al. "Fertility and Family Planning in Taiwan: A Case Study of the Demographic Transi— tion, AJS, Vol. LXX. July: 1964. Freedman, R. and Sharp, H. "Correlates of Values about Ideal Family Size in the Detroit MetrOpOlitan Area," Population Studies, Vol. VIII. July: 1954. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds. and trans.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press: New York, 1968. wul “E’d-Jugn. 263 Glantz, 0. "Class Consciousness and Political Solidarity," ASR, Vol. XXIII. August: 1958, No. 4. Gomez, B. M. Informe de la Encuesta de Fecunidad en el Area Metropolitana, Instituto Centroamericano de Estadistica, Universidad de Costa Rica: San Pedro, Costa Rica, 1968. Haer, J. L. "An Empirical Study of Social Class Aware- ness," Social Forces, December: 1957, No. 36. Hall, F. "Birth Control in Lima, Peru: Attitudes and Practices," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLIII. October: 1965. Haller, A. D. and Miller, I. W. The Occupational Aspira- tion Scale: Theory Structure and Correlappg, Michigan State University, Ag. Exp. Station, East Lansing, 1961. Hartman, G. W. and Newcomb, T. (eds.) Industrial Conflict, The Gordon Company: New York, 1939. Hauser, Ph. M. and Schnore, L. F. (eds.) The §pudy of Urbanization, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1967. Heer, D. M. "Fertility Differences Between Indian and Spanish-speaking Parts of Andean Countries," POpulation Studies, Vol. XXXVIII. July: 1964. Heer, D. M. and Turner, E. S. "Areal Differences in Latin American Fertility," POpglation Studies, Vol. XVIII. March: 1965. Heller, C. S. (ed.) Sprugtured Social Inequality: A reader in Comparative Social Stratification, The McMillan Co.: New York, 1969. Higgins, E. "Some Fertility Attitudes Among White Women in Johannesburg," POpulation Studies, Vol. XVI. July: 1962. Hollingshead, A. B. Elmtown's Youth: The Impact of So- cial Classes on Adolescents, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1959. .r I..uf..|¢. HHI. r w?! D.F.? '. .. 264 Hollingshead, A. B. and Redlich, F. C. Social Class and Mental Illness, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1958. Hong, S. and Yoon, J. "Male Attitudes Toward Family Plan- ning on the Island of Kangwah-Gun, Korea," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XLIX. October: 1962. Hubback, J. "The Fertility of Graduate Women," Eugenics 321L931. Vol. XLVII. July: 1955, No. 2. r? . :Llan' -1E’ , Hughes, R. B. "Human Fertility Differentials: the influ- ence of industrial urban development on birth rates," Population Review, Vol. III. July: 1959, No. 2. I Hutchinson, B. "Fertility, Social Mobility, and Urban Migration in Brazil," Population Studies, Vol. XIV. March: 1961, NO. 3. Hyman, H. "The Value System of Different Classes," in Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M. (eds.), Class, Status and Power: Social Stratification in Com- parative PerSppctive, The Free Press: New York, 1966. Hyman, H. Survey Design and Analysis, The Free Press of Glencoe: Illinois, 1963. Inkeles, A. "The Modernization of Man," The Center of International Affairs, Harvard University, Re- printed from Weiner, M. (ed.), Modernization, Basic Books, Inc. Pub.: N.Y., 1966. Kahl, J. A. The American Class Structure, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York, 1962. Kahl, J. A. and Davis, J. A. "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status," ASR, Vol. XX. June: 1955, NO. 2. Karp, H. Class notes in Sociology 494, Sociology Depart- ment, Michigan State University: East Lansing, Winter 1970. 265 Kinch, J. "A Formalized Theory of the Self-Concept," AJS, Vol. LXVII. January: 1963, No. 4. Kiser, C. V. (ed.) Research in Family Planning, Prince- ton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1962. Knupfer, G. "Portrait of the Underdog," in Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M. (eds.), Classy Status and Power: Social Stratification in comparative Perspective, The Free Press: New York, 1966; also in Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. XI. 1947. Koos, E. H. Families in Trouble, Kings Crown Press: New York, 1946. Kornhauser, A. W. "Analysis of 'Class' Structure of Con- temporary American Society: Psychological Bases of Class Divisions," in Hartman, G. W. and New- comb, T. (eds.), Industrial Conflict, The Gordon Company: New York, 1939. Lampard, E. E. "Historical Aspects of Urbanization," in Hauser, P. M. and Schnore, L. F. (eds.), Th2 Study of Urbanization, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1967. ' Landecker, W. S. "Class Crystallization and Class Con- sciousness," , Vol. XXVIII, 1963, No. 2. Lasswell, T. E. Class and Stratum: An Introduction to Concppts and Research, Houghton Miflin Co.: Boston, 1965. Lasswell, T. E. "The Perception of Social Class from Photographs," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XLV. July: 1961. Lasswell, T. E. "The Perception of Social Status," SQ- ciology and Social Research, Vol. XXXXV. January: 1961, No. 2. Legget, J. C. "Economic Insecurity and Working-Class Consciousness," ASR, Vol. XXIX. April: 1964, No. 2. r “3 266 Legget, J. C. "Uprootedness and Working—Class Conscious— ness," AJS, Vol. LXVIII. May: 1963, No. 6. Lerner, D. The Passing_of Traditional Society: Modern- izing the Middle East, The Free Press: New York, 1958. Lewis, L. S. "Class Consciousness and Interclass Senti- ment," The Sociological Quarterly, V. G., Autumn: 1963, No. 4. Lewis, L. S. "Class and Perception of Class," Social Forces, Vol. XLII. March: 1964, No. 3. Lewis, L. S. ”Class Consciousness and Salience of Class," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XLIX. Janu- ary: 1965, No. 2. Lewis, 0. Five Families, Science Editions, Inc.: New York, 1962. ' Lewis, 0. Tepoztlan: Village in Mexico, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York, 1960. Lewis, O. The Children of Sanchez: Autobiography of a Mexican Family, Random House: New York, 1961. Lipset, S. M. and Bendix, R. Social Mobility in Indus— trial Society, University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959. Loomis, C. P. Social Systems, The Van-Nostrand Series in Sociology: Princeton, New Jersey, 1960. Loomis, C. P. and Loomis, Z. Modern Social Theories, The Van-Nostrand Series in Sociology: Princeton, New Jersey, 1965. Lynd, R. S. and Lynd, H. M. Middletown, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.: New York, 1929. Lynd, R. S. and Lynd, H. M. Middletown in Transition, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.: New York, 1937. 267 Manis, J. G. and Meltzer, B. N. "Some Correlates of Class Consciousness Among Textile Workers," AJS, Vol. LXIX. September: 1963, No. 2. Martin, F. M. "Some Subjective Aspects of Social Strati— fication," Chapter III in Glass, D. V. (ed.), Social Mobility in Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1954. Marx, K. "Karl Marx's Theory of Social Classes," in Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M. (eds.), Qlasp, Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective, The Free Press: New York, 1966. Marx, K. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, In- ternational Publishers: New York, n.d. McGregor, D. M. "The Major Determinants of the Prediction of Social Events," Journal of Abnormal_Social_ Psychology, Vol. XXXIII. 1938. McNelly, J. and Torres, A. El Uso de los Medios de Com— unicacion en una Capital Latinoamericana, Programa Interamericano de Informacion Popular: San Jose, Costa Rica, 1963. Meyer, K. Class and Sociepy, Random House: New York, 1965. Miller, D. C. and Form, W. H. Industrial Sociology, Harper and Brothers: New York, 1951. .Mills, C. W. White Collar, Oxford University Press: New York, 1951. .Minon, P. "Choix d une profession et mobilite sociale," in Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology, Vol. II. n.d. Miro, C. A. "Some Misconceptions Disproved: A Program of Comparative Fertility Surveys in Latin Amer- ica," in Berelson, B. et al. (ed.), Family Plan- ning and Population Programs: A Review of World Development, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1965. 268 Miro, C. A. and Rath, F. "Preliminary Findings of Com— parative Fertility Surveys in Three Latin Amer- ican Cities," Milbank Memorial Fund:Quarter1y, Vol. XLIII. October: 1965. Morris, R. T. and Murphy, R. J. ”A Paradigm of the Study of Class Consciousness," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. L. April: 1966, No. 3. Morrison, W. A. "Attitudes of Females Toward Family Planning in a Maharashtrim Village," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XXXV. 1957. Morrison, W. A. "Attitudes of Males Toward Family Plan- ning in a Western Indian Village," Milbank Mem— orial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XXXIV. 1956. Nowak, S. "Changes in Social Structure in Social Con- sciousness," a revised version of an article in the Polish Sociological Bulletin, Vol. II. 1964. Ossowski, S. Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1963. Ossowski, S. "Non-Egalitarian C1asslessness--Similarities in Interpreting Mutually Opposed Systems," in Heller, C. 8. (ed.), Structured Social Ineguality: A reader in Comparative Social Stratification, The McMillan Co.: New York, 1969. Parsons, T. The Social System, The Free Press: London, 1951. Parsons, T. The Structure of Social Action, The Free Press of Glencoe: Illinois, 1949. Piaget, J. "Social Factors in Moral Development," in Newcomb et al. (eds.), Readings in Social Psye chology, Henry Holt and Company: New York, 1947. POpits, H., Bahrdt, H. P., Kestling, J. and H. Das Gesellschaftbild des Arbeiters, Tubingen, 1957. 269 Rainwater, L. And the Poor Get Children, Quadrangle Books: Chicago, 1960. Requena, M. "Social and Economic Correlates of Induced Abortion in Santiago, Chile," Demography, Vol. II, 1965. Reynolds, L. G. The Structure of Labor Market, Harper and Row: New York, 1967. Riley, J. W. and White, M. "The Use of Various Methods of Contraception," ASR, Vol. V. 1940. Roach, J. L. "Economic Deprivation and Lower-Class Be- havior," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University at Buffalo: New York, 1964. Rogers, E. M. Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact of Communication, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York, 1969. Rosen, B. "The Achievement Syndrome," ASR, Vol. XXI. April: 1956, No. 2. Rosenberg, M. "Perceptual Obstacles to Class Conscious- ness," Social Forces, Vol. XXXII. October: 1953. Rowntree, G. and Pierce, R. "Birth Control in Great Britain," Population Studies, Vol. XV. July: 1961. Sanchez-Bolanos, R. El Area MetrOpolitana de San Jose, segun los Censos de l963_y 1964, Direccion General de Estadistica y Censos: San Jose, Costa Rica, 1967. Sauvy, A. La Poblacion, Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires, 1961. Schneider, L. and Lysgaard, S. "The Deferred Gratifica- tion Pattern," A.S.R., V01. XVIII. April: 1953, No. 2. r-w-Ic‘" ' :7 270 Sherif, M. The Psychology of Social Norms, Harper and Brothers: New York, 1936. Simon, J. L. "The Effect of Income on Fertility," P0p - lation Studies, Vol. XXIII. November: 1969, No. 3. Sinha, J. N. "Differential Fertility and Family Limita- tion in an Urban Community of Uttar Pradesh," POpulation Studies, Vol. II. November: 1957, No. 2. Sjoberg, G. "Cities in Developing and in Industrial Societies: A Cross—Cultural Analysis," in Hauser, Ph. and Schnore, L. (eds.), The Study of Urbanization, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1967. Sneden II, L. E. Factors Involved in Upward Mobilitwarom the Culture of Poverty, unpublished Ph.D. Disser- tation, Michigan State University: East Lansing, 1968. Sorokin, P. A. Social and Cultural Dynamics, Porter Sar— gent Publisher: Boston, 1957. Stycos, J. M. Contraception and Catholicism in Latin America, International POpulation Program, Cornell University: New York, December: 1965. Stycos, J. M. "Female Employment and Fertility in Lima, Peru," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterl , Vol. XLIII. January: 1965, No. l. Stycos, J. M. "Social Class and Preferred Family Size in Peru," AJS, Vol. LII. May: 1966, No. 6. Stys, W. "The Influence of Economic Conditions on the Fertility of Peasant Women," POpulation Studies, Vol. II. November: 1957, No. 2. Svalastoha, K. "An Empirical Analysis of Intrasocietary Mobility Determinants," Working Paper Nine sub- mitted to the Fourth Working Conference on Social Stratification and Social Mobility, International Sociological Association, December: 1957. 271 Tabah, L. and Samuel, R. "Preliminary Findings of a Survey on Fertility and Attitudes Toward Family Planning in Santiago, Chile,” in Kiser, C. V. (ed.), Research in Family Planning, Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1962. Teran—de—Beck, E. and Rodriguez-Monge, C. "Planeamiento Urbano del Area MetrOpOlitana," unpublished Thesis Dissertation in the Department of History and Geography, University of Costa Rica: San . Pedro, Costa Rica, n.d. FF Tien, H. Y. ”The Social Mobility Fertility Hypothesis Reconsidered: An Empirical Study," ASR, Vol. XXVI. April: 1961, No. 2. Waisanen, F. B. Actors, Social Systems, and the Modern- i ization Process, The Carnegie Seminar on Political and Administrative Development, Department of Government, Indiana University: Bloomington, 1969. Waisanen, F. B. “Family Planning and the Modernization Process," a paper prepared for the Family and Society Conference of the Merrill—Palmer Insti- tute, Detroit, Michigan, November: 1967. Waisanen, F. B. "Self-Attitudes and Performance Expec— tations,” The Sociological anrterly, Vol. III. July: 1962, No. 3. Weber, M. "Class and Status," in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds. and trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press: New York, 1968. Weber, M. The Theopy of Social and Economic Organization, edited with an introduction by Talcott Parsons, The Free Press: New York, 1964. Westoff, C. et a1. Family Growth in Metropolitan America, Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1956. 272 Yang, J. M. et al. "Fertility and Family Planning in Yellin, Rural Korea," POpulation Studies, Vol. XLVII. March: 1965, No. 3. S. "Social Mobility and Familism," Ph.D. Dis- sertation in Sociology, Northwestern University, 1955, abstracted in Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XVI. No. l. Znaniecki, F. The Method of Sociology, Farrar and Rine- hart, Inc.: New York, 1934. ”W Y . " 5' a: t.,)‘ y - p.574). i‘..,wh Inn-y. Pier. 17 VI... h... Llyrjvf .r i. IFN ..M...IU.~ .Ii MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES WI WI W 1||| "I (”I ‘1” II" I‘ ”W W WI WI WWI 31293100642333